Cuts in Defense spending are bad for the big guys and an opportunity for companies like BORK.
The navy has already announced proposed cuts to vessel procurement and existing vessel maintenance. If your Kryron spray is as good as documented, then why is the spray not fully funded for development by a DARPA contract? BORK could complete the development on USG money and keep the IP rights.
Helmets are another project that should be funded by DARPA.
Upgrading the electric power grid is an announced goal by Obama. A grant from DOE should be funding that effort. Logically one would think that management would take the least resistance path to development of each product. If you are really confident about the wire performance, demonstrate it to the largest power transmission companies you may be able to provide discounts or better yet offer a priority on delivery of product in return for their grant. They have lots of cash. If they think they will get a jump on their competition you might have a deal.
None of the above three products have the competition of body armor. Our opinion is that obtaining DARPA funding on body armor would be more difficult due influences by existing competition.
Why does BORK struggle with development deals half way around the world when they could, with less effort, get funding from DARPA, DOE, and electrical transmission companies?
BORK management must know that there are many fresh retirees from Raytheon who have extensive proposal experience. You might offer compensation with options instead of stock to motivate them. The retirees have their pensions and should not require much cash that does not exist.
Has BORK management provided any public information on their efforts to obtain such grants or funding? It is better for stockholders to seek after the grants for required developmental cash instead of causing stock dilution by selling more stock.
