Macrebur, the maker of a recycled plastic additive product for roads, is currently over funding on Seedrs and is just over halfway to its £4m target on AIN. Neither campaign appears to mention the other one.
It is a little confusing.
Following our piece here and some Qs to the company from Seedrs investors - the AIN camapign has been removed. When asked on Seedrs what this was all about, the CEO of Macrebur claimed that they had not put up the campaign on AIN and that this was merely a collection of HNWs all linked via a FB page. That'll be news to AIN. Confused? 15/10/18
Just to make things even simpler, we now discover that a deal is also on offer via Greenbackers - here - .https://www.greenbackers.com/the-pitch.html - this time we have a screenshot. They pitched to the Greenbackers on 11 October according to the platform. In this pitch the total being raised was not £2m, it was not £4m but £6m - £4.8m of which has already been raised. This £4.8m does seem to include include the £500k from Pontaq that is listed on Seedrs as part of their campaign - so this has been double counted. On Greenbackers there is a new amount of £1.8m already funded by Instarnac - something that is not mentioned on Seedrs.
To help clear up any misundertsnading and to explain the CEO's claim that we have facts wrong re the £1.8m Instarmac investment in Macrebur - here is a copy of the slide (slide 8 of 9) that is downloadable as Macrebur's PD on the Greenbackers website -
So the CEO can hardly claim we are wrong - Greenbackers maybe but that would have involved them putting this PD together for a pitch that the Macrebur CEO has readily agreed he went to. It states VERY clearly ''investment so far'' and then lists the £1.8m.
This may well be all perfectly fine but it does seem a little confusing. There are certainly claims on the Grenbackers PD that do not stand up to much scrutiny - this one in particular - 'MacRebur are not aware of any other company in the world using a mix of waste plastics to replace bitumen in asphalt'. See
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/plastic-and-glass-road-that-could-help-solve-australia-s-waste-crisis-20180802-p4zv10.html
and to counter Macrebur's claim that somehow one of their distributors is responsible for the Austrlian article/product here is a little more on their product - which makes no mention of Macrebur or its products. Which begs another question - about the patent??
https://www.closetheloop.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fact-Sheet-for-Plastic-and-Glass-Modified-Road.pdf
Readers and I mean those with a questioning mind, not the lemmings who seem to support Macrebur whatever they claim, might like to read this - https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/heard-about-miracle-plastic-roads-heres-why-its-not-solution-our-plastic-problem-36927 - it is not peer reviewed and is old (2015) but it throws up some interesting points. All these points seem to be irrelevant to Macrebur. For instance they claim that their bitumen (ie the bitumen with their additives in it) will not leach micro plastics into the environment - that is a 100% guarantee they give in their answer - no micro plastic leaching. Firstly this is not provable as their product has not been time tested for long enough to produce this data. Logic suggests that if a road degrades over time through use and more importantly weathering, then there has be leaching of all the road contains and if it contains plastics then QED micro plastics will be leached. Put that alongside the argument that we should be banning all production of plastic waste (and therefore eventually short use plastic) likes bags and the argument that hiding waste just encourages its production and Macrebur's claim to be a world saver looks rather foolish. To gain the sort foothold they are selling to investors, they will in fact be encouraging the ongoing production of plastic bags. How crazy is that??
If a company is going to use multiple online ways of raising the same funding in the same round, it doesnt seem too much to ask that they use the same information each time. Macrebur's claim on the Seedrs forum that we are wrong is completely untrue - check out the facts; they are all correct. As AIN have now removed this pitch, there is now no issue. We wish them and all who invest the best of luck.
Following our piece here and some Qs to the company from Seedrs investors - the AIN camapign has been removed. When asked on Seedrs what this was all about, the CEO of Macrebur claimed that they had not put up the campaign on AIN and that this was merely a collection of HNWs all linked via a FB page. That'll be news to AIN. Confused? 15/10/18
Just to make things even simpler, we now discover that a deal is also on offer via Greenbackers - here - .https://www.greenbackers.com/the-pitch.html - this time we have a screenshot. They pitched to the Greenbackers on 11 October according to the platform. In this pitch the total being raised was not £2m, it was not £4m but £6m - £4.8m of which has already been raised. This £4.8m does seem to include include the £500k from Pontaq that is listed on Seedrs as part of their campaign - so this has been double counted. On Greenbackers there is a new amount of £1.8m already funded by Instarnac - something that is not mentioned on Seedrs.
To help clear up any misundertsnading and to explain the CEO's claim that we have facts wrong re the £1.8m Instarmac investment in Macrebur - here is a copy of the slide (slide 8 of 9) that is downloadable as Macrebur's PD on the Greenbackers website -
So the CEO can hardly claim we are wrong - Greenbackers maybe but that would have involved them putting this PD together for a pitch that the Macrebur CEO has readily agreed he went to. It states VERY clearly ''investment so far'' and then lists the £1.8m.
This may well be all perfectly fine but it does seem a little confusing. There are certainly claims on the Grenbackers PD that do not stand up to much scrutiny - this one in particular - 'MacRebur are not aware of any other company in the world using a mix of waste plastics to replace bitumen in asphalt'. See
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/plastic-and-glass-road-that-could-help-solve-australia-s-waste-crisis-20180802-p4zv10.html
and to counter Macrebur's claim that somehow one of their distributors is responsible for the Austrlian article/product here is a little more on their product - which makes no mention of Macrebur or its products. Which begs another question - about the patent??
https://www.closetheloop.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fact-Sheet-for-Plastic-and-Glass-Modified-Road.pdf
Readers and I mean those with a questioning mind, not the lemmings who seem to support Macrebur whatever they claim, might like to read this - https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/heard-about-miracle-plastic-roads-heres-why-its-not-solution-our-plastic-problem-36927 - it is not peer reviewed and is old (2015) but it throws up some interesting points. All these points seem to be irrelevant to Macrebur. For instance they claim that their bitumen (ie the bitumen with their additives in it) will not leach micro plastics into the environment - that is a 100% guarantee they give in their answer - no micro plastic leaching. Firstly this is not provable as their product has not been time tested for long enough to produce this data. Logic suggests that if a road degrades over time through use and more importantly weathering, then there has be leaching of all the road contains and if it contains plastics then QED micro plastics will be leached. Put that alongside the argument that we should be banning all production of plastic waste (and therefore eventually short use plastic) likes bags and the argument that hiding waste just encourages its production and Macrebur's claim to be a world saver looks rather foolish. To gain the sort foothold they are selling to investors, they will in fact be encouraging the ongoing production of plastic bags. How crazy is that??
If a company is going to use multiple online ways of raising the same funding in the same round, it doesnt seem too much to ask that they use the same information each time. Macrebur's claim on the Seedrs forum that we are wrong is completely untrue - check out the facts; they are all correct. As AIN have now removed this pitch, there is now no issue. We wish them and all who invest the best of luck.
Both campaigns have a pre money valuation of £14.5m. But AIN is not, strictly speaking an investment platform. It promotes campaigns and then investors get in touch directly with the company and invest. According to the AIN Macrebur page, £2m of the target £4m has already been invested. As AIN state in their own words, this investment simply goes straight onto the company - there is not minimum level requirement as with ECF platforms.
So to cut to the chase - a pre money valuation of £14.5m would be the same as a post money valuation, after this £2m has been 'invested', of £16.5m. But the Seedrs valuation is also £14.5m.
According to AIN that £2m has already hit Macrebur's bank account. According to Seedrs it has not.
AIN are not FCA regulated although their new ECF platform, Seedtribe.com is.
The parallel funding may not be mentioned, but it has been mentioned numerous times in responses to queries that dual investment was being progressed through Seedrs and private investers. MacRebur have been very open and clear on this matter from the very start of the Seedrs campaign.
ReplyDeleteNo they haven't. That's why we wrote this.
ReplyDeleteI think they have - one of many mentions about Investors via Seedrs discussions....."Regarding the VCs. Some have opposed our terms and we are being selective about who we get on board. There are a couple of companies who are big players in the bitumen and asphalt world who we are waiting to hear back from. I am meeting with them on a weekly basis as they finalise their due-diligence and am hopeful that we will get the right people on board. ********, a VC from India, have already invested and their figure is shown here. They will be helping us reach the market in India, and we have already met with the Minister for Transport for Tamil Nadu, India, from them.
DeleteAs much as the investment is important to us, the help to get into new markets from the big players is also essential."
Fine, they talk about other investors but why not for the sake of honesty and openness, mention the fact that they are running another campaign on AIN for £4m at the same price. That was the only point we ere making - no where is that mentioned. And it should be. Simple.
DeleteMacRebur's reply in the first week of the Seedrs campaign to a query on how they intended to raise £4m...... "£1.5 million on Seedrs and £2.5 million through corporate and individual investors."
DeleteReplies to on the forum are not upfront information. Many people dont look at the forums and in any case, they make NO mention of AIN and are now claiming (in the same forum) that they had no idea about AIN. Finally the campaign on AIN has been rubbed out - very well rubbed out as it doesnt get a mention on the internet now, anywhere. How do explain that?
DeleteSo Anon, please explain how Macrebur have just pitched (11 October) to a Greenbackers audience for a total of £6m - or that is what their PD states. £4m .......£6m which is it?
DeleteCan you post link to this AIN page?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the director knows about this..
Toby McCartney, Co Founder & CEO at MacRebur Limited, yesterday at 20:44
Having looked it up, it is a website with ‘Angel Investors’ on and a Facebook database of investors. It’s not a seeding site, just supposed to connect companies with Angel investors. The article on the link you posted doesn’t make sense Michael as we have no investment from AIN or their investors, unless any of their ‘angels’ have invested through Seedrs. It seems like it’s an ‘anti crowdfunding’ site to me? Is this what you are wanting comment on?
The campaign on AIN has been 'removed' with extreme prejudice ie its not around now on the internet anywhere. We have asked AIN what is going on. All a bit messy.
DeleteNo Michael Tucker our website is 100% correct - as always. We only print 100% verifiable facts. The pitch was on AIN and it was claimed on the pitch that £2m of the £4m had been funded. The pitch has now been removed as have all traces. We have no idea why.
ReplyDeleteAs a Macrebur investor I'd second what others have said about Macrebur being open and informative - I've always found them willing to answer questions and they've disclosed much more in this and previous rounds than most pitches do.
ReplyDeleteKudos to Rob for spotting the issue but I'd be inclined to give Macrebur the benefit of the doubt and see what they say once Toby (the CEO) has had a chance to look into things.
We are in no way impugning the character of the CEO. But it does look slightly odd when the Greenbackers pitch - thats the third place Macrebur are raising money - has different information on it and has a stated total target of £6m. Did you all know that Instarmac had invested £1.8m as part of this £6m?
DeletePost 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteHi Rob, I couldn't work out how to post on here the other day because I was on my mobile. I've posted on our Seedrs campaign though for our investors to see, and have pasted that post below now that I am online. My question for you, is based around your claim that you are 100% correct on this blog and that AIN have verified to you that they have given us £2 million into our MacRebur account. Please justify these claims here for us to see, because we don't have their £2 million and I'm sure they will be concerned about it's whereabouts. For feedback, a simple phone call to us to verify your claims would have prevented your frustrations here...
MacRebur Seedrs blog update:
I can of course send an email to the writer of the blog, although I'm not really sure of what the question is that I am asking for you? Perhaps I will send on this post?
Michael, you asked me to comment on the blog and what our pre-money valuation is. To be clear. It's £14.5 million, not £16.5 million as in Rob's article and in your comment. It's exactly what you see here on Seedrs (http://www.seedrs.com/macrebur2) and MacRebur have signed up to a campaign with Seedrs under their terms - those who have invested will have seen and signed up to the Seedrs terms that are on display here too. Our pre-money valuation was set by VC's and strategic partners when we started the Seedrs campaign and has not been changed for any investors. When we started our Seedrs campaign we set about marketing for investors like yourselves. Our marketing went far and wide, on Facebook, Linkedin, Google PPC and to various groups online, including adverts with agencies who post out adverts to help us find interested investors - we did not sign up to gain investment with other crowdfunding organisations like Crowdcube or Seedtribe (in fact I have never heard of them) or other 'equity based or product based crowdfunding' sites mentioned in Robs article. In 100% of our adverts the website has been given as http://www.seedrs.com/macrebur2 to point potential investors to Seedrs only. If anyone has invested through our marketing, they will have had to sign up to the same terms as on the Seedrs website as you, and we have not accepted any money from anyone else mentioned in Rob's article who he says they have given us £2 million. This is simply not the case!
Post 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Robs article, I checked with the AIN site to see if our marketing had extended to them as I wasn't aware of them before reading the article or Andrews post on here. I typed in MacRebur and I didn't find anything on the AIN site, only found our post on their facebook page. After messaging their internet chat, I did find a MacRebur advert on their site, but the link used for their database to see was http://www.seedrs.com/macrebur2 as was our marketing on FB, Lin, Twitter, Google etc. I asked AIN to remove this advert, and I believe they have. AIN though is not a crowdfunding site and Rob confirms this in his post which states at the top "But AIN is not, strictly speaking an investment platform. It promotes campaigns and then investors get in touch directly with the company and invest". I have no idea whether any of AIN's 'Angel Investors' saw our advert, but if they did, they would have been pointed to the Seedrs link here: http://www.seedrs.com/macrebur2. From my understanding and from speaking to AIN the other day, AIN is simply a database of what they call 'Angel Investors' and it includes a Facebook page and website that companies can promote themselves on when looking for investment. MacRebur's adverts all contain the website link http://www.seedrs.com/macrebur and do not point people to any other form of investment site. Rob, in his article states 'According to AIN that £2m has already hit Macrebur's bank account. According to Seedrs it has not." I can also add that "according to MacRebur, it has NOT". AIN have NOT put £2m into MacRebur's bank account. They do not know where Rob has taken this stement from... This is ludicrous. So in short, to answer your question Michael, "Yes, Rob's website is wrong."
Rob also questions on his blog that "I should explain why I am pitching at investor forums like the one I was at last week, "Greenbackers", as well as the various companies I have pitched too on MacRebur's behalf over the last 4 months." I am uncertain why I would need to explain the investment process every company goes through when we go out for investment, especially to someone who writes a blog called the "truth behind equity crowdfunding". Surely Rob understands the process and doesn't need me to explin this to him... Over the last 4 months, I have pitched at many forums and to numerous companies, including Greenbackers last week. This is what going out for investment involves, and I'm sure those of you who have invested in our company will be glad of of if i've pitched to you, you've decided to invest, and now are part of our growing innovative, world-changing company. How else would you ever get to know about this opportunity?
As I've made very clear here on Seedrs, because Seedrs have preemptive rights and because we are committed to the 1200 Seedrs investors from our last round, we have gone to the Seedrs crowd again to invest in us first, and we have gone to private investors to invest in us to make up the total investment required. We will be announcing the closure of our Seedrs round as soon as our solicitors confirm the terms between Macrebur, The private investors and Seedrs, and you (our Seedrs investors) will be the first to know about it. Once we announce the closing of our Seedrs round, we will keep it open for a further 7 days to close off any final investments made on our link http://www.seedrs.com/macrebur2.
I do hope this helps. Toby
No we are not wrong. The pitch that was up on AIN stated that £2m of the stated £4m target had been funded and if you read the AIN 'what we do' section, you will see that they say that money goes straight to the company once pledged. The pitch has now been removed. Of course the £2m may have been reference to Seedrs pledge level - but that is not 'funded' yet. Happy to call this episode a PR mistake
DeleteRegarding Greenbackers - you have missed the point. Of course any company is entitled to make as many pitches as it chooses during a funding round but it helps if the information supplied in these various pitches is the same. THAT was our only point here. The Greenbackers pitch states that of the now £6m total (it was £4m before) £4.8m has been completed. This £4.8m has double counted the Potaq £500k. There is also the £1.8m from another company which is not mentioned in the Seedrs pitch. And again the claim that no other company is using waste plastics to add to bitumen; which is simply untrue - see here https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/plastic-and-glass-road-that-could-help-solve-australia-s-waste-crisis-20180802-p4zv10.html. Does it matter? Well that is for investors to decide - we just point out the facts.
Your statement above: "According to AIN that £2m has already hit Macrebur's bank account". I asked for you to prove this point as it is not correct. You simply now tell us that somewhere on their site "you read the AIN 'what we do' section, and saw that they say that money goes straight to the company once pledged".
ReplyDeleteI think this is a little more than you making a "PR mistake", don't you?
Your post about Instarmac: "Did you all know that Instarmac had invested £1.8m as part of this £6m?" is again incorrect (or some might call "wrong"). Some might be forgiven if they call it 'slander' rather than a "PR mistake".
Whatever you wish to call it, it doesn't justify posting misinformation to attract people into your 'cause' on a website you call "Fantasy Equity Crowdfunding". I would suggest verifying any information you post about companies or individuals if you wish to avoid action being taken against you.
To correct your inflammatory statements: Instarmac have not invested £1.8 million. Instarmac, we hope, will become a strategic partner with us, but we have not agreed a deal for any investment yet, and we are still in the process of negotiating terms. We have not announced this on Seedrs because legally, we cannot until we agree those terms. I suggest, to avoid any legal action being taken by them on you and your comments, that you remove your statement immediately or post an apology to them for your "PR mistake" or as most might call it "intentional mis-information".
Finally, on your "facts" that you have asked me to comment on about our claims that there are "no other company using waste plastics to add to bitumen." First of all, we don't add waste plastics to bitumen, we replace part of the bitumen in the mix with our waste plastics. Perhaps a basic understanding of our company is required by you before you create a blog about us. Secondly, We don't make or lay asphalt and so those who now act as distributors for us abroad, sell our waste plastic products to the asphalt manufacturers who make the asphalt, and then sell it on to the contractors who lay it. One of the companies in the report is working with our distributors in Australia. We have patents pending and a PCT in place in Australia and should you find any more "facts" you wish to post, please copy us in as we have a legal procedure in place to deal with any company who wishes to go against that protection.
In future, please point out your "facts" after doing the appropriate level of research into your claims.
Oh dear. So now you are telling us that Instarmac have not put in £1.8m. So where did Greenbackers get that information from? It is on a downloadable PD which has your company name/logo all over it. Forgive us if we got this wrong but it appears to be your PD. Maybe you should chase them. Additionally the quote you quote about adding plastics to bitumen is a direct quote from these very documents. Are you now denying that these documents, which we have downloaded along with a screenshot, are nothing to do with your company?
DeleteAnd for the record it wouldnt be slander but libel. However you cant commit libel if what you say is true. The documents are there for all to see - we did not and do not make things up.
Im afraid it is not a crime to poit people to an article about another company clainign to be using plastics in bitumen. And again we didnt write this article -it is freely available on the internet.
Trust that clarifies our position.
Just to straighten out any mistakes on your behalf, we have now posted the slide that claims the £1.8m from Instarmac has been ''invested so far''. This appears to contradict your assertions on here that A - We are wrong and B That this money was invested as it clearly states it has been. You could of course now claim that this slide was not yours - which would create a lot of interest I think. Better just to accept that it is yours and it is what you presented to Greenbacker investors on 11 October - a presentation you have already agreed you gave on that date. So the Q has to be - if you had not confirmed the £1.8m from Instarmac, why is it claimed as already invested on the slide? Over to you to clear that one up please. Apologies for calling us liars already accepted. No hard feelings. Facts only this time.
DeleteI'll get straight to the point, Rob. Our business is none of your business, and Greenbackers, Instarmac, Seedrs and our potential investors clearly understand the investment process, our continued negotiations for investment and MacRebur's position in this round of our investment. We certainly don't need to explain ourselves to you and your cause, whatever that may be.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, your blog doesn't provide us with any valuable feedback that can be used to help us progress in any way. Your posts here are certainly not progressive and don't create any decent debate to warrant more time spent - which is a real shame.
I wonder whether you have actually looked up what it is that MacRebur are actually doing to help the planet, or have your spent more time attempting to correct my wording and phrasing or trying to create a debate over bit's of out of context information that you have searched through the internet to find. It's clear to everyone who reads your post what your outcome is here, and as it's disappointingly not progressive, I have to declare myself as out!
Before I unsubscribe from your blog, please re-check my above again which was a response to you posting that various firms had invested in MacRebur and their money had "hit Macrebur's bank account" - your words and your original context : My response again: "Instarmac have not invested £1.8 million. Instarmac, we hope, will become a strategic partner with us, but we have not agreed a deal for any investment yet, and we are still in the process of negotiating terms. We have not announced this on Seedrs because legally, we cannot until we agree those terms."
The best of luck with the growth of your 'business', we are busy building ours and believe we can actually make a difference in the world, so I won't be responding again.
Hahahahaa - we will watch with great interest.
DeleteWow, that's such a blinkered, chauvinist thread I had to laugh.
ReplyDeleteI thought Toby, the CEO guy, was excellent - can't imagine many would take the time to debate with someone who so clearly isn't interested in changing their mind.
When people are over defensive then they are usually hiding something. Maybe you dont understand the meaning of chauvanist? And Toby doesnt debate - he ignores the Q and states his own mostly unverified facts.
DeleteSorry Rubella but we cannot publish your comment as we cant prove what you say and it is damaging to Toby's reputation. Happy to publish one on the more general point.
DeleteKeep going Rob. It’s increasingly obvious to anyone sane that you’re right, and Toby is blustering. He’s accusing you of defaming him because you shared a claim that HE MADE! Ludicrous.
ReplyDelete