Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Way to go! Payouts are way better than promises.
belmontx
Regarding your prior post #2125 a few weeks ago wherein you told us that TATF agreed to repurchase your trees, and all was therefore well, Texas AG notwithstanding -- Did you receive actual compensation from TATF for trees purchased earlier, or just the promise of such?
Let us know because your support or criticism of TATF is hard to decipher from your cryptic comments. Actual interaction with Mr. Brunner is a scarce commodity and may be the most useful thing we have to share since he isn't providing this to any of his investors that we know about. If you did get a full refund that is significant and helpful info; if you just got a promise to get a refund later I know how that will turn out.
belmontx
Magical thinking, Using citations from the TATF promotional website one can parse Mr. Brunner's projections and descriptions all day without answering the question of why he has not for the past three years told any of his investors what he is doing, or not doing, with their trees. In the absence of any information from him whatsoever it is evident to any rational observer that no thinning, harvesting, processing, nor marketing of lumber is going on -- nor any kind of maintenance at all. It is delusional to continue to imagine constructive and benign reasons for the owner's silence.
belmontx
Amen, brother fawtsc. All of the theoretical positions being exchanged lately is another form of counting angels on the head of a pin. With no answers coming from Mr. Brunner for the past three years, there is no visible light at the end of this tunnerl
Imagine Stanford's investors spending years speculating among themselves as to why their actual investments weren't returning any distributions, all the while trying unsuccessfully to get the guy to respond to their email and phone call questions.
belmontx
A month ago (April 29) you said, "Since the lumber from my trees is just sitting in storage, I've asked a portion of it be shipped to me for my personal use. I have a fairly large woodshop in California and will use the lumber for my projects. I have not heard a response to this request but will let everyone know what happens. I suppose this would only be relevant to those who think the trees are "phantom" assets."
You are referring to the cuttings from the first thinning you assumed your 1997 teak received. Could you tell us if you ever got a response from TATF? This would tell tree owners whether their assets can be returned to them in one form or another if they are never processed bt the compnay.
belmontx
see next post
Yes, and technically, with the right design modifications, pigs could fly. With all due respect, somehow I find fawtsc questions and conclusions a bit more plausible.
The quote from the owner posted by shaef and commented on by fawtsc, smells like, if not NEVER, at least another three years of nothing happening.
belmontx
Wow! Duped by duped. This language defending the company rings the same bells that all the previous TATF spokespersons rang -- see abnr, happiesttreeowner, fjonas, etc. You sound eerily familiar. A 360. Who would have guessed?
If you crossed over to True Believer for being paid as you said, not just a refund, but the current TATF website selling prices for your trees, that is fabulous. Do you think the other forsaken investors will get the same deal if they can get Mr. Brunner, trees1@tatf.com, to answer their emails?
belmontx
Summary of TATF Forum Results, 2007-2010
Total posters - 91, 42 of which posted five or more times
Apparent owners of TATF trees - 55
Supportive of TATF among posters (includes owner and aka's) - 7
Critical of TATF among posters- 63
No expressed opinion regarding TATF among posters- 21
Predominant theme of remarks - negative, pessimistic
Received thinning report from TATF since 2006 - 0
Conclusions:
1- If, during the past two-and--half years of forum activity, anyone had received a thinning report, it would very likely have been reported here. Therefore it is reasonable to assume no thinning reports have been issued.
2- From above, it is reasonable to assume no actual thinnings of TATF investors' trees have occurred since 2006.
3- Therefore, it is reasonable to assume those trees have been untended and left to grow wild during that period of time and that this will affect the viability and the marketability of the lumber from those trees when and if they are ever felled.
4- Under the steady criticism from this forum during the past three years TATF has not responded during that time with any kind of direct informative communication to its individual investors, signaling either an indifference to their plight or an inability to do any thinning of trees.
5- The TATF website continues to market trees with similar projections and implicit promises that were previously made when the existing trees were sold.
6- Present investors have good reason to not rely on income from their trees as sole support for their retirements, their children's educations, or their "golden years" excursions to exotic locations such as Costa Rica.
belmontx
My experience with the owner of TATF is that he seems to only respond to investors when direct and significant pressure on him is exerted. The cleanup of an investor's trees just before his arrival for a site visit and the likely buyout of duped are just two examples. In the earlier years there were signs that thinning reports and distributions went to those who pestered the company the most.
The general pressure this board exerts cannot be underestimated. Without it investors are all just voices in the wilderness who's cries wouldn't even reach each other.
A1, what happened to your posts? You got this thing started, are still its moderator, and have provided many useful facts and positions but you seemed to have disappeared for quite awhile, even though the masthead to this forum still sports your username.
belmontx
I am in agreement with you on this argument. Mattyo got his trees tended just before he arrived on a visit. It appears that dupedbysteve (reader alert!) may have gotten a buyout -- now that would be a morality tale. Was anyone more negative about TATF and its owner? Reread his posts.
One point all seem to overlook is that this forum does constitute a continual, unrelenting, pressure on TATF to start doing the right thing. True, nothing is being done, but if there is ever to be a chance that the company will live up to its responsibilities against its will, it will only be because of either legal action or public pressure. We haven't agreed on a way for the former yet so we are left with the latter.
The idea that gentle encouragement of the firm and assistance with its sales efforts are what will help present owners' interests the most represents idealism in its most supportive and enabling form. Save that kind of thinking for your romantic novels.
Speak to dupedbysteve about the usefulness of criticism, if he isn't sworn to silence.
belmontx
What, exactly, does this mean: "In consideration for the amalgamation of my trees to TATF and the payout
for that transaction"? Did you get a settlement from this company?
Did you sign a non-disclosure clause?
belmontx
You make the mistake of oversimplifying what the critics of TATF have been saying. The invented criticisms you put in quotation marks do not come from any of my posts, nor do I remember them from others. It would help if you gave the post number and author of these. I suspect that they are exaggerated paraphrases; a frequent problem that David Knight has. This has the effect of setting up your arguments with false premises. You make a reasonable proposition, then quote an overhyped simplistic one attributed to an unknown source. It makes your contribution look good by comparison.
Words and this forum are all investors have going for them. Mr. Brunner isn't listening to them and he holds all of the money and the trees. Unlike Mr. Knight, who falsely accuses others of lying without being able to cite their lies (he implies he is too busy to do so but suggests others do the task), your posts have previously been quite reasonable and to the point; it is very important to all of us that we remain truthful and objective here.
belmontx
Is it lying when you repeatedly call someone a liar without quoting the lie? I remember as a child whenever another child didn't like something that was said he would call the first child a liar -- repeatedly. It was one of those childish tactics that we all grew out of when we came to realize we had to show what the person said and how it was maliciously wrong before we called them a liar. When adults use this epithet without evidence we consider them immature.
I think your posts have contained more than a few lies when you are speaking about me and others who are critical of TATF and Mr. Brunner, David Knight. Again, it seems to me that your emotions are ruling your intellect when you participate on this forum. Or do you feel you are being manipulated when I suggest that?
You apparently spend hours composing your lengthly diatribes and then expect me to go over each inane statement and explain my reaction to it -- like chasing and analyzing moonbeams.
It seems to me that almost everything you say is opinion, rather than fact, yet you rail interminibly against the opinions that are different from yours. At some point I expect you will weary of this and either stop posting, or move on to another subject. For both of our sakes I hope it is soon.
belmontx
Stay with the facts. You say, "We still CAN help the situation - or not make it worse - by sticking to facts instead of a constant stream of bashing."
For facts check fawtsc's last post. That TATF continues to post its faulty advertisements, projections and reports from investors tells us all we need to know about its and current investors' futures.
To try to prop this company up by only posting positive statements does truth a disservice and would make this forum completely useless. It is a fantasy to think that keeping critical posts off this board is going to help this company become viable again. If it ever does it won't be because of anything we say here.
The company's problems do not stem from anything to do with this forum; this forum is because it has terminated providing any kind of reports and information to its current investors. Secondarily the forum is a reaction to TATF's continuing to mislead prospective investors with the same projections not delivered to present investors.
belmontx
Our family purchased thousands of trees. I speak for them. It has been a losing proposition which affects all of us, and it cries out for the investor forum that this is. I have vigorously participated in it and plan to continue. Nothing I have ever said misrepresents our position. I stand by all of my previous posts.
belmontx
Calm down, David, you risk appearing venomous. Take a day or two off from the forum. When you return tell us what is your association with this company and with its owner? You have taken this discussion to a new and different level. Until your participation this has been a venue for experiences and opinions about TATF, but you seem to be trying to turn it into an inquisition of its participants. Lest you mislead other readers I suggest they reread my previous post and not trust your interpretation of it.
To slander is to state untruths about another; I suggest you look in the mirror for this. They have not come from me. You seem to be doing this with your last post. My posts are available for review. What do you know about this offshore enterprise that the rest of us don't? We need to maintain a level playing field here or the forum no longer becomes a sharing experience for the investors who have stopped hearing from TATF.
As planb has posted, it is company behaviors, not forum members' comments, which will determine the success or failure of your investment in it. You seem to have solely dedicated your participation in this forum to going on and on about the harm of critical posts but you say nothing about why you have such unusual confidence in this company which has stopped communicating with investors who have trusted it with millions of dollars. It would be good if you would be more open about your unique situation as an investor. After all, as far as we know, you are the only person who has bought any TATF trees for a very long time.
belmontx
It is regrettable you are so worked up about my posts critical of the TATF operation. It certainly is not meant to insult you for me to suggest that your accommodating and sympathetic position toward this company is not shared by many on this board. You seem to me to be frustrated over the possibility that your confidence in this company may not be well placed. You say you "don't wish to continue going in circles with me", yet you continue to post and repeat similar questions.
I do not intend to give out the information you are asking. It is irrelevant and it assumes that I am an investor similar to you, someone who only has his own personal ownership interests at stake. Like so much of what you have been saying this is erroneous; all of your assumptions about me laid out in your last post are incorrect. All you need to know about me is that for years I had a significant personal interest in the purchase of a large number of trees sold by TATF, and that for an extended period of time I carried on unsuccessful direct communications with Mr.Brunner - communications which led to my lack of faith in any commitments he makes. I am not compelled to divulge to you or anyone else anything beyond that information in order for me to continue to express my opinions and reservations about the TATF operation.
Good luck, David. I truly hope that somehow you will not lose money with your TATF trees. I know you are sincere in your beliefs. Now if you can just be more tolerant with the opposing views expressed on this board.
belmontx
You've become a bit shrill here, David. I've answered your relevant questions; you just don't seem to like the answers.
Try to calm down and look at the big picture.
belmontx
With your attitude concerning forum members' posts being so destructive I am surprised you even dignify the rest of us with your participation. The purpose of this forum is to share information and comment on the situation we are in, not to lecture one another about our positions. I don't think you are a pragmatist, you seem more to be an idealist, a believer in the infinite perfectibility of mankind. That in the process you may be an enabler of irresponsible corporate behavior, well, that's the price one pays for being a True Believer. As for me, I respect your opinion and wish not to disabuse you of your confidence in the future of your investment.
belmontx
You know, Jan, there comes a point where the accumulation of your rationalizations excusing TATF's negligence strains credulity.
Do you really think you are protecting investors' interests by helping TATF to maintain their iron curtain of secrecy? What has given you hope concerning your investment? You seem to be a true believer. Even ab doesn't need to post now that you are active again.
Just saying that others being critical of the company hurts your interests really doesn't explain your position of continuous support. If you have encouraging news that we haven't heard yet, please let us know.
belmontx
I am not confused over the conditions of the TATF "contract", if you can call the "Certificate of Tree Ownership" and related papers that. My use of the term "share-holder" in describing a typical investor in TATF is metaphorical, not literal. TATF holds the assets paid for by the investor until they are sold, much like shares. In that sense all are dependent on the company exercising good judgment and stewardship of the investments. I know tree buyers do not share in the ownership of TATF or its land.
You use the term "character assassination" loosely and you quote me in partial and misleading context. Both sentences of what I said was, "How deeply spent are the many tens of millions of dollars received for investors' purchases of trees can only be conjectured. We do know that the initial costs of planting those trees was fractional to the money received."
This is a question followed by a fact. The owner has said many times on his website that he has sold trees to 3000 investors. His trees sold for between $2500 and $4500 per-100. If the average owner bought only 400 trees at $3750 per-100 Mr. Brunner would have received about 42 million dollars. (Many buyers , including at least six on this forum, bought thousands of trees, so his total intake would have been much more.) We know from earlier knowledgeable postings that planting teak trees involves small expenditure. There would be little doubt that much of that money should have gone into some sort of escrow for land and tree maintenance and for the processing of resultant thinnings into marketable lumber.
As we have indisputably learned here on this forum in recent days, TATF tree investments are currently valued by the market at approximately one-third what their original per-tree price was almost ten years ago. This isn't because the trees aren't growing, it seems to be because of serious doubt about the viability of the company which owns the land on which the trees are growing.
What is my purpose here? Pretty much the same as that of the other 60-plus critical posters on this forum -- To provide a counterpoint to the advertising which exists on the TATF website, to provide some of the transparency which is completely lacking for this investment by reflecting one person's experience over a span of several years associated with a major investment with this company and to give prospective investors an additional assessment of what may lie ahead for them. Having said this, for the welfare of everyone, including Steve Brunner, I hope everyone eventually gets his money back.
The situation is far murkier than these either-or propositions would suggest. During the ten years in which I have had skin in this game I have watched this business go from an idealistic vision to an impractical reality. How deeply spent are the many tens of millions of dollars received for investors' purchases of trees can only be conjectured. We do know that the initial costs of planting those trees was fractional to the money received. Best guess is that Mr. Brunner is now so far over his head with TATF that he doesn't know what to do. Ergo, his silence and the virtual demise of Tree Owners' News which was an annual staple from 1992 until 2004.
When he does feel compelled to comment, either through his intermediaries on the board or his latest "what's new" on his website, it is invariably with expectations and positive predictions for the near future. These are the same indefinite expectations he offered in his original sales material. In time, all will pass.
The frustrating thing for investors is believing that Mr. Brunner is a wealthy landowner in Costa Rica who has the power and means to consolidate his resources and offer some recompense to his investors if he felt morally compelled to do so.
It is never a good sign when a company hunkers down and cuts off direct communication with share-holders. When it has gone on for three years the sign is close to conclusive.
Citing forum members' critical comments on this forum as an excuse for the company's failure to take in new money from new investors, therefore supposedly preventing normal maintenance, thinning, marketing and subsequent returns to investors, is nothing more than a sorry attempt to divert responsibility.
belmontx
schaef, you are distorting my reply. Fear of retaliation is not the most significant factor. I told you the main argument for anonymity for most forum members is the same you gave below in defending your own position:
"Those who have something to protect are the ones who are still hoping for a return from their trees. I want TATF to respond to my emails, so I don't act like a jerk when I contact them and in case I have anything negative to say here, I hold on to my anonymity. That's pretty much it for me. I agree; there is no evidence that anything good is happening. But I want to be able to send an email every couple of months and hope that somebody will respond. I hope they will be motivated to care for my trees in the hope that I will buy more. These are my reasons for anonymity."
I simply agreed, in a postscript, that Marc was also making a valid point when he stated that many may be afraid of retaliation by TATF.
belmontx
Your assumption may very well be correct. Going through previous posts of the 70-plus tree owners posting on this forum, the latest thinning report (or report of any kind) anyone has received was during late 2006.
There is so much about this situation that we don't know. What we do know is not good. Our only source of information comes from the substantive reports such as yours, Marc, and those of fawtsc, gistheman, justcfrall, mjb80, chulawashy, planb, adamshardwood, matty0, shaef, bfl, mass45, mountainecho, A1, snap and many others. which we have been providing each other on this forum during the past three years -- years of complete non-responsiveness and silence from TATF.
When the investment is overseas, in a 3rd world country, and communication with the company is lost, investors fear the worst.
belmontx
schaef, you answered your own question about why many investors would prefer to post their critical comments anonymously when you said that you prefer to retain your anonymity and you stated:
"Those who have something to protect are the ones who are still hoping for a return from their trees. I want TATF to respond to my emails, so I don't act like a jerk when I contact them and in case I have anything negative to say here, I hold on to my anonymity. That's pretty much it for me. I agree; there is no evidence that anything good is happening. But I want to be able to send an email every couple of months and hope that somebody will respond. I hope they will be motivated to care for my trees in the hope that I will buy more. These are my reasons for anonymity."
It is no big mystery that most of TATF's investors are completely confused about the health of their investment, neither confident nor yet nor completely convinced it is a scam (but their fears are becoming reality with every additional month since 2006 with no communication coming from the owner). Therefore, most of them are in exactly the position you are vis-a-vis posting anonymously. We wouldn't get their news, experiences or opinions if they had to use the names Mr. Brunner would recognize.
That would be a loss for the forum. The way it is we all know no investor is getting any information whatsoever about their trees in spite of the projections they were given when they purchased them. If we didn't have the forum we would only have the TATF "What's New" propaganda since the "Tree Owners' News" seems to be defunct.
This website, the Hub, is sole news' sharing source about the Tropical American Tree Farms scheme and we need the participation we have been getting from other investors.
belmontx
p.s. I also agree with Marc's retaliation point in the previous post. No doubt that this forum needs the anonymity it offers investors.
I think you are enamored of your own words. Get a grip. In spite of your extensive rejoinders you did not answer the simple questions I asked in my post #2088.
belmontx
I don't read your words as hostile, just coming from a position vastly different from the other legitimate tree owners on this forum. What, exactly, is your relationship to Mr. Brunner? You claim you own trees as old as '93. Are you getting any news from Brunner about the current state of the maintenance of your trees? No one else is. If not, why are you so confident about the state of your (large?) investment. You seem to aspire to playing judge advocate here, but I wonder about your position relative to the representative tree owners who are so dismayed over the complete lack of response from TATF. Tell us what you are hearing from the owner and when you last tried to contact him about your trees.
Your point of view appears to be diverting strenuously towards defending this very questionable company.
belmontx
To be concerned with the sales of Raleo, at this point, borders on the absurd. Reference to David Knight's post about the harm of negative TATF posts.
Belmontx
Anonymity is vital for this kind of forum. In no way does dupedbysteve's failure to give you his name, rank and serial number disqualify him from reporting his opinions and experiences. Most of the people posting have a great deal of money at state. Your kind of antagonistic reply is exactly what management would use in defending against the truth.
Simply giving us your name and address does not give you the impartial position among other forum members you think it does in matters concerning this questionable company and its owner.
Most investors who have posted on this forum feel duped, misled, betrayed and they aren't ready to have Steve Brunner know who they are until class action lawsuits are filed, if they become necessary. The reason is obvious: they have 5,10,20,50 or more thousand dollars in his hands and they hope someday, somehow to get at least some of it back without legal action. They likely believe that what small remaining strand of hope they have would be surrendered by having him know who they are. The gradual accumulation of evidence against this company is only possible through the medium of an online forum such as this. When bilked investors stop sharing the news of their continued lack of reports, communication, and distributions their only recourse against this failed sales organization will be terminated.
Until TATF is definitively revealed as the defunct operation we all suspect it has become most of its investors will report their experiences and opinions anonymously.
belmontx
So the moral to your story is to avoid any and all investor disclosure about TATF, except positive stuff, regardless of how suspicious and irresponsible and possibly fraudulent that company's behavior. You made way too big a reach in your arguments in your latest post.
Nothing would make Mr. Brunner happier.
Contrasted to almost all the other members of this forum,
if you are not related to the man, or one of his best friends, you and ab are most likely his favorite persons on this forum.
belmontx
There is one indisputable fact about the current state of TATF, if facts are all that count in this discussion: no investor is getting any information about his trees, and this is in spite of the alarms that have been sounding for two years on this forum. Don' think for a minute Steve doesn't continue to compulsively read this forum on a daily basis and make his expressions known regularly through vicarious means. The single fact of his not responding to any of his investors in the face of all this negative coverage is called negligence at best and abdication of responsibility at worst. However you cut it his failure for three years now to answer his individual investors puts this investment in the category of failed.
On top of this, there is the second fact that TATF is making no effort that anyone knows about to market any of the thinned lumber from years ago. This is in the face of several posts here from people who have tried to buy lumber from this company.
And for those who think critical posts are trashing the company and affecting the future of their investment this assumes that these posts cut off new investments (probably true) and that new investments are required to get the trees from old investments maintained and marketed so that old investors can get their projected distributions. It further assumes that the previously invested tens of millions of dollars were not sufficient to create a pool for taking care of the trees sold. If that is true, and endless loops of new investors buying newly planted trees throughout Costa Rica will be necessary, how would this be different from a Ponzi scheme? And how will it end?
belmontx
A great investment? Read the posts of the 62 different people on this forum who invested with your company and, at the very least, feel misled. If you, "ab", and "david" are such happy and informed investors in TATF trees why can't you and he ask Brunner, and report here, exactly where the current thinning is occurring at the farms -- which trees, by year and farm -- and what exactly has been thinned during the past three years? That information, even without telling us what efforts TATF is making to market its thinnings, and what it is doing with the huge inventory of past thinnings, would make you seem authentic instead of synthetic. We could assume then that you are trusted and early investors who have personal friendships with Mr. Brunner, instead of being Mr. Brunner himself.
The fact that you and he, and your predecessor company spokespersons, have consistently ignored this request (made many times before) speaks to your identity problem. It isn't crow which is on your plate, it is something much less palatable. As it is, prospective investors should discover and read this forum before sending a single US dollar to Mr. Brunner.
belmontx
With ab and his predecessors missing, you are filling the bill, David, as the informed and confident voice of Tropical American Tree Farms. Perhaps you can explain why the company is not communicating with and informing its individual investors about the state of their trees and the maintenance schedule for them.
You say "As we all know, the earliest thinned trees have little value, so by not having to buy any of those pre-thinned trees from TATF makes their value compared to buying justcfrall's pre-thinned trees about twice as high per tree. In other words, taking the $6080.90 TATF price divided by two brings the TATF pricing to an approximate comparative price of $3040.45 per 100 pre-thinned 10 year teak trees. That's about three times what justcfall is selling his trees to me for." This assumes bulk purchasing, which was not true for the great majority of TATF tree buyers, and, even then it admits that the company's estimate of today's value of those ten year trees is almost the same as what they were originally sold for as seedlings.
Why weren't your seller's trees thinned, as advertised? Also, you twisted my words by leaving out the beginning of my statement. The one-third I cited was what Just is selling his trees for ($1000 per 100 trees, my earlier post had a typo which left out one of the 0's), compared to his stated original purchase at the time he bought them (between $2500 and $3000). What can't be disputed is that, according to the market price, established here on this board by this transaction, the TATF trees are now worth about a third of what they were ten years ago.
belmontx
I agree with your suspicions, dupedbysteve. Something about the David Knight entries doesn't pass the smell test.
Whatever happens here we have learned that the TATF ten year-old teak trees owned by justcfrall ($100 per 100) have no market, except for David Knight, when priced at one-tenth what the company is currently trying to sell them for ($10320 per 100) -- see "special opportunities" on the TATF website. And even this is only one-third what buyers paid a decade ago.
belmontx
Obviously, none of Brunner's customers have received any checks, reports or news. (It's been three years, and counting). If they had we would read about it here. Most of them are aware of this blog and would post anything which could give the tiniest bit of hope to our shared fear that all of our money has gone down the rat hole and will never be seen again.
That rascal, "ab", would have us believe that all we need to do is have faith and wait -- a message which is even more absurd when we realize it comes from the owner himself, who, like so many of his brothers throughout history, thinks that in the long run we will all forget about it.........Note to owner: that isn't going to happen, more than a few of us will be discovering ways to recover at least part of our lost savings.
belmontx
Abnrgrrvn continues the deception. Having been a frequent contributor to this board almost since its beginning, I am pretty sure that there haven't been any fake unhappy TATF investors writing here, nor have there been competitors (except for Fred Morgan, who tried to be helpful to the board by answering agri questions) or any former employees on this board other than the one who identified himself, but the only happy investor to grace this board during its existence is in the person of a contributor who has used different names, his latest being "abnrgrrvn" and who would have us beilieve he is only a "simple tree owner".
From my post #1458 written shortly after ab had made his first of several threats to leave the board:
"I think we may hear yet more from this source, perhaps with a different handle. Lest we fear that ab's informed communiques will be lost to us, consider, in order, his likely previous voices on this forum, in order of their appearance (doubters may read their style and content to confirm). Very little duration date overlap occured (only the nine days for #1 and #2):
1-sbrunner; 2/17/07 to 3/20/08 - 64 posts
2-happiest tree owner; 3/11/08 to 4/09/08 -13 posts
3-ohio lawyer; 4/17/08 - 1 post
4-fjonas; 10/24/08 to 10/27/08 - 13 posts
5-happy tree owner; 5/4/09 to 7/9/09 - 6 posts
6-abnrgrrvn; 7/9/09 to 9/18/09 - 60 posts (since then he has added 67 more posts)"
No other contributor has reported a positive return of any kind from TATF. "Ab" has obviously used a pseudonym all along. What seems true is that both ab's persona and those of the other four "happy" investors who posted here a year or two ago have all been similar to the Wizard of Oz himself, the owner of TATF, and the first in this list of names. A sobering conclusion to be drawn from this is realization of the amount of energy the owner has been expending on this deception rather than on the maintenance of the trees he had sold to investors. His latest ploy, the "cooperative email approach", would continue to avoid transparency and retain his spin approach private to each investor.
If anything could be worse for investors than the complete neglect of their trees it is the deception being used to keep the truth from being revealed.
belmontx
Count me in, Just. The whole scheme has morphed from "over his head" to something a lot worse when you look at the TATF website and see that he is still selling trees with the same false projections he used with us. (Are these the same ones we thought we bought nine years ago?)
belmontx
Several attempts by members of this board to organize investors so as to offer assistance to this man and his operation have been made. Not only have they not been accepted, he apparently refuses to even consider them. He is incommunicado to his investors. He shows no motivation to accept help so as to get his investors' trees thinned and processed.
You assume he would be willing to work with his investors, as opposed to having them send him more money, which he favors. Unless post #1968 is correct, the consensus on this board for some time now seems to be that Mr. Brunner did get over his head and doesn't know how to market his product and honor his commitments to his investors.
Accepting all the good-faith money he did without knowing how to sell the resulting lumber was bad enough, but then adopting the attitude of annoyance, then hostility, and finally, silence in response to desperate investors efforts to communicate with him is deplorable.
Read through the postings and reference the earlier efforts of Snap and Jan on this board. I believe it is naive to assume that any collaborative effort is possible with this man if its primary aim is protecting the investors' trees and their returns. The only information any of us get from the owner is what he writes on "What's New" on his website. From that you can see that Mr. Brunner's idea of collaboration is for present tree owners to buy more trees, or, alternatively, to help him finance "processing and production" equipment -- conditions not included on his misleading projection tables for return on investment.
It seems the internet marketing of tree sales, not lumber from those trees, is where all of TATF energy has, and continues to be expended. TATF SA owns 161 web domains http://whois.domaintools.com/tatf.com and you can guess what is the marketing aim of all of them. All the company effort at this point seems to keep the TATF website spiffy and the "what's new" and "special opportunities" sections dynamic and alluring.....like the Wizard of Oz sitting behind the curtain (in front of the computer keyboard) and creating the illusion of enterprise.
belmontx
Is there any way you can validate your statements for us? -- i.e. email address, phone number, or simply some documentary evidence posted on the forum. You have not posted before but you raise an alarm here. If true, what has the owner done with all our money? Most of us have tens of thousands of dollars, some on this forum have hundreds of thousands of dollars, of our savings invested in this scheme.
Several years ago a Costa Rican who worked in the TATF office and quit because of not being paid regularly told me in an email that Mr. Brunner and his wife were regularly gone from the business for several days every 3 months. During that time, I was told, they return to the U.S. in order to keep their passports validated.
I am not an attorney, nor do I know anything about international litigation, but it seems to me that this may make the owner more vulnerable to American courts than someone who has permanent residence and/or citizenship in Costa Rica. It appears that Brunner may be a longtime expatriate with a tourist visa. -- an expat who saw business opportunity beyond his real estate adventures.
It is time we find a lawyer willing to start action on behalf of any of us willing to commit to the initial expenses. The successive steps for the lawyer would be to determine jurisdictional issues, then validate tree ownership, then assess owner negligence, then file for damages in whatever courts deemed feasible.
In the days ahead I suggest forum members talk to any legal contacts they have to determine if there are people who would be qualified and interested in taking on this task.
What costs would be incurred by investors and what timeline would be framed are issues to be determined if a professional can be identified.
belmontx