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.
I agree. As a matter of fact, all the reason to let management play this out. It's their idea they should run with it.
The shareholder should change if they invested too much money in a high risk stock.
That the level of criticism and expectation of management is unwarranted considering the nature of this company.
If this is a serious investment, and not a risk investment, that a better job of DD should be the focus for a new investor who has the opportunity to easily see a decade long track record of failure, dilution and missed objectives in trying to sell their ideas.
I have not read the financials too deeply, but if the GTC revenue is mostly from a related party, I will not get to excited about that.
And LTC's "quite a few units sold" I'm not getting excited about that either.
Again, the products potential is unknown at best, company is very high risk. They did not invent the wheel and are falling over themselves trying to sell it.
This board is great. An insolvent penny stock is going to take off, this is going to be huge, gov't contracts etc....
And then when it does not happen....................
blame someone!!!
I don't get it.
Holding someone's feet to the fire with a company like this is just looking for a scapegoat. There's not one person alive who could have made a difference. We all knew, at least should have, that this company had a much greater chance at failing than succeeding. Double that for those who complain and bought in recently.
The only valid argument here is making a change for the sake of change to boost moral, like someone suggested. But unless the company can make a viable product nothing will change.
And again, could someone kindly suggest what else Estrella and Clark were to do about funding? They had no choice.
Other than what's been PR'd by the company, does anyone know what Estrella's accomplishments or lack thereof have been? Before he came aboard.
Trunk,
Kindly give me an example. Considering the tone of that, I would think it's in order.
I'm certified. Are you claiming I'm being unethical?
I cannot offer opinion as to any motive, but I will say this....
I have many clients who have related entities, all private companies, and when there are expenses of one entity paid with funds from another. I'll either call the transfer of funds into the company as a loan or as "other income"
In this company's case you have to read the disclosers to see that the sales are not arms-length.
How long have you been a shareholder?
I understand how he got to his 5%. What is misleading? If his total outstanding share price is wrong, what is the total?
I very curious, only because you said it was "misleading" and "what planet"
Yes, yes there are.
Viable products from viable companies.
Your post is a testimonial to facts about what this company tries to do and what other companies actually do.
Well at least you are holding them accountable to all that crap that they PR'd over the years. But it's still crap, and we would all be lucky if just one program amounted to anything.
The quarterly or annual financial statements follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, unless specifically stated that they do not.
It does not matter if the financials are audited or not. The "audit" is a level of attest service and procedures that an independent accountant applies to the financial statements so that the reader of them has the appropriate level of assurance that the figures are accurate. It should not change the basic method how figures are presented.
For financial statement presentation, they should be valued at the FMV on the balance sheet date with a note detailing that they are not marketable until whenever. But they may have to account for them using the Equity Method. Which is very different.
Is this meant for me?
If so, if the shares are not marketable then there should be a discount.
In the case of an investment in a public traded company, where one holds a long term position it is warranted, on many levels, to keep probing for negativity for such decisions as to sell, hold or buy more. For as long as one holds the stock.
Who knows who is right? Both sides on this issue seem to be making very good arguments, and it should be welcomed.
All these points and questions should be discussed and not discounted, especially coastie's if you are on the fence about investing more money into this company, an insolvent one.
If you ever been involved in capital raising, creditors ask the negative questions. It's basically the entire principle of deciding to lend or invest money into an entity.
For those that have no experience in this and don't understand why someone would dwell on the negative aspects before investing, then watch that show Shark Tank.
Commercial viability is the key words in your post. Kroplin has been flying the prototype for over ten years, no? Been making enhancements since then, no?
So our group puts up a very similar aircraft will it make a difference? What superiority will our ship have over others that will make ours viable? Controls between segments? Really?
Not sure why this point get ignored. Will someone please correct my line of thinking here.
whoo-hoo
what took you so long to realize this?
Thanks.
Flybyday: I beg for your pardon is advance if I forget again.
Not thinking anything about you other than responding to your comment that I should know who he works for.
Please do not judge me. Trading stocks is not my job, and have no time to scroll thru old posts. I just have a little fun here and sometimes try to get some answers.
I knew he was involved in the group improving the ARGUS, so I was curious why he would be involved in the delivery of the BIB to the State of Ohio Transportation Dept. or whoever bought it.
Indy, who is it that you work for?
I know this is being spun and pulled in many directions, but as what's being announced and posted here it looks to be a bad deal for WSGI shareholders, no?
Why couldn't these investors invest in WSGI directly or have LTA division spun-off with some better equity ratios for us?
Was there some sort of non-performance of the contract between LTA and WSGI that enabled the LTA principals to seek this?
Run
What's so funny?
Hi Indy,
What's your company's connection to WSGI again? General description is fine.
Run
So in the case of a POS like this company how would they entice investors? I would imagine they would have to offer some huge amount of warrants/options or something like that.
To be clear, what I meant to add: can the company disclose information to these "private" investors that is not public knowledge?
oK, lets try this:
You're the president of the company, what letter would you write?........
Please be more clear, I may be wrong but is what your asking for possible in a public company? What should they have done exactly?
1. the company secretly asks large shareholders to participate in a funding to keep the company alive until a large pending order?
That does not sound legal. Or,
2. The company puts out a PR that we need funding to keep are assets or we'll dissolve? Can't imagine that having a positive affect.
Soon someone will post that the mighty WSGI will be in on this. Who says this board is not great?
I try to be real. Do you?
I hope u r who you say u r. You seem to have managed to gather up a following of members who look forward to your positive outlook and become sort of a savior to them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have been posting a ton of links and other psalms of how great the bib is right up to the point the company sold it. Now you r starting on the mighty argus.
I read it as the company had no choice.
Fair point. Sometimes you have to give up control to raise capital. Happens all the time.
They believe that the eventual value of 10mil shares + the cash is worth more that 100% ownership in LTA?
I guess that means that this company management agrees with Wildfalls?
Great post.
IDK, check with IJO. He would know.