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.
Thanks much globalworker! You helped put the quarter in a promising perspective.
Vandham (VNDM) shorting again today to take us below .02. IMO Most likely on behalf of LJC or in complicity. Time for the company to move against them.. All in my opinion..
Well I'm not for added dilution but I think your comparison of Huff (a common thug) and Glenn Estrella is entirely off base. He has and is delivering real contracts and real products. Let this LTA acquisition unfold. Yes the LJC funding is lousy but guess what?
That funding is still a reflection of a sucking wind company with SEC overhang and accumulated debt that the same common thug managed to leave future management. I'm enthused to see 1st and 2nd quarters with LTA revenues included.
You can always sell out or vote your shares against current management and share increases. I will vote for Glenn and an increase with the hope that added revenues will get LJC behind us. GE has delivered the first real DOD contacts this company has ever seen and I suspect this is just the beginning of a far brighter future. I feel badly for those that have not averaged down however they can thank Huff and past management for the long haul this has been. Perhaps you could have done better Mad? I mean foregoing salary and income for a couple years is what every good CEO does right?
Excellent post tend to agree with last paragraph sentiments.
I agree be real probably with use of a Bloomberg "machine" terminal. I do think the company cares however the expense to litigate and/or hire an accountant specializing in this type of investigation is quite high and my guess prohibitive currently.
I feel they will market the stock to new potential investors when they think their feet are firmly planted in sustaining revenues. It is frustrating but a price we pay for desperate financing that was needed last year to bridge us this far.
The dilution has become an issue and most of it is directly involved with this disastrous funding. My take is that management have awareness and concern for their shareholders and will take steps to help solve the funding debacle. All in my opinion only.
IMO the problem is still the horrible funding with LJC. Certainly the company is not actively taking dollars but the MO of LJC is still to keep the lowest conversion price they can attain. To do so requires them to go out on a limb and short which violates their contract. They have a consortium of "friends" that aid and enable. They sold out their last shares at some .015 and are now shorting to prevent the stock from taking off. We can only hope this lowly little funding group eventually takes in the rear from a timely contract or two. I highly doubt they have paid any attention to the company or its progress. I do think they will likely be caught short. all in my honest opinion
Don't know the value of the two contracts but will be part of the q.
We are booking their revenue that is why the last two releases were significant. That is our revenue.
Agree entirely Bearslayer, LJC shorts this when they run out of shares to manipulate and hold the price. IMO The shorting is blatant and easy to discern via Level 2. Who else would be motivated at these levels? This pattern has been ongoing for some time. As you are aware there are a specific group of MMs they are utilizing. I do agree that management should direct attention and efforts to protect itself and shareholders. Hopefully soon..
all in my opinion
Agreed strong considerations of voting no unless there is a plan in place to get rid of LJC and secure a free trading stock and reasonable funding. Will need to think about this one.
My understanding is they are not presently taking LJC monthly tranches and are only doing the floor minimum conversion. I do think some of the private placement offering is still open though not sure and if so how much. It would be best to check with the company if interested as this is just my opinion and understanding.
Agreed on contracts and hopefully no LJC participation in any share rise as their MO is to sell their shares abruptly upon reciept. All in my opinion
Yes I can confirm that funding Warp. Not sure how much remains open presently.
Agreed Warp I think the company is just doing the minimum with them installing the floor meaning they are getting free shares essentially per contract. I also agree that LJC is unlikely to accept the terms the company is currently seeking for their first refusal. They are a scab funding group where imo their mm's preshort illegally.
Hopefully a settlement arrangement can be had in the very near future, in the meantime contracts solve the issues best. I doubt ljc even follows company progress.
All in my opinion
Hi Be, I believe LJC is shorting here to hold the price and keep it low for their more substantial free conversion shares. I don't think they have any real shares left but are pre-shorting their anticipated conversion shares. I don't even think the company is currently utilizing them for funding at all. Unfortunately this is just the MO with this scab fund. Shorting is clearly in violation of their contract afterall. IMO
Indy your experience, intelligence and vast knowledge have been a wonderful addition to this board. Much appreciated from this hopeful investor. Thanks for being so diplomatic as well.
They had the opportunity to play their investment differently. They could have retained a portion of their shares and participated in the company's growth. Now they will have little shares going forward. That is their choice and their unfortunate MO..
Obviously they likely expressed themselves otherwise at the time of the funding. In the end they were an expensive bridge to contracts but gave believers a good opportunity to buy cheap shares.
Again you were wrong Acumen. No acceleration under a penny (remember how Coastie had to concede that fact?) and the company can refuse funding instilling the floor. So no to death spiral however I have always maintained it is a lousy funding with a group that could care less about the company. That funding has created a horrible share price amidst too much dilution. It is easy to see the share price between .05 and .10 if LJC were gone. The good news is they are not likely to be involved heavily going forward as contracts materialize and viable funding alternatives are found.
ha Acumen as usual you are wrong.. Perhaps dependence on Coastie's internet search skill is creating a hole in your conspiracy material? A little more DD is in order to prepare your shorting strategy. lol.
Thanks Ren agreed, Cole is quite deserving of a defamation suit.
Yeah wow missed by 15 days disappointment abounds.
Agreed in the sense that GTC could pledge assets. However as a subsidiary WSGI debts are joined at the hip. You are right about ground stations however a clear path to their purchase and financing certainly helps WSGI.
Thanks Be, yes you are in the right sphere. Early severing of the LJC agreement may be essential here or they live with the perimeters of additional funding by turning down their first rights of refusal in which case they are rendered rather impotent. Their MO does not fit a revenue based company anyway. No definite idea of the shares they have left but whatever they are selling is against low liquidity and buying pressure. IMO they have aggressively destroyed liquidity in this stock anyway. We know the market makers they use and their patterns so most of us would rather not aid them. All In my opinion only...
WW most probably has the right idea here of a fixed interest rate loan both short term and longer term via private placement. Not sure what other incentives might need to be thrown in, but certainly appears workable.
Great post, I have a similar opinion of Glenn. Replacing LJC with a private placement or other investment house vehicle is our first priority. The currency of this stock is a direct reflection of that funding not the faith of long term shareholders nor the business progression of WSGI. Now the question is with the cards laid out on the table can we attract an investment house that wants to be in on real company growth and expansion or do we simply need to bridge via private placement towards larger contracts?
Thanks Be, IMO its a matter of putting your cards on the table with a 2nd tier investment house and discussing after an appropriate NDA existing negotiations, perspective, business plan and estimated contracts and revenue enhancements. Potential for grants and subsidies. What debt on the books is negotiable for settlement, litigation and write offs. I have no doubt that Glenn and company are aware that LJC has destroyed the share price and therefore the stock currency. LJC is a quick claim loan shark with no vested interest in the company. Unfortunately people tired of pulling out their wallets at every stop and we ended up with desperation funding to get here.
A real business plan of revenue increases and continued balance sheet improvement may interest a firm at this point to take a position and short term fund our manufacturing. Otherwise we may need a private placement to bridge us similarly. It all comes down to what the company can substantiate for continued and growing revenues as well as debt clearance. IMO
I think we can thank Glenn and Dan for the present contract and the emergence of the BIB.
Unfortunately it will take buying out the remainder of LJC shares and urging management to replace the funding. They don't hold shares just sell and we don't have the liquidity or buying interest to overcome such pressure readily. I'm sure management realizes that the share price would be between .05 and .10 if we had a funding where the firm wanted to hold shares instead of take the quick profit off their discount.
I am sure they are looking for alternative funding. Finally securing a contract with the government will create an easier dialogue with a real funding investment group. IMO
Its about what the speculation and potentials are Be Real. Of course you and I are not aware of ongoing potentials and options as well as timing. It is reasonable to believe the company has engaged in plenty of discussion and negotiations with the military in that regard. Only funding groups, individuals and firms would have access to that (through non-disclosure agreements) information and none of them would divulge on this site. Let us hope that is happening.
Correct IMO WW.. our share price only reflects La Jolla and their true up provision and lack of liquidity in the stock. Hopefully management is busy finding a suitable replacement that actually wants to own shares. La Jolla could care less if we are obtaining government contracts they are in this for the immediate gain, a quick double or triple. Enough is enough we need new financing and to end this ugly relationship.
Ha good point Nil we might of even had a writeup from SJ?
Well kudos to Glenn and Dan and the rest of management as this is the first contract for airships or aerostats in the history of the company. From conception to contract(s) in one year is worthy of praise!
I think so as La Jolla does not really fit a revenue driven company. Hopefully this is the start of new relationships.
No La Jolla will have to be exorcized for that I'm afraid.
Leave it to GS to imply this is not a big deal wow what a surprise! Sorry GS but the first viable airship-aerostat contract with the military is just that a big deal. No other management ever got this company any contracts all we had was fluff. If the BIB can secure solid interest going forward this can be a base for sustainable revenues. The 600k is not the issue its the initial order and who is purchasing. Congrats should be in order not sarcasm but what else could be expected from GS?
Yes am sure he never desired to use LJC but there were no alternatives. Clark put up his home as collateral or this loan would have not happened either. Guess the alternative which was bankruptcy was your preference?
In any case if contracts now happen the company will survive which likely would not have happened without buying the time to reinvent the company. Remember the complete mess they inherited before you criticize too harshly? We still have a long way to move the stock even with contracts with this massive share base so hopefully believers have averaged down?
I appreciate the work and effort of Glenn and the rest of the team that have put their own time and energy on the line in lieu of salaries to try to make this company sustain. It would have been so much easier if they had just bankrupted it from the beginning and started over. They would have had funding, small shareholder base, little debt and no SEC overhang. I for one am glad they chose to roll the rock up the hill no matter how weighted it had become.
I think we want decent revenues with positive cash flow and solid margin. I have no problem being a ground station oriented business or a BIB oriented business model just bring in the revenues. That is how to get the Argus off the ground. IMO
Right I agree but think we need to realize that selling BIBs in any number initially has the potential of leading to greater contracts. To me even an initial order of one to three units has a very positive chance of becoming larger with continued purchasing. It would just be nice to get these in the hands of the military and commanders and get in the field feedback.
Why would there be a shareholder meeting if they have no revenues? Its now or never IMO 3-4 months max for sustainable revenues or doors closed. I don't see how this survives without revenues. Too much dilution and poor funding arrangements the countdown is now to productivity or turn out the lights. IMO I do believe we get contracts.
Well I invested in GTC contract potentials, Argus and additional airship contract potentials as well as the BIB.. Glad you had some fever kit fun but realistically has nothing to do with this company in its present management or structure.
My guess is the envelope change is a required change via a potential customer through DOD. Whether the envelope will be the same for every client I have no idea. IMO
Agreed I like our prospects currently but we need to see the big picture as well and not simply a few contracts... There is a lot of potential here IMO and a lot of sweat ahead.