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.
$0.075 is better than $0.04 to lower the dilution to shareholders. Did LJ actually agree to this? It seems the terms changed from the previous filing.
One would think if LJ is willing to invest at $0.075, the market might see that as a more accurate current valuation, or possibly even undervalued at that price. Maybe the large volume on Friday is an indication there will be some adjustment to the market's perception of valuation in the days ahead.
I hope this truly is bridge financing as someone suggested, and other sources of revenue will soon replace the need for this funding and stop the continued dilution.
runandadd, as far as the military's love of winged drones, I can only speculate that a fast-moving winged vehicle is more exciting and appealing than a slower-moving blimp-like vehicle. The advantage of the Argus over these winged UAVs is longer time on station. Whether or not that translates into enough interest for actual contracts, we just have to wait and see what unfolds. I doubt we'll see any airship sales until testing is complete and the platform is certified. Since there's been no update on the Argus in months, we don't know the status of testing, only that the airship is supposed to be in Nevada. It could be in active testing, or hidden away in a hanger while we await further funding to move forward.
I don't know how Kroplin's airship design would impact sales. Both airships have been hindered by inadequate funding for testing, further development or marketing. That's been the biggest problem all along, in my opinion. I thought the bankers would bring many resources to support the lack of funds problem, but that hasn't materialized. They've made personal investments to keep things running, but that's about all. The La Jolla funding was believed by some to be bridge financing to keep the company afloat until contracts arrive to provide the needed revenue and funding for further development and testing of the platforms. Again, we wait and we hope. If those expected contracts don't materialize, any additional La Jolla funding will further dilute the existing shares, and if they have the ability to sell into the market, the share price will be adversely affected as well. We need contracts so we can kick these guys to the curb.
I believe the "certain stockholder" is the La Jolla investment group. I don't know why they can't just identify them directly. If that's the case, are we going to have to continue to endure a large holder of shares unloading them similar to what Brio and Hudson Bay have done? I need to revisit the funding agreement, but this seems to indicate they will have free trading shares and will be able to sell at will any shares they receive for providing additional funding.
The La Jolla financing is looking less and less attractive to me at this point. This is another reason I'm concerned that even if the company gets contracts, any increase in share price will be met with large scale selling and will limit the price increase or even drive it back down.
Perhaps you should have stated as much yesterday, instead of letting your response sound like an opinion. If I may ask, do you know Clark personally, or did you get this info directly from him?
I've been playing the Devil's advocate, and yes I know I piss some people off with some of my questions. I don't really care.
If this was planned in advance and the company truly is at the point where a new chairman with Anthony's experience can take us to the next level, I'll be every bit as happy as you and the rest of the shareholders are. But with this company I've learned one major lesson: Talk is fine if it makes the shareholders feel all gooey inside about their investment, but results are the only thing that matters. With the structure of this company's issued shares and existing debt, not to mention the possibility of future lawsuits, it will take a significant amount of results for the share price to reach the level of success hoped for.
I would love for the company to prove my concerns moot.
mide, thanks for your recount of events at the SHM. You might be right, and Estrella wasn't a part of the discussions because he wasn't needed. But from what was posted, I interpreted the restrictions being placed on him in order to join the board certainly had something to do with Estrella, so I felt he would have been a part of the discussions.
Thanks also for clearing up the uncertainty over the search for the new chairman. I appreciate you making the effort and posting it here.
BDay, the employment you speak of is President of Fidelity Investments, which was the job he held prior to retiring and later joining Sanswire. The time period listed for that job is Dec 2007 to present (4 years 6 months) as of May 2012. That appears he never surrendered the position at Fidelity at all, and includes the time he was COB for Sanswire/WSGI. Something there doesn't add up. Several of the other jobs listed have overlapping dates. According to this, he was employed at both Fidelity and JPMorgan Chase at the same time for several overlapping years, at Fidelity from 12/06 to 3/10 and at JPMorgan Chase from 1994-2010. How is this explained?
Someone with his background and credentials could probably make one phone call and have his old job back, so I don't think it proves one way or the other that any amount of prior planning would be involved. But I agree with you that Clark did some significant things, like settle the SEC litigation, helped put the company on the radar of others at the Colorado conference, and funded the company directly. I do thank him for his efforts and wish him good health and success in his future endeavors.
If Estrella leaves, I'll wish him the same.
Interesting thoughts, BDay. Of course, many here will likely question your motives, or whether you are stating accurately what you heard from Raymer.
Your recount of events and conversations seems to indicate Raymer wasn't happy with the way things were being run. Raymer, Clark and Phipps head off to a private area, without CEO Estrella, to discuss his concerns. That action alone speaks volumes in my book. Estrella wasn't included. Why not? He's the CEO, the one making the calls, interfaces with potential customers, etc. Why would Raymer not want Estrella included in the private discussion? Why wouldn't Clark insist on having Estrella present, unless there were specific reasons for keeping him out of the loop?
Your theory about the connection between Raymer and Anthony is also reasonable. But if this was something planned and had the support of other board members, the question is was Clark agreeable with it, or was he removed by the 3 board members other than Estrella? We may never know.
I still feel if he left on his own accord with a positive outlook for where Anthony could lead the company, he would have made some sort of closing remarks upon his resignation. Instead, he said nothing. Something about that just doesn't feel right, certainly in light of the opinions that big things are just around the corner. It makes me feel like big things are NOT around the corner, and Clark just wanted to cut his losses and move on.
I hope I'm wrong, because I am a shareholder and I want to make money like everyone else. But being a Mr. Potato Head and removing the eyes and ears to protect oneself from seeing or hearing opposing opinions doesn't offer protection or make the investment work out. It only makes one a fool.
Thanks for your post. It answered a lot of my questions about Raymer's possible motives and outlook toward the company, at least at the point of last year's SHM.
Darn it ligher_than_air, you're blowing the conspiracy theory that I'm somehow tied to the 600K short order. Don't confuse the ignorant with something like FACTS. They ASSume any order for 600K shares MUST be someone dumping or shorting. That's what happens when you spend too much time creating conspiracy theories of evil cabals of shareholders spending their days dumping shares to keep the share price down. I guess they assume there is an endless supply of shares to be able to accomplish this... but at the same time they state that Raymer isn't selling. I still haven't figured out how this could work unless someone held many millions of shares so they could systematically sell off over the long haul. Mr Potato Head even posted to me that me and my buddies would run out of shares soon. Gotta say that made me LMAO that anyone could be so clueless and acting out of desperation over the share price being in the toilet. For all we know, that broker from Jersey has changed his attitude and is dumping his shares.
So much confidence by some shareholders here to never consider that someone might want to BUY 600K shares, especially since they seem convinced major contracts are just around the corner. They obviously aren't buying, otherwise they would have contemplated someone else might be as well. Truly funny.
As far as Clark dropping a bomb, I think I've explained my reasoning enough to warrant such a possibility. I would really like to know if Anthony has any connections to anyone already with the company, either as a director, officer or employee. Might shed some light on things. Anyone know of any connection?
I'm here because I'm a shareholder who has become more and more disappointed with the direction of this investment. I was stupid for investing based on the reputation of Clark and Estrella and what I thought they would bring to the company. I'm still holding shares for now, but having some thoughts about selling out.
It's clear this board is mainly for those who only have a positive outlook. Anyone not wearing rose-colored glasses is accused of being an insider or involved in some conspiracy to keep the share price down. If my posts anger you, which is understandable when someone won't drink the company kool-aid, too bad.
Overadollar, I'm not an insider. I'm not a former insider. I don't communicate with current or former insiders. You have it in writing here. One day when someone tries to subpoena me after I'm accused of being involved in destroying this company, you'll have this post to point the courts to. I believe our court system allows those being accused of crimes to face their accusers in person.
I don't know anything about 600K shares shorted on level 2, nor any knowledge of who might be doing it. I am getting tired of being implicated by a certain Mr. Potato Head who clearly doesn't have a clue and is dreaming up visions of conspiracy and evil cabals to explain management's failure to move the share price. Blame it on the old regime or anyone who has any doubts about management's ability to execute a plan to success.
I think I'd have the same reaction over someone repeatedly and publicly accusing me of trying to break into their house. After a while it becomes more than an annoyance. I guess that's what some people resort to when they can hide behind their keyboards and make accusations they wouldn't dare make to someone to their face.
I mention the Jersey broker only because it was discussed here numerous times, back around the time of the last SHM and more recently by other posters. Yes, I also read that Raymer made a statement showing support. But at the time it was also stated here he was trying to get on the board of directors. Would you expect him to say anything different, even if he had issues? Could he have been trying to get on the board to effect changes to how things were being run? It's a valid question. To ASSume he was pleased and happy with them simply because he pronounced his full support at the SHM is naive. It could be either way.
Who's gonna pay for it? Didn't the company state these ground stations would cost $4 to $5 million each? Maybe we can sell another 125 million shares at 4 cents to raise the $5 million. Be sure to award yourselves another 10 million shares each for closing such a sweet deal.
Perhaps we should ask the other board members why an independent chairman was brought on board. It's possible this decision was completely out of Estrella's hands and they didn't want Estrella filling 2 roles.
Sure, Clark may have had every confidence in Estrella as you claim, but perhaps the rest of the board didn't. Clark resigns and Estrella has only 1 vote on a board now consisting of 4 directors. I can imagine how the vote went.
What I'm wondering is if the board found out about Clark's resignation on Friday, leaving them scrambling over the weekend to find a replacement. Who currently in the company had previous ties to the new guy? Or was this something planned weeks in advance? Again, the lack of any comment by the outgoing Clark makes me think this was a bomb dropped on the company without warning.
Yes, it will. Maybe as one of the largest shareholders now he will continue to reassure us this company isn't a scam. You know, like we heard some broker from Jersey did last time?
I'm stating my opinion on possible reasons why he left. If you have more concrete facts, by all means share them, and your source. Set the record straight for everyone.
But without anything concrete, your view is as much speculation as anyone else.
I don't see someone of his success and ego leaving at this time without a word if contracts were near. Yes, there could be a dozen reasons... personal health, family matters, canned by the board, focusing his full attention elsewhere, stepping aside for a more capable person to drive the next stage of company development, or tired of funding a company he realizes is going nowhere.
I'm still amazed that no one has questioned discussions of his ego until now, where my viewpoint comes under scrutiny and suspicion, and I'm asked if I know him personally. What about all the other posters who bragged about his ego not allowing him to fail? Do they know him personally? Did you challenge them? No, you didn't, and no one else did either.
I think his departure caught all of you with your pants down, and you're looking for any reason to reassure yourself it was done as Estrella claimed, which I simply don't believe, not without so much as a goodbye from Clark.
Mr. Potato Head,
No, I don't know him personally? Do you?
There's been plenty of chatter here about the ego of investment bankers, particularly the two who came to Sanswire. Their egos have been discussed here many times, usually in statements like "there's no way they will let this fail, their egos and reputations won't allow failure".
I've never seen you or anyone else dispute these discussions. Now you dispute it and use the word "accusation". Where did that come from? Are you upset about something? Pent up anger maybe over Clark hitting the road without so much as a wave and a goodbye?
Daydreaming? You obviously believe this company is on the verge of success. With an ego as large as Clark's, there's no way in hell he would leave the company when he could stand back and bask in the glory of bringing the company to success with the announcement of contracts and significant revenues. No way in hell.
I think the lack of any comment to shareholders on his departure is the most telling. Nada. Zip. Lips sealed. This total silence from a man with the ego of a successful investment banker, on the eve of major contract announcements for the tiny little company he saved from SEC annihilation. Yep, he must be taking one for the team and stepping aside to allow his successor get the credit for all his effort to bring them. Right.
I believe he simply got fed up with having to whip out his checkbook every time the company depleted the cash from the last check he wrote.
That's a more intelligent and accurate guess than your previous one.
What was said at the last SHM shouldn't be relied on. Clark is gone. Estrella could be under a lot more scrutiny under Bocchichio than he was under Clark. For all we know, Estrella will be the next one out the door. If that's the case, don't pay the rest of what is owed under his contract. Give him the same treatment Karen was given and let him have to file a lawsuit against the company for the wages owed.
The big question is... who will be writing the checks to keep the company afloat? Clark obviously had enough. I doubt we're going to see any more funding from La Jolla unless it's accompanied by extreme dilution to shareholders. I'm not convinced the great improvement in GTC revenues they boasted about will amount to more than a fraction of what everyone expects.
How do you explain the VC funding by La Jolla was not at the $1 to $2 per share that you've been barking for well over a year now? I knew that range was fantasy when I first read it. Now we see the reality of the situation with this company. VC firms aren't going to fund the company for shares at 10x the price everyone else, including insiders, are paying for funding the company... not unless they're idiots. I don't care how much experience someone claims they have in the VC arena. You wouldn't invest in a business that offered you 1/10 of the interest rate they were paying other investors. Same thing.
I believe the 3-year employment contract was with Estrella, not Clark. Technically, Clark was never an employee, only a director. Estrella is an employee and receives a salary.
One thing we haven't considered is that Clark may have a recurrence of the health issues that someone suggested was one of the reasons he retired from his previous job. Judging the difference in appearance between his profile photo and his keynote speech at the High Altitude & Near Space conference, the health issue seems to have been real. Maybe something with that flared up again and he had to step down.
Just a thought. Hope that's not the case.
If the board members were frustrated at lack of performance, why is Estrella still around? Why can Clark and not Estrella?
Speaking of the board, is Phipps ever going to fill his 2 board spots? I guess it's hard to find anyone willing to take the positions when there still exists no D&O insurance. That's not likely to change without some significant revenues. It's gotta be frustrating for him. Maybe the new Chairman will shake things up a bit on the board, which until now has been heavily influenced by the investment banker group.
Perhaps another Chairman's Letter to Shareholders will be forthcoming. But since it would likely be edited by the remaining dream team members, I'm not getting my hopes up that it will contain anything new. We'll likely be informed the Argus airship continues to have "interest" and nothing more, whatever that means. If one were to believe the dozens of news releases over the years, every airship ever being developed by the company had lots of "interest" by potential customers, but none of that interest translated into sales or contracts, with the exception of the SkySat purchased by GTC, and that doesn't really count in my book.
3 months until the shareholders meeting. I guess we have to wait and see what unfolds between now and then. I hope our expectations aren't misplaced. 3 months isn't a lot of time for anything to get rolling. If something was already in the works, I feel Clark would have stuck around at least until it was announced, then stepped aside for the new COB to guide the company in the next stage. Share in the credit then make a graceful exit. Not like this, without even a comment in the news release about wishing the company well going forward.
I don't believe Estrella's spin on this. Clark either left in frustration on his own, or was removed by the board. I tend to think he left in frustration and simply wants to put this failure behind him.
I remember seeing some posts relating to this when Tom Seifert left the company. Wouldn't Clark be required to continue to make Form 4 filings for shares sold for a period of 6 months after his departure?
If not, he might find himself being accused of joining the mysterious cabal who are dumping shares to keep the share price in the toilet. The share price that couldn't possibly have anything to do with lack of revenues, debt load, enormous outstanding share balance, or lack of funds to pay employees or anyone else. Much easier to blame it on the cabal, while continuing to view things through the very comfortable and stylish custom-fitted rose-colored glasses worn by some here. LOL
BDay, I share many of your views. I can't help but wonder if the company might be further along if Clark had taken the CEO spot and put his full attention on the company. As CEO he would be much more involved than as COB. Idle speculation at this point, as we are at 4 cents as you stated. Hardly anywhere to go from here but up. We keep hoping things will improve. I hope... I hope... I hope. Getting kinda old, but the only other choice is sell the shares, move on, and admit defeat.
Let's be fair. Wasn't it the previous regime who recruited Clark and brought him on board for the purpose of settling the SEC litigation?
Regardless of your view or the SEC's view of the previous regime, Clark didn't come to WSGI on his own accord. He was recruited by them. I agree they couldn't accomplish the settlement on their own, but give credit where credit is due. You paint this as solely Clark's effort, as though one day he woke up and decided to tackle the SEC issue with this little piss-ant of a company he previously knew nothing about.
Gotcha, to be fair, Clark did orchestrate the SEC settlement and put up his own funds to do so. At least that should have been mentioned in the press release for his accomplishments.
I'm sure Clark will continue to do well in the areas of his expertise. Leading a micro-cap company to success was obviously not one of his areas of expertise, and I fear it's not one of Estrella's either.
I suppose whoever would agree to step into this position would have been brought up to speed on the status of Argus testing or GTC ground station contracts in the works. One could assume there were positive developments in either or both areas based on him agreeing to take the position. But if there were positive developments, why would Clark step down at all? Wouldn't his ego keep him there to take credit for those developments?
I wonder if this is less of a strategic move and more one of having no other choice. Mr. Bocchichio seems like the right kind of guy to take the company forward, but as you pointed out BDay, shareholders have felt this way before. I sincerely hope the move was based on it being the right time as Estrella stated, and the testing has reached a point where contracts are on the horizon, and this is not an "Oh Sh*t!" moment because the COB decides to end the pain and put this all behind him.
One foot out the door... my thoughts exactly, Gotcha. I wonder how long the retention bonus keeps them there. At least through the shareholders meeting, wouldn't you think?
Nice spin by Estrella... "our Board of Directors and management team felt the timing was perfect to bring in an experienced executive like Mr. Bocchichio to help lead our Company at this exciting time."
Seriously? The timing is ALWAYS perfect when your Chairman announces his intention to resign.
I'm sure this move has more than a few of the rose-colored glasses-wearing shareholders scratching their heads.
Funny comment on the Jersey stockbroker, made me laugh.
bearslayer, you were right. Clark knew more than us and wasn't worried about facing angry shareholders at the shareholders meeting. Resigning certainly takes care of that concern, doesn't it?
Now only Estrella and Johnson have to worry about it. Now I understand the awarding of the retention bonus. Clark's impending departure would present the perfect opportunity for them to demand more shares from the Board of Directors.
We can only hope Mr. Bocchichio will focus his attention on WSGI and not be distracted with his numerous other ventures, as Clark did. Personally, I'm happy we have one less investment banker in the mix.
bearslayre, I will be more than excited if you are correct and I make money on my investment. Whether the company is turning or has turned the corner remains to be seen, yet you speak as though it's already happened. Show me the revenues, show me the contracts, not more empty promises of Nasdaq, share dilution and compensation that is totally out of whack for a company in this position.
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but when you make accusations that involve me and then won't provide an explanation of what you believe is happening, who is the one looking like the clown? Tell us what you're talking about, or shut the hell up about it.
Mt bigsky, I'm simply asking for an explanation since this poster has made this claim several times and implied I was somehow involved in manipulating the share price. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how this poster believes this is being accomplished.
I think it's more likely just trying to blame anyone other than current management for the crappy share price.
Unless some mysterious group of nefarious individuals continue to hold the share price down, right?
And if the share price isn't dramatically higher, this mysterious force will still be blamed, or will full credit be given to management's failure?
Still waiting for you to explain your previous claims about how the stock is being held down. Please, inquiring minds really do want to know.
I see you're going to continue to skirt my question to explain how the WSGI share price is being held down by some mysterious group. You've made this claim several times, yet you never follow through with an explanation when pressed. What are you afraid of?
If you're not going to explain yourself, how about just keeping such pot-shot theories to yourself? Especially when they involve me, someone you have no clue about.
Sure, we can make a gentleman's bet, but if WSGI hasn't turned the corner by say, the end of the year, I doubt I'll remain an investor. I don't usually hold an investment beyond 2 years if the initial reasons I got into the stock aren't being realized. There are lots of other promising investments to choose from.
DEAC may not succeed, but I believe it has a better chance than WSGI. Starting out with only $80K in debt and 1/5 of the shares issued as WSGI, existing patents on the technology, and cost of raw material feedstock near zero, in my opinion, gives them a better chance of success. WSGI still has a ton of issues to deal with... the debt, numerous lawsuits, and approaching half a billion shares issued.
As with all investments, time will tell.
Oh yes, the famous "you don't have a profit if you haven't sold" argument. You seem to have missed the part where I plan to hold the shares for 2 years. What do I care what the daily volume is at this point?
Given the choice of being up 5 times my initial investment on a promising technology moving into commercialization, or having another promising investment moving into commercialization worth 1/5 of my initial investment, I'll take the former.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the WSGI share price is being held down. Please enlighten us.
I predict that unless there is a significant event happening between now and the meeting (sizable contract, government R&D funding, etc), the meeting will be cancelled. The reasons we'll be told are lack of shareholder interest and cost savings to the company. Shareholders will be encouraged to submit their proxy votes and results will be tallied and reported.
Estrella and Johnson have earned $1,445,577 and $740,441 total compensation as reported in the latest filing. Considering the continued decline in share price since their arrival and continuing to leave shareholders in the dark as to the status of the Argus platform, is this fair and deserved compensation for less than 2 years of work?
Maybe there will be another retention bonus around the time of the shareholders meeting. Toilet paper in the restrooms will be replaced by rolls of company shares, which will be cheaper than toilet paper at that point. This company is all about cost cutting, after all.
I bought into this pipe dream when the new management took the reins. So far this investment has been a big disappointment. When I heard of that stockbroker at last years meeting assuring shareholders this wasn't a scam, I should have seen that as a clear warning sign and sold off my position. Why would someone do that? Words of Richard Nixon proclaiming, "I am not a crook" come to mind.
Maybe I'm being unfair. I know Clark and Estrella have both made personal investments in this company. I realize much of their compensation is in the form of stock and stock options. That sounds good, but means very little to me as an investor when the share price continues to trade around 4 cents. I really hope they have a plan that is working, and contracts are forthcoming. Until I see results, I will continue my skepticism. Sorry if that ruffles someone's feathers here.
That's right, no worries... enough shares remaining in the authorized to float along at least another year until the 2013 shareholders meeting, when the increase in authorized to one billion shares will be the major item on the proxy statement, and they'll once again talk of getting on Nasdaq with no reverse split. Shareholders will be tripping over themselves giving praise to this wonderful management team. Maybe the share price will be up to a nickel by then.
No worries, indeed.
This year's SHM will be BYOW.
(bring your own water)
The money previously allocated for the water will be reallocated for extra security guards to handle the anticipated increase in angry shareholders.
Unless, of course, something major is announced between now and then and the share price responds accordingly.
An increasing number of shareholders want to see results, not more rosy promises of where they intend to take the company. JMHO
I don't remember seeing any post claiming Maguire sold out. It was pointed out that based on company filings his shares held had dropped from around 56-58 million shares to 29 million shares. Some claimed it was due to expiring options or warrants, and I pointed out that those shares are not counted in share ownership in the filings because those shares aren't issued until the warrant or option is exercised. However, with the statement in the current filing that the underlying shares related to those warrants and options may be included if exercisable within 60 days of the filing, perhaps those shares were included in the original filing indicating 58 million or so shares, and now aren't included because they have actually expired.
It's unlikely the company will comment on this, even though it is public knowledge due to the filings.
While an intriguing concept, I don't see this as a viable power generation option for a free-flying airship. The article stated this airborne generator is tethered to the ground. In an airship the wind passing through the turbine would push the airship off station. Using additional engine thrust to remain on station would negate any advantage of generating the power in this manner. The airship would consume fuel at a faster rate simply to offset the thrust produced by the turbine.
Remember Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which is why this concept would work only if the airship is tethered to the ground. Perhaps you were thinking of the MTS solution. It might work in that application.
Still, I'm amazed at the things young minds dream up. I hope they are successful in bringing another clean energy option to the world.
You have to consider that materials technology and safety systems today are light years beyond what was available in the Hindenburg era.
We fill our streets with vehicles with tanks filled with highly flammable gasoline, and fill our skies with planes filled with highly flammable jet fuel, yet as a society we still think Hydrogen in airships is a bad idea. Ludicrous! Maybe as our Helium inventory is depleted and it becomes too costly to use as a lift gas, the attitudes will change.
After all, we're already filling most of the airship with fuelgas, which is flammable. Why would using Hydrogen as the lift gas be a problem?
Found this link on one of the other boards.
Karen Verna lawsuit against WSGI filed 4/2/12
The lawsuit is for $5K to $15K. Back wages perhaps? Couldn't they simply pay her in shares? Seems there are plenty of shares available to pay themselves. Or perhaps with the La Jolla money flowing in, she's simply staking her legal claim to get what was owed her.
I'm sure the company will "vigorously" defend itself in this lawsuit, even if her claim is valid.