You say: "If I was hired as the next PTSC CEO, I would want to keep my job by increasing shareholder value. Wow, what a concept."

Yup, it's the logical conclusion/action. Now, just how do you go about doing that? I actually believe RG DID do reasonably smart things towards increasing shareholder value via acquisitions/investments, as did Pohl with the Holocom acquisition. On RG's stuff, things just haven't come together yet. But think about it....

They (the BoD that you're beholdin' to) hire you as CEO of a company that has no product, no infrastructure, no real staff, nothing but an occasional, unpredictable payday off the MMP. Nobody on the BoD has any high tech background. But you want to play in the high tech arena.

About all you can do is identify a high tech segment with potential for significant sales. Still a gamble, regardless of the amount of DD you perform prior to making an acquisition - which would be about the only viable way to enter the arena at least possible cost and with the possibility of seeing a return on investment in the reasonably near term. For RG, it didn't happen fast enough to satisfy the BoD, I suspect.

So what is the BoD to do, especially after showing RG and friends the door? They've got these newly acquired entities/investments - what should they do with them? They, not techies, are clueless.

While I do have a problem with the makeup our BoD, and their compensation (which I have voiced many times), I'm thinking the Baroni deal was probably one of the best things they could do. While always questionable, the Baroni team does appear knowledgeable in the arena Pohl and RG placed us in. And they appear to be "connected". Note the use of the word "appear".

So right now we're IMO in a limbo period, awaiting results of Baroni's efforts.

So, in essence, the BoD is doing something (though not necessarily themselves) to hopefully increase shareholder value. I do wish we had a BoD capable of accomplishing things themselves - within the scope of what BoD members typically do actually do.

Not defending the BoD necessarily, but they've placed themselves in a box by allowing the past acquisitions/investments. At least they're actively groping to get out of the box, or to be shown a way out of that box or to make the contents of the box productive.

If they hadn't done the Baroni thing, or something very much like it, their best option would probably be to unload the assets (entities/investments) - good luck with that in the current economic environ - for a serious (possible total) loss. No shareholder value to be found going that route.

I doubt the above brings comfort, but it is the BoD's situation as I see it. And it is the situation a new CEO would find himself embroiled in.

So, we hope good things come from Baroni, and we hope good things come from the PTO. Both SOON.

JMHOs.

BTW, again I must ask "what would YOU do/have done?". When RG came on board as CEO, it did appear that the hottest high tech segments (read Gov't and private investment) were secure data transmission/integration and green energy. I think RG (and Pohl) picked the right segment. But it is being very slow in developing.

The new CEO's options will be:

- Do nothing.

- Unload all assets and then do nothing.

- Unload all assets and then pursue a new business direction by buying other entities/stakes in entities where their capabilities and future potential appear promising.

- Try and work with the entities already acquired toward fulfilling their potential. Also possibly acquire more capability synergistic with what you already got. Also unload assets where the synergy simply doesn't exist, or where the potential is too limited.

I think the BoD, via the Baroni action, has voiced their intent to the extent possible/practical. And I think this option is the only one offering any possibility of shareholder value.

I welcome your input as to other options the BoD and the new CEO have at their disposal, and how they'd go about pursuing those options. There are probably things I'm not seeing/recognizing.

SGE