UFO Seekers Looks at Tom DeLonge’s New Company • Page 3

Based upon those optics, I would like to invest. If your company can lose money and you can take a fee no matter what, it's gotta be the next Amazon! The stock is now worth one eighth of a penny. I want ten million shares.

 

I do like the googling of Tom's net worth that's occurred. We all know that's very accurate. The internet has nailed mine, as we verified yesterday in the political thread.

 

And, for the record, “lol Tom is rich, he doesn’t need 100k a year! It’s nothing to him” is an ironclad argument against him getting a guaranteed income stream.

Unless, you know, he actually DOES need that revenue stream. Because he isn’t as rich as the Internet suggests.

I am not an expert. But I did direct private equity work for three years recommending investments and corporate litigation for another three year after that. I guarantee you that if we saw this, a wealthy founder guaranteeing himself an income stream regardless of the financial health of the company, we would throw up red flags.

Nothing he is doing here is an attempt to attract legitimate outside partners. His circulation was too childish to be directed for that purpose. This is meant to bilk fans with the illusion of an investment. Of that, I am convinced.

 

But, for the record, the point of all this, at least on my end, is to say as loudly as possible: “Please, please, please do not invest in this man’s company.”

If you feel compelled to, as apparently over a thousand people already have, I encourage you to view it not as an investment, but as a gift. You will not see this money again. If, based on your fandom, you want Tom to explore his dreams then by all means, give him your money. But don’t allow yourself to be deluded into thinking this is some sort of money-making scheme.

That’s all.

 

So is it the structure of the payment in the form of a royalty or is it the amount that people are taking offense with?

The article I posted early had a VC principal ballpark fair CEO compensation as 5%-20% of offering proceeds. If this "company" raises $2 million then 5% of that figure is $100,000, which is on the low-end. I buy that the structure of the compensation as problematic but to think that people have a problem with the amount makes less sense.

Final disclaimer - I am once again absolutely not saying that this is a good investment.

 

Honestly, if Trump can be president, then Tom can start a school to turn people into aliens (disclaimer: i have absolutely no fucking clue what this actually is)

 

It is more that the entire setup is meant to make Tom money, and not investors. Over and over again in the circulation they discuss that it’s highly unlikely there will be revenue streams. Which makes it near impossible to foresee any investor returns. And yet, given this derth of revenue generation, Toms license fees and loan repayments are guaranteed. And, his shares aren’t subject to any diluting.

This whole thing reads like a vehicle for making one many money.

Which is why I don’t buy that his “compensation” or whatever we want to call it is meant to be a signal to institutional investors in the future that this is a legit company. All their actions scream otherwise. I don’t get why they would make this one small nod towards something like legitimacy.

Again, I don’t claim to have tons of experience. But I have read prospectuses in my day and have advised clients on some matters in this ballpark. At least enough to have a strong opinion lol

 

Yep. While selling it to his fanbase as something different. That part really bugs me. His ventures weren't making enough money so they turned to crowdfunding and I think it's very snake oil and structured to make him money no matter what losses the company itself faces or how successful he, or anyone at the company, is at doing any part of the vaguely defined business.

 

I'm currently working in private equity but I can't say my experience has lead me to read circulars quite like this either...

They do project revenue streams but it will be solely from the entertainment division. That being said, I wouldn't expect profits anytime soon given the overhead costs they've outlined for their other divisions. That being said, the company did actually generate cash last year but that's purely because Tom provided almost $300K in cash infusions during 2016.

I really just hope that anyone investing in this took the time to read the document. He's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. All the royalties, fees, loans, etc. are clearly outlined and all the detectives unearthing this "dilution scheme" must have missed that there is an entire section of the document entitled "Dilution." In a perfect world I'm hoping these are just fans who want to be involved with what Tom is working on without expecting much of anything in return besides an entertaining annual report.

 

The circular is buried at the bottom of the website under a name, "offering circular," that hardly anyone knows. He has never once mentioned this in his "press conference" or interviews or his online accounts that people should read this. Get out of here with the not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Without a background in business or investing, most people have no idea what this stuff means ... the "detectives," as you call them, were simply explaining this in a way more people would understand. They didn't miss that section, they're explaining that section.

 

With all the talk of common sense in this thread, people should know enough to read an offering document when investing in anything. I'm also not sure why you think the CEO of a company would ever talk about an offering document in interviews or press conferences, much less post specifics on his social media. His job (albeit poorly performed) is to explain the vision and long term strategic direction of the company, not delve into circular details.

"Buried," seriously? The link is literally on his website's homepage, right under Due Diligence. Like I think we can assume people can handle scrolling down before they make a major investment.

 

I wasn't talking about the due diligence of the investor, I was talking about if Tom was hiding or attempting to "pull the wool over the eyes" of his targeted investor demographic. And yes, I think he is with what he has on his website (and other public statements), where, how, and what the pitch is versus what the offering actually is/says/does.

Without a background in business or investing, most people have no idea what this stuff means. Throwing a link that goes to the bottom of the page, and then makes someone download a PDF, is clearly a way to make it more difficult to find this information. Your claim was that Tom was being transparent ("He's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes") simply because this document exists. How and where it exists versus the "give me money" is in direct contradiction to this claim.

 

You're right, I'm sure no one making a major investment would be able to navigate the online labyrinth that is scrolling down the page and clicking a link, if they're even not too stupid to look for it at all because "no one knows what this stuff means."

Honestly, with every post you write about this guy - I can only reason that he must have hit your dog when driving through Portland or something. #teamMark

 

First, the core demographic as outlined by Tom himself is 18-34. And, no I don't think many in that range have a background in business or investing and are giving Tom money because they like Tom. Which is pretty much stated as part of the business strategy. And no, I don't think anyone is making a "major investment" by basically throwing away $200.

And yes, I think the way the website is laid out specifically makes it difficult to read and find the offering. I've studied enough web-design in my life to know the very small percentage that will ever read that PDF.

You said three posts above you work in private equity and YOU'VE GOTTEN IT WRONG MULTIPLE TIMES. So, yeah, I stand by the statement that most people investing don't understand what they're investing in, what their money does and why they won't ever see it back, even if they find and read the circular.

Right, because I think someone is pretty much scamming people he must have murdered my dog. It couldn't be that I think people shouldn't give their money to this bullshit.

 

Gotten what wrong? It's pretty straight forward.

 

Here's two obvious ones where I don't even have to scroll:

Not a salary. Not common practice.

That payment has nothing to do with that at all.

 

I mean, the first is semantics and the second is opinion so..

 

My friend is a successful financial advisor/investor who runs is own business now. So I’d say he’s pretty much seen it all with the experience he has.

It took him maybe 2 minutes to look through Tom’s investment document and then goes “I can’t even finish this garbage. It literally makes me want to start drinking again. People are dumping money into an asshole that won’t shit anything back out. Damn shame he’s taking advantage of his fans. I used to love his music.”

I thought it was a funny response. He was as genuine as he could be. Haha.

 

I Googled it and apparently you have $42.13 in your account but your Netflix subscription is due to come out. Can you confirm or deny?

 

Funny thing is, I put in "Jason Tate Net Worth" and it was around 1 million. Then I scrolled down to see a picture of Jayson Tatum.

 

To be fair I’ve never seen both of them in the same room!

 

It's a CONSPIRACY! One of them is an alien. Someone alert Tom Delonge!

 

Best name in basketball. (And he's way richer.)

 

Sounds about right.