mmbg, "The question that needs to be answered IMO is why wasn't this company taken out when the shares were so cheap if the technology is so dominant? They are still cheap today if that is the case...
"
It is a perfectly sound question.
In my opinion the answer may be rather simple, but that the nature of the technology vis e vie "dominance" is not the measure of takeout interest.
More simply, can the company reliably sell things for at least the costs of production. The financials have never supported that notion.
Implementation of e.g. the BP affair was slow, likely costly, and given the ongoing expenses, even when trimmed, results in a situation where the throughput cannot cover sales. "Dominance" has nothing to do with it (IMO).
It is my opinion that should Wave establish itself as a company capable of durable cfbe business that it will indeed become a target, and while shareholders will resist some, there is always a price and I believe it to be under $1bn.
So while some extrapolate wealth as a consequence of considerable Wave success (should that happen), I don't see that as likely. But shareholders voted for a lot of things for a long time in the face of overwhelming evidence for change, so ICBW. Perhaps shareholders hold out (again, in the event of success) but I am inclined to think not and there are enough shares that don't appear to normally vote to make it happen.
but the point is: the company, not the technology, the company needs to appear that it can move products at or above cost, and that the amount of revenue involved need be meaningful.
Dell has been reasonably busy, they shelled out $5bn for several companies, companies that bring in something like $0.75bn in sales (all from memory from Dell disclosures).
i.e. Dell paid something like 6-7x sales to gobble up a number of firms (including e.g. Credant). These were generally privately held firms (VC held mostly). I expect that should Wave achieve a reasonably reliable cfbe business model (e.g. on the backs of VSC sales coupled with some OEM revenue) in the area of $35m annual revs that they would likely be pursued. Being public with a loyal shareholder base I could imagine some premium over the 6-7x sales.
That's my crystal ball backwards and forwards.
The above content is my opinion.
