As we watch the political circus once again begin to unfurl their tents and head into the silly season of political ambition both won and lost; it is once again evident that both parties suffer from an inability to incentivize their members to coalesce into governing bodies both willing and able to do the nations business.
This "failure to launch" malady is evident in both parties and has led to fringe candidates occupying the top spot in recent polls for democrat and republican presidential primaries. Rather than being a wake-up call they have each decided to put their blinders on and continue to engage in partisan rhetoric and daily hucksterism that would shame even PT Barnum, if that were possible.
Will they ever be able to govern in a spirit of equanimity and cooperation for the good of the country again? Or are we doomed to an endless game of charades with each side trying to figure out their own designs while trying to stonewall the other? They have given a new meaning to Oscar Wilde's statement that "Disobedience was man's original virtue" by carrying it to such an extreme that their internal disorder paralyzes their very reason for being.
Perhaps it is just the way I look at things at my age, but do the latest Republican's vying to be the next Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency, seem awfully inexperienced? You would not allow children to tend bar would you? Steve Allen once quipped "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
First we had the term "Borked" Now the political imprimatur of the day is "Chaffetezed".
Ambitious puppy dog Jason Chaffetz reminds me more and more of a Mormon Clinton wannabe. ..Outrageously ambitious and willing to burn bridges even if he is standing on them.
Former Utah Governor, who weaned Chaffetz commented on Twitter that "McCarthy just got Chaffetzed. Something I know a little about. #self promoter #power hungry."
Pogo had it right "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Tuesday the House passed HR3510 which directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a departmental strategy to carry out cybersecurity responsibilities as set forth in law.
It's a push in the right direction.
Motty, your value may be a little high just ye,t but one never knows. Last I saw (this a.m.) they were a real listed AMEX company. You, on the other hand are an anonymous YMB wag as I am.
Hmmm, who would I trust more, anonymous YMB wag bent on constantly complaining just because he can, or registered public stock company whose management I consider honest and conservative and have entrusted a tranche of my personal funds to? Golly gee Batman, not much of a choice at all from my perspective.
It’s just an IT problem. Build a bigger moat around the enterprise. These are just two of the misconceptions that are bandied about when the question of cyber risk management is discussed.
As we see in many of the successful attacks, it is as much a “people problem” as it is an IT problem. It’s your staff, your vendors, and IT that stand fully in the line of fire and can assist mightily in mitigating or preventing cyber incursions.
C-suite executives are often more adept at understanding and dealing with the aftermath of a hack, as they are more familiar with disaster recovery than cyber disaster prevention. Many of the causes come wrapped in the more familiar “human element” cocoon. It’s the individual that doesn’t use the proper protocols or is sloppy in securing their access codes. It’s the vendor you allow in to your systems in lieu of just feeding them the data. These are largely errors of convenience, and can wreak havoc and may be undiscovered for weeks, months or years.
Often we know little about what data we share with our vendors nor do we always have the best protocols in place to monitor who has access to what. In the attempt to make it easier on ourselves we have concurrently made it easier on the bad guys as well. When a breach occurs we pull the alarms and round up the usual suspects.
A critical components to assessing your firms cyber-security needs is to engage the proper security professionals from outside the company to find the potential holes and then to plugging the holes and insuring against possible failure with proper. This needs to be weighed against the probability of a breach, the potential adverse effect and costs, and the investment necessary to put the proper training and protocols in place.
This is why it is not just an IT issue. Failure can be overwhelming as to effect; and in the internet of things it will take several layers of protection to ensure the best possible protection.
It's all about trust and WYY can play a role.
Another wave of compromised security system for large name companies has swept into the headlines the past week or so,
Experian was hacked and 15,000,000 T Mobile accounts had data stolen as a result of the intrusion. Hilton also reported that they may have been the source for several compromises through their gift stores and restaurants POS systems.
The unrelenting momentum of greed to steal from others will power the cyber security industry over the next several years. Companies are just beginning to recognize and admit that they are relatively unprepared to thwart the ever growing organization and sophistication of the thieves, and of the nation states that allow unfettered and unpunished access and indeed participate in these data thefts.
The opportunity is there for players with the white hats on just as it is for players with the black hats. But firms wanting to assist in solving these issues need to adopt an aggressive stance in order to both proselytize their specific set of solutions and make their partners aware that the shame is not in being victimized, but in remaining silent on both acts committed against them, as well as in showing that they are gaining assistance thru their smaller partners in preventing them. Time to get heads out of the sand.
Just speculation, fueled by recent share re-distribution and by the knowledge that once WYY becomes revenue positive and creates more recurring revenues with CoD, there should there be an uptick in interest by others that want/need repeatable revenues.
I do not believe it a secret that this is something that the company is/has/and will continue to look at as the build out and acceptance of their product line continues.
I think they wait until we are profitable and that is not that far into the future. If not I would be very very disappointed for wasting time here. But not too worried about that. Let#$%$ EBITDA positive then true earnings then look at what the offers are. I realize that microcaps on the verge of monetizing have pressures put on them from all directions by large investors as well as the lure of insiders being able to cash out...finally.
It's a fiercely unforgiving time in the market and impossible to satisfy all. The last time I went thru this as a large shareholder (relatively speaking for me) I felt we sold too early and was not thrilled. But I did not trash the decision I just did not agree with it.
I would be more upset this go around if the sale came before we matured to the point that the offers were under $6.50. But me being upset counts for zip.Under 5 though I would consider giving my ex wives their personal phone numbers and the worst of the grandkids their home addresses along with a one way bus ticket. Can't even contemplate what I would do to them for less!
Small retail holders always should have a plan should things not got their way. Fair warning :-)
I do not think they are participating in the specific AT&T IDV's you reference. If they were they'd be shouting from the ramparts given the value of these specific IDV's.
I believe what might be confusing is the GS00T07NSD0007 IDV can be used for many different type of network services and can be used by a variety of vendors. As I understand it the Indefinite Delivery Vehicle (IDV) you reference pertains to a broad swath of services, more generic than specific that deal with network services.
What you need to look at is the Award ID when in the FPDS search engine.
I queried the company and it fits with what you have stated. That is, that there is no auto-reinsertion into the ETF when WYY goes above $100 million again unless a new agreement is reached between the parties.
There also may be some regulations coming out of these types of volatile swerves in ETF values that occur from time to time that would address the liquidity requirements in greater detail.
With the increased institutional ownership the retail investor becomes a little less important. Still pays to be vigilant since fewer hands also means their is a potential for both stability and greater flux should there be a divergence of opinion between players. Much as occurred in the ETF both on the way up and on the way down if enumerated conditions are not met.
Let's face it bud, it will never be boring, becalmed at times perhaps, but flux will be their. Perhaps the new order will be stable enough to allow WYY to build out the company to its full potential before attempting to recognize profit from their investment. Fine wines often take a bit longer than screw top beverages.
When WYY gets above the $100 million mark again, does HACK automatically begin buying shares in the ETF again? Or is that relationship unless there is a new agreement entered into? Not knowing the details of the original agreement it would be interesting to determine if the ETF deal takes active participation should a company's value change or is it thrown into the fray again, for better or worse.
I would think once out, it would take some active participation from both sides to again be included. Perhaps a better question for management to answer. One would think as WYY company paid shills we would know this!
Gee Motty, your overwhelming powers of persuasion will surely drive the price down. Oh woe!
Potential new investors, surely this type of laser precise analysis by one of the board trolls will dissuade you from buying. But if you are still interested, call the company. Read the message board, including all of mottthepupil's scintillating posts where he explains the ins and outs of the SaaS, TEMS/TLM, Cert on Device, and cybersecurity components that mottthepupil discusses in his posts. Read his in depth analysis and precise commentary on WidePoint. Then make your own decision.
No fear motty, no fear. You have history bud as we all do. Perhaps a bit less granular, but let's leave that for others to judge.
Are looking at the potential of doing an RMT or some other deal(s) for a good part of Lockheed's information and technology business.
I know DMZ, DNC, RNA, RTD, and DNA but I struggled mightily with RMT, dullard that I am, and finally had to research Reverse Morris Trust.
If Lockheed rids itself of these business units to a single entity in might create the largest government services contractor. This is all in the preliminary stages with no further comments from any of the prospective partners in the deal.
Lockheed divorcing from the services side to focus on digesting the Sikorsy deal which set them back $9 billion.
The M&A space is heating up nicely in the sector wherein WYY resides. Well we can scratch off Lockheed Martin from the prospective buyer list...maybe.
Moot mott, umm, hate to tell you but Descartes is de-dead, so don't hold your breath waiting for him write a treatise for you. Are you out of high school?
Heck chalko I bought it in the Two's as well as in the 30 cent range and everywhere in between. What's your point drama boy? Can tell you're an amateur, can smell the fear and desperation that makes you stalk boards like this.
BTW- what's wrong with next year being better than the last, that a concept foreign to you flat earthers? The last one sucked mightily toward the end from my perspective. But as has been stated before, this is not the beginning of the end as you seem to think; it is merely the end of the beginning and the final chapter is far from being fully written. So as far as the pnnies you might have made I suggest...
"Take the money and run
Like a thief across a neighbors yard
Take the money and run
Like a ghost out in the night
Take the money and run
'Cause you found out that it wasn't hard
To take the money and run
Because you were out of sight
You cannot tell me any more lies
You cannot pull the wool over my eyes
Take the money and run"
Lots of exclamation marks, lots of he- he- he's. Hmm, either (a) no investment, (b) lost all his money, (c) definitely no spouse, (d) troll or (e) all of the above.
My vote is (e) all of the above