before any large contracts are executed/announced - more than likely the company will or will need to acquire existing entities to boost revenues and have an avenue for large mfg already established which will dramatically speed up the procurement process. that is why the acquisition/lending piece is critical and has to all be done in conjunction. right now - the company has little collateral other than the certifications, potential, and shares in the JV that owns the plant/equipment. for lenders - if they put together a financial package that allows the aquisitions of smaller players with real revenue streams and assets (in that $10-30MM revenue range that Bill mentioned several timesover the last 12 months), the loan is now back with real collateral AS WELL as the new, combined entity being significantly more attractive for the large mfg (like Boeing) to do business with due to part/supply history (which is a separate metric from certification) as well as already being integrated into the procurement process.

in the meantime, aside from putting those together/finalizing the M&A/finance side, the company can expand sales/revenues thru the smaller distribution agreement announced and others referenced that were close. three prong approach: existing parts/strategic positioning being in China which allows faster response/delivery time, 20%+ offset, while retaining American quality and certification; distribution agreements for smaller, high margin parts; and acquisitions to allow size and scale to better position themselves for longer term, higher volume contracts with the likes of Boeing, LM, Airbus, etc.

remember - the money for the share buybacks came from somewhere. more than like from insiders putting up more loaned money on the assumption/premise that larger financing/acquisition was imminent as we outlined by Bill well over a year ago and reemphasized last summer in CC.

my guess is the FINRA #s will show another high day of short interest on a % basis today as they did yesterday. i would also expect some of those positions to be closed rapidly as the gap is filled and existing investors start getting aggressive sending the price up as fast as it came down.

per my previous assertion (as well as a few others) on the make up of long vs short term holders on the board - if it was substantially higher and/or biased to long term holders -this gap would not have been as deep or as sustained. stop losses still being taken out.