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.
Tropical American Hardwoods has an ad on Alibaba.
Alibaba.com is a Chinese-based website for buying and selling, sort of like Craigslist, but more geared for businesses.
The link is here:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/101341547/Teak_Techtona_Grandis_Lumber.html
They're advertising teak for sale. The first thing I noticed was that they spelled the scientific name of teak wrong (It's Tectona Grandis, not Techtona Grandis).
They also appear to have the wrong dimensions listed
They claim to be able to provide wood up to dimensions of '70mm x 300mm x 360' This is approximately 3" X 12" X 14". I believe what they mean to say is 70mm X 300mm X 3600mm.
The prices they're asking are $1000 - $4200 per cubic meter, which works out to ~ $2.35 - $10.00 per board foot. This is much higher than the going price for young teak. I hope they can sell a great deal of wood at these prices, but realistically, they'll sell little or none.
Their contact is listed as a Mr. Galen Mills. I did a Google search on him, and found that he works for a real estate agency in Cincinatti, OH (perhaps he's an old buddy of Steve Brunner).
A1
Sue;
Welcome to the board. If you wish to participate in a conference call with other tree owners to discuss how to proceed with our investment in TATF, email me at deanwins@yahoo.com, or
treeowner at krulikt@gmail.com.
In this e-mail, please provide your real first and last name, the number and year of the trees you've bought from TATF, and your phone number. One of us will call you to verify you are who you say you are - after that, the conference call info will be provided.
A1
Lp;
Too bad you couldn't deal with the facts, and instead resorted to insults. You're on ignore as well.
A1
KS.V
LebaneseProud, you and a director of the company may call what they're doing production - most people would call it a joke.
As far as cash being thrown off, according to the company's latest filing on SEDAR, their only items of income for the 3 months ended Feb. 28, 2009 were the following:
$519 - interest earned
$25,709 - recovery of prior period expenses
$10,848 - foreign exchange.
(note all of these amounts are in dollars, not in thousands of dollars).
Also of note, at the end of the period, they had cash and cash equivalents of $45,419 - no wonder they've had to to a flow-through offering since then, and are in the middle of a second one. So much for limiting shareholder dilution.
A1
Re KS.V, Klondike Silver
Yes, Klondike has a 100 TPD mill. From their website:
'The fully permitted 100-tonne-per-day Sandon Mill --- the cornerstone of the recently opened Sandon Mining Complex --- allows the Company to conduct test-mining and bulk-sampling programs for nearby mines and other advanced-stage projects. The cash flow generated from these activities will be used to offset the costs of ongoing exploration and mine development.'
Test-mining and bulk-sampling are not the same as 'producing', as claimed by LebaneseProud in post 13766.
I see nothing on the company's web site that claims they are 'producing'.
A1
KLSVF KS.V is not producing any silver.
Kindly provide a link to support your statement that they are currently producing.
A1
Any thoughts on CHE.UN/CGIFF.PK?
Currently paying distributions of $1.20 Canadian. Priced at $5.10, for a yield of 23.5%. CEO recently stated distributions are safe for this year.
A1
Re: Pics of > 1 Year Old Elite Teak Clones
In all fairness to TATF, their projections do include a 10% mortality and cull loss figure. In the small area in the photos, this percentage is obviously much higher than 10%, but it's not possible to tell from just these photos what overall percentage of the 'elite teak clones' are dead or stunted. However, it's disappointing that TATF hasn't already replaced these trees. Just another indication that the buyer should beware.
A1
Number1goal;
Here's the pics you sent me.
Turns out it's pretty easy to upload photos. Just hit the 'Post New Message' link, and then hit the 'Read the FAQ' link at the bottom of the text box for the post.
A1
Number1goal;
If you e-mail the pictures to me at deanwins@yahoo.com, I will try to post them on this message board. I say try because, although it's supposed to be possible, I've never done it before.
A1
Bobwins, thoughts on NGP.V (Nevada Geothermal)?
Seems to me this one is cheaper than US Geothermal, with more upside. They have a ~ 40 MW (net) Geothermal plant scheduled to come online by the end of the year. Fully funded to completion.
A1
Hi Just;
Yes, I received a reply - $150/day + mileage + expenses - probably works out to ~ $250/day. So far, 3 others besides myself have indicated interest. I'm guessing expenses might be:
1 day to drive down, 1 day to drive back
2 days to inspect trees
1 day to write reports
So, $1,000 - 1,250 total, divided by four, is $250 - $300 each.
I've been busy with other issues, so haven't followed up yet.
Will follow up this weekend.
A1
Re: A New Approach to Dealing with TATF
Belmontx, 1bl, TreeOwner, et al;
I have e-mailed the forestry engineer recommended by Fred Morgan in post #818, and asked how much he would charge to review my trees, and provide a report. I have also e-mailed MINAE, and asked them to recommend some forestry engineers. (No reply from either yet, I just sent the e-mails today). The more people who join together to do this, the less the cost per person. Although I appreciate Justcfral's offer to take some pictures of my trees, I think having a professional forestry engineer do this adds a good deal of credibility to the report. E-mail me at deanwins@yahoo.com if you are interested in participating in this.
A1
Re: A New Approach to Dealing with TATF
1bl, Just, fawtsc;
Thanks for your replies. The first step (having a forester evaluate the trees) should be straightforward. Article 21 of my contract with TATF reads as follows:
'As an owner of trees in our plantations, you or anyone you may designate have the right to inspect your trees at any reasonable time.'
If the trees are being well cared for, in the opinion of the forester, then no further action will be required. However, if they're not being well cared for, and in particular, if their thinnings are substantially late, further action will be required.
I used to think that, if thinnings were not performed on time, the only consequence would be that the unthinned trees would lose some growth, due to competition from the trees that were to be thinned. Fred Morgan mentioned that teak that has too much competition suffers from heart rot, which will substantially degrade the value of the tree, not just result in reduced growth.
So there's some urgency in ensuring that thinnings are not delayed too long. I was quite perturbed when some on this board mentioned that their 1993 teak had not yet received its 10 year thinning - it's now more than 5 years overdue.
If we have a forester inspect our trees, and he finds something lacking, we can use this as leverage to pressure TATF to improve their care. I would like to have an inspection done at least annually. I would guess that today, on average, most tree owners visit their trees only once every 5 or 7 years, and since few if any of them are experts in tropical trees, they have no idea if TATF is properly taking care of their trees. So today, it's easy for TATF to slide by for years without any repercussions. Knowing that their plantations were going to be inspected at least annually by an independent professional forester who would be reporting back to the tree owners might motivate them to be a little more on the ball.
I'd like to have as many tree owners as possible sign up for this plan, since there's strength in numbers, and the more who participate, the lower the cost per individual owner will be. So far, those who have expressed an interest in hiring a forester to evaluate the trees are lbl, TreeOwner, and myself. Hopefully, others will join.
The next step (hiring someone to thin the trees, rather than relying on TATF) is certainly more problematic. I hope it won't be necessary, but if it is, there's strength in numbers, so I hope many tree owners will participate in this plan.
A1
New Approach to Dealing With TATF
Belmont, Justcfrall, and others;
I wouldn't say that I'm interested in protecting TATF's reputation. However, I do believe that the approach suggested by Fred Morgan of Finca Leola may have a better chance of success than an approach consisting of attacking TATF and the Brunners in court. The problem with that approach is that, as we know, TATF is in Costa Rica, and we're not. Also, this case is not nearly as clear cut as the Madoff or Stanford case, since, from all accounts, our trees actually exist.
Since TATF is not providing us with the information we desire, and, as far as we know, not taking care of the trees as we would like (in particular, not thinning the trees on time), it may be more effective to take over this responsibility ourselves. The first step would be to hire an experienced forester to survey our trees, and give us his opinion on the condition of the trees, and the quality of their care. As far as I know, no tree owner has done this before.
Taking this step would be a way to step up the pressure on TATF, in a relatively non-confrontational way.
If the forester reports that the trees are not being taken care of adequately, we could use his report to pressure TATF to do a better job, and failing that, could potentially hire someone to do the work for us. We would no longer have to wait around for the dribs and drabs of information that TATF is willing to feed us. Hopefully, the forester would have contacts who would be able to thin, mill and/or sell the wood for us.
The more tree owners sign on for this approach, the more likely it is to work, and the lower the cost per owner. Ideally, we could have a Tree Owners Group, to which a large percentage of the tree owners belong.
If anyone in this forum is interested in this approach, please let me know.
A1
Number1goal;
Kindly send the pictures to me at deanwins@yahoo.com. I will try to post them on this board.
Thanks,
A1
Matty;
I'm almost certain that I'm not short trees. The number of trees I bought is the number after they were thinned, even though they weren't thinned until several months after I bought them. TATF couldn't tell me which trees were mine until July of 2007, because they hadn't thinned them yet until that time.
I actually bought 2000 trees, and TATF's documents say I have 2000 trees.
A1
Adamshardwood;
Since the trees were to be counted 'after their recent thinning', the wood from the thinnings was not mine. The problem was that the 'recent thinning', as described in November 2006, did not actually occur until July 2007. This had two effects:
1) The trees that were thinned were taking growth away from the trees I purchased for at least 8 months longer than they should have.
2) Because TATF performed the 10 year thinnings at least 8 months late, the subsequent thinnings will most likely also be pushed back by at least 8 months, which means that distributions from later thinnings (assuming they occur at all) will be at least 8 months later than they should be.
A1
Adamshardwood;
I gather from your posts that you purchased 300 10 year old (1996) teak and 200 7 year old (1999) teak in 2006. Is this correct? Also, I believe I purchased my trees from this same offer. Did TATF make the same statement when they offered these trees in November 2006 to you as they did to me, ie
"In addition to being wonderful older trees, you will have the added benefit of your trees being counted after their recent thinning, so when we mark your trees in the field, you will receive only 100% good older trees."?
I suspect they did, in which case they are guilty of false advertising, since, in my case, my trees were not thinned until Aug. 2007, and, in your case, it appears the 7 year old trees you purchased have not yet been thinned, more than two years after they supposedly had already been thinned.
A1
Matty;
Yes, like your dad and Adam, I did buy some of the 1996 teak when it was 10 years old. According to the TATF sales pitch for these trees, which I received on Nov. 20, 2006,
"In addition to being wonderful older trees, you will have the added benefit of your trees being counted after their recent thinning, so when we mark your trees in the field, you will receive only 100% good older trees."
Since the trees were 10 years old in the fall of 2006, in theory, they should receive their 13 year thinnings in the summer or fall of 2009. Teak seeds are typically planted in January through March, and take 3-4 months to reach a size where they can be planted in the field, so the 1996 teak should have been planted in the field between April and July of 1996. So, in theory, Adam is right - the trees should receive their 13 year thinnings this year.
However, even though the November 2006 sales pitch for the trees said 'after their recent thinning', my trees were actually not thinned until July of 2007. This was the beginning of my disillusionment with Steve Brunner and TATF.
(By the way, when were your dad's trees thinned?)
So, I suppose my teak will be thinned next year, in 2010. Who knows when or if I'll get paid any money for the wood from the thinnings.
A1
Treeowner, I agree with Belmontx.
Unfortunately, I think a conference call with TATF will accomplish very little. The problem, in my experience, is that they simply will not answer questions in a forthright, detailed way. They will 'spin' their answers, and only provide selected pieces of information that reflect well on themselves.
Having said that, I have a few questions you may want to ask them:
1) Why are you (TATF) more than 5 years late on your 10 year thinning of the 1993 teak?
2) Why did you remove the purchase by Raleo of the 7 year, 10 year, and 13 year teak thinnings from your teak projections?
3) Is Raleo still purchasing wood from TATF, and if so, how much did it purchase in the last year? How much do you expect Raleo to purchase in the coming year? How many board feet from the 1993 teak 7 year thinning has Raleo purchased? (TATF has reported that they produced almost 600,000 board feet of timber from the 7 year thinning of the 1993 teak, and Raleo is currently buying these thinnings. I have estimated that Raleo is buying the thinnings at a rate of 80,000 board feet per year.)
4) What is being done with the millions of board feet of teak from the 7 and 10 year thinnings? Are these now being sold into the local market. If so, at what price?
5) How much timber from 13 year thinnings have you sold. What is the 'run of the mill' price you are receiving for this timber?
6) How has the world economic downturn affected the price you are receiving for your timber?
I predict that you will receive little or no useful information by asking these questions, but you can always try.
A1
Zigyzag, your response from Viviana Luthmer of TATF is full of the usual excuses and half-truths.
There's one statement that is so misleading that I had to respond to it:
'As a consequence, we are slightly behind our normal thinning schedule and have informed anyone interested'
Post 402 on this board is a post of a letter that was sent to Mattyo from Leo Rivera of TATF. A key sentence reads:
'The 1992 teak has received a combined 10-13 year thinning. The 1993 and 1994 teak is in the process.'
As of January, 2009, members on this board have confirmed that their 1993 teak has not received its 10 year thinning. This means that TATF is more than 5 years behind in its thinning of the 1993 teak. Yet Ms. Luthmer of TATF says TATF is only 'slightly behind', and complains that TATF is being defamed by posters on this board. Of course, Ms. Luthmer is paid to convince you to send TATF your money. No-one on this board is being paid to post. It is against our own interests to defame TATF.
Congratulations on finding this board and avoiding a big mistake.
A1
BFL, in regards to your proposal to take out an ad exposing the Brunners in the Columbus newspaper, I think it would be counterproductive. This would probably only serve to anger and humiliate the Brunners, and would make it less, rather than more likely, that we would recoup any of our investment.
I think the best approach going forward may be to do what others on this board have recently proposed, ie, banding together and taking over the responsibility of thinning, milling, and marketing our teak trees ourselves.
A1
TreeOwner, there's no way TATF can sell the teak from the 13 year thinnings at an average or 'run of the mill' price of $3.00 per board foot. I estimate that the real 'run of the mill' price is ~ $1 to $1.50 per board foot, before milling and marketing expenses are deducted.
Check posts 172 and 630 on this board if you don't believe me.
Another thing to consider - as I mentioned in a previous post, the ten year thinnings on the 1992, 1993 and 1994 teak have been skipped. Also, the 13 year thinning of the 1993 and 1994 teak has not been completed yet, if in fact it's even been started.
These thinnings should have been completed, and the wood from the thinnings should have been sold by the middle of 2008 at the latest, when the world economy was still strong.
Because of TATF's unreasonable delays in performing these thinnings, not only have distributions to tree owners been delayed by years, the amount they can expect to receive has dropped substantially as well.
A1
TATF skipped ten year thinnings.
I re-read a reply to Matty from Leo Rivera of TATF that I published on this board (post 402). This reply from TATF happened in September of 2008.
An excerpt
"The 1992 teak has received a combined 10-13 year thinning. The 1993 and 1994 teak is in the process. The 1995, 1996 and 1997 teak has either received its 10 year thinning or is in the process."
In other words, the 1992, 1993, and 1994 did not receive 10 year thinnings. This has been verified by fawtsc and danmoney, both of whom have 1993 teak, and neither of whom has been notified of any thinnings after the 7 year thinnings of their trees. It appears that TATF will perform 'combined 10-13 year thinnings' on the 1993 and 1994 teak as well. According to danmoney and fawtsc, their 1993 teak has still only received its 7 year thinning, as of January 2009.
Treeowner, it's clear to me why TATF is doing such a poor job communicating with tree owners - openly communicating the facts to tree owners would just make TATF look worse. The benefit of this forum is that more and more of the unpleasant information about TATF is coming to light.
A1
CMM.V. Another gold junior moving up. Any ideas?
A1
Another very special opportunity at TATF.
"We will make these beautiful 2008 and 2009 Elite Teak Clone trees available at a 20% discount until January 31, or until they are all spoken for, whichever comes first."
http://www.tatf.com/whats_new.htm
How many times will they extend this special opportunity? Any guesses?
A1
Number1goal, what damaging info about TATF did your friend's attorney uncover? Please share with the board.
Thanks,
A1
Pic's can be posted on this board.
If you read the faq's, they give you instructions on how to upload pictures. I've never tried it though.
A1
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/faqh2post.asp
Fawtsc;
Has your 1993 teak received its 10 year thinning? And if so, what year was it done?
Thanks,
A1
Danmoney;
It sounds like your trees, which are now almost 16 years old, haven't even received their 10 year thinning. Is this correct?
If so, I would strongly suggest that you call (not e-mail) TATF and see what is going on.
Your trees are now at least 2 years late for their 13 year thinning, and shockingly late for their 10 year thinning. I would suggest that you tell TATF in the strongest possible terms that you expect your trees to be thinned ASAP. TATF has used the excuse in the past that the weather was too rainy to carry out thinning operations. The dry season in Costa Rica lasts from December through March, so I would suggest that you tell them you want the overdue thinnings carried out during the dry season (ie, right away), so they don't have an excuse to not do them. I would also suggest that you tell them that you expect the wood from the thinnings to be milled and sold within no more for a year after the thinning is completed, and that you will accept the market price for your wood.
Otherwise, you may have to wait for several more years to see any distributions from this outfit.
As always, please keep the board informed of any developments.
A1
Danmoney and Fawtsc;
Have your trees received their 13 year thinnings? If not, have you received the pre-thinning reports for the 13 year thinnings yet?
Thanks,
A1
Dirkas;
I would suggest you steer clear of TATF. It's not clear whether this company just misled investors by publishing highly optimistic projections, or if TATF is a complete scam. What is clear is that if it is a scam, it will be next to impossible for you to recover your investment. I also believe that, even though TATF recently revised its projections downwards, their projections are still highly optimistic.
I'd appreciate it if you could publish on this board anything your lawyer finds out about TATF.
A1
More teak pricing information:
Found this on alibaba:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/102534465/Teak_Lumber.html
$150/cubic meter fob (freight on board) Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Teak logs (min 3 feet in circumference, ~ 11.5 inches in diameter).
This is similar to the size of the larger logs to be expected from TATF's 13 year thinnings. Only the first (largest) log from each thinned 13 year old teak tree could be expected to be this size.
$150/cubic meter works out to $0.35/board foot.
However, there's about a 50% processing loss associated with cutting the logs into lumber, so this works out to $0.35/0.5 = $0.70 per board foot of processed lumber. At a 100% markup, this works out to $1.40/board foot. Subtract processing costs of $0.30, and transport costs of $0.10, both per board foot, and the net back to the tree owner is $1.00 per board foot.
Remember, this is only for the first log, which I estimate contains about 1/3 of the total wood from a typical thinned 13 year old teak tree. The other logs, being smaller, will sell for less - perhaps $0.7 per board foot net back to the owner.
So, I estimate that the average net back to the tree owner for 13 year thinnings in today's market will be about $0.80 per board foot - about 27% of what TATF is projecting.
What's most irritating is that TATF has tens of thousands of thirteen year old teak trees that should have been thinned for at least two years by now, but they haven't posted any meaningful information about how much this wood is selling for.
They've said they can sell some for more than $6.00 per board foot, but how much? They should have millions of board feet to sell, so if they sell a few thousand board feet at $6.00, it doesn't make a dent in their stockpile of unsold teak.
I tend to think that they're unwilling to sell the wood from the 13 year thinnings at market price because the actual market price is so much lower than their (recently revised downwards) projections indicate. Thus, tree owners may very well be in the same situation with the 13 year thinnings as with the 7 and ten year thinnings - waiting for many, many years to get paid.
If you have teak trees that are 13 years or older, I suggest you call and/or e-mail TATF and tell them to sell your 13 year thinnings at the market price. I'd be interested to hear their response.
A1
Yes, the contest is for Dec. 31, 2009.
I thought I'd throw in my predictions for mid-year as well.
A1
My predictions for June 30, 2009:
Dow: 6500
Oil: $30
Gold: $1000
A1
DOG 2009 guesses
Dow: 7500
Oil: 50
Gold: 750
A1
Updated calculation of TATF's revenue.
When I originally did the calculation outlined in post 627, I assumed that the Brunners kept 20% of the trees for themselves, and 20% of the planted trees were non-commercial species. As I was reading through an old article on TATF's website
http://www.tatf.com/htm/articles/fdm_magazine.htm ,
I found that my estimate of the non-commercial species was way too high. A quote from this article:
By the end of 1999, Tropical American Tree Farms will have planted one million trees. "And of those, more than 30,000 are trees we've intentionally planted that will never be harvested," says Steve Brunner, president. "They may be planted to continue the seed source. Or they are flowering, fruiting or sheltering trees for the birds and animals."
So only 3% of the planted trees are non-commercial species.
Also, another year has gone by since TATF announced that it had planted more than 2 million trees. In the Summer 2007 Tree Owners News, Brunner announced plans to plant 200,000 trees during the following year. If he sold 100,000 of these, at an average price of $40, the updated calculation is as follows:
2 million trees planted through 2007
77% (1.54 million) sold through 2007, at an average price of $28
100,000 sold in 2008, at an average price of $40.
Doing the math, this works out to $47.1 million dollars taken in by TATF up to now.
Alternately, the Brunners could have kept more of the trees for themselves, and taken in less money, but have more assets in the form of growing trees. They also own 14,000 acres of land on which the trees are growing.
A1
Mountain;
I estimated TATF's total revenue as follows:
They say they've planted more than 2 million trees. I assumed they sold 60% of those (the rest were either trees they kept for themselves, or non-commercial species).
When TATF first started, they were selling the trees for $16 each. Now they're in the range of $40-50 per tree, depending on the species and quantity. So, I estimated an average price over time of $28 per tree, which is probably a little conservative.
Multiply 1.2 million trees by $28 per tree, and you get $33.6 million dollars. This is how I arrived at an estimate of $30 - $40 million for the total amount TATF has taken in.
A1
MountainEcho;
If you read through the information in the ibox (above the posts), you will see that TATF's total costs to plant and care for a hectare a teak for 25 years are only about 20% of what they're charging tree owners. So, the Brunners have been making tremendous profits on TATF. I estimate that they've taken in somewhere in the range of $30-$40 million, 80% of which is profit. The question is whether they've squandered this money elsewhere, and therefore need the cash from selling more trees, or whether they're just greedy.
A1