Dig: I couldn't disagree with you more about most of the things you wrote. You are talking about two different things, IMO. Yes, there certainly are the smart money folks who conservatively recommend placements, rather than investing on the open market. But there are also the second kind, who don't bother about dilution, but who target new ideas with a chance of gaining real traction.
Naturally, neither one of the above groups would be looking at Wave--particularly after they saw the record, read the coverage in the NYT, Smart Money and Barron's. Wave is an extremely distressed company, with nearly all of the damage self-inflicted.
I was talking about the so-called Tech Bird Dogs (for lack of a better name) who scour the web looking for companies they think will have an imminent hit.
In those rare cases, waiting for a placement to come to pass, may be a bit late to the party as word seeps out about a company, say like GoPro--a disruptive force that burst upon the scene. GoPro was slow to make an IPO and had considerable front-running PR, i.e., a 60 minutes piece, along with other media stories long before the IPO. But you get my drift.
As far as pseudologic and the rest of your 'rejection' of my post, I would like to match my record for clear-headed predictions about Wave against some of yours, most of which missed the mark (overshot) by a wide margin. Some of it, for your part, was based on outright lies by the former CEO.
Here's what you said: "Yours is basically a colorful piece of rhetoric far removed from reality, based on false assumptions, and steeped in pseudo-logic all packaged up as a compelling bit of spin."
As far as being far removed from reality, I believe your hopefulness is what is unreal--about Wave's actual chances at this late point. Where are the false assumptions and the spin?
Then you do it up again, taking one unrealistic speculative bit of arithmetic and multiplying by a factor even more fanciful and coming up with Wave's path to CFBE--despite the total lack of new and significant sales in a really long time.
Doesn't happen in the world I live in. You need revenue--real, not imagined or hoped for. Your post seems to epitomize false assumptions, as you have done all along--that's why you were rarely right at predicting revenue and CFBE, when I was saying accurately, back in 2006, break-even would be doubtful before 2009-10 and questionable much beyond that. Eight years later, still no break-even or any real hope for it, IMO.
Example of yours cited: "For example, were Wave to record a significant deal this year (>$350k) with some follow on activity in Q1 of say $2m above normal billings and then achieve cfbe in Q2 on the backs of some $3.5m in billings above norms the equity would likely reach multiples of 4-5x sales (that would be SP around $2-3)."
Don't you think that is stacking the intangibles, the highly imaginatives and the uncounted, unhatched chickens a bit high, considering the history here?
As far as the last bit, I completely agree. The supporters have spun gossamer filaments into solid objects, all of which evaporated in the morning sun.
My record on Wave, with the exception of my inaccurately predicted Death Spiral years ago, has pretty much matched what actually happened. I visited Wave HQ, met with the principals and developed reliable sources who informed me about the issues I posted about.
You, I suspect, attempted to philosophise from afar the number of teeth in the horse's mouth without bothering to look inside the equine jaws.
Your rhetoric is colorful, too, most of it in support of a Wave success story that IMO, is unlikely and damn near impossible, barring some miracle of luck. I doubt either of us will live long enough to see Wave even gain back the hundreds of millions of investment dollars squandered on silly stuff--much less make money for investors like yourself who have been in and waiting for years upon years.
Blue
