2015-2016 continuing coverage of Globalstar Inc.(NYSE:GSAT), for publication and presentation at the 2016 Burkenroad investment conference. Authors: Thaddeus Pinakiewicz, Ana Maria Hernandez, Natalie Yanko, Silvana Gomez Fajardo

1. November 6, 2015
GLOBALSTAR INCORPORATED
GSAT/NYSE
Continuing Coverage:
Globalstar: The FCC Won’t Let Me Be!
Investment Rating: Market Outperform
PRICE: $ 2.10 S&P 500: 2,099.20 DJIA: 17,910.33 RUSSELL 2000: 1,199.75
 Global expansion will increase subscriber base with little fixed cost and
reduce dependence on North America
 Ground infrastructure to support the second‐generation satellites will
enable full use of capabilities
 High levels of debt and contractual obligations represent a liquidity concern
for the Company
 Pending regulatory approval of the existing downlink S‐Band for Terrestrial
Low Power Services will determine if the Company will have a new source of
revenue
 Our 12‐month target price is $2.60
Valuation 2014 A 2015 E 2016 E
EPS* $ (0.50) $ 0.07 $ (0.10)
P/E NM 30.5x NM
CFPS $ 0.00 $ (0.01) $ (0.01)
P/CFPS 1437.5x NM NM
* Excluding non‐recurring items
Market Capitalization Stock Data
Equity Market Cap (MM): $ 2,179 52‐Week Range: $1.45 ‐ $3.58
Enterprise Value (MM): $ 2,790 12‐Month Stock Performance: ‐19.85%
Shares Outstanding (MM): 1,038 Dividend Yield: 0.00%
Estimated Float (MM): 414 Book Value Per Share: $ 0.25
6‐Mo. Avg. Daily Volume: 1,895,780 Beta: 1.38
Company Quick View:
Here it’s all about LEO (low earth orbit) satellites. From its headquarters on the north
shore of Lake Ponchartrain, Globalstar provides mobile voice and data services in more
than 120 countries. Globalstar Inc., headquartered in Covington, Louisiana, is a satellite
telecommunication provider delivering voice and data services to remote areas
underserved by traditional phone and Internet coverage. The Company operates a
network of low orbit satellites and ground stations, serving more than 580,000
subscribers worldwide by focusing on the Americas and Europe. Customers include the
U.S. government and companies in the maritime, energy, and mining industries.
Globalstar also sells handheld satellite phones and GPS tracking devices, targeting
adventure travelers and commercial clients.
Company Website: www.globalstar.com
Analysts: Investment Research Manager:
Silvana Gomez Jed Vorhoff
Natalie Yanko
Thaddeus Pinakiewicz
Ana Hernandez
The BURKENROAD REPORTS are produced solely as a part of an educational program of Tulane University's
Freeman School of Business. The reports are not investment advice and you should not and may not rely on
them in making any investment decision. You should consult an investment professional and/or conduct your
own primary research regarding any potential investment.
Wall Street's Farm Team
BURKENROADREPORTS

2. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
2
Figure 1: Five‐year Stock Price Performance
Source: Google Finance November 6, 2015
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
We give Globalstar a rating of Market Outperform and a 12‐month target price of $2.60 per
share. We applied a spectrum valuation method to derive the forecasted target price.
Based in Covington, Louisiana, Globalstar Inc. is a telecommunications services provider that
specializes in delivering satellite services to geographic regions otherwise underrepresented
by more traditional communication providers. The Company owns and operates 32 low‐earth
orbit (LEO) satellites, which provide both one‐way and two‐way voice and data
telecommunication capabilities to its customers. Most of Globalstar’s operations are currently
based in North America and Europe; however, recent interest could push the Company to
expand into the Central and South American markets. Although Globalstar is recovering from
a highly leveraged debt position, we predict a rise in revenues due to the cash flows
associated with the implementation of a second‐generation satellite network. Furthermore,
the Company awaits a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which will
determine if Globalstar will be able to make use of its full Terrestrial Lower Power Service
(TLPS) spectrum. TLPS, as proposed, is a new WiFi channel that could significantly expand the
effective data capacity of WiFi networks. If approved, TPLS could significantly increase the
value Globalstar’s spectrum holdings.
Table 1: Historical Burkenroad Ratings and Prices
Report Date Stock Price* Rating 12 Month Target Price
11/11/2014 $2.60 Market Outperform $3.80
*Stock price at time of the report

3. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
3
INVESTMENT THESIS
For Globalstar Inc., our team established a 12‐month target price of $2.60 and a rating of
Market Outperform.
Given the Company’s increasing subscriber base supported by a global expansion and the
current deployment of ground infrastructure that will support the second‐generation of
satellite services, we expect an upward trend in Globalstar’s service revenues. Despite
concerns surrounding the elevated levels of debt and the associated leverage risks, both net
income and cash flow are expected to increase in the upcoming periods. The Company has a
large contractual debt obligation, referred to as the COFACE Facility Agreement, to finance
both the launch of the second‐generation of satellites and the completion of the related
ground facilities improvements. We expect an increase in net income and the Company’s
overall liquidity position as debt repayment for the COFACE Facility Agreement has followed
the settled payment schedule, and management does not foresee any debt restructuring
needs in the next 18 months. The main source of expected revenue for the Company,
however, still depends on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) ruling to
determine whether or not Globalstar will be able to broaden and utilize its full Terrestrial
Lower Power Service (TLPS) spectrum, which would significantly increase the nation’s Wi‐Fi
capacity.
Global expansion will increase subscriber base and reduce dependence on North America
Management has confirmed its intention to focus on increasing revenue from non‐North
American operations. According to the third quarter results, revenue from non‐North
American regions increased from 12% of total revenue in 2014, to 33% in the second quarter
of 2015. Additionally, this non‐North American revenue is projected to reach approximately
55% by 2018. Key players in this geographical expansion are primarily Central and South
America.
Given the current global currency markets environment, a concern arises regarding the
exchange rate risk. The appreciation of the U.S. dollar poses a threat for Globalstar as the
Company seeks to expand its subscriber base outside of North America. A significant part of
Company revenues include Canadian dollars, Brazilian Reals, and Euros. Management has
declared in the third quarter results earnings call that, although a strong dollar might
negatively impact foreign revenue, it has not adversely affected the increase in non‐North
American subscribers.
Ground infrastructure to support the second‐generation satellites will enable use of their
full capabilities
After Globalstar launched its second‐generation satellites in 2013, the Company began the
process of upgrading its ground infrastructure to utilize the satellites full capabilities. With the
newly enhanced network, Globalstar can provide additional variety of products and services
that will contribute to the expansion of the Company’s currently operating markets. As stated
by management in the last conference call, the upgrades are expected to be completed in
early 2016.

4. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
4
High levels of debt and contractual obligations represent a liquidity concern for the
Company
When valuating and analyzing a company’s liquidity position, high levels of debt are usually a
concern, as debt might drastically increase cash flow risk. As reflected in financial statements,
Globalstar has high levels of debt and restricted cash. However, it is not unusual for
companies operating in the satellite services industry to carry high debt levels and restricted
cash. Such high debt levels are attributed to the massive capital investments required to
maintain and enhance operations within the sector. As disclosed by management, current
debt and contractual obligations for the Company are related to the intensive capital
investments incurred while launching the second‐generation satellites in 2013 and in
maintaining the satellite’s operation. As expected, Globalstar is still in the debt repayment
process. Debt obligations for the next 12 months include repayment used to finance the
launch of the new satellites and work underway to upgrade ground facility infrastructure to
ensure proper functionality.
Pending regulatory approval of the existing downlink S‐Band for Terrestrial Low Power
Services will determine if the Company will have a new source of revenue
On November of 2012, Globalstar initially filed for the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) approval to utilize its highest 22‐megahertz band, a channel within the 2.4 Ghz Wi‐Fi
spectrum. After a three‐year process, the Company anticipates a final ruling within the next
quarter. Over the past few months, several technical reports and pilot demonstrations have
provided proof to the FCC that the utilization of the spectrum causes no interference or
overlap with current Wi‐Fi operations. Such evidence supports Globalstar’s initial petition to
reform the current regulatory framework as results have proven to increase the WiFi
network’s capacity by a full third without obstructing current activity. Therefore, the FCC’s
approval to control and utilize this spectrum would be beneficial for both Globalstar and the
general public. Public Wi‐Fi networks would be less saturated and the Company would create
a new source of revenue by leasing the use of the authorized spectrum. The FCC has not
requested any further demonstrations since April, 2015, and a final decision should be
disclosed in the near future.
VALUATION
To determine Globalstar’s 12‐month target price of $2.60 per share we used the megahertz‐
population valuation method. For companies like Globalstar, with both historical and
projected negative earnings and cash flows, traditional valuation methods such as the
discounted cash flow model or the trading multiples method have limitations or do not
accurately reflect the value of companies in this industry. For similar reasons, Globalstar is
currently trading as an option contingent to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC)
approval to use the unlicensed spectrum. Therefore, the most reasonable way to value the
Company is to determine the potential value of the yet‐unlicensed spectrum broadband.

5. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
5
Megahertz‐Population Valuation Method
Satellite service companies like Globalstar often use the megahertz‐population (MHz‐POP)
approach to valuate spectrum. The market prices spectrum in terms of MHz‐POP, which is the
company’s spectrum width in megahertz (MHz) multiplied by the population covered in a
specific service area.
′
The enterprise value of the company is determined by multiplying its MHz‐POP measure times
the spectrum’s price per MHz‐POP.
Adding cash and subtracting debt to the company’s enterprise value calculates its equity
value. Expected price per share, or equity value per share, results from dividing the equity
value by the shares outstanding.
To replicate this valuation method and determine a share price for Globalstar, we established
two base assumptions: a spectrum of 22 MHz, which is the currently unlicensed Terrestrial
Low Power Service (TLPS) spectrum, and 318 million of covered population in the U.S.
Additionally, we set a price range for the spectrum within a $0.20 per MHz‐POP low and a
$0.90 high, considering previous effective bids on similar spectrum bands and holding a
conservative approach. However, because we believe that the FCC will rule in favor of
Globalstar more likely than not, we assigned the higher end prices a greater weight in the
weighted average calculation for the final expected price per share, and disregarded the two
cases in the middle section. Table 2 summarizes the data used to calculate the $2.60 target
price.
Table 2: MHz‐POP Valuation for Globalstar
Price
(p/MHz
‐POP)
MHz‐
POP
Enterprise
Value
($MM)
Cash
($MM)
Debt
($MM)
Equity
Value
Per
Share
Weight
(%)
Weighted
EV per
Share
Average
Final
Price
0.90 6,996 6,296 28 (638) $5.14
75
$3.86
$ 3.40
$ 2.60
0.80 6,996 5,597 28 (638) $4.51 $3.38
0.70 6,996 4,897 28 (638) $3.88 $2.91
0.60 6,996 4,198 28 (638) $3.25
‐
‐
0.50 6,996 3,498 28 (638) $2.61 ‐
0.40 6,996 2,798 28 (638) $1.98
25
$0.49
$ 0.30 0.30 6,996 2,099 28 (638) $1.35 $0.34
0.20 6,996 1,399 28 (638) $0.71 $0.18
Source: Burkenroad Analysis November 6, 2015

6. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
6
INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
The satellite telecommunications industry provides connections via satellite to broadcasters
and other providers. It includes companies that either own and operate satellites or resell
transmission capacity. The main activities in the industry include providing point‐to‐point
communication services, data services, long distance or remote communication services, and
reselling of satellite telecommunication services. In 2014, revenue for the industry was
approximately $6.65 billion. Revenue volatility for the industry is considered low and has
declined in the last five years. This decline in revenue volatility is attributed mostly to long
term leasing contracts implemented by satellite operators, which have stabilized prices.
Even though the industry is currently at a mature stage in the industry life cycle, according to
IBISWorld, it is still expected to grow at an average 3.8% rate during the next four years. Part
of this growth will be the result of increased demand from key customers including the U.S.
government, military operation agencies, and other companies in the oil and gas, mining, and
maritime sectors. These customers increasingly rely on satellite telecommunication services
as they require mobile phone and data services in areas that traditional communication
industries cannot cover. The 3.8% expected growth rate in the satellite telecommunications
industry exceeds the 3.2% average annual growth over the past five years and is even further
above the expected 2.5% growth of the U.S. economy over that same period.
As seen in Figure 2, the top five companies controlled approximately 52.3% of total revenues
in 2014. Globalstar alone controlled 1.4% of the market share in the same year. Nonetheless,
the satellite telecommunications industry is not highly concentrated given the large amount
of reseller companies. In line with other industry leaders, Globalstar maintains international
operations. While generating the majority of its revenue from operations in North America
and Canada, the Company’s service areas include territories in Europe, Asia, South America
and Australia. The Company’s short‐term outlook is strong due to its continuous revenue
growth since 2009, its launch of a second‐generation constellation of satellites in 2010, and its
expansion of its coverage network.
Figure 2: Major Players in the Satellite Telecommunications Industry
Source: IBISWorld September 25, 2015
Intelsat Ltd.
18% EchoStar Corp.
15.4% SES SA
10.6% Inmarsat PLC
6.9% Globalstar
1.4%
Other
47.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Market Share

7. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
7
Key Metrics and Ratios
Key metrics and ratios for the industry primarily include revenues, value added, employees,
and wages. Industry value added (IVA) reflects the contribution of a particular industry to the
national gross domestic product (GDP). Taking into account that revenues for the industry in
2014 were $6.65 billion, the IVA/revenue ratio has averaged 59.5% and, per IBISWorld, is
expected to slightly decrease in the coming years to a projected 58.8% in 2019.
Wages/revenue is expected to decrease from 13.4% in 2014 to 12.7% in 2019, while
revenue/employee is expected to increase from $748.600 to $819.100 in the same years. This
behavior is positive for the industry as it denotes a higher productivity trend.
Threat of Entry
Barriers to entry for the industry vary across companies’ as they position themselves as either
infrastructure owners or satellite providers. Globalstar and most of its competitors are
involved in both aspects, but fall more precisely into the infrastructure owner segment since it
ultimately drives its capacity to be a satellite signal provider. In contrast to satellite resellers,
which face low to medium barriers of entry, infrastructure owners face high and steady
barriers due to high capital intensity requirements. Launching a single satellite can cost up to
$300 million in addition to significant costs involved in ensuring the life of the satellite
constellation since failures are common. Additional barriers are also created by costs involved
in utilizing the latest technologies and meeting demand for new high data rate multimedia
services.
Regulation poses another hurdle. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires
licenses for the use of different spectrums and operational rights for satellite orbits. Long
timelines for completing varied tasks and processes tie up capital, which increases the level of
industry risk, since it can take more than two years to construct and launch a satellite. To
reduce risk, companies are locking key customers to long‐term contracts, making it complex
for new players to acquire large clients. Since customers primarily value long‐term history of
high service availability, the lack of service history for new companies poses a significant
threat.
Bargaining Power of Buyers
Generally, within the industry, market segmentation is fairly stable due to operators’
establishment of long‐term contracts, which causes a low to medium bargaining power of
buyers. Commercial, the largest market, accounts for about 52% of the industry revenue and
will continue to be the key market segment because companies require satellite services for
operational reasons. Many of these businesses are highly dependent on satellite service
providers because these customers operate in fixed‐line or terrestrial wireless
communications services and cannot function without satellite services. This dependence
upon specialized communication ends up decreasing customer bargaining power.

8. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
8
Increasing demand from government agencies, currently accounting for 12% of industry
revenues, comes mainly from disaster relief, military operations, NASA, and Homeland
Security. Satellite services are critical for some of these departments because disasters can
occur in remote zones in which traditional communication channels are nonexistent or
inoperable. Nonetheless, demand is unpredictable and inconsistent. Individual consumers also
have medium power because they face lower switching costs, compared to the commercial
segment. Individuals use a variety of industry services for traditional communications and
leisure purposes, and many times these customers are not tied to long‐term contracts.
Telecommunication and media companies account for a total of 20% of industry revenue and
have little bargaining power since this market has remained steady over the last five years.
These companies often purchase capacity from infrastructure owners and sell it in bundles to
consumers and businesses, causing these companies to be highly dependent on a single
provider.
Availability of Substitutes
Satellite telecommunication providers compete with companies that operate in a variety of
other telecommunication industries. Even though satellite firms offer the same type of
service, levels of services vary. Since service coverage in other telecommunications industries
is limited, the satellite industry competes by providing service in areas where other kinds of
wireless communications services are not available, and, thus, threat of substitutes for this
niche is low. Nonetheless, industry participants competing against other telecommunication
companies that provide various terrestrial services may increase the availability of substitutes.
Globalstar’s asset tracking devices, as well as other similar technology, may cause increased
expenses for the telecommunication industry. This places significant pressure on profit
margins and limits the industries price competitiveness against terrestrial services.
Competitive Rivals
Due to the capital‐intensive nature of launching and operating satellites, the Mobile Satellite
Services (MSS) industry is incredibly small and relatively concentrated. Globalstar has several
large competitive rivals within the MSS industry, and four major players control more than 5%
of industry revenue: Inmarsat PLC (6.9%), SES SA (10.6%), Echostar Corp. (15.4%), and Intelsat
Ltd (18%). Inmarsat PLC is a London‐based firm with a fleet of 11 satellites that provide global
coverage focused on water mass. SES SA is based out of Luxembourg with a fleet of 55
satellites and earns only around a quarter of its revenue in the U.S., compared to Globalstar’s
domestic earnings at 75%. Echostar Corp was founded in 2007 and has been growing rapidly
since acquiring Hughes’ satellite fleet in 2012. The majority of Echostar’s revenue is now
earned from its Hughes Communications business segment. Furthermore, EchoStar owns high
amounts of intellectual property, as it was the former parent company and partner of DISH
Network, a satellite television provider. Intelsat is the largest MSS provider according to share
of industry revenue. It was formed in 1964 as a result of collaboration between various
governments around the globe, and it is now the largest Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) provider
in the world. Intelsat went private in 2001 and currently maintains a network of 50 satellites.
Globalstar and other smaller firms account for the remaining 49% of industry revenue.

9. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
9
Industry Trends
Recent trends within the MSS industry include efforts to expand bandwidth and to improve
wireless access. Many industry players have launched new generations of high throughput
satellites to increase bandwidth in order to service modern, data‐hungry consumers. These
new high throughput satellites fleets offer a budding opportunity for providing internet
services to approximately all of the 5,000 planes that are in flight at any given time. In
addition to expanding service access to previously underserved customers, some firms are
developing new products to create a competitive edge. Many firms are taking advantage of
the new high throughput satellites to make satellite Wi‐Fi hotspots that can provide stable
internet access in incredibly remote areas. Other emerging innovative products include
Thuraya Telecommunications SatSleeve, which provides a more convenient way to use
satellite phone services. These product innovations speak to the intense competition and
health within the MSS sector as the players vie for a piece of a relatively mature market.
ABOUT GLOBALSTAR
Globalstar Inc. (GSAT/NYSE), based in Covington, Louisiana, owns and operates low‐earth
orbit (LEO) satellites that provide voice and data services for both corporate and retail
customers. Globalstar’s primary business operation is to provide satellite telecommunication
capability to remote areas that are not serviced, or underserviced, by traditional phone and
internet systems. The Company provides both satellite service and equipment to 120
countries worldwide, operating primarily in the Americas and Europe. Figure 3 displays
Globalstar’s service areas.
Globalstar was developed as a joint venture of Loral Corporation and Qualcomm in 1991 and
became a limited partnership in 1994. After receiving spectrum allocation in the U.S. from the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1995, Globalstar, L.P. launched its first satellites
in 1998. In 2002, the limited partnership was forced to declare bankruptcy. In 2004, after a
restructuring process, Thermo Capital Partners purchased the Company. Later in 2006, under
new leadership, the Company reincorporated as Globalstar Inc. and issued its initial public
offering (IPO) November of the same year. In August of 2007, Globalstar initiated a subsidiary
called SPOT LLC and launched a new SPOT product line, which combined its existing products
with GPS tracking capabilities.

10. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
10
Figure 3: Globalstar Service Areas
Dark shading Primary service area Strong Signal
Medium shading Extended Service Area Customers may experience weaker signal
Light shading Fringe service area Customers should experience weakest signal
Source: Globalstar Inc. September 11, 2015
Products
Globalstar has two primary service lines: Simplex and Duplex. Simplex is a one‐way data
service that transmits information from a Simplex‐enabled device over the Globalstar
network. This line is primarily used for communication of cargo locations, utility meter levels,
and other pertinent measurements within governmental agencies and the military. A large
component of the Simplex technology is the SPOT product line. Combining one‐way
technology with GPS features, SPOT targets customers that require emergency location and
messaging services outside traditionally covered areas. Duplex is a two‐way data service that
uses both mobile and fixed devices in order to establish more sophisticated communication
between two locations. Regarding the contribution of each segment to total revenues, the
SPOT product line accounts for approximately 40% of Globalstar’s total revenue. Simplex
(excluding SPOT) and Duplex lines account for approximately 17% and 37% of total revenue
respectively. The remaining 6% of revenue is derived from other less significant sources of
income for the Company.
Strategy
Globalstar’s strategy is centered on providing telecommunication opportunities for
underserviced regions of the world. The goal is to provide service levels and call success rates
equal to or better than its Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) competitors for a cheaper price.
Globalstar formed a second‐generation constellation of LEO satellites in 2013, expanding and
modernizing the Duplex system architecture. A current initiative to upgrade the ground
stations, allowing for the development of mass‐marketable and consumer‐friendly high‐speed
products, is scheduled for completion by 2016.

11. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
11
Competitors
Fellow global mobile satellite service providers, Inmarsat and Iridium, represent the most
direct competition to Globalstar; however, significant barriers to entry prevent a vast amount
of companies from entering the market. These barriers include significant time and costs
associated with obtaining licenses and setting up a network of satellites. Additionally, the
Company developed a competitive advantage through its 2009 acquisition of Axxon LLC, a
manufacturer of asset tracking devices. As a vertically integrated company in the industry,
Globalstar has the ability to further reduce costs, to increase manufacturing efficiency, and to
improve quality of its product line.
Latest Developments
The most crucial recent development for this industry, and specifically Globalstar, is the
possibility of establishing Terrestrial Low Power Services (TLPS). To alleviate the current
congestion in the Wi‐Fi network, Globalstar proposes to use its current satellite spectrum,
which is located adjacent to the Public Wi‐Fi Band, to increase the nations wireless network
capacity by a full third. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), along
with Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc., are protesting the proposal expressing concerns related
to the potential of TLPS operations interfering with the current Wi‐Fi channels. In 2012,
Globalstar petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), for approval of TLPS.
The FCC is expected to make a decision before the end of 2015, and, if the ruling is positive,
Globalstar would quickly deploy these additional services while aiming to dominate a whole
new space within the industry.
PEER ANALYSIS
The satellite telecommunications industry includes several publicly traded companies that
offer similar products and services. These companies vary greatly in market capitalization and
market share with a few companies accounting for most of the revenue. While it is difficult to
identify all direct competitors to Globalstar, given its participation in multiple niche markets,
five companies were chosen for the peer analysis. These companies represent the main
players within the industry and are those with the highest market shares. While the products
and services of the companies align, the sizes and revenues differ. Table 3 shows a
comparison of a variety of recent data regarding the companies in question.
In order to get an indicator of the Company’s profitability it is common to analyze the earning
per share (EPS) ratio. As shown in Table 3, among all six companies analyzed, Globalstar has
the lowest EPS. However, the Company has one of the highest market capitalizations,
meaning the combined value of its outstanding shares in the tradable market is still high.
When analyzing the price to book ratios (P/B), we find that Inmarsat and Globalstar’s ratios
are considerably higher than those of its peers. The P/B ratio provides investors with a more
conservative measure of the value of the firm. Finally, the debt‐to‐equity (D/E) ratio provides
an insight of how much shareholder’s equity and debt is being used to finance assets.

12. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
12
Globalstar’s debt‐to‐equity ratio is the highest of the group, signaling that the Company has
taken on proportionally more debt than its competitors. Normally, a high D/E ratio is a signal
of high risks. However, in the telecommunication industry, high levels of debt are necessary
because of the large capital expenditures required for satellite launches. Therefore, when
interpreting D/E for Globalstar it is essential to consider the Company’s recent launch of a
new second‐generation satellite constellation.
Table 3: Peer Analysis
Company Ticker
Last
Price
Market
Cap
P/B D/E EPS ROA
Inmarstat PLC ISAT.L 982 4.41B 371.99 179.64 67.7 5.70%
Iridium
Communication Inc.
IRDM 6.15 583.33M 0.45 109.12 0.74 3.10%
Intelsat S.A. I 6.43 689.94M n/a n/a 1.69 4.47%
EchoStar Corp. SATS 43.03 3.98B 1.07 60.33 2 3.09%
ViaSat Inc. VSAT 64.29 3.09B 2.85 80.17 1 2.75%
Average of Peers ‐ 220.38 856.95M 94.09 107.315 14.626 3.82%
Globalstar GSAT 1.57 1.63B 6.65 281.1 0.28 (0.41%)
Source: Yahoo Finance at market close September 30, 2015
Inmarsat PLC (ISAT.L/LSE)
Inmarsat PLC, formerly International Marine Satellite Communications Organization, is a
London‐based firm with a fleet of 11 satellites that provide global coverage primarily on water
mass. Inmarsat generates roughly a third of its revenues from maritime services and roughly
the same amount of revenues generated from government contracts. Inmarsat provides
mobile broadband and voice services via its satellite fleet, which are in direct competition
with Globalstar’s product offerings. While Inmarsat maintains a distinct competitive
advantage over Globalstar in service quality for maritime customers, Globalstar has an
advantage over landmass.
Iridium Communications (IRDM/NASDAQ)
Iridium Communications, the world’s largest commercial satellite operation, maintains a fleet
of 66 low‐earth‐orbit (LEO) satellites. Iridium plans on launching another generation of
satellites in 2017 to further expand its constellation. Iridium’s single largest customer is the
U.S. Government, which accounts for roughly 20% of its revenues. Iridium is in direct
competition with Globalstar across all of Globalstar’s business segments by providing data,
broadband, and satellite phone services.

13. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
13
Intelsat S.A. (I/NYSE)
Based out of Luxembourg, Intelsat is the largest satellite service provider by revenue. It was
formed in 1964 as a result of collaboration between governments around the world and was
reorganized as a private enterprise in 2001. Intelsat is now the largest Fixed Satellite Service
(FSS) provider in the world with a network of 50 geostationary satellites. Intelsat provides
data and broadband services comparable to Globalstar’s offerings but, unlike Globalstar,
Intelsat does not provide satellite telephone services. Furthermore, the nature of Intelsat’s
satellite constellation is geostationary and in high orbit. This differentiates Intelsat from
Globalstar, whose constellation is mobile and in low orbit. Intelsat went public in 2013, and
now has a negative book value.
Echostar (SATS/NASDAQ)
Founded in 2007 and based out of Englewood, Colorado, Echostar provides HD‐TV satellite
services and is the former parent company of DISH Network. Echostar also owns Sling Media,
which allows customers to view their home TV shows over the Internet. Echostar has been
growing rapidly since its 2012 acquisition of Hughes’ satellite fleet, which boasts coverage of
99% of the world’s population. Echostar maintains a fleet of 24 satellites that provide video,
data and telecommunications backbone services via satellite mainly for residential U.S.
customers. Echostar competes with Globalstar in providing satellite broadband but does not
directly compete in other satellite service markets. Additionally, Echostar does not provide
emergency/GPS location services, asset tracking, or satellite phone services.
ViaSat Inc. (VSAT/NASDAQ)
ViaSat provides digital satellite and networking services as well as signal processing
equipment. In 2009 the company purchased WildBlue, a commercial broadband supplier from
Intelsat. Currently WildBlue accounts for roughly 30% of ViaSat's revenue. Similarly to
Globalstar, the company also produces secure products for military communications systems
via its fleet of over 25 satellites in geostationary orbit. Additionally, ViaSat conducts a
significant portion of its business in providing secure communications for the government,
while Globalstar focuses primarily on commercial clients.
Table 4 shows a summary of the current number of satellites in orbit for each of the
companies analyzed as well as the type of orbit in which each of fleet operates.

14. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
14
Table 4: Number of Satellites and Type of Orbit
Company
Number of
satellites in orbit
Geo‐
stationary
Low earth
orbit (LEO)
Inmarstat PLC 11 X
Iridium Communication Inc. 66 X
Intelsat S.A. 50 X
EchoStar Corp. 24 X
ViaSat Inc. 25 X
Globalstar 32 X
Sources: Inmarsat; Iridium Communications; Intelsat; EchoStar; ViaSat; Globalstar Inc.
September 30, 2015
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AND BACKGROUND
Globalstar’s top management team is comprised of experts in a variety of fields, including
engineering, finance, law, sales, and accounting. The following seven individuals, along with
the Board of Directors, make up the Company’s Corporate Governance.
A company’s return on invested capital (ROIC), allows investors to evaluate how well
management generates returns as a percentage of investment. It provides valuable insights
in regards to efficiency of capital use and competitive positioning within the industry. As
shown in Table 5, Globalstar’s ROIC during the last five years has been well below that of its
peers, indicating unattractive results as negative ROIC indicates capital value destruction.
Table 5: Return on Invested Capital
Company Ticker
2015
(as of 6/30)
2014 2013 2012 2011
Inmarstat Plc ISAT.L 9.27% 13.75% 4.74% 10.16% 13.38%
Iridium
Communication Inc.
IRDM 4.86% 4.20% 4.03% 6.07% 6.25%
Intelsat S.A. I 7.50% 8.13% 7.55% 7.26% 7.14%
EchoStar Corp. SATS 5.50% 6.60% (0.26%) 2.72% 0.43%
ViaSat Inc. VSAT 1.46% 3.67 0.06% (0.69%) (0.23%)
Globalstar GSAT (9.81%) (13.07%) (8.75%) (7.68%) (6.05%)
Source: Gurufocus October 7,2015
James “Jay” Monroe, III
Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
James “Jay” Monroe, III has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors since Globalstar
was purchased by Thermo Companies in 2004, and he has been the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) since July 2011. He previously served as CEO from 2005 to 2009. He has been the
majority owner of Thermo since it’s founding in 1984. Mr. Monroe is a graduate of Tulane
University.

15. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
15
L. Barbee Ponder IV
General Counsel and Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
L. Barbee Ponder IV was named General Counsel and Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for
Globalstar in 2010. Prior to joining Globalstar, Mr. Ponder provided BellSouth Corporation
with regulatory and taxation representation before various government entities. Mr. Ponder
has previous commercial litigation experience, and is responsible for all of Globalstar’s legal
and regulatory matters. Mr. Ponder earned his Bachelor’s degree from Tulane University and
his Juris Doctorate from Emory University.
Rebecca S. Clary
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Rebecca S. Clary was appointed Globalstar's Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
in 2014. She has been with the Company since 2010 and served as its Chief Accounting
Officer. Prior to joining Globalstar, Ms. Clary served as manager in the Audit Services division
of PricewaterhouseCoopers. She earned both her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in
accounting from Louisiana State University and is a Certified Public Accountant.
Tim Taylor
Vice President of Finance, Business Operations & Strategy
Along with his position in Globalstar, Tim Taylor is the Vice President of the Thermo
Companies. Prior to joining Thermo and Globalstar in 2010, he served as an associate in the
Mergers & Acquisitions group at Brown Brothers Harriman. Mr. Taylor earned his Bachelor’s
degree from The University of Virginia.
Walter Debus
Vice President, Engineering and Manufacturing
Walter Debus focuses on creating new products from the implementation of research and
development, all the way up to manufacturing and introduction to the market. Prior to
joining Globalstar, Mr. Debus served as an engineer and senior level manager at AT&T Bell
Laboratories. Throughout his career he has received ten patents in various technical fields.
Mr. Debus earned a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Massachusetts.
Jim Mandala
Vice President and General Manager, International Sales, Canada and Europe
Jim Mandala was appointed General Manager of Globalstar Canada and Europe in 2010 after
spending two years as the Director of Sales and Marketing for Globalstar Canada. Prior to
joining Globalstar, Mr. Mandala served as the Director of Sales for Samsung Electronics,
Director of Operations for Handspring Canada, and Director of Sales and Marketing for Epson
Canada Ltd. Mr. Mandala earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Guelph.

16. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
16
James F. Lynch
Director
Along with his role as a Director on the Board of Directors at Globalstar, a position he has
held since 2003, Mr. Lynch has been the Managing Director of Thermo Capital Partners, LLC
since 2001. He previously served as both Chairman and CEO of Xspedius Communications,
LLC, another company affiliated with Thermo. He has a background in investment banking, an
area in which he spent thirteen years prior to joining Thermo and co‐founding Thermo Credit.
Mr. Lynch earned his Bachelors degree from Amherst College and his MBA from Yale
University.
Kenneth M. Young
Class C Director
Mr. Young is Globalstar’s most recent addition to the Board of Directors. He serves as
President and CEO of Lightbridge Communications Corporation since 2008. Mr. Young earned
a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from Graceland College, and a Master's in
Business Administration from the University of Southern Illinois. Throughout his career he
has attained over 27 years of experience in the telecommunications industry.
Management Compensation and Incentives
The Nominating and Governance Committee serves as the management regulating entity
within the organization. It performs numerous functions including recommendations of
Board candidates and review of public policy matters of importance to stockholders along
with the oversight of corporate responsibility programs.
Directors did not receive any cash or equity compensation during 2014. However, Directors,
with the exception of Mr. Monroe, received options to purchase 200,000 shares of common
stock designed to provide compensation over a three‐year period. The compensation
program for executive officers is intended to provide each officer with a conservative base
salary and create an incentive for retention and achievement of long‐term business goals
using multi‐year stock and discretionary bonuses which may be paid in cash or stock. In
summary, Globalstar aims to create performance‐based compensation and to motivate
management to increase stockholder value. CEO James Monroe currently receives no cash
compensation. Since compensation programs are limited, policies do not detail the specific
allocation of compensation.
SHAREHOLDER ANALYSIS
Globalstar (GSAT/NYSE) had 894,193,182 total shares of voting common stock outstanding
and 392,922,724 free‐floating shares as of June 30, 2015. Of total shares outstanding,
insiders hold approximately 57%, institutions hold 13%, and other investors hold the
remaining 30%. Table 6 provides an overview of the main equity investment strategies of the
Company’s shareholders.

17. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
17
A vast majority of Globalstar’s stock investors are hedge funds, index funds, and growth at a
reasonable price (GARP) funds. Seeking to provide consistent positive returns, hedge funds
typically aim to invest in companies like Globalstar to diversify portfolios and reduce risk by
pursuing different long/short strategies to increase returns. Index and GARP funds usually
look for stability, with the latter pursuing a strategy guided by investing in companies with
slow and consistent earnings and relatively low price to earnings (P/E) multiples.
Table 6: Investor Style
Investor Style
Number of
Investors
% Shares
Outstanding
Total
Shares Held
Value
($MM)
Hedge Fund 70 13.44 120,147,133 253.51
Index Fund 28 8.04 71,863,976 151.63
GARP Fund 19 7.24 64,757,589 136.69
Aggres. Gr. 3 1.56 13,917,780 29.37
Deep Value 7 0.89 7,990,038 16.87
Core Growth 33 0.81 7,210,604 15.21
Broker‐Dealer 24 0.64 5,680,014 11.98
Income Value 5 0.12 1,079,703 2.28
VC/Private Equity 1 0.06 566,500 1.20
Core Value 16 0.06 537,222 1.14
Growth 9 0.03 312,385 0.66
N/A 1 0.00 30 0.00
Yield 2 0.00 0 0.00
Arbitrage 1 0.00 0 0.00
Event Driven 1 0.00 0 0.00
Source: Thompson One October 7, 2015
In more detail, Table 7 breaks down the top ten shareholders of Globalstar’s stock. Excluding
the CEO James III Monroe and Director James F. Lynch, all other major investors are
investment management funds in the U.S. Aside from Globalstar’s CEO, all other major
stockholders control less than a 5% stake in the Company.
Table 7: Top Ten Shareholders
Investor Name
% Shares
Outstanding
Total Shares
Held
Monroe III (James) 54.64 488,596,201
Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC 4.11 36,756,705
York Capital Management 3.41 30,452,077
Steelhead Partners, LLC 3.40 30,438,243
The Vanguard Group, Inc. 3.37 30,163,470
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. 2.80 25,009,088
Beck, Mack & Oliver LLC 2.29 20,504,540
Litespeed Management LLC 2.26 20,222,260
HHR Asset Management, LLC 1.55 13,820,800
Lynch (James F) 1.39 12,401,136
Source: Thompson One October 7, 2015

18. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
18
Insider Shareholders
Previously noting that the main shareholder of the Company is its CEO Jay Monroe, it is
relevant to analyze insider shareholders of Globalstar in more depth. Table 8 presents a list of
the main nine insider shareholders. Mr. Monroe owns roughly 55% of the total shares
outstanding, followed by Director James F. Lynch. All other insider investors hold less than 1%
of the total outstanding shares. Such a high percentage of shares outstanding owned by
insiders is unusual in large companies; however, it is more plausible given that Globalstar is a
small‐cap stock. Mr. Monroe and Mr. Lynch have both made several stock purchases in 2015,
which could be an indicator that management perceives the Company to be undervalued by
the market.
Table 8: Top 9 Insider Shareholders
Holder Name Title
% Shares
Outstanding
Total Shares
Held
Monroe (James III) Chief Executive Officer 54.65 488,666,201
Lynch (James F) Director 1.39 12,401,136
Navarra (Anthony J) Officer 0.04 327,631
Clary (Rebecca S) Chief Financial Officer 0.02 143,606
Ponder (L Barbee IV) General Counsel 0.01 107,223
McIntyre (J Patrick) Director 0.01 97,983
Kneuer (John) Director 0.01 80,500
Roberts (Richard S) Officer and Director 0.01 50,800
Stevenson (Mark_ Officer 0.00 23,842
Source: Thompson One October 7, 2015
RISK ANALYSIS AND INVESTMENT CAVEATS
When evaluating the performance of a company operating in the satellite
telecommunications industry there are three categories of risks to analyze: operational,
financial and regulatory. Operational risks include internal process failures, system
breakdowns, and external events that affect the normal course of operation of the business.
Financial risks include factors that increase the possibility of a company defaulting on its
debt. Lastly, regulatory risks refer to change in regulations and laws that might impact the
business or the whole industry.
Operational Risk
Satellite Failures/Service Interruption
Globalstar’s capital is composed primarily of investments in its satellite constellation. Its
revenue is heavily dependent on the stable functioning of the satellite fleet, so any failures or
degradation of the constellation will result in a massive disruption of business operations.
Such a failure occurred in late 2010 across several of Globalstar’s satellites. Specifically, a
failure in the C‐Band antennas rendered Globalstar’s first generation constellation to degrade
causing unreliable service.

19. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
19
To amend the situation Globalstar took on a substantial debt load in order to finance capital
expenditures to launch replacement satellites into orbit. Globalstar’s satellite constellation is
now operating at full capacity with several backup satellites available, but the risk of
degradation cannot be completely hedged. Insurance for satellite operations only covers
launches and does not cover failure of satellites in orbit. Globalstar deals with the risk of
satellite failure by maintaining spare satellites both in orbit and on ground. Nonetheless this
does not protect against a constellation wide degradation, such as the previously mentioned
S‐Band antenna amplifier failure. The probability of another constellation degradation is slim,
but the effects of such a failure would be untenable given Globalstar’s currently highly
indebted capital structure.
Technological Risks
Satellite service is a highly technical industry that relies on cutting edge research to improve
the quality of products and services. As such, any firm that wishes to compete in the long run
with other satellite service providers must invest in research and development to maintain a
competitive advantage. Globalstar’s satellite technology faces competition from other
satellite providers, terrestrial telecommunications providers, and other services that transmit
data over portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even with sustained research and
development, the nature of the satellite industry makes it incredibly vulnerable to
technological developments that can result in satellites’ rapid obsolescence. Exacerbating this
risk of obsolescence is the cost of updating a satellite constellation with new technology.
Satellites constitute massive capital investments that are designed to operate for a decade or
more, and upgrading a satellite network is a multi‐year process. Any upgrades require
designing, manufacturing, and launching new satellites because older satellites cannot be
repaired in space.
Market Entrants
As mentioned earlier, mobile satellite services, and satellite services in general require
massive capital expenditures to be able to enter the market. Therefore the risk of new
market entrants is relatively low, and those that do enter the market typically have large
amounts of capital at hand. Several such firms, like SpaceX and Facebook, have announced
the intention to enter the Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) market. On January 15, 2015,
SpaceX announced plans to launch its own MSS satellite constellation during the unveiling of
a new satellite factory. Launches are scheduled to begin and the end of the year and will
continue through the first two quarters of 2016. Documents submitted to international
regulators include plans for up to 4,000 satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Facebook recently
entered into a partnership with Eutelsat to offer internet service via Facebook’s Internet.org
initiative. Facebook plans to begin launching a self‐owned satellite fleet in 2016 in an attempt
to provide internet access across the globe.

20. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
20
Financial Risk
Exchange Rate Risk
Globalstar has seen significant revenue growth in its international markets, with the majority
of Globalstar’s international sales in Canadian dollars, Brazilian Reals, and Euros. Recent
macroeconomic factors have resulted in increased exchange rate volatility. As uncertainty
creeps into financial markets and many seek the safety of U.S. assets, the value of the dollar
appreciates. Assuming volatility remains elevated and the dollar continues to appreciate in
the short to medium term, Globalstar is exposed to significant downside exchange rate risk
on its rapidly growing international earnings. Furthermore, Globalstar currently does not
have any hedging strategies in place to ameliorate the foreign exchange risk.
Capital Structure Risk
Globalstar is highly leveraged with $609.43 million in long‐term debt, $223.79 million in
stockholder’s equity, and a resulting debt‐to‐equity (D/E) ratio of 2.72. The D/E ratio is much
lower than in previous periods, as Globalstar had negative stockholders’ equity on its balance
sheet in four out of the last six quarters. The majority of Globalstar’s debt consists of a facility
agreement with a principal of $579.07 million due to mature in 2022. The Facility Agreement
is flexible, with creditors allowing Globalstar to make equity cure contributions, selling its
own stock to make‐up interest payment shortfalls, but preventing Globalstar from raising
more debt. To facilitate equity cure contributions, Globalstar maintains Common Stock
Purchase Agreements with Thermo Capital Partners and Terrapin Partners for $30 million and
$75 million respectively. These agreements give Globalstar the necessary flexibility to be able
to continue complying with the covenants of its Facility Agreement. These agreements have
been crucial to Globalstar’s operations in the past five years because the Company has not
turned a profit over that period. Globalstar had operating losses of ($95.895) million in 2014,
($87.396) million in 2013, ($94.993) million in 2012, ($73.235) million in 2011, ($59.769)
million in 2010, and ($53.791) million in 2009. The Common Stock Purchase Agreements are
vital in maintaining the liquidity that Globalstar needs to operate, and the funds required to
service Globalstar’s long‐term debt. If Thermo or Terrapin are unable to meet the conditions
of the agreement, or if Globalstar is unable to produce income before reaching the maximum
amount in the Common Stock Purchase Agreements, Globalstar will be in imminent danger of
defaulting on its facility agreement.
Shareholder/activist risk
Globalstar has been the target of an aggressive short‐selling publicity campaign initiated by
hedge fund Kerrisdale Capital, which began in October 2014. The public short‐selling
campaign resulted in a drop of more than 50% in Globalstar’s market capitalization. As of
September 30, 2015, there were 47.38 million shares shorted, representing 12.8% of the
408.33 million shares in float. While it is unknown how many of those short shares can be
attributed to the Kerrisdale campaign, the hedge fund has not given up on its initiative,
demonstrated by continued posts on investor forums and its own website,
factsaboutglobalstar.com. Its continued campaign and short positions might keep some
downward pressure on Globalstar’s stock in the short to medium term.

21. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
21
Equity Dilution
Globalstar has cash flow issues related to payments of its credit facility that, if not addressed,
could put the Company in a difficult position by forcing it to choose between filling for
chapter 11 and a secondary equity offering. Equity issuance would provide Globalstar with
the cash flow to maintain operations, but it would also reduce the value of any current
stockholders’ equity. This issue is pertinent as Globalstar has not posted a profit in the past
five fiscal years and has acquired a large amount of debt in the form of its Credit Facility
Agreement. Additionally, terms of the Credit Facility Agreement prohibit the issuance of any
debt securities before the repayment of the Facility itself. That covenant prevents Globalstar
from issuing debt if the need for additional capital arises, leaving equity issuance as the most
viable alternative. Globalstar previously issued 1 share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock
in a financing agreement with Thermo, which was convertible into 126,174,034 shares of
common stock. Globalstar’s certificate of incorporation authorizes the Board of Directors,
controlled by Thermo Capital Partners, to issue up to 100 million shares of preferred stock
without any approval from holders of common stock.
Regulatory Risk
Globalstar continues to hold licenses from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for
the operation of its satellites and ground stations. Globalstar is currently in the filing process
with the FCC over rulemaking, concerning use of additional segments of Globalstar’s
spectrum to provide wireless broadband services. Although the petition was filed in
November 2013, the process of authorization through the FCC has taken longer than
management initially expected. The long deliberation is partially due to objections presented
to the FCC over the Terrestrial Lower Power Service (TLPS) by several groups and firms,
including the Wi‐Fi Alliance, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), the
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), Google, and Microsoft. Globalstar
has provided technology demonstrations conducted at the FCC’s Technology Experience
Center (TEC) as evidence to address questions about adjacent Wi‐Fi channel interference
with TLPS. Such evidence found no interference. Opponents, such as Microsoft, claim the
demonstration at the TEC was insufficient and not representative of real‐life use of the
technology. Furthermore, opponents claim that Globalstar’s technology will cause
interference with adjacent Wi‐Fi channels and degrade overall signal quality. The abundance
of opposition may increase the possibility of further delays or an ultimate rejection of
Globalstar’s petition.
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND PROJECTIONS
Globalstar has operated at a loss for several years. It has become over‐levered to the extent
that it is no longer able to incur additional debt, and has instead reached an alternative
agreement with Thermo Capital Partners and Terrapin Partners. The Thermo deal provides
Globalstar with additional cash to sustain operations in exchange for common shares of the
Company. Globalstar has been waiting since 2013 for approval from the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to expand into Terrestrial Lower Power Service (TLPS)
spectrum. Much of the Company’s future financial performance hinges on the FCC’s decision.

22. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
22
Operating Activities
Globalstar launched a second‐generation network of satellites in 2013, and the Company is
currently expanding its subscriber base globally. Our projections for operating income,
however, deeply depend on the ultimate verdict of the FCC in regard to the TLPS spectrum
allocation. The shares of the firm have effectively become an option on this decision, as
people buying the stock today, hovering at about $2, expect a positive ruling and for the
stock price to rise nontrivially at that point. The Company would be able to undercut its
competition by being the first to capitalize on this spectrum, since Globalstar has already
purchased it for the purpose of TLPS.
Investing and Financing Activities
Globalstar’s agreement with Terrapin and Thermo Capital allows it to raise capital when
needed, but the deal also imposes a threat to common shareholders in terms of increased
dilution risk. The deal stipulates a non‐dilution clause for Terrapin and Thermo, which
protects the hedge funds from diluting their portion of shares outstanding. This clause causes
the rest of Globalstar’s shareholders to face dilution every time cash is borrowed, and
consequently, new stock is issued.
The larger concern for Globalstar is that its financing structure is not sustainable for the long
run. According to our projections, without a significant increase in revenue, the Company will
run out of cash by the fourth quarter of 2016 and will be forced to take actions in order to
stay afloat. Restructuring of debt or issuance of equity will be imminent by the end of 2016,
under current conditions. Again, the main factor that could drive revenue higher in the near
term is a favorable FCC ruling, allowing the Company to utilize the portion of its spectrum
that remains unlicensed. The impact of the FFC’s ruling upon Globalstar revenue fuels the
reasoning behind the Company’s option trading position.
SITE VISIT
On October 23, 2015, our analyst team visited the Globalstar Inc. headquarters in Covington,
Louisiana. In 2011, the Company relocated its corporate headquarters from Silicon Valley,
California to Covington, Louisiana, in an effort to reduce operating costs and to improve the
speed at which it markets new products by vertically integrating with Covington‐based
product manufacturer, Axxon. Upon our arrival, Senior Manager of Financial Analysis Shiv
Thukral greeted us and led us into the conference room. He then introduced us to Vice
President of Finance, Business Operations, and Strategy Tim Taylor, with whom we were able
to discuss a wide array of subjects.
Mr. Taylor gave us a brief overview and described the importance of the research that was
being conducted in Washington, D.C. into the Company’s potential use of Terrestrial Lower
Power Service (TLPS). According to management, testing results have been overwhelmingly
positive and have shown no evidence that the use of TLPS will interfere with other spectrums
and signals in any way. Furthermore, the opposition has not found any evidence indicating
that such interference exists either.

23. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
23
In regards to the ruling of Globalstar’s petition to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) for allocation of the TLPS spectrum, management expects a ruling within the next three
to four months even though they recognize that the FCC’s timing is glacial. In addition, the
delay can be primarily attributed to both the precedence of filings from top companies and
the intense workload of the FCC.
If the FCC eventually grants final approval, the use of TLPS will be all about the additional Wi‐
Fi capacity. The service itself will not be a branded Globalstar product since the Company will
lease out the spectrum to a third party. Conversation has already been established with
possible customers, which include technology companies venturing into telecommunications
as well as traditional signal providers such as AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. Immediately
following the approval, Globalstar will file for spectrum rights all around the world, fostering
its international expansion and taking advantage of economies of scale.
During our meeting, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Thukral answered some more direct questions posed
by our team. Globalstar’s lack of membership in the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) can be
attributed to the Company’s focus on becoming more consumer‐oriented by concentrating
its efforts on development of products and services. The Company previously spent over
$150,000 per year on a membership that it considered to bring little or no benefit.
Plans for further capital expenditures are limited since around 95% of expenses for both
launching the second‐generation satellite fleet, and for setting up all corresponding ground
stations. Nonetheless, the Company foresees an average spending for maintenance that
should not exceed $5 million per year.
As it relates to innovation, new product development is centered on exploiting capabilities of
second‐generation satellites. A new and possibly subsidized version of the Sat‐Fi, a mobile
satellite hotspot, is scheduled for release in the near feature with major improvements
compared to its predecessor. Compared to the current Sat‐Fi, the new version will be one‐
third of the size, one‐tenth of the cost, ten‐times faster, and have a built‐in battery pack. The
Company will also release new devices that enable two‐way communication for its SPOT
product line, technology that is already offered by competitors but not yet by Globalstar.
Our analyst team appreciated the opportunity to meet with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Thukral, who
answered all of our questions openly. During the visit, we gained valuable insight on the
current goals and operations of the Company as well as its future expectations and plans.

24. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
24
INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE RESEARCH
To accurately convey Globalstar’s position in the market, our team combined specific
company‐wide data points with a diverse set of trends within the mobile satellite service
industry (MSS). IBISWorld reports on the industry provided an initial perspective on sector
dynamics and Globalstar’s current position in the market. In addition to the broader
perspective, we proceeded to build an outlook for the Company using internal metrics. We
gathered financial data from Globalstar’s quarterly and annual SEC reports, press releases,
conference calls, and recent news concerning the Company. Sources used include Factiva,
Bloomberg, Thomson One, and Yahoo Finance. Various analysts’ reports and coverages on
the Company offered an overview of the market’s sentiment and consensus on future
expected performance. The site visit to Globalstar’s headquarters in Covington, Louisiana
gave us more in‐depth insight into management’s short‐ and long‐term perspectives.
Globalstar has been going through a highly publicized effort to get their TLPS technology
approved by the FCC. The FCC ruling will have a material effect on Globalstar’s spectrum
asset value; to evaluate the potential effect of the ruling, we reached out to experts in Wi‐Fi
interference and spectrum utilization. Research into Wi‐Fi interference with Cisco led us to
the author of several quoted whitepapers, Craig Mathais. Craig Mathais is principal at
Farpoint Group, member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and an
expert in wireless communications. We talked with Mr. Mathais about the viability of
Globalstar’s TLPS technology compared to other developing wireless technologies that deal
with wireless interference and lack of usable WiFi spectrum. He affirmed that wireless
interference is only bound to increase over the coming years as internet capable devices
continue to proliferate. He said that, if approved, Globalstar’s TLPS 2.4Ghz Wi‐Fi channel 14
would provide instant needed relief to Wi‐Fi channel congestion. However, Mr. Mathais
stipulated the interference relief will likely be temporary as the 2.4Ghz spectrum comes
closer to the point of saturation and as end users continue to migrate towards 5Ghz and Wi‐
Fi spectrums at other frequencies.

25. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
25
ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT
ALTMAN Z‐SCORE
The Z‐Score was first introduced by New York University’s Professor Edward Altman in 1967,
and is a formula that estimates the likelihood of a publicly‐traded company to file for
bankruptcy within the next few years. Companies are classified into one of three categories:
safe zone, grey zone or distress zone. The score is based upon five financial ratios and is
calculated according to the following formula:
1.2 1.4 3.3 .6 4 1 5
Where:
= Working capital to total assets
= Retained earnings to total assets
= Earnings before interest and T=taxes (EBIT) to total assets
= Market value of equity to book value of total liabilities
= Sales to total assets
The company is in the safe zone if it has a Z‐score of 2.99 or higher, in the grey zone if it scores
between 1.8 and 2.99, and in the distress zone if it scores below 1.8. Companies with lower Z‐
scores have greater risk of bankruptcy.
Table 9 shows the historical Z‐scores for Globalstar. The Company has consistently been in
Altman’s distress zone, which links it to a high risk of bankruptcy. The formula was originally
developed to analyze asset‐heavy manufacturing companies, however, and it might not
accurately assess Globalstar’s bankruptcy risk.
Table 9: Historical Z‐Scores for Globalstar
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Z‐score (0.25) (0.09) (0.25) (1.04) (1.89) (1.45)
Zone
Distress
Zone
Distress
Zone
Distress
Zone
Distress
Zone
Distress
Zone
Distress
Zone
Source: Burkenroad Reports Analysis

26. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
26
PETER LYNCH EARNINGS MULTIPLE VALUATION
Peter Lynch, world‐renowned investor, reveals in his best‐selling book, One Up on Wall Street,
one of the techniques he uses to evaluate investment decisions. According to Mr. Lynch,
investors can determine if they should buy or sell a particular stock by plotting its historical
price against what he refers to as the stock’s “earnings line.” This line is plotted by multiplying
the company’s earnings per share by 15. When a stock’s price trades well below the earnings
line, investors should buy the stock. Conversely, when the stock trades higher that the line,
investors should sell it.
Figure 4 shows the Peter Lynch Analysis for Globalstar’s stock. As seen in the plotted graph, the
stock has historically traded well above its earnings line for the past five years. As of November
6, 2015, the stock is trading at $2.10 and above 15‐times the earnings per share. According to
his analysis, Mr. Lynch would not buy Globalstar’s stock at this time.
Figure 4: Peter Lynch Analysis
Source: Google Finance November 6, 2015
Earnings Line
Stock Price

27. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
27
WWBD?
What Would Ben (Graham) Do?
Ben Graham, known by many as the father of value investing, developed a list of eight
“hurdles” that evaluate the potential of investing in a selected stock. The first six hurdles on
his list provide insight into the value of the company, while the last two hurdles test its
growth potential. Mr. Graham would consider a stock to be an attractive investment if it
passes at least four of the following eight hurdles
1. An earnings to price yield of two‐times the yield on the ten‐year Treasury
2. A P/E ratio down to one‐half of the stock’s highest in five years
3. A dividend yield of one‐half the yield on the ten‐year Treasury
4. A stock price less than 1.5‐times the book value
5. A total debt less than book value
6. A current ratio of two or more
7. An earnings growth rate of 7% or higher over past five years
8. A stable growth in earnings
Globalstar currently only passes the first hurdle on the list by having an earnings to price
yield of 7.51%, which is higher than two‐times the yield on the ten‐year Treasury. The tests
for all eight hurdles are shown in Figure 5. As a result, Ben Graham would not consider
investing in this stock.
Figure 5: Ben Graham Analysis

28. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org) November 6, 2015
28
Earnings per share (ttm) 0.16$ Price: 2.10$
Earnings to Price Yield 7.51%
10 Year Treasury (2X) 4.68%
P/E ratio as of 12/31/14 (5.6)
P/E ratio as of 12/31/13 (1.8)
P/E ratio as of 12/31/12 (1.1)
P/E ratio as of 12/31/11 (3.0)
P/E ratio as of 12/31/10 (4.3)
Current P/E Ratio 13.3
Dividends per share (ttm) ‐$ Price: 2.10$
Dividend Yield 0.00%
1/2 Yield on 10 Year Treasury 1.17%
Stock Price 2.10$
Book Value per share as of 9/30/15 0.26$
150% of book Value per share as of 9/30/15 0.38$
Interest‐bearing debt as of 9/30/15 638,479$
Book value as of 9/30/15 263,075$
Current assets as of 9/30/15 59,823$
Current liabilities as of 9/30/15 103,648$
Current ratio as of 9/30/15 0.6
EPS for year ended 12/31/10 (0.34)$
EPS for year ended 12/31/11 (0.18)$
EPS for year ended 12/31/12 (0.29)$
EPS for year ended 12/31/13 (0.96)$
EPS for year ended 12/31/14 (0.50)$
EPS for year ended 12/31/10 (0.34)$
EPS for year ended 12/31/11 (0.18)$ ‐47%
EPS for year ended 12/31/12 (0.29)$ 61%
EPS for year ended 12/31/13 (0.96)$ 231%
EPS for year ended 12/31/14 (0.50)$ ‐48%
Stock price data as of November 6, 2015
No
Hurdle # 3: A Dividend Yield of 1/2 the Yield on 10 Year Treasury
No
Hurdle # 4: A Stock Price less than 1.5 BV
No
Hurdle # 5: Total Debt less than Book Value
No
Hurdle # 6: Current Ratio of Two or More
No
Hurdle # 7: Earnings Growth of 7% or Higher over past 5 years
No
Hurdle # 8: Stability in Growth of Earnings
No
GLOBALSTAR (NYSE: GSAT)
Ben Graham Analysis
Hurdle # 1: An Earnings to Price Yield of 2X the Yield on 10 Year Treasury
Yes
Hurdle # 2: A P/E Ratio Down to 1/2 of the Stocks Highest in 5 Yrs

29. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org)November 6, 2015
29
GLOBALSTAR (NYSE: GSAT)
Quarterly and Annual Earnings
In thousands
For the period ended 2012 A 2013 A 2014 A31‐Mar‐15 A30‐Jun‐15 A30‐Sep‐15 A31‐Dec‐15 E 2015 E31‐Mar‐16 E30‐Jun‐16 E30‐Sep‐16 E31‐Dec‐16 E 2016 E
Revenues
Service revenue57,468 64,644 69,823 17,107 18,616 19,644 18,202 73,569 17,358 15,737 16,431 16,025 65,551
Subscriber equipment sales18,850 18,067 20,241 3,915 4,407 4,034 5,461 17,817 5,207 4,721 4,929 4,808 19,665
Total revenue76,318 82,711 90,064 21,022 23,023 23,678 23,663 91,386 22,565 20,458 21,361 20,833 85,216
Operating expenses
Costs of services30,071 30,210 29,668 7,434 8,027 7,761 8,058 31,280 7,477 6,525 6,738 7,159 27,899
Cost of subscriber equipment sales13,280 13,623 14,857 3,131 2,983 2,914 3,823 12,851 3,645 3,305 3,451 3,365 13,766
Reduction in the value of equipment1,397 5,794 21,684
Reduction in the value of assets7,218 84
Contract termination charge22,048
Marketing, general, and administrative27,496 29,888 33,520 8,596 10,159 9,675 9,819 38,249 9,364 8,489 8,864 8,645 35,362
Depreciation and amortization69,801 90,592 86,146 19,046 19,271 19,417 20,346 78,080 20,789 21,175 21,561 21,763 85,289
Total operating expenses171,311 170,107 185,959 38,207 40,440 39,767 42,046 160,460 41,275 39,494 40,614 40,932 162,315
Operating income (loss)(94,993) (87,396) (95,895) (17,185) (17,417) (16,089) (18,383) (69,074) (18,710) (19,036) (19,253) (20,100) (77,098)
Other income (expense):
Loss on extinguisment of debt(109,092) (39,846) (65) (2,189) (2,254)
Loss on future equity issuance(16,701) (2,912) (2,920) (5,832)
Interest expense(21,486) (67,828) (43,233) (8,517) (9,244) (9,019) (9,111) (35,891) (9,005) (8,888) (8,770) (8,652) (35,315)
Interest rate derivative gain (loss)6,974 (305,999) (286,049) (107,865) 237,087 54,194 183,416
Other(2,280) (2,962) 3,038 4,133 (452) (1,953) 1,728
Total other income (expense)(16,792) (502,582) (366,090) (112,314) 222,290 40,302 (9,111) 141,167 (9,005) (8,888) (8,770) (8,652) (35,315)
Income (loss) before income taxes(111,785) (589,978) (461,985) (129,499) 204,873 24,213 (27,493) 72,094 (27,715) (27,924) (28,023) (28,752) (112,414)
Income tax expense (benefit)413 1,138 881 228 106 115 449
Net income (loss) (112,198)$ (591,116)$ (462,866)$ (129,727)$ 204,767$ 24,098$ (27,493)$ 71,645$ (27,715)$ (27,924)$ (28,023)$ (28,752)$ (112,414)$
Net income (loss) per common share:
Basic(0.29)$ (0.96)$ (0.50)$ (0.13)$ 0.20$ 0.02$ (0.03)$ 0.07$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.10)$
Non‐recurring charges(0.04)$ (0.44)$ (0.22)$ (0.07)$ 0.14$ 0.03$ 0.11$
Basic net of non‐recurring (0.25)$ (0.52)$ (0.28)$ (0.06)$ 0.06$ (0.01)$ (0.03)$ (0.04)$
Diluted (0.29)$ (0.96)$ (0.50)$ (0.13)$ 0.17$ 0.02$ (0.03)$ 0.07$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.10)$
Non‐recurring charges(0.04)$ (0.44)$ (0.22)$ (0.07)$ 0.12$ 0.03$ 0.11$
Diluted net of non‐recurring(0.25)$ (0.52)$ (0.28)$ (0.06)$ 0.05$ (0.01)$ (0.03)$ (0.04)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.03)$ (0.10)$
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Basic 388,453 614,959 934,356 1,000,845 1,009,917 1,031,398 1,041,219 1,041,219 1,051,030 1,073,786 1,089,586 1,105,368 1,105,368
Diluted 388,453 614,959 934,356 1,000,845 1,205,450 1,234,551 1,041,219 1,041,219 1,051,030 1,073,786 1,089,586 1,105,368 1,105,368
2016 E2015 E

30. Globalstar Incorporated (GSAT) BURKENROAD REPORTS (www.burkenroad.org)November 6, 2015
30
GLOBALSTAR (NYSE: GSAT)
Quarterly and Annual Earnings
In thousands
SELECTED COMMON‐SIZE AMOUNTS 2012 A 2013 A 2014 A31‐Mar‐15 A30‐Jun‐15 A30‐Sep‐15 A31‐Dec‐15 E 2015 E31‐Mar‐16 E30‐Jun‐16 E30‐Sep‐16 E31‐Dec‐16 E 2016 E
Service revenue75.30%78.16%77.53%81.38%80.86%82.96%76.92%80.50%76.92%76.92%76.92%76.92%76.92%
Subscriber equipment sales24.70%21.84%22.47%18.62%19.14%17.04%23.08%19.50%23.08%23.08%23.08%23.08%23.08%
Depreciation and amortization121.46%140.14%123.38%111.33%103.52%98.84%111.78%106.13%119.77%134.56%131.22%135.81%130.11%
Costs of services as % of service revenue52.33%46.73%42.49%43.46%43.12%39.51%44.27%42.52%43.08%41.46%41.01%44.67%42.56%
Cost of subscriber equipment sales as % of equipment revenue70.45%75.40%73.40%79.97%67.69%72.24%70.00%72.13%70.00%70.00%70.00%70.00%70.00%
Marketing, general, and administrative as % of total revenue36.03%36.14%37.22%40.89%44.13%161.54%41.50%41.85%41.50%41.50%41.50%41.50%41.50%
Total operating expenses298.10%263.14%266.33%223.34%217.23%202.44%230.99%218.11%237.79%250.97%247.17%255.42%247.62%
Operating income (loss)‐165.30%‐135.20%‐137.34%‐100.46%‐93.56%‐81.90%‐100.99%‐93.89%‐107.79%‐120.97%‐117.17%‐125.42%‐117.62%
Other income (expense):
Total other income (expense)‐29.22%‐777.46%‐524.31%‐656.54%1194.08%205.16%‐50.05%191.88%‐51.88%‐56.48%‐53.37%‐53.99%‐53.87%
Income (loss) before income taxes‐194.52%‐912.66%‐661.65%‐756.99%1100.52%123.26%‐151.04%97.99%‐159.67%‐177.44%‐170.55%‐179.41%‐171.49%
Income tax expense (benefit)0.72%1.76%1.26%1.33%0.57%0.59%0.00%0.61%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
Net income (loss) ‐195.24%‐914.42%‐662.91%‐758.33%1099.95%122.67%‐151.04%97.38%‐159.67%‐177.44%‐170.55%‐179.41%‐171.49%
YEAR TO YEAR CHANGE
Service revenue3.74%12.49%8.01%5.28%4.08%6.12%5.98%5.37%1.46%‐15.47%‐16.35%‐11.96%‐10.90%
Depreciation and amortization39.47%29.79%‐4.91%‐18.37%‐12.46%‐7.74%3.00%‐9.36%9.15%9.88%11.04%6.97%9.23%
Total operating expenses17.29%‐0.70%9.32%‐7.06%‐17.52%‐4.25%‐22.55%‐13.71%8.03%‐2.34%2.13%‐2.65%1.16%
Operating income (loss)29.71%‐8.00%9.72%‐16.48%‐30.43%‐11.08%‐42.90%‐27.97%8.87%9.30%19.66%9.34%11.62%
Total other income (expense)‐192.25%2892.98%‐27.16%‐51.12%‐154.52%‐72.69%‐107.36%‐138.56%‐91.98%‐104.00%‐121.76%‐5.03%‐125.02%
Income (loss) before income taxes103.12%427.78%‐21.69%‐48.27%‐147.34%‐81.30%‐130.00%‐115.61%‐78.60%‐113.63%‐215.73%4.58%‐255.93%
Income tax expense (benefit)‐478.90%175.54%‐22.58%18.13%‐89.09%29.21%n/a‐49.04%n/an/an/an/an/a
Net income (loss) 104.28%426.85%‐21.70%‐48.22%‐147.21%‐81.38%‐129.88%‐115.48%‐78.64%‐113.64%‐216.29%4.58%‐256.90%
2015 E2016 E