disagree matt. do you think shorts were paying 20-25% to borrow plus the dividend because of margin compression? it was a combination of many factors, including improper revenue recognition, which couldn't have been more obvious with accounts receivables. this company hasn't generated much, if any, free cash flow. so your 50mm number could be way off. look at it this way, they have $50mm worth of tanks that they'd be lucky to sell at costs (competitors have created upgraded products over produced them - http://dragonproductsltd.com/tanks/st-water%20corral.html). and now they have debt. and based on 3Q numbers and margins (which didn't show any compression despite huge industry compression), you can ascertain that PSN didn't get any new business (lost to lower cost competitors, they've angered lots of customers (do any field checks and you'll know), etc) and their business is about to get a lot worse.
buying at 1.50 has similar risks to buying at 15, 6, and 3. They might not make enough money in next two years to pay back the money they borrowed to pay such a fat dividend and then what? stock goes to zero.