Investor voice. In the past month or so I have been thinking much about what I call investor voice, Madmonks. I am not a pure investor IMO in that my goal of buying shares was not to make money but to become a stakeholder in a company and a technology that I wish to see succeed. So, IMO, I haven't been as aware of the unique role pure investor shareholders have in the company.
My thoughts are that they are (and should be), in essence, a voice for unreasonable performance. Hegelian dialectic has always been useful for me in analyzing social systems. In some ways it is an over simplification because it is binary. In reality, social systems are multi-dimensional with vectors pulling in different directions all producing movement, synthetic movement in another, more balanced direction. These are, most often, at some tension. And should be.
Pure investor shareholders should strongly advocate for at least four things IMO--ethical integrity, revenues, share price and clear corporate strategy. If the first is assured, then investors should question the last (strategy) if revenues and share price aren't there.
I have full confidence in the SEQUENTIAL foxhole to stratosphere WSGI LTA strategy. IMO by the end of the year, assuming marginally adequate funding, it will be clear that it is working and WSGI can stake out a dominant and market diverse role in the largest of those segments--tactical LTA.
I am not as clear on the GTC strategy and I think this discussion and investor voice can do good things about that for all involved. It took Glenn and company two years to get traction on foxhole (tactical LTA) to stratosphere LTA strategy.
But don't miss my major assumption--revenue and SP are not base problems--they are indicators of the real need(s)--clear, contextually appropriate, effective corporate strategy.
NG, LM, the USAF and many others got caught in the autonomous LTA delay--the Argus investment wasn't wasted but it is adjusting to market timing IMO. It actually positions us nicely IMO for the next up-curve of technology and WW sees this I think. Our real test is if we can use the BiB to catch the present up-curve for tethered LTA. Jury is still out on our sales efforts but the product is good IMO. I repeat--the product is good IMO. If you hear no additional BiB sales by the end of year and no admission of product failure by WSGI by August 31 it will be IMO a clear indication that our sales efforts failed even though the product is good.
So where can investor voice be helpful IMO? In this context, strongly advocating for clear GTC strategy and accountability for milestones. The 2012 airship revenues and 2013 airship revenues targets are examples of that. I tend to understand why certain milestones are missed and then reset for the next round. That is because I want the company and the technology to succeed in market penetration. I think we need investor shareholders who keep score and don't reset until strategy and achievements gain closer alignment. These are just some thoughts I have had lately.
LM, NG and WSGI got caught by the autonomous LTA overreach in my opinion. Glenn's pivot to tethered was evidence that he is anything but an idiot IMO. It brought us our first LTA contracts and the LTASCorp acquisition which brought a pipeline of some more LTA revenues(BAE, STMPAS winches, etc.). I personally would like to see what we get if we ask for a clear GTC move ahead business strategy. Just some random opinions and reflection, IJO
