slkiel

Starting the thread for the 2020 meeting. Willow Oak is maintaining a resource page for all of the events around the events. You can view it here: https://willowoakfunds.com/berkshire-2020 Willow Oak is also holding an event on Saturday from 5-830pm at the Marriott across the street from the event. Information and sign-up here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScT7xFg8iNPEKljKHPoYe9KRJE3ZDSUOj1665Io9rzNL5nbAw/viewform Please let us know if you have an event to add to the list.

Gotcha. Point taken. I don’t think they meant the letter for public consumption. It just had to be filed with the 13D. There is some negative history with the Parks management and major shareholders, so I think they wanted to put management at ease. The letter was to management. There is separate, private communication to LPs that I’m sure more specifically addresses the investment case.

How so?

Even better. It was actually the Willow Oak logo. Ironically, that part of the business is doing great!

Thanks John. Spekulatius- While Jeff is no longer associated with SYTE, he has consistently publicly said that he wants to remain a significant shareholder. Ratiman- I recommend you read the rule 144 filing and Form 4 filing. Jeff already sold those shares three weeks ago. He would need to do another rule 144 filing prior to selling any other shares that he purchased through the private placement a few years ago or that were issued to him. I have seen the criticisms about Jeff here and think they are off base. I am the one who convinced him to do the deal. It did not work out as planned. Because it did not work out, Jeff is no longer associated with SYTE, he lost his baby with the private company, and I am no longer SYTE’s CEO. I don’t see how Jeff or the company or I came out ahead. Jeff has described this publicly as personally devastating. Yes, he was paid for the properties, but that value remains in SYTE. The problems came from the losses after the acquisition as he built overhead far above its needs. Even with the swings and misses with Mt Melrose and HVAC, we still have a heckuva company and have created a lot of value over the last 3+ years. And, the idea of first, do no harm, is firmly imprinted in the minds of the directors.

Please find a joint statement that Jeff and I released through ENDI: https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/dns/news/document/33645/content As a fellow investor in small and micro-cap companies, I sympathize with the idea that things are not always as they seem and it can be healthy to be skeptical of management's statements. Heck, I have built the success of my fund on that idea! However, that also does not mean that management should never be taken at face value. Both Jeff and I have a long history of being direct and plain-spoken. We have no reason to be any different here. The fact is that we thought we had to make a change based on the reasons in the link above. Clearly we both thought things would be different, but the reality is what it is after a thorough internal review and strategic planning process within the company. We have a great collection of properties, but the strategy that we enthusiastically announced when we made the acquisition didn't work. We could admit that now and change it with little economic impact, or we could continue down the path with larger ramifications. I hope this information is helpful and more clear than the 8-K earlier this week. I apologize for the delay in getting this information out to you.

Also, I appreciate the comments about the timing of the filing. We typically try to file the Qs on Friday afternoons, for example. In retrospect we should have been more sensitive about the timing of this filing. Clearly we did not believe that it would be market moving.

Please find below a thread that I tweeted out earlier about the situation. The bottom line is that we decided to restructure the subsidiary to better support our asset management operations. The goal is to generate predictable cash flow from the real estate. Jeff’s goals were different as he was more focused on capital appreciation. There is no animosity between Jeff and the company, simply different goals. Things have not worked out exactly as planned for HVAC and Mt Melrose, but those challenges have pushed us to focus on our strengths and on the operations that we control at the corporate level. That is a big long-term plus. Doing things in a decentralized manner, as we attempted with HVAC and Mt Melrose, in a small company is very, very difficult. The public company aspect is much different than a private company. The stock price will do what it does, and, as we all know, it is not always rational (especially for a small company). Our operations, though, are no different than yesterday. As we said in the 8-K, we are cutting expenses and simplifying the business. There isn’t much more to it than that.

Willow Oak Asset Management is hosting a happy hour after the event. Alluvial Capital, Arquitos Capital, Bonhoeffer Fund, and Willow Oak Select Fund will be presenting. Details and RSVP information can be found here: https://medium.com/@WOAM/join-the-willow-oak-team-of-funds-for-a-happy-hour-presentation-df29cedb9ebc?source=linkShare-ad1985b561bc-1539987461

Good catch. We will update it ASAP. Definitely can't say that!

We did it to help Sitestar. Sitestar was in a one year grace period for the 40 Act, so we needed to either withdraw the $3 million (and thus lower the fee share Sitestar earns) or replace it. I volunteered to replace it through Arquitos. The full fee share continues to go to Sitestar. We ended up making the exchange a few months earlier than required to help fund the Mt Melrose acquisition. The Mt Melrose acquisition and the Alluvial exchange will ensure that we will no longer be in violation of the 40 Act going forward I would be interested to learn why you think this would be a conflict of interest so we can better communicate the reasons for doing this and who benefits. We have crafted the transaction/exchange so it clearly benefits Sitestar and its shareholders (of course it was also reviewed and approved by our audit committee and board). I am always interested in hearing how to make it more clear though if there is some sort of miscommunication.

We'd love to see those in Omaha at our investor day event immediately after the Saturday meeting. Arquitos Capital, Alluvial Fund, Ironwood Fund, and Bonhoeffer Fund will be presenting. Feel free to stop by, even if just for a few minutes. Additional details below: May 5, 2018, 4pm-6pm local time Hilton Hotel, Murray Conference Room (second floor)— 1001 Cass St., Omaha, NE 68102 https://medium.com/@WOAM/investor-day-presentation-may-5-2018-28b71e38ca3a

We had to do the first capital raise in order to have a quorum at the shareholder meeting. I have previously discussed this, I believe in this thread. The former CEO indicated that he would not vote. We could not otherwise hold a shareholder meeting. We had no other options. We did not do it to "take over" the company. We were already in control of the company. We did it to hit the quorum so we could hold the shareholder meeting and get on with running the company. With regards to specifically offering you an opportunity, Neal, we are not allowed to "solicit." What we did was try to make people aware of the offering so they could reach out to us. We accepted everyone who then contacted us. We would have loved to have you participate. The reason why I am engaging on this platform is because, as Tim referenced, you are attacking the character of the people involved with the company along with me. It is not fair to them, and it is not accurate. And, I will add, no one who has taken the time to come to our meeting and meet the people involved with the company feel as you do. They all understand why we took the actions we did. If you come to the meeting and ask your questions, you will come away feeling as they do. At this point all of us have said how we feel. Readers can use their own judgment from here.

With regards to the ADV filing, I lived in Virginia when I started the fund and then California and had to register as an RIA in each state when I lived there. I then moved the office to New York and New York does not require (or allow) me to be registered, so I'm not. I won't be registered with the SEC until the fund gets to $150m. Neal- to your comments, there are quite a few facts in which we disagree. I am not sure how we bridge that gap. The suspicions have primarily come from you on items that are not based on the facts of the situation. We have an independent board, corporate staff, and subsidiary managers who all are comfortable with our decisions and absolutely comfortable with our ethical behavior. Do you really think someone like Keith Smith, who is the most ethical person in the world, would have not raised an objection if we were anywhere close to the line? What I would ask is that you be a bit more humble towards the judgements of people like Keith, Jeff, and others who know all of the facts and pressures we were under. Also, to be clear, my reference to the results being good were about the operations, not the share price.

The SYTE position was marked at an illiquidity discount in my fund. Now that it is more liquid, it is not. The August 31, 2016 mark for the fund, for example, was 5.2 cents. The valuation terms with the hedge fund are governed by its LPA. An individual investor's situation is going to be different. For those who follow my fund, you will see that about half of the gains in 2017 were from the SYTE position. I first owned shares in the company in 2013 and did not have material gains in the position until 2017.