Bloggerwave Inc.(fka BLGW)

[downsideup]

Depends on how you look at it... which probably depends a lot on when you found them, what you paid for a share, and how your management of your interest, and prior expectations, compare to the present reality, now...

Clearly there have been a couple of pretty significant "disconnects" that have occurred between the expectations held at the initial launch, and where they are now...

Clearly, there are significant problems that exist in the quality of work, the quality of effort, and the apparent focus of the "staff" that have been providing support on the organizational and financial side of things... the lawyers, accountants, and other service providers. Thus far... the quality of work done on the accounting and financing side in particular... is obviously worse than "questionable".

They have shown a good to remarkable ability to undo prior mistakes in a way that leaves them able to proceed... although "able" they've not yet shown that they have figured out HOW to proceed from "making a mistake" to a "finding a solution" in the next step...

BLGW has an early history showing they'd formed associations with some people who've not done very much to enable their success... or to enable them in having much credibility. It appears they've been working, more recently, on trying to escape the influence of some of those early associations... and clearly they have had only limited success, thus far, in eliminating the sources of problems while replacing them with sources of solutions.

Ultimately, of course, it is managements responsibility to not allow any of the "professionals" to lead them around by the nose... rather than managements job to provide the professionals they employ with focus and direction, giving them marching orders and then holding their noses to the grindstone... to ensure they meet their obligations while following management direction... at least as long as management is capable and provides PROPER direction.

The last filing they posted seems it announced that they have agreed with their prior financiers to have everyone just sort of back out of their prior announced financing deal... no harm, no foul... and no shares changing hands, etc.

That solution probably does minimize everyone's liabilities... but, where it leaves BLGW now is obviously an open question.

The result is obviously "bad", in terms of that meaning they're not exactly flush at the moment... maybe adrift... but, at the same time, it is potentially good as it means that prior and less than useful deal they'd made is now gone, and it isn't going to be the focal point, looking forward.

The "benefits" that deal offered... IMO, were clearly not worth the effort made in taking them up.

That it appears they eliminated the various obligations that deal intended without doing any real harm is clearly a good.

It does leave them needing to reconstitute prior relationships with some new financiers... and, hopefully, replace those that were lost with new ones that are vastly better able to HELP them, and work WITH them to enable future successes.

We'll have to wait and see what, if anything, that means about what it is that the BLGW management intends to do next... while seeing if they learn whatever it is they should have from having made that prior effort... while positioning to not repeat those mistakes that are apparent in the prior relationships.

The prior deal seemed it was mostly designed to have enabled them with some bit of $$$, without ever providing them with much else useful in the way of any meaningful support or any value being added by the deal beyond the $, when there clearly is a need for more than $$$ at BLGW.

Management apparently liked the promise of "no strings attached" $$$ that wouldn't posture to "interfere" with their management of the business... as long as they kept the filings current, etc.

I'd rather see $ that cares... and $ that both requires and is willing and able to enable them in generating success in the business... while requiring that.

Of course, that promise of "non-interference" with management was an obvious set up... even if it appears a relatively "soft" method of providing "death spiral" financing with the death spiral induced in the terms and compliance rather than in the $. It appears to me that it still had the financiers providing promises of $ while betting against the company's ability to meet the terms of the deal being made... with the financiers still expecting to benefit MORE from their inevitable failure, while also giving them plenty of ability to ensure that failure would occur.

I'd rather see them get $ from some other source... that would pair the provision of $ with some bit of more useful effort in providing benefits in help, support, and oversight, rather than the purported "benefit" to management of "non-interference" in their conduct of the business... with financiers expecting that means a certainty of failure in meeting the terms of their agreement.

Better to see "friendly" $ that will be provided along with some guidance from an more experienced management cadre who will be providing some "adult leadership" re oversight in developing the business... which it appears they will require to succeed, along with the $, in order to make a go of their business.

I'd always rather see the management and the financiers working together to enable success... with their interests well aligned and each depending on enabling success to extract any benefit... rather than see them posturing their interests in opposition to the other, and shareholders, while betting against each other... which is what that deal they had basically WAS.

The prior deal postured "performance" requirements in terms of sustaining their currency in the filings, etc., apparently, IMO, with that imposition only being made at a time when it was already fully apparent to the financiers, or should have been, that that couldn't and wouldn't happen... leaving the financiers in position to make them (and shareholders) pay very dearly for any failure... while knowing, already, that inevitable failure was already in train ? Yikes.

Now, that bit of threat that deal had postured, at least, seems it has been removed...

It is generally a good thing to want to keep up with the filings, of course, but, it is also important to keep a proper focus on enabling success and advancing the BUSINESS so that the effort in keeping current with filings being posted might actually matter in terms of what it is that is being reported ???

The prior deal appeared to me to be one that was primarily designed and intended more to "use" them, and put them on the hook... while disclaiming the financiers had any real stake in or responsibility for enabling success in the business... rather than being the sort of deal that was designed to have the relationship actually "help" them in enabling the business to succeed...

Fiduciaries... should act like fiduciaries...

The prior deal seems it had the financiers posturing a set of requirements re "keeping current" in filings... while what they were doing was actually betting against the company's ability to actually meet the requirements. That had them in position to be able to "enable a benefit for themselves" by working against the companys interest, while advertising to management that their "not helping" was actually providing them with a benefit.

Given what it seems the financiers effort in basic due diligence must have shown about the situation before the deals were done... I don't see how the deal that was announced in the filings could have been legitimately made, on the side of the financiers. I don't think their "legal disclaimers" re who pays for any legal challenges to the deal would have come close to holding up against a simple test... etc.

So, I'm glad to see that being disposed of as it seems it is.

I've done enough of the work in DD re BLGW to validate that there is a legitimate enough opportunity that exists. But, that is always only one element in DD... validating that thee is a potential ability to generate future value. Others... clearly matter, too.

I am impressed that management here do appear able to avoid having the mistakes that have been made, to date, do harm...

I'd be more impressed if they were able to avoid mistakes and correct them... rather than simply back out of them...

I can't say that I've been overly impressed, thus far, with that element in management's decision making re exploiting a strategic focus, or the elements in organization, finance and accounting. Not impressed with what I can see of the nature of the management effort, thus far, in terms of operating the business... or with the nature of the "support" that has been provided them by those who've been working "with" them on the organization and finance side.

I'd like to see them expand their ability... by accepting they need some guidance... from a board of directors that includes some people with prior success in some related business... who are independent of management. I'd rather see finance that includes that as a requirement, and that steps up to act as a fiduciary should... than finance that postures "not helping" as a benefit.

I don't expect that a new business with an inexperienced management will avoid every mistake... but, I do expect that they should demonstrate a learning curve that isn't flat... and will eventually figure out that what they actually need to enable their own success... is HELP from others with experience who are willing to work with them to enable common success... and not promises of free $ from others who are offering them something for what looks like nothing... when that isn't what they are offering at all.

My opinion is that with a proper effort applied in management, and with a significantly more entrepreneurial focus in the pairing of that effort with solid efforts in management and finance, they could pretty quickly be in position to actually be making money...

The self-contained skill set in sales and in net focused software development are useful... they are assets... but they are in fact non-essential in terms of organizing and enabling the business to succeed. With a proper focus on developing a viable and extensible set of business strategies, and on having marketing efforts that are better aligned with opportunities for closing sales... with a proper bit of work done in organizing and financing that aligns the capabilities required in a way that has them synch to enable common success... then, the software engineering, marketing and sales tasks are ones you can hire people to perform.

Thus far, BLGW's management have been having their heads handed to them by the various operators in the market... who really don't care much if they ever make a business work or not.

The management have demonstrated a learning curve...

Now, I think we'll see whether or not that learning curve is actually steep enough to matter...