IJO, I very much appreciate your enthusiasm and your willingness to dig in the mud. IMO you are a welcomed addition to the collection of respected and respectful posters on this board. I am an eternal optimist and still believe that the company and its intellectual property have a good chance at surviving, what seem to be, incredibly poor odds. I also believe we need to periodically assess where we are in terms of management's stated goals. Realizing that we have little public information to go on, I still feel that we need to do our best to accurately determine our company's progress as best we can. As per Michael Clark's letter to "fellow shareholders" on 2/9/12, I have given my own humbly opinionated grades and explanations in bold following each of his stated plans for the company. And I quote -
In 2012, we plan to:
Adequately capitalize the Company to expand our internal operations especially technical, sales and marketing, and operations personnel.
Grade: D. The company has been able to capitalize its monthly expenses with, what I consider to be, questionable funding from LJ. This does not fulfill the definition of "adaquate" from my point of view. It appears desperate, not at all what I believed management would be able to provide given its experience and circle of associates. Also, the company has not employed an adequate sales and marketing team IMO. This takes more than just Glenn and Anthony and Phipps' seemingly divided interests to catapult sales to a meaningful level of growth and profit. What is needed is a knowledgable, dedicated team of experienced, technologically sound sales people to really put some ducats in the coffers. But, at this point we don't have the resources to train or pay a sales team of that nature. Also, neither technical nor operations personnel have been expanded from what I can see.
Continue the development and commercialization of our Argus One line of airships and demonstrate to our Government sponsors and potential commercial customers the capabilities and cost-effectiveness of the Argus One UAV to drive revenues.
Grade: D. We have not seen any further development or commercialization whatsoever since AZ. The only reason I don't give this grade an F is that the Army has seen the Argus One to its full capabilities - the results to which we are not privy.
Aggressively target and market GTC's tracking and messaging and ground station construction services to potential Government and commercial customers to capitalize on the existing GTC contracts with Globalstar.
Grade: C-. We are left in the dark as to the ground station progress, if any. And, with all of the free airtime from Globalstar, one would think we could be incredibly competitive from a price standpoint and start to win over contracts. However, again, we are understaffed in the sales department. Lost revenue as every day passes, IMO.
Establish a U.S. retail market for GTC's mobile satellite services and products as a way to generate an additional revenue stream.
Grade: C+. OK, we have a website and we have a start. But, this is a HUGE sales opportunity and we are only doing a few hundred K. 'Nuff said.
Expand our relationships with UML and other technical partners to not only support our current LTA UAV product line but also to advance the research, development and testing of our next generation airships.
Grade: F. UML has not taken delivery of the Argus for testing and development and the only technical partner we have is Eastcor. And, God bless Eastcor for what they have done to date. But, they are not "other technical partners". They are our only technical partner.
Continue to develop strategic relationships with partners to advance the marketing and sale of the Company's products and services.
No grade given as "strategic" is too vague for any meaningful discussion.
Strengthen and expand our portfolio of intellectual property.
Grade: B+. Although we haven't heard definitively about patent verifications, the company has made great strides in developing, defining and protecting its intellectual property. Argus hybrid and BIB are both forward thinking IMO.
Continue to execute our strategy to strengthen our balance sheet and fiscal condition through the reduction of debt, resolution of remaining legacy matters and increased capitalization.
Grade: C-. I think that management pissed away shares in its underestimation of the outcome of legal proceedings against the company. To quote Clark, "Despite disappointment in the recent performance of the Company's stock, in large part we believe as a result of certain significant stock issuances the Company was forced to make to resolve legacy issues..." This just tells me they were possibly too confident or cocky or simply over their heads in the matter. Reduction of debt through the elimination of the money owed Kroeplin is the only saving grace here.
Enhance our overall corporate governance structure by, among other things, the appointment to our Board of Directors of qualified independent members who can assist the Company in this next phase of our growth.
Grade: F. Phipps has 2 appointees at his disposal. Where are they? I may be wrong, but didn't the SEC outline this as part of its mandate to the company?
Understanding that the year is not over and we still have a 10Q on the horizon, I give the company an overall grade of D for the year to date. This is certainly not where I expected us to be at this point. I remain an optimist. Despite the lack of apparent progress in the company's goals, I still feel that we will somehow prevail. I wish that somebody could explain why I feel this way.
Continued best wishes and prayers for the company and its shareholders,
bank
AI
