Glad I'm not the only one who notices this reference. "not much hope for WSGI" OR "but not fast enough to save WSGI".
The whole idea that this one portion of the company could "save" it is scary to me, and have posted regular about the lack of interest in GTC for over a year and the risk of relying on one big contract.
If the idea that the legacy debt is the issue I disagree, it is LaJ that is the threat to all of our investments, imo.The legacy debt has been with us for years, and the reason they call it legacy, yet the pps stayed stable, imo.
If the grand plan was to get a contract to satisfy all debt three years ago, my more recent money would have went elsewhere. In smaller companies increasing revenue is king to increasing pps.
What was the rush? To have any contract, regardless of size, for the wasp or bib would have helped WSGI before this "sale".
However someone decided to sell all, regardless of the size of the contract, and excluded the existing shareholders which is plain wrong, imo.
Not to disparage, just think this CEO isn't the right one for the job and will be happy with any change. Not thinking anyone has evil intentions, just uninformed and just doesn't get it, all imo.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
