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 don't believe expansion capability of the material is an issue. The Helium will expand to fill more volume at higher altitudes as the airship rises. The ballonets containing the Helium only need to be flexible, not stretchable. The ballonets will only be partially inflated at ground level, allowing for expansion as the airship rises in altitude.
The typical mylar balloon doesn't really stretch, although it does expand during filling, becoming very firm and tight as more gas is pumped in, compared to your typical rubber balloon which expands from a smaller to larger size because the material stretches.
I haven't forgotten GTC, but the revenues announced to date are paltry. Perhaps that will change now that GTC has a reliable network of next-generation Globalstar birds. But talking about expected revenue growth and actually seeing it are two different animals. And with the enormous number of shares issued, it will take a great deal of revenue to move the share price significantly, in my opinion.
There are 440 million shares issued as per the latest filing. It will take a ton of revenue to move this stock.
I'll be very happy if I'm proven wrong and the stock soars, but I think at this point that is fantasyland.
I will reserve opinion on current management's stupidity until I see results that move the share price to a sustained level much higher than when they took office.
If they don't succeed, I'm pretty confident all the blame will be placed squarely on the shoulders of previous regimes by both management and many shareholders posting here. After all, how could these Wall Street investment bankers possibly fail at anything they attempt? It certainly couldn't be because they got involved in something they know nothing about... airships or OTCBB stock... could it?
That's not a very comforting thought, that government officials may have the Argus and we won't get it back until they are good and ready to let it go. Considering how well the government runs everything else they are involved in, we might as well hang it up and watch this company dissolve into nothing... while we wait for the government to figure out what it is they want to do... certainly not a comforting thought in my mind. In a couple of years, they may decide to give us a contract.... problem is, there won't be any company around by then to award it to.
mide has already made the call and reported back. All I did was point out the obvious. There's no reason to think I would get a different answer. I agree with you that from the observed daily volume, most or all of their selling is probably behind us. I don't see the problem with the company clarifying this for us, but then I'm not an expert on the legal ramifications. I simply don't believe the reason they gave in light of their weekly updates. I'm not loosing sleep over it, but just wanted to make it a topic of discussion while we wait for an update on the airship or ground station contracts.
Agreed, but my holdings aren't a matter of public record, and my sales aren't required by the courts to be reported to the company to ensure selling is done in a controlled manner for the benefit of the remaining shareholders. Brio's and Hudson Bay's holdings are.
Based on some posts made here on this topic in the past, it appeared the company had no problem revealing this info to some shareholders who asked, yet now they claim they don't have access to that info. Why not just state they aren't allowed to reveal the info if that is the case? They clearly have access to the info if the firms are compling with the requirements of the settlement.
The company doesn't have access to the information? Didn't the courts required Brio and Hudson Bay to make weekly reports to the company disclosing the shares sold during the preceeding week?
This is from the 8K for the Hudson Bay. I didn't check the one from Brio, but if I remember correctly the reporting terms are the same.
6. Sales Reports; Violations of Sales Restrictions. Hudson Bay, with respect to the Hudson Bay Fund Shares and the Hudson Bay Master Fund Shares, and other than with respect to Private Sales, shall deliver to WSGI weekly reports on each Monday (unless that day is a federal holiday, in which case the delivery shall be made the following day), by 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time, by email delivery to Barbara M. Johnson, at bjohnson@wsgi.com, identifying the number of shares of common stock of WSGI sold by Hudson Bay on each trading day during the preceding week. In the event that Hudson Bay’s sales on a particular date or dates exceeds the sales volume limitations set forth in paragraph 5 above, then Hudson Bay shall immediately disgorge to WSGI all of Hudson Bay’s profits with respect to any amount(s) above the foregoing sales volume limitations relating to the Hudson Bay Fund Shares and the Hudson Bay Master Fund Shares.
http://ir.stockpr.com/wsgi/sec-filings?form_type=8-K#document-17243-0001144204-11-031218
We know how many shares both firms were awarded in the lawsuit. How can the company not know whether or not each has sold out of the awarded shares? Did they not care enough to track this?
mide, I know you're just the messenger, but their response doesn't make sense given what we already know of the reporting requirements. But thanks for checking.
Here's a question that's sure to upset some, but has been on my mind since the latest Form 4 filing.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919742/000151239412000010/xslF345X03/primary_doc.xml
Why would Glenn Estrella need to be awarded a retention bonus of 1.5 million shares if he already has a 3-year contract as CEO and has more than a year remaining on that contract?
Anyone care to share their thoughts?
Since when is he considered an insider? He was never brought on the board.
I hope you are correct about the Brio and Hudson Bay shares. Any way to confirm this with the company? Will they tell us if this is the case?
mide, you may be right and Maguire's reported share count was inaccurate in the earlier filings. I guess we'll never know for sure unless we see further reductions in subsequent filings. But I feel confident it's not because of expiring warrants or options. To my knowledge, Clark and Estrella's filings only include the actual shares owned, not their warrant shares included as part of their purchase agreements.
I speculated before about the possiblity of selling a large block to someone outside the usual brokerages, perhaps another shareholder, or possibly directly to a market maker at a specified price for the lot. Could this be done without the volume showing up in the daily volume we all watch? Certainly shares can be bought in transactions that don't show up this way, as in private purchases directly from the company, so I assume selling could occur in a similar manner and be "off the radar". Just because the share volume between the reporting periods doesn't support the selling of 29 million shares doesn't necessarily mean those shares weren't sold, in my mind.
Anyone here know the guy well enough to ask? (not that it's any of our business)
Doing what for who, Maguire?
I fail to understand what you're referring to from the post you referenced, or how I might even be involved.
I also detect a hint of anger in your post, possibly because Maguire is selling out of his position? Why should that anger you? He has every right to sell if that's what he's doing, just like any other shareholder. He probably sees things differently than you do.
If you believe the company will succeed, you could be buying the shares very cheaply. Are you doing that, or simply content to attack anyone with an opposing viewpoint?
Involved in the company as a shareholder, or in some other manner?
I have no idea. I don't know him except for what I've read here and in the filings. I wasn't a shareholder when those deals were made.
Options or warrants give the holder the right to purchase shares at a specific price. These shares would be purchased from and issued by the company. Since the shares are not issued until the option or warrant is exercised, the shares are not included in outstanding share count, although the company did report the total number of shares that "would be" issued if all existing warrants and options were exercised, when they were trying to convince shareholders to vote to increase the shares authorized to 750 million shares.
The number of shares issued reported by the company would not include options and warrants that were not yet exercised. However, the number of shares held by an individual and reported to the SEC may include the number of options/warrants they hold. I'm not sure of the specifics on that matter, so perhaps someone who communicates with the company regularly can ask for some clarification.
See my previous post on this topic.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71898659
A person or persons are actively holding this stock down for some other reason? What does that mean?
It seems to me the selling pressure of Hudson Bay's 13 million and Brio Capital's 6 million shares would be plenty of cause for the share price to be where it is today. The reduction in holdings of the largest shareholder from 58 million shares to 29 million shares reported in the latest filings suggests he is moving out of his investment as well.
What other reason could there be except these sellers don't share the same vision as some here as to where this company is headed? Anyone else with enough shares to have any effect on the share price would be listed in the filings, wouldn't they?
It was reported here that Raymer Maguire was at the shareholder meeting last year and displayed support for the company. Something must have changed if he's been unloading shares as the filings indicate.
I do agree with the opinions offered that nothing will move the share price except contracts, and significant ones at that. We continue to wait, and wait, and wait. I hope it happens before we all die of old age.
Please explain to us how Clark and crew plan to profit from this if they aren't selling shares.
Don't avoid the question by asking a different question. You started this angle of management profiting from their share positions. Please explain in detail how this will be done.
If they aren't selling shares then they must have another motivation for being there.
A business model is profitable only if there are revenues flowing in which actually generate profits.
GTC lost many of their customers and the associated revenue streams as a result of Globalstar's deteriorating service. The current GTC revenue stream is a small fraction of what it was during the previous 8 years, based on the claims made by the company when GTC was acquired, and the reported GTC revenues since the acquisition.
I don't care how much has been invested in GTC/Globalstar. That does not make it profitable, any more than Clark's reported $2M investment in WSGI makes the company profitable. Certainly the potential is there, and GTC may prove to be profitable again given the return in reliability in Globalstar's new satellite network. But it hasn't happened yet.
The current business model is not currently profitable, and is a far cry from "highly profitable".
Please, give your "Engine of Theft" claim a rest. The SEC attorneys made that statement during the litigation which was aimed at former employees who are all in prison. That litigation against the current company is now settled and behind us.
It's like someone who constantly complains about the Clinton presidency, even though he's been out of office for years. Nobody cares at this point, except you, apparently.
GTC had a profitable business model. When the Globalstar satellites started to fail prematurely, GTC's revenue stream dried up.
I'm hoping that trend reverses now that Globalstar has most of their next generation birds launched. The next 3-4 quarters will reveal if this is the case.
But to claim GTC has a highly profitable business model is ridiculous considering their model is highly dependent on the reliability of Globalstar's network, which is only now starting to recover.
How many shares has he sold thus far? Please point me to the Form 4 filings.
Keep an eye on that for us, will you? Let us know when the selling begins.
Thanks in advance.
If you're implying what I think you're implying, you're way off base. I guarantee you have no idea who I am.
Barbara wasn't sure how much of Hudson Bay shares were left?
How can this be, when the agreement requires Hudson Bay to make weekly reports to the company? This is the only way the company can ensure they are staying within the limitations on selling they agreed to as part of the settlement.
If she doesn't know, what does that say about how well they are following the terms of that agreement?
osu78, to answer your question, I chose TD Ameritrade because their $9.99 flat fee doesn't include limits on number of shares in a transaction.
I looked around and most other online brokers that offer lower commissions also charge 0.02 per share over 1,000 or 5,000 shares. Trades of 10K, 50K, or 100K shares will result in a rather large commissions when these per-share fees are added.
The fee structure may have changed with the other brokers since I joined TDA, but TDA is still $9.99 for unlimited number of shares in a trade.
It pays to read the fine print on the commission schedules.
Pure luck getting in that low, really. Had a buy order in for a couple of months. Never thought it would execute, but the price tanked for a few days and the order executed.
Probably should have sold at 0.30 for a 10 bagger, but want to see how far this might go. The company looks promising. The question is can they market their franchises successfully. We'll have to wait and see. Might pull my initial investment out and let the "free" shares ride for a year or two.
Good luck to you.
Twice in the last month? I only see a single filing of the 13D. The only other 13D filings I see are from Phipps back in 2009 and 2010.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000919742&type=sc+13d&dateb=&owner=include&count=40
I didn't know much about 13D filings, but found this on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule_13D
Schedule 13D is an SEC filing that must be submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission within 10 days, by anyone who acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of any class of publicly-traded securities in a public company. A filer must promptly update its Schedule 13D filing to reflect any material change in the facts disclosed, including, among other things, the acquisition or disposition of 1% or more of the class of securities that are the subject of the filing.
13D filings allow the investing public to see who a public company's large shareholders are and, perhaps more importantly, why they have an interest in the company. These filings may be a precursor to hostile takeovers, company breakups, and other "change of control" events.
I have no idea why the 13D wasn't previously filed. Perhaps it had something to do with registration or restriction terms of his shares, or it could be the current management continuing to correct omissions from the past. Didn't they issue a number of filings to correct past oversights shortly after they came on board? I believe there were a number of late filings for shares held by former CEO Christian and others. Perhaps this filing is nothing more than correcting past filing omissions. But it does appear he holds far fewer shares than was reported last year in the company filings. We'll probably never know the reason. Is anyone here in touch with him who could ask? He probably wouldn't answer, but stranger things have happened.
You got it.
Invested a tidy sum, which is up 800% in a few months.
Check out the company web site and read where they plan to take this company in 2012. I feel it can reach $1 per share later this year, if the roll out of the new business plan is done right and gathers attention of new investors. Could be a fun ride. My sell order is in place at $1.
www.dynamicpetro.com
So far this has turned out to be a good investment for me. Looks like there's going to be a new Mercedes paid for with cash in my 2012.
I look forward to seeing how their business plan rolls out and what that does to the share price.
I would like to hear an explanation of how you think management awards themselves free shares and how they are profiting from doing so.
I haven't seen any filings for any shares sold by management since taking their positions in the company. Mide pointed out the personal investments made by Clark. According to the filings, Estrella also has invested his own money.
Your assertion is seriously flawed.
Perhaps, bankinonit. I don't know the specifics of why or even if he was required to publicly file his holdings. But the fact that he was clearly the largest shareholder in the company, and his reported desire to become a director (which hasn't happened... for whatever reason), steers me in the direction his outlook has changed and he's moving on.
Why would the largest shareholder reduce their voting power if they were intent on sticking around?
Sheer speculation on my part, but that's my view.
Thanks. If he has decided to move on, I guess he has his reasons, and I wish him the best.
Hopefully he found a way to reduce his share position through private placements instead of selling into the market, unlike what Hudson and Brio seem to be doing.
I would guess his holdings in WSGI were a drop in the bucket in comparison to his overall wealth and holdings in other companies. How many extremely wealthy people hold shares in a penny stock company? This could simply be a move to eliminate this position as part of overall portfolio restructuring and have nothing to do with what we've speculated here as to his motives.
The company has lacked the resources to purchase D&O insurance, but with the new funding and the announced goal of adding more directors in 2012, that's likely one obstacle to be removed and garner more interest in becoming a director.
Mind if I ask how you know this? Perhaps you spoke with RM at the SHM?
It seems I am no longer limited to 3 posts per day.
bank, this begs the question... why would the largest shareholder be unloading shares? The filings tell us this is almost certainly the case. It is hard to imagine an error of that magnitude in the filings.
It was reported here that Mr. Maguire was praising management at the SHM, but I was a wee bit skeptical of that report. After all, it was also reported he was trying to become a director at the time. Since that hasn't happened, perhaps his outlook has changed and he is moving on. If he had issues with management, airing them at the SHM in front of shareholders wouldn't be a smart move if he was a director candidate. Better to do that after becoming a director, so naturally one would expect him to show full support at the SHM. Perhaps it was his issues with the company that kept him from getting the approval he sought.
That begs another question... why wouldn't management want him as a director? He seems to have deep pockets (a great source of funding), and well established business and political connections that would seem to only benefit the company. It was also reported he was one of those primarily involved with setting up the relationship with Space Florida, something that was already in the works prior to the arrival of the current management team.
In light of the positive news recently, I still have to wonder why the largest shareholder would be reducing his position. We will have to rely on future filings to know if his share reduction continues.
I apologize for the long post, but I am limited to 3 posts per day. It's good to see the increased volume and the share price rising. Yet I remain skeptical. Talk is one thing. Results are something else. Much of my skepticism will be removed when I see research funding or contracts for airships, or a substantial increase in revenue and business from the GTC subsidiary.
Sorry, I don't buy your explanation that the decrease in shares held by Mr. Maguire is due to warrants expiring. Warrants give the investor the right to purchase shares at a specific price until some specified future date. Warrant shares are not included in ownership filings until the warrants are actually exercised and the shares issued to the investor, just as the warrant shares are not included in the total reported outstanding share count until they are exercised.
Perhaps Mr. Maguire decided to reduce his share position for other reasons. Wasn't he trying to get on the board of this company for some time? Since that hasn't occurred, his sentiments toward the company may have changed.
Would it be possible to unload a large number of shares at a set price through a private transaction with another investor or market maker so that the transactions don't show up in the public trading volume or adversely affect the share price?
I'm tossing out possibilities here. I don't believe that expiration of warrants is valid for why his share count dropped so dramatically. Clark's and Estrella's reported share figures don't include the shares related to the warrants they hold, at least when I add up their holdings related to their awards and direct fundings.
Oh, and since I'm limited to only 3 posts a day... my name is not Rob, or Robert. I posted a news release on another board about 4 hours after it hit the wires, and as a result someone lacking in reasoning ability claims they know me.
LOL. I am certainly not GE or anyone involved with the company in any manner other than as an investor.
I mentioned CIA because of GTC and what is generally believed to be their prior and possibly current involvement. Eastcor Engineering is another partner likely to have CIA involvement. Since our target market is surveillance, it seems reasonable that any successful testing of the airship might involve some connection to the CIA given our ownership/relationship with these entities. But you're right, it would likely never be made public if it did exist.
Chairman's Letter to Shareholders released
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dynamic-Energy-Alliance-pz-84657520.html?x=0
Dear Fellow Shareholders:
I became Chairman of our Company last year to capitalize on the opportunities available in recoverable products and energy generation. My background in systems integration, finance, strategic marketing and more than 30 years delivering innovation has certainly been utilized this past year as we've built the relationships, lined up the resources and merged the talent necessary to implement our goal of developing Pyrol-Black Energy Campuses(TM), being designed to transform millions of discarded tires into the high-demand commodities of oil, gas and carbon black.
A positive by-product of turning these tires into marketable and desired products will be a cleaner environment for all of us. To properly prepare for this mission, we cleaned up our own internal environment. We disposed of the perennially unprofitable and debt-laden predecessor business. We converted more than $1,500,000 in debt to equity, turning creditors into shareholders. We adopted a new name reflecting our new focus, changed our trading symbol to DEAC and affected a 3:1 split in December of last year. We entered 2012 with substantially less debt, and a true alliance of dedicated management, shareholders, engineering and finance resources who share the vision to develop plants which can recover valuable commodities from what our society throws away.
A key component of our business model is a technology called "pyrolysis." In this process, chemical decomposition of condensed substances occurs by heating material at temperatures high enough to produce light hydrocarbons and char. This is the same process that produces oil and conventional diesel fuel. A resulting substance called Pyrolytic Oil, or Bio-Oil, can be made into transportation fuels, plastics, and other products.
The specific pyrolysis technology underscoring our plans is the result of over ten years of research and development. It's in practice now on a small scale, and turns one standard-sized tire into approximately one gallon of oil, high-BTU gas, recovered steel and seven pounds of carbon black, an elemental carbon powder used in rubber and pigment production. Furthermore, it does so with about 90% less greenhouse gas emission over other tire processing systems. We anticipate our first campus' initial capacity could process over 500,000 tires a year. The most commonly sold tire size in the US is the P225/60R16, weighing about 20 lbs. With approximately 100 tires per ton, the initial plant could yield up to 15,000 barrels of oil and almost 4,000,000 pounds of carbon black per year, as well as substantial amounts of high-BTU gas and recovered steel. There are large markets for these products, and large quantities of tires (feedstock) for our operations.
Locating feedstock is simple; tire dumps and landfills seem to be everywhere. You may even have read the same news story I did last November about a South Carolina tire dump that was visible from space! We throw away about 300 million tires per year in the US, or one for approximately every person. Think of how many decades we've been driving, how much we love our vehicles and how that's not likely not to change, and you can probably picture the amount of existing and future feedstock available to our Company. We've identified sources of feedstock that are plentiful and ours for the asking.
My team and I have spent the better part of a year developing our business plan for operating Pyrol-Black Energy Campuses(TM). In support of that, we've crisscrossed the country many times to bring the smartest engineering resources together with the appropriate financial resources to implement our plan, as well as marketing, distribution and logistics talent. I'm always encouraged by the level of interest in our plans from parties, both here and abroad, who want to discuss possible licensing or joint ventures, as we expect our campuses, once developed, to be easily replicable worldwide. But, one step at a time.
We believe that, in the near future, our vision will become reality. In addition to dedicating my time and effort, I've dedicated my own money to Dynamic Energy Alliance Corporation because I believe in the vision and our team's ability to deliver on the promise this important pyrolysis technology holds. I'm not just a Chairman; I'm a shareholder, and I'm confident we can bring together the right intellectual, physical and human assets to create long-term value for the Company and its shareholders, as well as long-term benefits for society.
I look forward to reporting further on our efforts and results to you as we continue to move forward.
Thank you,
Charles R. Cronin, Jr.
Chairman
Dynamic Energy Alliance Corporation
Comparing apples to oranges...
To do a proper analysis, one would need to compare terms of those individual financings with the WSGI financing terms, the potential those companies offered in regard to existing or future product sales or contracts, quality of management, etc. Sure, those companies were small startups like us, but unlikely to offer the potential customer base (DoD, FEMA, DHS, CIA) that WSGI has. Recycled electronic boards? RFID chips? Really?
WSGI's funding agreement seems to have plenty of protections against death spiral financing that may have contributed to the downfall of these other companies. But one also has to wonder if our execs understand the penny stock world they exist in. All of their prior experience appears to be involving companies on major exchanges, and that could be a liability in inking funding agreements with firms such as La Jolla, who seem to have lots of experience in the penny stock arena.
At this point, it's nothing but FUD. Much like the $200K funding where the terms stated that ALL the assets of the company were used as collateral. Some claimed that Joe DiMauro would own the company as a result, yet the company paid that note within a few months of issue.
It will be interesting to see how good or bad this financing deal really is. Will the execs utilize this much needed lifeline for growing the business, or will they simply pay salaries and bonuses? Time will tell.
$17M of sales from GTC in the pipeline?
Makes me think...
mmmmmh!
or
OOPS!
"unless you know what the restrictions are..."
Really, CT? Are you aware that Regulation D restrictions are legal requirements set in law that can't be modified by the company?
The regulations are established to prevent exactly what you are proposing by those making the investment, and are designed to protect existing shareholders.
Based on your post, it seems you have never read the Regulation D restrictions. Perhaps you should before making another post on this topic.
Thanks