Replies to post #153905 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[rwehapi2003]

rattle, this is only a guess, but let's assume they got a feeling that there was no large contract coming and it was just going to be an occasional sale of a few units and sustainment equipment for the foreseeable future.

They already changed their WSGI deal from a combination of cash and stock to all stock. Either the cash was not there to give to the Hess's or they were convinced to take more stock in lieu of cash for the good of WSGI and a bigger payoff later. 5 months after the all stock deal, the stock price was in the tank.

Were they getting a paycheck and how much was it to maintain their salaries, contractor expenses, and any employee expenses from both LTAS and Aerial Products?

Where did money that was received from LTAS sales go? Did a portion go toward WSGI expenses and legacy issues? If the LJC court case went against WSGI, how would that affect the distribution of future revenue to the Hess's from their LTAS sales? I think the Hess's were probably getting a bit anxious about their WSGI relationship and how it was affecting the bottom line of the business that THEY had created. I don't think they could or wanted to play the waiting game and risk losing more equity.

It was interesting that the recent sustainment order and also sale to OH did not do much to DRNE in terms of volume and share price. Same reaction as when they were with WSGI - nobody gives it much credibility.

[Madmonks]

Don't get me wrong. I'm as upset about the LTAS sale as anyone. It's hard to believe they put all that supposedly hard work into the acquisition of LTAS and the development of the BiB, only to then turn around and sell it for pennies on the dollar. Reminds me of our joint venture with TAO. As part of that dissolution, the company agreed to pay Dr. Kröplin a lot of shares. I'm not sure what we got in return for those shares, except more dilution.

There is a history now with this current management of spreading themselves too thin. Instead of concentrating on one area, they're off trying to manage multiple initiatives which ultimately end in disastrous results.

That's why it makes little sense to me when Glenn states:

The consultants will also be working with the Company to identify potential companies to acquire that will advance one or more of the Company's business lines.

Another acquisition? Don't they have enough on their plate to manage already? Plus, any acquisition will undoubtedly result in even more dilution.

They keep sending mixed signals to shareholders about strategy and priorities. This sentence is from Glenn's letter to shareholders:

With our strong partnership with Globalstar and access to their new, highly advanced, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite network, we believe the opportunity to grow GTC's business is large by tapping into the increasing demand for satellite tracking services.

Well, how large is large? If it's so large, why isn't the company concentrating its efforts and resources on exploiting that business opportunity to grow GTC's business? As evidenced by the sale of LTAS, WSGI's finances are clearly in dire need NOW!

That's why I think their strategy is flawed. Instead of going after the low hanging fruit offered by GTC, they're pursuing opportunities which may or may not paying off in 5, 10 or even 20 years down the line. By then, the company may be out of business.