Replies to post #1898 on Investing in Timber

[snap]

Yes belmontx, I concur with the logic as well. I have seen trees and farms as well so I know they exist but their existence does not equate to distributions.


TATF cannot afford not to address such concerns yet they persist in not doing so.

"Winning over current investors positively affects current business operations in much greater way than silence afforded by an attitude that “we are too busy to address concerns”.

Again, again, and again, this board is not the cause but the effect of TATF issues. TATF action/inaction has been and continues to be the cause of TATF issues.

The essence is that there has been sufficient action (or inaction) to conclude that “they did their best and came up short” is not an adequate explanation for where we are today.

I prefer to look at the glass half full but it is a two way street. If the facts could possibly suggest that an ulterior motive exists, in any way, then TATF cannot afford not to address such concerns. Yet, they persist in not only ignoring such concerns but also accepting the resulting consequences and then have the audacity to suggest that Investor’s Hub is to blame. This is so ludicrous that it only further perpetuates a perception that the motive is not pure.

[mattyo5]

Well, the confidence I have gleaned by seeing my trees is not big enough to compel me to buy more trees.

The fact that Steve doesn't post regular reports and any relevant information about the status of the farms is compelling, in a bad way...yes

-Matt

[schaef]

I'm curious too.

If this is a scam, even the scam is being handled extremely poorly. Surely it's in the best interest of a fake TATF to keep producing timely TON and glowing reports, new pictures of happy owners, growing trees and beautiful lumber. Surely it's in the best interest of a fake TATF to respond promptly to e-mails and soothe investors' concerns. Bernie Madoff kept it going for decades, and the take grew every year.

This board would be death to a fake TATF - it is turning away new investments and making people challenge TATF about their old investments. A fake TATF would need to spread out some money to shut up this board quickly. I tried to talk several people into buying trees after I found TATF, and I succeeded with one. How much more do you think I would have done to talk people into it if I actually got a check? Now I would certainly steer people away from TATF based on my experiences.

If this operation is a fake, why not produce 15 or 30 fake investors who have received their distributions instead of just 1 or 2? Why not even take some of the $30-70 million we think may have been invested in this 'fake' operation and pay out distributions to a few of the oldest investors, to take the wind out of critics' sails, generate goodwill and positive buzz? We aren't expecting much! A few hundred dollars for the first two thinnings would be a lot more than most of us are expecting by now.

The main reason I searched out this board was the 3 years with no TON. My search was forestalled for over a year by one e-mail response to my question of why I hadn't received a thinning report. It takes very little to ease doubts in someone who wants to believe. As somebody said, it is very easy to keep a web page up-to-date. It's very easy to reply to e-mails. Professional scam artists should be expert at presenting a good front. If I'm being scammed, I'm being scammed by some of the worst scam artists I've ever heard of.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy, and I'm not thinking that everything is going well. I haven't run a business, but it's hard for me to understand how Steve Brunner can be so busy for 3 years straight (2006-2009) that he doesn't have time to slap together another TON. He's not flying on an airplane to Costa Rica with a few hours to kill? I know he's not spending that time signing checks to tree owners... I don't know what it takes to start a Raleo or to keep a TATF going, but where are all these hours upon hours of overwork going?

Still, I don't know how we can be suspicious that the Brunners are running a huge scam at the same time we are suspicious that they will use any money we send them to pay their Social Security deficit. How could they incur such a huge deficit if they aren't running a legal operation with lots of employees?