I agree with you 100%.

People are saying "get someone with a known name and track record as a CEO". Wake up.

First, we do have someone with broad name recognition.

Second, if they did manage to pull in someone of the ilk some people are demanding, what would THAT person be acustomed to? 1,000 people/staff, minimum. And products - established products with more in the pipeline. Think for a minute about how they'd go about getting There from Here. Then think about the money it would take, and the risk that would be incurred. IMO, disaster in the making.

Third, think about PTSC's business plan as we know it. Obvious is to milk the MMP via TPL, which is fine - leave the legal stuff to those most skilled in that arena. What else is in the plan? Acquisitions. Do we not have the right people capable of assessing acquisition candidates? I think yes - this is their forte. And don't underestimate the value of the "contacts and charisma" Jim brings to the party. Jim (and the other new BoD members) undoubtedly has the contacts, and Jim definitely has the charisma.

Thus, I believe we already have the right people for the job, especially when considering the alternative some are screaming for (IMO, demonstrating ignorance - as the type of CEO they're demanding would NOT be a good fit IMO).

I've seen high profile CEOs brought in. Example: Hughes Aircraft - once the largest private employer in California (120k+). Now? Non-existent. Did the shareholders benefit? Nope, they lost money - big time. That new CEO? Took that fat package and then went to AT&T (for a $20M signing bonus) and fouled them up.

And we have this "Holocom is a loser" BS. Picked 'em up for a song, no drag and bright prospects. If we were having to dump a ton more money in to keep it alive, I'd buy it. We're not, I don't.

It's almost like all the times we read here about what a loser PTSC is, all based on possible mis-steps in the distant past. But the reality is that, IF these supposedly really bright, market savvy, critics had been on the ball, PTSC would have delivered better than a ten fold ROI (if they'd bought in at 4 cents), while already having received twice their investment money back in the form of tax-free dividends (in spite of possible past mis-steps). That's reality, and in just two years. If this is their perception of a "loser" company, I cannot imagine what a "winner" must look like.

All JMHO,

SGE