Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Huh!
Unsecured notes with no stated interest, no terms of repayment. It could be any obligation or debt stated that way on the financials. Is there any furthur detail?
How was the Brio and Hudson matters classified? Were they?
Run
They may have recorded a contingent liability to state the balance sheet in the most conservative light possible. Honestly I never read the financials that deeply to know what those liabilities are, so whether they're booked as a courtesy or required I don't know.
If the liability was booked as a courtesy, what is the corresponding debit?
I use my head on financial statements. Not business models.
Not ridiculous, but highly rational to expect that a company with massive debt, no revenue and no prospect for revenue will indeed fail.
Most everyone who is invested, accept a handful of people, only hope that it won't.
Not sure but I think the outstnding shares have at least doubled since the 15:1 reverse split. Does anyone know off hand?
My dream was a beach house if this took off. There been too much dilution for that to happen now.
Completely agree.
Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
Yes the market knows: 5 cents!! A huge opportunity for shorts?
Sorry I was exhausted when I wrote that.
Here's my point:
The probability that this company will fail is high. An herculean effort by mamagement will not change this. This is a high risk investment and it should be expected to fail.
As far as your point with your friend's company, I don't see the opposite here. I may be wrong, but isn't most of WSGI salaries paid in stock options?
You cannot be more wrong. They cannot be faulted. They are taking a risk. Just like you are. If someone has invested too much of their money in this worthless company, then they deserve it, unfortunately so, but true nevertheless. Sorry.
Everyone should know what they got themselves into. Management has not? This company has no revenue and is insolvent. How can you rationally blame them. If there was certainty that this would succeed from smart minds working hard, then I can assure you that the SP would not be at 5 cents.
How can the SP rise without a significant contract? At least that's how I see it.
Management has nothing to be ashamed of if they don't procure one. All they have to do is have a sound plan and follow it. It's not thier fault if they cannot sell it.
I am not convinced that the system is viable to the military. If they can produce a Strat., that may be a different story. But unless the company can generate some signifacant revenue or soon convince a potential creditor that the Strat. is feasable and ready to be built, this company will collaspe under the weight of it debt.
Depends who you ask.
There's got to be a reason we see contracts for these UAVs.
I keep posting the question and we just don't know: Just what does it mean when the DOD tests products? What percentage of products that get tested end up being bought?
If it was a an indicator, we would not be @ 5 cents
More evidence that DOD likes the stealthy micro UAVs
You have it all figured out? These programs were cancelled because of the Argus 1?
May have paid off some old debt with the new funding, who knows. Did the PR say that the money was earmarked for something specific? I don't remember.
Very frustrating with the lack of info, but it's to be expected in this case.
Hopefully they will take a look at our ship, but considering the theme of that article it looks like those responsible in the government for the on board packages may be down with airships?
And it's now very clear that the military is concerned about vulnerability to attack.
I wish I knew just how interested the military is in the Argus 1.
All fine and dandy, and certainly excellent to have the patent, but let's not lose sight of the big picture....Will it sell?
Lets face it, it is basically the same ship as Koplin's 10year old skydragon. Has he sold one?
Agree. I hope the DOD is interested in the concept. Seems like many of the new unmanned surveillance platforms are these mico bug flying machines. Can't put a bazooka shell thru them.
And less costly teatherd blimps, currenty in service, can do the job in border control.
This is boring me. I just want some money here.
From what I just read, here, it's not the design of the whole airship, but certain controls and equipment on the ship? In both Koplin and Wsgi's application? And why would Koplin's design be rejected?
I agree. Would be nice if we sold something.
Now that would be something to post about.
Very cool tool, but I don't think the programmer of that test accounted for the scenario negative equity.
ISR packages? Maybe your confusing someone's post with mine. I did not bring up ISR packages. My post was a very simple question.
Just asking if they're airships to someone who has admitted that they not only work in the industry but worked for a vendor of the company. And you posted this several times as well. Other than to let the board members know that you are an expert, I'm not sure what other reason you have to keep stating it.
Again it was you who informed the board, quite clearly and several times, that the DOD was only testing the Argus 1.
And your response is do you own DD?
Are these airships? I thought you were quite clear, several times, that the DOD was not testing any other ships but ours?
Not following you on the debt test, sorry.
Notes payable has increased and is now 8mil and equity is a negative 14 mill. Which would mean the ratio is negative.
I sincerely did not know that the people writing those comments were NASA contractors. I do not remember the publication. I remembered the comments. But I believe you are making a lot more out of this and you DO know it.
We allow them to cheat.
Checkmate mide, checkmate.
"without a job"? Please explain why you think I was referring to people without a job.
Yes there is always that angle to take, which cannot be disputed, only judgement can be criticized. If Jobs did it why can't WSGI? You are right! Absolutely right.
I think they are still laughing, literally. Did you read the readers comments that were posted in that aerospace magazine that ran a story around the time of the Nevada test news? It was reposted here. Darn good stuff.
The truth and the results of what you say are the same. I must diagree with the intent, at least on the part of current mangement. It is what it is, an insolvent company with no revenue or contracts for same. If you are literal in your use of the word scam, the burden of proof to prove that should be yours.
I am all ears....
Sounds good enough for me too.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Where does GTC's competitive advantage appear? Other than in your posts please.
What about a Letter of Credit from a bank no one heard about.