montanar,
I thought we paid 250K and 25M in shares for LTAS? But I do get the point. Unless one only invested in WSGI with the last few years, you would have bought shares based on the ARGUS and GTC relationship since the BIB only came about recently.
Here is the part that bugs me:
When was the first time we ever heard that our legacy issues could pose a problem with our LTAS relationship? WSGI asked for an increase in authorized shares last year. We all remember that plea through the Letter to Shareholders. What about those private placements that were issued? All along, we continued to deliver the BIB/WASP components as announced and were anticipating the results from NIE as they tested our BIB which was invited back as a baseline system. Now they tell us that there was a problem integrating WSGI and LTAS for the past year due to financial issues? Is this a way of telling us that they landed the big contract that they were anticipating, but now cannot fund the manufacturing piece?
If no contract results from NIE or JIEDDO, selling off LTAS will look like a good move.
If DAC does land a sizable contract, and our DAC shares become a decent sized asset, Glenn might look like a shrewd man. Maybe the only way for LTAS to get the contract is for it to be distanced from WSGI. Better to get something by selling rather than holding onto it and get nothing.
BUT, if DAC becomes bigger than anyone could imagine, AND the reason we could not hold onto it is because of the LJC debacle, the increase in authorized shares, and falling into the pinks, that falls squarely on the shoulders on Glenn and company, IMHO.
I am curious as to who really came first - did WSGI ride on the tails of LTAS or did LTAS get invited to our party and end up walking away with the prize if they do get a contract?
There is a lot that still needs to play out before we can fully evaluate what happened here, but for me, the sting will remain until they can restore some shareholder value and confidence.
