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.
Well, just to go straight to the horse's mouth, I contacted the SEC and asked whether the Form D was required or not. I will let you know what their response is as soon as I hear back.
Yes, they do. They may not read all of the report, but they have search algorithms for key areas and words that bring up red flags. One of those is any kind of statement regarding the sale of securities not requiring registration. That's an automatic flag for a Form D. So the SEC would have immediately fired off a letter to Bill requesting clarification.
Go back to that Edgar link for TPAC and scroll down to the documents labeled as [UPLOAD]. In those you'll find the SEC's comments and requests for more information of a couple of TPAC's filings. The SEC reads those filings and it would have seen the sale that you noted in the 10-K notes. They would then have asked for the Form D if it were necessary.
The SEC reads the reports, like the 10-K that has that statement in it. They would have requested a clarification from Bill if he should have filed a Form D for those shares.
It's obvious that field operatives of intelligence agencies in foreign countries are exempt from this. Unless you're saying that FINRA employees are "field operatives" in foreign countries! LOL!!!
SEC link verifying NO Form D is necessary.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/formd.htm
No Form D is required. Period. Companies may use an exemption under Regulation D to offer and sell securities without having to register the offering with the SEC. When relying on such an exemption, companies must file what's known as a "Form D" after they first sell their securities.
In TPAC's, case as noted below in their 10-K statement, all securities were sold through accredited investors as SEC registered securities.
Here is TPAC's 10-K statement to that effect:
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
During the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, we issued a total of 4,409,716,191 shares of our common stock and 2,945 shares of our preferred stock, as more fully described in Note 7 to our audited consolidated financial statements, “Capital Stock Transactions”. All of the issuances were made pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“1933 Act”) and Rule 506 thereunder. All of the investors were accredited investors, as such term is defined in Rule 501 under the 1933 Act. We issued common shares in payment of finders’ fees pursuant to some of the transactions.
That disclaimer is only with regard to you being the recipient of the email. If the email went to the wrong email address, that person who received it would not have the privilege of disseminating any of the info in it because they weren't the intended recipient. That's boilerplate email confidentiality, but I think you know that.
Yeah, that whole "I can't reveal the names of my contacts" is absurd. He's been watching too many movies. He's confusing the rights of confidentiality that a material witness in an investigation has with a public employee's rights! Public employee names and their employee status are all a matter of public record. There's no legal grounds for his statement.
T minus 11 hours and counting...
And I've got 43,000,000 million shares. What's your point. They haven't taken a paycheck for all of 2015 either. You don't think the CEO and board deserve compensation?
That's right money talks and losers walk.
That's boilerplate and you'll find a lot of that with many OTC startups.
Here's the link showing active business status for their parent company, Godfrey (China) Limited:
https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/search_company_name.do
Right on, train.
TPAC, as a supplier to an air carrier under FAA part 121 and 135 is not required to have a pma according to the FAA's own rules. So I take it you're not now going to call the FAA, right?
I've already done myself a favor and invested $20k when the pps was at .0005!!! The proof is in the money.
Probably would be better to get rumors from InnovativMedia's twitter account. Anybody else can say anything they want and it looks like your link was simply asking a question.
FAA: Who does not need a PMA for parts used or replaced on an aircraft:
"An Air Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR part 121 or 135 (Airlines and commuter aircraft.) Carriers may produce parts for installation on their own products without a PMA. We don’t require a PMA if the air carrier has accepted instructions and procedures in their manual. Also, the installation of the part must comply with 14 CFR Part 43. If air carriers intend to sell a part to other owners or operators, then they need a PMA.
Let us know how your conversation with the FAA turns out.
Really? I don't have the time. Why don't you call Mr. McKay and ask him. Or better yet, call the FAA and issue a request for investigation into the matter.
And speaking of fabrication, here is the one AS81934 standard, not 107,000.
An airworthiness certificate is not required for individual parts like bearings. The aircraft in question, say for example the Boeing 737, receives an airworthiness certificate for the entire plane. Any parts that are brought into the assembly process before or after certification (which the Boeing 737 already has) only need an SAE approval to qualify as a direct replacement part. The FAA does not certify parts. They approve of parts that meet certain standards, one of them being a listing by SAE. If you decide to replace an entire system in the aircraft with an updated substantially different one, as with avionics systems upgrades, then the FAA has to certify that system for a specific aircraft. But they don't look at each part of the new avionics system and approve or disapprove it. The FAA is a government regulatory agency. They're not engineers. They have neither the time, resources or testing labs to do that. They rely on parts that have already gone through a certification process by SAE. And SAE doesn't even have the resources to do all that. They require the manufacturer of any part that wants approval to go through an approved test lab.
That's why there are SAE standards like SAE-AS81820 and SAE-AS81934. If your part can meet that standard as verified by an official test lab, it gets SAE approval and can then be used in an aircraft without it's own airwortiness certificate.
FYI from the FAA.gov website:
Sep 30, 2015 - "An airworthiness certificate is an FAA document which grants authorization to operate an aircraft in flight. Who may apply for an airworthiness certificate? A registered owner or owner's agent of an aircraft may apply for an airworthiness certificate."
Just pointing out that a company can be successful without turning a profit for several years. It does remain to be seen whether TPAC will fit into this category, but we will know within the next 6 months if PO's begin to be filled and we have verification of that.
TPAC's parts are already SAE certified. "We offer a full range of SAE-AS81820 self-lubricating plain spherical bearings and SAE-AS81934 self-lubricating bushings, certified for aerospace use by NAVAIR."
The FAA accepts SAE certified parts as direct replacements for existing aircraft that have airworthiness certificates. TPAC is not building an aircraft that requires a type certificate approval by the FAA. As long as the replacement part (which can come from several different suppliers including TPAC) has an SAE certification then that satisfies the FAA.
5 Successful Companies That Didn't Make a Dollar for 5 Years:
The folowing are excerpted from this article link:
http://www.inc.com/drew-hendricks/5-successful-companies-that-didn-8217-t-make-a-dollar-for-5-years.html
Startup expert John Rampton said, "While that may seem like a lost cause--not to mention the stress of sticking with a company that is losing money--it's not uncommon for a company to wait years before making money. For example, even Tupperware wasn't exactly an overnight success."
1.) Tupperware
After working at the manufacturing division for DuPont, Earl Tupper introduced his Tupperware "wonderbowl" in 1946. Despite advertising and a showroom on Fifth Avenue, Tupper wasn't faring very well financially. That all changed when Brownie Wise began hosting the Tupperware Home Party in 1948. By 1951, Tupper realized that the Tupperware Home Demonstration system was more effective financially than continuing to sell his product in stores. Tupper sold his company for a cool $16 million to the Rexall Drug Company in 1957. And the rest is history.
2.) FedEx
Frederick W. Smith first came up with an overnight-delivery company back in 1962 that he outlined in a paper while attending Yale University. Smith went on to become a successful businessman who took his personal wealth of $4 million, along with another $90 million from investors, to found his delivery company in 1971.
However, Federal Express failed to take off initially and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Smith took the company's last $5,000, flew to Vegas, and played blackjack. The gamble literally paid off. Smith made $24,000, which was enough to cover the cost of fuel and keep the company afloat for another week.
With a little more time, Smith raised another $11 million to keep Federal Express running. The company made its first profit in July 1975. Today, the Memphis-based company enjoys total revenue of more than $3 billion.
3.) Turner Broadcasting System
Ted Turner definitely came a long way after purchasing his first TV station, UHF channel 17, in 1970. Within a decade, Turner purchased the Atlanta Hawks, the Atlanta Braves, and Superstation 17.
In 1979, Turner changed the name of his company from Turner Communications Group to Turner Broadcasting System Inc. and launched the world's first all-news network--Cable News Network, or CNN. CNN premiered on June 1, 1980, with 1.7 million subscribers, which was enough to keep the channel afloat. In 1982, Turner launched CNN2 and merged with MGM Entertainment after a $1.5 billion deal in 1985, which gave Turner access to MGM's film vaults which created even more channels.
Unfortunately, the merger put Turner Broadcasting in financial strain, and the company wouldn't record an annual net profit until 1991. Thanks to the coverage that CNN provided throughout Operation Desert Storm the channel gained a worldwide audience of one billion viewers. In 1996, Turner Broadcasting merged with Time Warner, and the company enjoyed $7.4 billion in revenue by 2010.
4.) ESPN
A father-and-son team, Bill and Scott Rasmussen, teamed up with Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan to create an all-sports network in 1978. On September 7, 1979, at 7 p.m. Eastern Time, the first-ever Sportscenter aired.
There was some drama behind the scenes. In 1980, Bill Rasmussen was no longer in a decision-making role in the company and completely left the board of directors in 1981. Whether that was of his own accord or he was forced out is debatable. What isn't debatable is the network was losing money.
To help keep ESPN going, Michael Roarty (vice president and director of marketing for Anheuser-Busch) persuaded the brewing company to financially support the struggling network. In 1994, Roarty told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "We gave them $1 million that first year. And if we hadn't, they'd have gone under." The following year, Anheuser-Busch gave ESPN an additional $5 million. By the mid-1980s, ESPN was able to turn a profit thanks to the support of Anheuser-Busch. ESPN has become the most dominating sports network; it earned $11 billion in revenue in 2013.
5.) Tesla Motors
What a strange road Tesla Motors has been on. The idea was simple: to create the world's first electric sports car. Tesla was incorporated in June 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. One year later, Elon Musk invested in Silicon Valley's first automobile company and became chairman. In 2009, Tesla received a "$465 million USD loan from the United States Department of Energy" and went public the following year.
However, it wasn't until 2013 (a decade after its launch) that Tesla experienced its first profitable quarter. Wired reported that "Tesla recorded sales of $562 million, a gain of over 80 percent from the last quarter, with 4,900 Model S sedans delivered." Though some of that revenue was from cutting production costs, Tesla also made money by selling development services for the Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric and Toyota RAV4 EV.
Though profits did decline, the future is looking bright for Tesla. Forbes reported that revenue has risen from $620.5 million, up from $615.2 million in the fourth quarter, and that the company will make its quota. Furthermore, research analyst Adam Jonas recently stated: "Not even two years after the delivery of the first Model S, Tesla Motors has transformed from fledgling start-up to arguably the most important car company in the world. We are not joking. Tesla is also emerging as an emblematic force in America's effort to foster high tech manufacturing job growth."
Tesla may not be as established as FedEx, Amazon, Turner Broadcasting, or ESPN, but it appears that things are finally turning around for the innovative automaker.
Their SAE-AS81820 self-lubricating plain spherical bearings and SAE-AS81934 self-lubricating bushings have already been certified for aerospace use by NAVAIR.
Here is one example of an engineered drawing from their catalog and manufactured by their Godfrey GUANGZHOU, China manufacturing subsidiary. TPAC owns 55% of Godfrey and therefor has controlling interest. Go online to their website at tpacbearings.com and verify this for yourself. Take a look at the Products menu page.
http://tpacbearings.com/sites/default/files/tpac-bushing2.pdf
He's not promising anything in the way of the pps, however he is estimating where the pps should be within the near future. Here's exactly what he said:
"The ROI on captital investment in the creation and distribution of web based content (currently INMG has product on HULU) is tremendous. We believe that the company today (as of August 2015 at .0003) is severely undervalued and we believe that we have the possibility of seeing significant exponential growth over the next couple years. It wouldn't be an innappropriate market cap for us to be a .05 stock. That is the goal over the next period of time (the first period of time being the release of the Q3 2015 financials.) By the time we get into the second quarter of 2016, we'll start seeing the impact of the products that we're now aggressively developing."
So could we be at .05 by August, which is actually into the third quarter of 2016? Possibly. More than likely, that .05 pps goal will be seen by 2017. But we could definitely see a .01 to .02 price range by August of this year. If you get in now, that's 50-100x earnings on an investment at .0002.
Tom is way ahead of the game and is looking at Innovativ Media as becoming a large scale developer in the worldwide web based series market, both live action and animated. When he talks about growth, he's looking beyond what most of us penny stock investors would consider a fairly successful company. His goal for INMG is to be a major producer and distributor of online content, including the creation and ownership of whole web based channels, just like the old world telelvision channels of NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and so forth. That's the wave of the future that he has the forsight in this industry to see, that some current network moguls even refuse to acknowledge. The entertainment industry is going through a major paradigm shift in distribution due to the expansive nature and availability of the internet. If you go on Netflix or Hulu take alook at how CBS, NBC and Fox have created channels to take advantage of the way people are viewing media content. It's taken them a while to come around as major network providers but, no doubt, their advertiser base had shrunk on network broadcast TV because people were going online to get their content. They woke up just in time to recover, but other networks have been slower in reacting and are suffering.
Go back and listen to Tom's comments at the beginning of his interview back in August and really listen to what he says about the way the intertainment industry today is shifting. He's smart enough to recognize that and he's postiioning INMG to capitalize on it.
http://www.publicwire.com/podcast/innovativ-media-group-inmg/
I don't know how many of you really understand the potential of INMG, not as a penny stock, but as a potential media giant. If you had been able and had the foresight to get in on the ground floor of NBC, CBS, or Comcast when they first went public, where would you be now?
You can't expect miracles and sometimes we pennytraders get the "pie-in-the-sky" mentality when we think about how quickly we're going to get rich when we find a winner in the OTC. But the successful traders can shift their short term trading methods into a long position when they find a diamond in the rough like INMG. It's going to be an interesting ride over the course of the next year and the halfway point is August 2016.
Who's suspended?
That's what's great about TPAC and it's CEO, Bill McKay. He doesn't resort to name calling, profanity, or wild accusations without substantiation when either responding to personal attacks or questions about his business plan and the financials of the company. That's because the financials are sound as is the company.
Look at how he's accomplished every aspect of the company business plan right on time. Blue skies ahead for TPAC and their current and future business partners, like Boeing, Comac, AVIC and others.
Just a reminder friends, post your source/link along with anything taht you are are claiming is news if it's not something that's already been established. Good DD trumps all and we're looking for substantiated news. Personal opinions are great and are what this board's about but if when it comes to something other than opinion, we all want verification.
What did the SEC and the Feds say?
There is no official news that the first episodes of "Mountains" has been released yet. Let's keep it that way until it breaks officialy. Otherwise if you have a link to an official announcement to that effect let's just be happy that it's moving along nicely. It'll sell and it'll sell huge when it happens.
Those animation frame examples are very good.
https://twitter.com/innovativmedia
You know what these pics remind me of (and yes I'm dating myself here.)
The animated series "Johnny Quest" back in the 60's. That series was super popular and even still has a following today. Of course, Mountains will be a lot more dramatic and a little on the darker side, which will have more of an appeal to today's audience, I believe.
Here's an opening still frame from that old 'Quest' series that one fan is playing around with:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/jonny-quest-titles-remade-in-stop-motion-by-a-fan-29742.html
Anyway, things are coming together nicely, as you've all said.
$INMG
I was curious about that 35M sell order right at the end of the day. I would have thought that would have brought the EOD pps back down to .0001 but somehow it closed at .0002? Little bit of selling today too.
Anyhow, back to the news of the day. That A/S reduction was great news. It probably won't be enough to move the pps much, though. It would take a retirement of the common shares issued or a conversion of those common shares to preferred to do that. But it is definitely a step in the right direction. There may be a little more movement just prior to the 10-K coming out in a few weeks. Hopefully, the pps will bump up into the .0003 to .0006 range until the next quarterly or announcement.
Looks like we have at least let the car warm up and put it into gear. This annual financial report due out shortly will be like pressing a little on the gas pedal in first gear. It will be good that it's an annual report in that:
1.) It will be audited.
2.) It will give us a snapshot of the whole year, which will be nice to compare the revenue change of Q3 and Q4 to Q1 and Q2. Hopefully this will draw more investors that are interested in a company with solid financials.
3.) In addition, Tom could take the opportunity to put in the Subsequent Events section of the 10-K some developments with the various new sources of revenue that have occurred since Dec 31. Remember, with Mountains of Madness alone there was supposed to be a completion of the first few episodes. Whether it will have gone to market or not may not be as important at this stage as just having them completed. We know he can market them just as we have already seen Gameplay, Money for Nothing, and others get marketed through the likes of Amazon, Walmart, and many others.
Yeah baby, almost time to kick the tires and light the fire.
That was 3 years ago. It's possible the contact was reassigned, promoted, retired, or otherwise is no longer in that position.
Sure. I'm not sure if the annual fin will be fantastic, but it should at least continue what the previous quarterly report started and that is a positive cash flow (for a change.)
The 10-K is due out 90 days after the end of INMG's fiscal year, which ended on Dec. 31. So that would put it at March 31 at the latest unless Tom files an NT (I don't believe he would need to.) Last year the annual fins came out Thursday, March 12. So if it's going to be the same this year then we can expect the 10-K to be published antime from the second week in March to the end of March.
I believe that 20,000 were designated as convertible preferred out of the 5,000,000 authorized as far as their type of preferred, but they were not all issued. There are only 3,685 that have been issued so far.
You have to agree from a corporate standing as to what kind of preferred will be issued and how many before they are issued, but you don't have to issue them all at once. Those not issued remain as authorized preferred convertible stock.
Yeah that's the thing and one of the few things that concern me about posting numbers on Twitter. Don't get me wrong. I like TPAC and like what Bill's done with it, and I expect a lot of great things for TPAC. But leave the financials info on the official SEC filings. It's somewhat verifiable and on record with Edgar.