ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[notorial dissent]

My, my, and my. Where did you come by this little jewel?

Curious how many outright scams use the old, we're just selling, partnerships, participation unions, franchises..... along with the claim of "so we're not selling securities" wink wink wink.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Tednewsom]

Me? Where? Oh, nowhere. I just made the son of a bitch up.

I thought it might come in handy for... oh... people in the business...

I write for a living, but sometimes I do things gratis... for honest entrepreneurs...

[chanman]

Hey guys since this thread has been revived I figure I should post some input on this. When I first heard about this I was super skeptical too but I've seen the checks for myself and I know a couple close friends who are living off of these things right now because their parents have been buying them for a while. So I am going to invest in this because I have seen it first hand.
And I found this... Doesn't this mean they've at least been previously registered with the SEC?
http://www.secinfo.com/dsVsb.7kz.htm#qsy

[Tednewsom]

No, it does not mean they are registered with the SEC. This expired a number of years ago and was never renewed. The story I was told is that the company listed in this application is somehow separate from the company which pre-existed it, and from the one which exists now, though the name has been consistent and the principal officers have not changed throughout the history of the company.

Yes, there are people who receive regular payments, otherwise the investment would be a little unattractive, wouldn't it? Did you really read this entire thread and the internet news links?

[worried]

I'm thinking the best thing to happen for anybody associated with this scam financially (and all THEIR family and other financial associates) is for the scam to get busted as soon as possible so that the damage doesn't just keep getting worse. Those that have made money (or received money from those that made money) will have to give it back; and those that have lost may have some chance of getting some back; either way it seems to me the sooner the scam gets busted and accounts frozen, the better.... but how do we make that happen?

[notorial dissent]

If you feel that you, or someone you know, has/have been defrauded by this outfit, you go talk to your local DA, and also your state's AG's office who will usually have a consumer and securities fraud office that you can speak with, depending on the circumstances it will be one or the other of them you'll need to file a complaint with. You will need something solid to take with you other than just your feelings, so be prepared to document and verify your statements. They can't make something happen out of thin air. Show what you were promised, what you spent, and what happened.

[Tednewsom]

The delightfully frustrating and useless aspect of the SEC and a state investigation, like any police inquiry, is that they cannot move on even the most obvious scam unless someone who's been demonstrably defrauded comes forward and complains officially. It can look like a duck and quack all day, but unless they have a handful of feathers, they can't or won't do anything except open a file and say "Thanks, we'll watch for it."

As a parallel, the (late) Trayvon Martin was expelled from school when he was caught with a knapsack filled with ladies' jewelry, wedding rings, assorted gemstone doo-dads and a heavy-duty screwdriver perfect for forcing doors and windows open. None of the material had (apparently) been reported stolen or at least the police had no record of the stuff with specific descriptions. They therefore had no choice but to accept his story that they all belonged to "a friend." (Who, incidentally, never came forward and asked where the hell his thousands of dollars' worth of women's jewelry went.) Since there was no "proof" of the swag having been stolen, the question of how a 17 year old came into a bagful of jewelry remained moot.

Or reporting to police, "I think my neighbor is poisoning his wife. She's getting sick and turning purple, he smiles all the time, and there's ten pounds of rat poison in his garage." The response is always, "Thanks for being a good citizen. Call us when she drops dead."

Not that the company in question is anything less than 100% above board, of course.

[SomeYuppie]

I've dealt with this business and from what I know its legitimate although there are some issues that cannot really be confirmed. Almost all the naysayers in this thread have made incorrect assumptions, and the few claiming to be investors also dont seem to really know what the deal is. Rather than respond to users who may not visit this site anymore, I'll be happy to respond to any users questions. No, I'm not an owner or an employee of NAS or any of its affiliates or anything relating to them. Just an investor with more information than anything I've seen posted.

Don't let my low post count fool you, I'm not some spam account, I'll respond to any questions on here

[Tednewsom]

I think the questions have all been asked on the previous three pages. In fact, some of the questions were directed by assorted people here to the principal of the company, in person, and he offered either no good answer, or no answer whatsoever.

But heck, pick one and have a go at it.

[Burnaby49]

This thread has an incredibly high percentage of new posters proclaiming what a great investment this is. Either I'm missing out on the opportunity of a lifetime or we're being trolled.

[Tednewsom]

In fairness, the response from the guy sitting at the airport with time on his hands was certainly intricate and complex, with (to me, anyway, and what do I know?) an apparent understanding of financial investments.

But yeah... yeah... yup... most seem to be of the "I like those guys and I get my check, so you all are just full of poo-poo" variety.

But I've got one question. If the principals are that honest and/or smart... why would they pull a million and a half dollars out of the company (and possibly more from their own pockets) to invest in promoting this "Increase your gas mileage" gizmo, a demonstrably-useless device which provides all the automotive benefits of a Chia Pet?

Let's start there. Since every test by independent third parties shows the gizmo is 100% useless, and even the concept makes electrical and automotive engineers laugh, we seem to be left with only two explanations. Either the principals are 1) naïve enough to believe in a fantasy, to the extent of investing a million and a half dollars, or 2) knowingly, cynically pushing a useless product, selling to suckers en masse. Either explanation raises a question in my mind: "Would you trust their judgment? Would you trust them with your money?"

But if there's a reasonable third explanation, I would seriously love to hear it. And not an explanation which is a variation on, "You're just a poo-poo head."

Someyuppy... you up for this one?

Oooh. BTW, your comment

there are some issues that cannot really be confirmed.

Ummm... what exactly do we mean here?

[The Observer]

I think the most suspicious thing about any of these "leaseback" offers is trying to figure out why the promoter(s) are not keeping this plan to themselves. After all, if this is such a great money maker, they could cut out their customers and just pocket the profit themselves.

I guess a weak argument could be made that there is little difference between this and a franchise operation, but I think there has to be more secure contractual requirements with franchising than this leaseback scheme.

[SomeYuppie]

Yeah I looked at things you had said, Tednewsom, and you are actually the least credible thus far to me. Simply put, the facts you have stated are off from the original post onward. It appears you found the company suspect, someone made the duck comment, and then that convinced you that it was pure scam.

I also doubt the legitimacy of some of those that claimed to have called Gillis. Burden of proof is really on the accuser and I don't see much in the way of proof.

Anyways the deal is that you pay 12,000 per machine. Years back it was 11,000 but it was raised to 12,000 mainly on inflation. It may have been 10,000 when it started but that I don't know. Supposedly the ATMs cost 6000-8000 since they are machines with all the bells and whistles. The extra money is because they handle everything and move underperforming machines for you. The guaranteed 20% is on the full 12,000, however. Their ATM supplier is located in Ohio. NAS sends you an operating agreement, tells you the location of the ATM, and gives you the serial number.

ATM fees are $4.00, of which the owner gets 50 cents. Not some 50/50 thing.

I know people in Beverly Hills, people out of state, and people out of the country with them and they all buy them at 12,000, so I don't know what you're talking about with the 20k.

Who said any leaseback scheme is considered a security? I'd like an explanation on that one.

Here's a few things that make me think it's legitimate:
-There's a third party processor in Texas that actually sends you the transaction count, no related parties between them and NAS. I can get the name on my next statement and post again.
-I'm guaranteed 20%, yet many machines I own do over 30%. Why bother paying out an extra $100 per machine per month?
-I always call the business that has my machine and I always get a response that it exists, and it's contracted through NAS
-Friend of mine actually went to the physical location of one located in Louisiana, sat there for two days and counted each time someone would use it. Multiplied that by 15 and almost got to what that month was in volume.
-NAS has been out of machines and refused to take additional investments from me. I mean, that's pretty big, a scam that didn't want to take someone's money?

When I said "there are some issues that cannot really be confirmed" the biggest thing is, hey, the transaction count could be right, the amounts and business could be alright, it's just 5 other people own that same machine! That's something you can't really confirm which is a legitimate concern.

To your nonsense about some gizmo consider this:
I actually work for a wealthy guy (net worth in the low-mid 8 figures)
He's a business man and doesn't know the definition of "ROI", never heard of it. He's kinda dumb, but he throws millions at bad business ideas, and throws millions at great ones. I can't really say much because it's worked for him, but in other words, I don't care if Gillis wants to invest in something stupid because it has little bearing to his dealings with NAS. Rich people do stupid things, but hey, it works for them.

As to the cornering the market comment, I too had that question but during my due diligence from a few years back I asked myself this:

Why doesn't every successful company stay private? Why does Visa, a major payment network, always use other people's money for their operating cycle? Their network in pretty much established and low risk, so why do they continue to raise capital from private investors?

Well you can choose to believe whatever, and all investments with NAS are voluntary but I expect backlash and disagreement, but I'll do my best to continue to respond. Right now all I've provided you with is words so I expect you to remain skeptical.

Once again, my only relationship to NAS is that I've been an investor for several years. I don't own or control NAS or any of its affiliates or employees nor am I related to someone, nor am I friends with someone.

Thanks for reading.

[JamesVincent]

Yeah I looked at things you had said, Tednewsom, and you are actually the least credible thus far to me. Simply put, the facts you have stated are off from the original post onward. It appears you found the company suspect, someone made the duck comment, and then that convinced you that it was pure scam.

I also doubt the legitimacy of some of those that claimed to have called Gillis. Burden of proof is really on the accuser and I don't see much in the way of proof. That depends on the situation. Sometimes the burden is on the accused. Sometimes not.

Anyways the deal is that you pay 12,000 per machine. Years back it was 11,000 but it was raised to 12,000 mainly on inflation. It may have been 10,000 when it started but that I don't know. Supposedly the ATMs cost 6000-8000 since they are machines with all the bells and whistles. If you bought one ATM at a time I could see $6k. Not the kind of volume they're supposedly doing.The extra money is because they handle everything and move underperforming machines for you. Not a word has been said about moving machines by any other "investor" so far, why is that? The guaranteed 20% is on the full 12,000, however. Their ATM supplier is located in Ohio. NAS sends you an operating agreement, tells you the location of the ATM, and gives you the serial number. Is it licensed to you or them? In your name or theirs?

ATM fees are $4.00, of which the owner gets 50 cents. Not some 50/50 thing. A. That is an extremely high fee. B. Which owner? You, as owner, the establishment owner, who? If it is you, why do you get 50 cent? It's your investment, no?

I know people in Beverly Hills, people out of state, and people out of the country with them and they all buy them at 12,000, so I don't know what you're talking about with the 20k. Ted wasn't the only one who brought up different numbers, at least 3 people so far have stated different quotes.

Who said any leaseback scheme is considered a security? I'd like an explanation on that one. If you partake in a joint venture where you provide capital so someone else can do make money it is usually called something other then what it has been called by them.

Here's a few things that make me think it's legitimate:
-There's a third party processor in Texas that actually sends you the transaction count, no related parties between them and NAS. I can get the name on my next statement and post again. Please do. Are you referring to the credit issuer or someone else? If it is the credit company then. yes, it does have a relationship with the ATM company.
-I'm guaranteed 20%, yet many machines I own do over 30%. Why bother paying out an extra $100 per machine per month? 20% of what, pray tell?
-I always call the business that has my machine and I always get a response that it exists, and it's contracted through NAS So the machine might actually exist. So far no one has verified that before you.
-Friend of mine actually went to the physical location of one located in Louisiana, sat there for two days and counted each time someone would use it. Multiplied that by 15 and almost got to what that month was in volume. Seriously? And you say we don't trust people?
-NAS has been out of machines and refused to take additional investments from me. I mean, that's pretty big, a scam that didn't want to take someone's money? Think you missed the entire point of some of my posts but anyway...

When I said "there are some issues that cannot really be confirmed" the biggest thing is, hey, the transaction count could be right, the amounts and business could be alright, it's just 5 other people own that same machine! That's something you can't really confirm which is a legitimate concern. Sure is, I think I would want that fixed if I were involved.

To your nonsense about some gizmo consider this:
I actually work for a wealthy guy (net worth in the low-mid 8 figures)
He's a business man and doesn't know the definition of "ROI", never heard of it. He's kinda dumb, but he throws millions at bad business ideas, and throws millions at great ones. I can't really say much because it's worked for him, but in other words, I don't care if Gillis wants to invest in something stupid because it has little bearing to his dealings with NAS. Rich people do stupid things, but hey, it works for them. We all have friends who made it good. I have a friend that invented, of all things, E-greeting cards back in '96. Want to take a wild guess what he's worth now? But I think the point is some things are stupid and some things are STUPID. And if you are unwise enough to through money at something STUPID then I would have second thoughts about sending you money. Kinda looks bad, ya know?

As to the cornering the market comment, I too had that question but during my due diligence from a few years back I asked myself this:

Why doesn't every successful company stay private? Why does Visa, a major payment network, always use other people's money for their operating cycle? Their network in pretty much established and low risk, so why do they continue to raise capital from private investors? It's easier to spend others money then it is your own, that's why companies have investors. Doesn't mean it's legit.

Well you can choose to believe whatever, and all investments with NAS are voluntary but I expect backlash and disagreement, but I'll do my best to continue to respond. Right now all I've provided you with is words so I expect you to remain skeptical. I would hope investing in a company is voluntary, thank you for that.

Once again, my only relationship to NAS is that I've been an investor for several years. I don't own or control NAS or any of its affiliates or employees nor am I related to someone, nor am I friends with someone.

Thanks for reading. No problem. So far you have been the most intellectual one posting on their behalf. Don't let it go to your head though.

Since you did seem to miss the whole point of this thread I'll explain it in a nutshell. It may very well be a semi-legit or legit company but no one can explain why it would require that kind of money to get in. Like I said before, I don't believe for a second that they pay the kind of prices they claim to. I also don't believe that they require as much up front capital as they say they do. And with people like that BeverlyHills dude posting, it looks more like a load of manure. There is no reason you could not have a machine setup and in place for more then $7k for a good machine, $5k for a normal machine, and that is the biggest detraction I have seen. It may very well be that the company is legit and you do get a return out of it but if they're shafting you from the get go and having kinda iffy service, which BeverlyHills dude mentioned, and have no real reason for the incoming shaft I would be hesitant. If someone paid you $6k extra I think you could figure out a way to slip them a Ben Franklin extra here and there. YMMV.

[JamesVincent]

In fairness, the response from the guy sitting at the airport with time on his hands was certainly intricate and complex, with (to me, anyway, and what do I know?) an apparent understanding of financial investments.

Not really. He worried about some of the right things but mostly the wrong things. And when people get high on the hog over their own brains it's usually not because they are good. If you ever talk to someone who has a true genius for it they don't talk down to you, wouldn't even think about it. And, for all the words he wrote, he really didn't say a thing.

[Tednewsom]

Excellent and specific reply, someyuppy! I do have some comments and reactions.

NAS has been out of machines and refused to take additional investments from me. I mean, that's pretty big, a scam that didn't want to take someone's money?

If that's what they're telling you, it's an outright lie. Every three months for the past year they've been soliciting for new "partners" and pushing old "partners" to scoop up another of those trusty machines. Well, wait, perhaps it's not a lie from them, maybe you are right, they're truly out of machines and selling non-machines to all the new "partners." That would be right in line with the M.O. of the dozen other ATM leaseback companies which have been popped by the SEC or the local Attorneys General: selling phantom "securities."

They sent some (but from your comment, apparently not ALL) "partners" a notification a year or year and a half ago, that they've simply run out of locations to place more ATMs and they were not going to be selling any more. The market is saturated, and that's that, game over. Three months later, they miraculously got a new contract with a hotel chain-- ta-daa! The world just got brighter again for the ATM lease back business!

Now... if they're lying to you about being "out of machines"-- and they are -- what else are they lying about?

Anyways the deal is that you pay 12,000 per machine. Years back it was 11,000 but it was raised to 12,000 mainly on inflation.

Uhhh... no. The price to some "partners" is still $19,000 -- for the same service and terms. And I have it directly from an honest financial counselor (yes, she's legit; I did my DD on her before believing a word she told me) that the SAME things are sold in her neck of the words, to upscale "partners" for a big chunk MORE than $20,000. She remembered how much she paid for it very clearly-- before she talked directly with the Big Cheese and said, "This thing doesn't add up, I want my money back."

Please understand, I'm not calling you a prevaricator. I think you're being accurate and truthful when you say you have always paid +/-$12,000 per unit. I'm equally certain that those who originally paid $19,000 are told (and are confident) that's what every other "partner" has always paid. And I'd bet those who pay $28,000 each are always told everyone else shells out the same amount of dough.

ATM fees are $4.00, of which the owner gets 50 cents. Not some 50/50 thing.

Interesting. This is not what was represented (verbally) to me, and not what the company outlined in their SEC license application. But it may well be true. It's a wacky world.

Who said any leaseback scheme is considered a security? I'd like an explanation on that one.

Anyone here want to give someyuppy an investor's primer with a definition of "securities" stuck somewhere in the middle? Someyuppy, I fear that you don't know what securities are, which I didn't (and didn't care about) until I started looking into this mess.

The guaranteed 20% is on the full 12,000, however.

As pointed out above by people hipper and wiser than me, the idea of any investment resulting in a "guaranteed 20%" return is -- shall we say?-- "fanciful." And please, please think about this with a clear head: if you're told your particular ATM didn't make its minimum in a given month, but you still get your "guaranteed" payment, WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM? And there is no other answer: it's obviously coming from somewhere else. Where?

I always call the business that has my machine and I always get a response that it exists, and it's contracted through NAS

Excellent habit, and assuring news. Of course, that does not preclude your own concern:

...the amounts and business could be alright, it's just 5 other people own that same machine! That's something you can't really confirm which is a legitimate concern.

But, uhhh... what might make you even entertain that idea? I mean... gee... what an odd, suspicious idea that is. Hmmm and Double Hmmm. Oh, not that you're wrong to consider it... oh-h-h-h-h, no...

I don't care if Gillis wants to invest in something stupid because it has little bearing to his dealings with NAS.

I'll defer to my Smarters and Betters here on this one, but I'll offer a parallel. What does it matter if Chris Christie says he had no direct knowledge of a dozen hand-picked, trusted subordinates to close the busiest bridge in the world for three days and cost millions of dollars and waste hundreds of man-hours for petty political retribution? Just because his closest advisers are nicely-dressed and educated criminals and thugs, that doesn't reflect on his other abilities... does it? You'd still trust his judgment when it came to running your state... right?

And by the way:

Supposedly the ATMs cost 6000-8000 since they are machines with all the bells and whistles.

Why do you use the adjective "supposedly"? You are clearly intelligent and have a fine command of the language, express yourself well, and if I were an English teacher, I'd give you an A, without hesitation. I'm not being snide, just honest. You're intellectually committed to what you're writing and emotionally vested. And yet... and yet... you add the equivocal modifier. You don't need to answer this publically. But I think you should ask your heart and brain why you chose that word.

And on a personal note:

It appears you found the company suspect, someone made the duck comment, and then that convinced you that it was pure scam.

Actually, no: the duck comment did make me smile, but it affected my opinion not one bit. This thing smelled like week-old fish from the first moment it was pitched at me. It made no simple, mathematical sense. I still hope I'm wrong because my dear friend has been pushed AGAIN to buy another of these things-- at the usual $19,000, someyuppy, not your standard bargain rate of $12,000 -- and I guess despite what they told you, they were somehow able to find some more machines. I fear when the thing collapses, she will be totally, utterly wiped out. I do not want this to be true, but so far, I've seen little to change my mind.

[Tednewsom]

In fairness, the response from the guy sitting at the airport with time on his hands was certainly intricate and complex, with (to me, anyway, and what do I know?) an apparent understanding of financial investments.

Not really. He worried about some of the right things but mostly the wrong things. And when people get high on the hog over their own brains it's usually not because they are good. If you ever talk to someone who has a true genius for it they don't talk down to you, wouldn't even think about it. And, for all the words he wrote, he really didn't say a thing.

Well, gee, James, I was trying to be nice to the guy. But I'll defer to you. I'm the most naïve person here when it comes to asking the right investment questions, and I like to think the best of people. And I think you nailed it.

[littleroundman]

Anyone here want to give someyuppy an investor's primer with a definition of "securities" stuck somewhere in the middle? Someyuppy, I fear that you don't know what securities are, which I didn't (and didn't care about) until I started looking into this mess.

The Supreme Court ruled that Howey was offering an "investment contract" as defined by the Securities Act of 1933. As a part of this ruling, the Supreme Court developed a test to see whether an opportunity constitutes an "investment contract." This test was called the "Howey Test."

An investment contract under the Howey Test was defined as follows:

1. an investment of money due to

2. an expectation of profits arising from

3. a common enterprise

4. which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3509783

[Tednewsom]

Hmmm...! The duck walking and quacking again. You think... maybe... "securities"... ?

[SomeYuppie]

That depends on the situation. Sometimes the burden is on the accused. Sometimes not.

In the US justice system its typically on the accuser.

Is it licensed to you or them? In your name or theirs?

Technically they have all rights of ownership and they assume all liability if it gets damage, stolen etc. HOWEVER per the operating agreement, if you are unhappy with your investment you may return the machine for the full amount you purchased it for. I could theoretically call up tomorrow and get 100% of my initial investment on some or all of my machines, AND keep whatever money they gave me each month.

A. That is an extremely high fee. B. Which owner? You, as owner, the establishment owner, who? If it is you, why do you get 50 cent? It's your investment, no?

Owner would be me, you can call me a partner/investor/victim whatever. I get 50 cents per txn and so does every one I know in this. In fact Gillis doesn't even know that I know others who own ATMs so its not like he fixed it so I'm getting the same deal. When I first started buying ATMs the txn fee was 3.50 and I want to say in the last year it was bumped up to 4.00 or 3.95. Same difference. I am getting the same 50 cents so I didn't get a boost in my payout despite a jump in fees.
I don't think 3.50 is high at least for fees charged in my area. 4.00 is high but I've seen fees up to 5.00. Of course, those aren't NAS ATMs.

Basically I get my cut, banks get their cut, processor gets a cut, owner of the ATM's location gets a cut, and NAS gets the rest. I am fine with this set up because I assume virtually no risks (unless it is a ponzi scheme) and get like 30% annual returns. I've long since recouped my investment.

Ted wasn't the only one who brought up different numbers, at least 3 people so far have stated different quotes.

Recall I said I know several people who have the same investment and I never let Gillis know? All of them bought at 12000 except for one guy who had them since the 90s and bought his old ones for 11000. Hence why I don't think those who quoted other amounts are legitimate posters.

Please do. Are you referring to the credit issuer or someone else? If it is the credit company then. yes, it does have a relationship with the ATM company.

I said related party, not relationship. Processor facilitates the transactions between ATM and bank. This is something I have personal experience with. I brought up related parties because I researched the processor to make sure that they weren't owned by Gillis or NAS.

20% of what, pray tell?

I thought I made it clear that its 20% of the full 12,000 per machine. Buy 100 machines and they are all guaranteed 20% annual returns on that full 1,200,000. i get it, you want bulk discounts. I never asked so i cant speak about it. No one I know has had a year below 20% except for the one who was in this from the 90s. After 9/11 he hit 18% for the year and actually got compensated at the end of the year to hit his 20%.

So the machine might actually exist. So far no one has verified that before you.
Seriously? And you say we don't trust people?

Believe what you want. That's my side of it all. I have more information so ask away.

Think you missed the entire point of some of my posts but anyway...

Did I? Or was I just responding generally since there's been many posters over the past 2+ years. I'll respond to you directly just as I'm doing now. Go ahead and repost your concerns and maybe I can provide an answer.

Sure is, I think I would want that fixed if I were involved.

Still don't know why he wouldn't take money or limit my purchases if it was a ponzi scheme.

We all have friends who made it good. I have a friend that invented, of all things, E-greeting cards back in '96. Want to take a wild guess what he's worth now? But I think the point is some things are stupid and some things are STUPID. And if you are unwise enough to through money at something STUPID then I would have second thoughts about sending you money. Kinda looks bad, ya know?

You'd think but I've seen stupid decisions make millions anyways. I don't doubt Gillis made a half million dollar investment but in something stupid, but strangely enough I just don't care.

As to the cornering the market comment, I too had that question but during my due diligence from a few years back I asked myself this:

It's easier to spend others money then it is your own, that's why companies have investors. Doesn't mean it's legit.

But it doesn't mean its not legit.

No problem. So far you have been the most intellectual one posting on their behalf. Don't let it go to your head though.

Yay I'm king of the brainwashed!