Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Barge, it is not the fear, it is the facts--the cold, hard, depressing facts.
Wave does not have the luxury of time, or money. Waiting for the TCG to become relevant is like waiting for an unborn heir to a disputed member of royalty with dubious provenance, to become king.
TPMs in computers now number over a billion plus. Usage remains too low to even reach a measurable threshold--far, far below .01%
If the TPM was going to become the standard, wouldn't we see some movement towards that goal? I see none, just more future seers who think they see what is coming, yet have not been right about anything related to Wave's future. I guess I am saying not to put too much stock in it.
Isn't it time to quit loading the future with more weight than it could ever hold, and embrace reality for a change? We wait for a dysfunctional govt to see and seize one concept out of many multiplying 'solutions,' adopt it and then, the story goes--it will take off.
Perhaps you see how that might happen, but all I see is the line of "if"s stretching to infinity before there is coalescence around one true way out of the complex, insecure mess we all live in. If Wave had real value, I believe someone would have latched onto it by now. I don't see anyone heralding Wave's solution.
It looks like the old Wave analogy of trying to hit a moving target holds water, with an added difficulty or two--the target is now almost out of range and its speed is increasing geometrically.
Sure, it could happen. So could Earth be wiped out by a random asteroid--probably not in our lifetime. While mathematically possible, neither scenario is likely to happen anytime soon, IMO.
Best wishes--Blue
Barge: You write: "Wave follows the fate of TCG." If that is so, best sell now.
When has either the TCG or any entity adopted and used TPMs on a regular basis? There is not one bit of evidence any of the members do. 99%+ of the target audience has no idea if they even have a TPM or what it does.
In a sense, Wave is the Titanic--an arrogant and ignorant captain at the helm, his first mate (Feeney) equally inept. Now, after the iceberg has been struck, a new skipper has been flown in. Can he staunch the tons of seawater pouring into the long gash the iceberg made in the hull? Can he keep it afloat thousands of miles from help?
Will Solms's navigational skills manage to save a badly listing ship most see as already doomed?
When Wave begins to sell its products, perhaps such an argument may have a place at the discussion table. But right now, in the absence of sales, Wave's wrecked and badly leaking ship seems headed for the bottom.
Today marks the middle of October. No further word on the Bell deal which was supposed to be done by August. No sign of a turnaround, but plenty of signs Wave is still fighting the same uphill, losing battles it always fought.
Wave under SKS, existed on lies and hope and on many false premises--among which is the fictional theory Wave's technology was the absolute best. Now, finally, and probably too late to the dance, Wave has a new CEO. Can he overcome the legacy of a pantry full of defective, clunky, useless products no one wants? I don't think so.
Spinning off a redesigned VSC was a great idea. Try to get some sales of something going and perhaps the momentum would carry us forward. But there is no forward momentum. No sales in an environment seemingly made for a security company like Wave.
Some supporters seem to have difficulty understanding the old Wave was never seaworthy. It was and still is the laughingstock company Steven made of it, by lying and lying and pretending big things were coming when only more of the same was coming.
It is hard for many to fathom it was all bologna under Steven. I doubt whether Solms or anyone could right the ship before it goes down to Davy Jones locker.
Like with many, Solms gave me hope. But as the days tick away, the share price continues to erode, no real sales are announced, old SKS tactics are employed (meaningless PRs with no revenue) my already-thin optimism is being shredded.
Not only have we not seen signs of a turnaround, we are seeing signs of Wave's hole being dug deeper.
Out of the mist, one fact looms largest, IMO. No sales in a year of trying.
To me, that does not spell hope. It continues the rich tradition of failure--26 years without a single profitable quarter.
Blue
Player, thanks, but one clarification, please.
What if the company is Wave, in business for 26 years total--but it has new mgt.?
The old mgt team was completely discredited. The new mgt team has been on the job about a year [Solms was Wave's VP of sales, before he became CEO]--but even with new, invigorated sales people hired, sales are totally lacking if you subtract that "modest" sale to an unnamed govt. agency, in a year.
Is a year an unreasonably short amount of time to wait for the new sales?
I'm sure you've heard me make the case that Solms's awareness of the shortcomings of his predecessor seemingly would make him shy away from setting any time frames, unless he was dead sure they would happen.
Yet, despite the new CEO's wish to distance himself from the old way of doing business, i.e., lying and missing deadlines--it appears he may be going down that same path.
Do you consider it serious, when examined in that light, that the Bell deal supposed to be done by August has yet to be inked. And/or, that Solms's statement we would see the signs of a turnaround by Q3, Q4? I see no signs of anything significantly different.
Am I too impatient, or is it beginning to get worrisome to you, too?
Thank you for sharing your business experience and insights with this board. I have learned much and your realistic, real-world view is a counter to baseless claims of big, imminent progress expressed elsewhere--based on things I can not see.
Best wishes--Blue
Player: I agree with your sentiments, but have a question. What if strong sales people fail to sell within a year, as is the case currently with Wave?
Given your experience, what would your analysis say about that?
Thanks in advance--Blue
Root: Yours is a hopeful post and the facts seem to be in order, except for one troubling detail. Wave has continuously had trouble selling its stuff.
Dell kept Wave alive for years, but now it is on the way out and with good reason. After a long partnership, Dell went in a different direction.
At various times in the past, it did seem as if everything was lining up for Wave to break out. It never did. Of course, a lot of that former 'readiness to breakout', was unfortunately, based on the untruthful statements of SKS.
What about the govt pilots of the past--there were at least three I can recall. None led to follow-on sales. What about the countless demos and trials? Few, if any led to significant sales, despite heavy investment of time and money on Wave's part--FinRead, etc. The European banks took a good, long look and walked away. Why?
Did you ever hear a satisfactory explanation of that failure? I heard some techno-babble from SKS that raised more questions than were answered.
I'm not arguing the past continues to dominate the present and future, as some have mis-characterized the argument. The problem is Wave, in 26 years has been unable to sell consistently.
My argument is until Wave reverses course and starts selling in a significant way, we shouldn't expect much. Let's wait until we have some actual numbers from the Q3 CC until we start counting unhatched chickens.
There may be signs of real growth--key word is "may." There may also be nothing more than more forward looking timelines to profitability, more encouraging signs of engagement--but no actual sales. I'm not predicting that at all.
I think Wave is so desperate for any sales at all, if there were even small ones, we'd know about it. Why would any CEO allow the share price to come under such fierce attack on his watch, if he had the ammo (sales) to stop it? Does not seem logical in any way to me.
Both of us are grappling in the dark, in the absence of facts. We are reduced to a form of Kremlinology to try to figure out what is really happening inside Wave.
You see the tremendous need and Wave's apparent solution to those needs and you think it is only a matter of time. I see the same thing, but in the face of that tremendous need, I see almost no sales at all and come to a far different conclusion.
Like you, I favor the new guy. I just wonder if Wave's products are hopelessly out of date, too clunky and/or difficult to use?
Let's have our conversation next month when the numbers are on the table and we can see more clearly if progress has been made, or not.
If I could ask one last theoretical of you. What happens if, at the Q3 CC, there are no new sales beyond the 'modest' govt one? Do you give them more time, or pull the plug? Do something else? If so, what?
Best wishes--Blue
Root: No comment on another stock I don't own or follow. Let's just talk about Wave. I said, share price is not the entire evaluative tool--but over the long haul, with Wave, it has been with few exceptions.
Here's exactly what I said abut share price: "Of course, SP is not the entire arbiter of a company's fortunes, but it is sure a good over-all glimpse of what the market at large feels about a particular company and its immediate future."
Wave has also been subject to mysterious run-ups and then creep-downs, in what appears to be manipulation to the unpracticed eye. That, I hope is all behind us.
What Wave now must do, is simply produce. The past mgt has made even most of its staunchest defenders cynical about the company. The new mgt doesn't have to answer for any of that and let's not forget the new mgt was instrumental in breaking the strangle-hold one family held on Wave.
But beyond pruning deadwood, and slicing off parasitic tentacles, Solms knows he will not get the tolerance or the time Steven got. He needs to sell something real soon, or find even loyal longs turning their backs on him.
Wouldn't take much for one of the really big shareholders to begin unloading and that would be disaster--if there are no new sales. The pressure must be mounting. If Solms reads these boards, he must know the extent of the concern and the growing impatience--all of which double up pressure on him to get results fast.
He knows all this and thus far has given us precious little. I think he doesn't have much in the tank. Another poster who worked for Intel said even in the early days, Wave had a stench from it that has never left.
If true, that is a hard thing to overcome. Perhaps the General should be reduced in grade every quarter in which no new significant sales are reported. I'd guess Wave has two quarters, possibly three, before all hope is deserted--that is if the lack of news continues.
Where the hell are the sales?
Blue
Is the stock market immune to logic? Or, are WAVX investors immune to logic?
If the virtual smart card is one of the big answers to the big, global problems of security, one would think it would be selling big time. It is not.
Despite the claims of many areas of interest in Wave's smart card, no sales beyond the mysterious 'modest' one to an unnamed govt. agency have been announced in a year.
The share price continues to decline, raising the argument about logic. If Wave was poised to finally deliver somewhat on its promise and premise, would not the share price be rising instead of falling?
Of course, SP is not the entire arbiter of a company's fortunes, but it is sure a good over-all glimpse of what the market at large feels about a particular company and its immediate future.
That the SP is falling, rather than rising in the face of all 'this interest in Wave's smart cards,' seems to contradict what many are claiming is the imminent take-off for Wave.
Throughout Wave's long and inglorious history, supporters have argued the SP was irrelevant to what was going on. It was not. Except for the bubble, the SP was remarkably accurate about what was going inside Wave for the many years of the slog--despite the arguments saying it was irrelevant. There was nothing going on but chicanery and the share price reflected that.
The recent modest sale to the US govt raised hopes among the supporters, but the larger market saw it as not much and nothing coming soon, based on the share price. Indeed, this sale alone was never touted to be much, even by supporters, but rather, a gateway to many more sales.
We have seen it many times before. A PR raises hopes, but not revenue. Wave needs revenue.
Under the new leadership, Wave has continued to disappoint--failing to close the Bell deal by August as stated--nor in September and October is already more than a quarter gone with no announcements. Wave has failed to show signs of a turnaround by Q3; failed to announce new sales (other than the 'modest' one) despite a year on the job.
Those are troubling signs Wave is still going down the same old path it always chose--much promise--somewhere up ahead in the unknowable future but none or few results. The present is here, but the revenue is not. Same old, same old.
Personally, I am much more comfortable with the new mgt than I was with the old, because thus far, the new mgt has not told any lies about things the way SKS did. But on the other hand, the much-anticipated sales under Solms have yet to materialize.
Many are saying we have to give him more time. OK. How much more time? In the past, Wave investors gave a blank check to someone completely and provably untrustworthy--long after they should have known better. The war cry then was the same as now. "Just wait a little more and be patient."
We could have waited until the end of time with SKS and nothing good would have happened. So, now we have new mgt and a new sales team, but results (no sales) seem to continue. And again the same old wrong-headed and discredited argument about giving the CEO more time than he said he needed, is being raised.
Well, if the CEO is sitting on all the facts and he still can't get his forecasts right, how do we as investors get it right? Answer--we don't.
Wave has proved untrustworthy in the past and is proving untrustworthy in the present. IMO, that means Wave's future is very much in doubt.
I say, no more excuses, no more cooked-up and fictional rationalizations for why Wave is not making the progress it was slated to on the time frame given by the new CEO. It is time for accountability and for taking responsibility. It is real short-leash time, IMO.
I don't see either accountability or any taking of responsibility in the immediate future. Perhaps we will get some straight talk next month at the CC, but I doubt it. I suspect we will get more of the same meaningless reassurances so deadly to Wave investors for 26 years.
When there are results, let's chat again. Until then, the lack of results and the silence from the top about them, speak far louder than anything, as does the falling share price.
If the smart money thought they could make a buck on Wave, we wouldn't be seeing these low volume days where the share price inches down towards another de-listing notice--now but a nickel away.
Either the smart money isn't so smart, or the folks who were wrong before about Wave's future, are still wrong now.
Blue
Alea: You wrote: "demonstrate growing demand at a decent margin and everything else is easy. cash will flow. the price will rise. products will be adapted to suit customer feedback. new customers will seek wave out. etc."
That is it, exactly! You have discovered the secret formula to Wave's success. The tiniest of problems tho, is 'demonstrating growing demand.' That's the hard part for a company that has never been able to sell in any sustainable way in a quarter century of effort.
But, it is a new day with new leadership. However, why does a year go by under the new guys and gals, with only one 'modest' sale--the details of which are top secret, as usual--especially the numbers?
Otherwise, it is all clear sailing ahead.
Blue
Snackman: You seem to conflate and confuse opinion with facts, i.e., "June is ours!" Another June like these last few would kill us off.
Why don't we both just wait for a little bit to see if my cynicism or your optimism comes closest to what actually happens.
I know you are more than anxious to throw out the entire assemblage of the years under Steven. Somehow you seemed not to take into account either the paltry performance or the lofty promises of profitability he was always making.
If I had been that misled for that long, I might be anxious to chuck it into the waste can, too. But I am talking about going forward in terms of Wave.
I just want to wait for results, while you are hailing the mere promise of govt deals as virtually assured. No, not your words, but my summary of what your meaning is--and an accurate one, I think, based on thousands of posts you authored.
It was pretty rare when you criticized Steven, even when he was so far down the wrong tracks it was clear to many of us. You limited discussion of Wave to the positive, when it was rarely positive.
Now we get a sprinkling of a positive event that does hold real potential. My argument is, let's wait to see if we can truly celebrate this as a real deal for Wave. Is that so wrong? Especially given what we have recently been through with Wave?
Solms is an unknown quantity to this point. I just want to hold off placing a halo around his head until he does something worthy of a halo. IMO, this first modest sale to the govt is a great start, but hardly the turnaround many of us had been led by Solms to believe would begin before now.
What's another quarter or two?
Blue
Snackman: Over the years we had many pilots and trials that came to naught. Yes, conveniently, that is in the past, so we should just disregard and now give the new CEO the same status as many did his predecessor before he was unmasked as clueless, incompetent and hardly a 'genius?'
Re: the deal with the govt--yes, I believe it is potential and not revenue yet. That may come, but it hasn't yet and the amount is so small, Wave characterized it as "modest."
No, I don't think Wave is giving them products for free--but in the past, the company did exactly that--and still couldn't get any follow-on sales.
I think the biggest difference between us about Wave, I am cautiously optimistic, but will wait to see if Solms can cure Wave's ills and put us on the right track.
You think salvation is already here and success is guaranteed--without so much as a new penny coming into Wave's treasury. Even though a year into Solms's tenure, he has sold exactly one "modest" deal to the US govt--and he is our new savior?
Shouldn't we give him a little time to bring in some results before we put the halo on his head? In the past, that didn't seem to work out so well, so waiting a bit might be more prudent than jumping all in at the very first sign of a small sale.
Isn't that like a farmer who just planted a field declaring it would be a bumper crop--before droughts, hail, heavy rains, plagues of locust, etc. It isn't a done deal until the money starts coming in and one can't judge how successful it is, until it leads to other deals with more govt agencies.
As for all the pilots, etc. We've been through it before and spectacular is not the word one would use describing the results.
I want you to be right, but at this point, I think you are a bit premature in judging accomplishments.
Do you think you could find the time to address some of my other points? Why do you think we have just this one sale in a year? Why not other small ones and a big one or two? It sure seems the market for security is ready for good solutions, isn't it? What do you see as the big holdup?
Blue
Snackman: Over the years many have made such observations about Wave. I can even remember a few by you about Wave's great-looking partnerships that somehow did not come to fruition in the revenue dept.
It is still the same thing--any progress remains in the future.
No, this announcement is not mashed potatoes, but it isn't revenue either.
It is the potential for follow-on sales, if the product performs as hoped.
How many follow-on sales has Wave had? Our only perspective is during the Sprague years, which is unfair to compare.
As we have during the entire time both of us have been shareholders, we have had to wait for Wave to somehow find its potential. You must remember what Bill Parcels said about potential--it means you haven't done squat yet.
I think devastating 98%+ of shareholder value is a pretty good measure of not doing squat yet.
Blue
Alea: I suppose if one pokes around in the wreckage of Wave, one may find a few isolated examples of things that might have showed promise.
However, taken as a totality, Wave has been an unmitigated disaster since inception, despite what originally was a good idea.
If a company is in business to sell, shouldn't one judge that company by their sales? If there are few sales, would one call that company a success?
Is it fair to delve into the "moving parts" of a train wreck and find a few wheels whose bearings and brakes were still serviceable and say it was not a total train wreck, when it is?
With the succession of William Solms to the CEOship, we must reset our expectations and our standards on how to judge the new mgt and not make the mistake of judging Solms by Sprague standards.
However, it seems of particular significance Solms has yet to make a sale in a year on the job--unless one counts Friday's announcement--which may yield significant revenue sometime in the future. But as for the moment, Wave itself called the revenue from this govt deal, "modest."
Why not give a range in dollars, unless it is so modest as to be embarrassingly small--laughable even? "Don't look at the amount, look at all the potential!" Haven't we been waiting ages for the potential we have been repeatedly assured was just around the corner?
This one little sale in a year suggests to me, either the product simply is not marketable other than in some arcane ways to some companies, because nearly all companies are looking for security. Why then, if we assume Solms and his new sales team are competent, do we only have this one modest sale in a year?
It seems to me illogical to think Wave has the key to stopping much of the monkey business on the net, yet somehow it is continuously overlooked by the very companies looking to cure their insecurity. Does not compute.
And if you throw in all the years of demos, pilots, presentations, trials, etc., it becomes even more illogical to expect much will change quickly. If there was a good product available, it would be selling.
If the Wave solution was so great, given all the hacks of the past few years, this year especially, one would think they would be lining up to buy.
Instead, they stay away in droves.
26 years in business without a penny's profit is a pretty powerful statement in itself. And if we throw in all the past calls and 'sightings' of Wave's imminent success, it would be laughable, except that nearly half a billion dollars of hard-earned cash has taken us to barely a dime per share, splits adjusted.
Sure, it could change and change quickly. But where is the smart money, where are the folks who are paid handsomely to look for exactly this kind of change? Where are the bird dogs paid to find under-priced offerings before the market at large sees them? If things have truly changed at Wave under the new mgt, why is our share price continually fighting a battle to stay listed? Why is the trading so light on most days?
Companies with real products and real potential don't usually lie down around the dollar mark for months and years as Wave has done.
Results are all that count now. And thus far, in a year, we have a "modest" sale to an unnamed govt. agency, that could possibly lead to bigger things at some unknown time frame in the future.
Wave does not represent a good investment opportunity now, if one uses the usual standards to judge the company. As it has for more than a quarter of a century, Wave's chance for shareholders still lies somewhere off in the future.
Blue
Aren't we building supposition on top of supposition, conjecture upon conjecture to get to where good things begin happening with Wave?
Let's look at the facts. Wave released a PR in which revenue was said to be "modest." Yes, it is with the gov't--a good thing, because of all the potential.
It makes me feel uneasy to hear talk of CFBE when we are so far from that now and there is no clear way to get to that point without a major surge in revenue.
Wasn't it just on Thursday that Wave dipped beneath a dollar? Adjusting for the two reverse splits, that means a closing share price of a hair above 8 cents.
I hope Wave is on the right track and that Solms can do what seemed a formidable job--but is it realistic at this point to be talking break-even, based on the thin PR coming out AFTER the quarter closed? Doesn't that amount to rampant speculation?
Are shareholders so desperate for any good news at all, they are quaffing vapors and calling them solid matter? Haven't we been down this road many times before? Sure, it is no longer the old Wave---except for this thin little ray of hope of better days to come.
If the good news leads to better news and this "modest" amount of revenue swells steadily, indicating Wave can sell for a change and that the sales are both sustainable and growable, then perhaps we can see a solid basis for celebrating the end of the endless slog.
But I for one, don't see in this PR anything more than a baby step in the right direction. I am not going to conflate "dozens" of pilots into done deals, without reading them on some official statements with all the necessary signatures.
This is not a 'sky is falling' post or anything close to it. It is a call for assessing Wave's actual and realistic chances of beginning to pay shareholders back for their unbelievable amount of patience. It is nothing more than a beginning, IMO. Positive, yes. Conclusive, no.
Blue
Snackman: You may be right about this announcement, but I'd like to wait and see if it is the real deal, or yet another Wave deal.
Here's my thinking. Wave knew we all were impatient, so the company mgt knew they had to come up with something. They did. Is it real and of substance, or more of the same?
I'm not leaping to any conclusion, nor going out and buying Wave shares until that question is answered.
You think it is significant and I agree, it could be, but too many past experiences have made me more cautious.
I understand the mgt has changed and you think my past criticisms of mgt are now irrelevant. You may be right about that, too and contrary to what you may believe, I hope you are.
Even though I am not currently a shareholder, I follow the stock with interest and for my friends and relatives who are shareholders, I hope Wave finally pays off.
But to think we are OK from here on out, IMO, is imprudent. To say this one deal makes a success of Solms and Wave, IMO is way premature. If it is the first of many contracts and they all have revenue associated, hey, it is wonderful and can't come soon enough.
Call me old fashioned, but Wave destroyed trust and now, IMO, must earn it back with sales. Maybe this is the first step. I suspect many of the other longtime shareholders who lost more than 90% of their investment may want to wait a bit before jumping on the train also.
If it is the real deal, congrats.
Blue
TKC: It's a fair question. But before we send Mr. Solms to Cooperstown and the Wave Hall of Fame, what is the net revenue going to be and when will it kick in?
Shouldn't we have some basis in fact, before we declare this one a gusher? A reversal in fortunes?
Hey, it's news of a positive sort, no question. But ultimately, my question will require an answer. Revenue?
If this is the first step back to respectability, I'm all for it. However, for that, I'd need to see some hard results--a little more than hope. I'd like to see Wave selling in a sustainable way.
Call me cynical, but I'm actually suffering from repeated third-degree Wave burns. In other words, if it is real, Wave must prove it, not just promise it.
Blue
The contract: On the surface it looks good and it may certainly turn out to be the beginning of something.
But look a little deeper. Even Wave calls the amount "modest." It must be mighty small, I'm guessing.
Hey, it may be good news--but this is Wave. How many times have we done handstands over a Wave PR that had no numbers? Few ever did produce numbers.
Let's be cautious here. Could be wrong, but here's what my ear to the ground says--'Desperation.' I can smell the fear in the air and the supporters could too, IMO. That kind of thing is transmitted to mgt.
The quarter closes without the promised signs of the turnaround; is followed by complete silence from mgt; two days after the quarter closes, the share price is under vigorous attack, sending it below a dollar and triggering the 30-day de-listing watch of stocks under a buck. Q3 numbers will disappoint, shareholders getting real angry, some are selling--what to do? We need something, real quick.
Maybe it's real as rain. Maybe not. Let's do the prudent thing and wait and see if the same nothingness follows this arrangement as it always seemed to do with SKS's deals. If this is fakery, Wave is cooked, IMO, If it's real, thank God. Personally, I think not.
Blue
Cypher: I think you have accurately diagnosed both the problem and the reaction. At this moment, Wave has dived a nickel below the Naz listing min. and hit 88 cents briefly.
Continued silence from Wave in the meantime, seems to further the perception nothing is going on in terms of sales.
It appears someone or more than one, are dumping shares. Fortunately for the company, there are buyers, though not enough to push the share price higher.
It appears the disappointing and unstated message in the silence is getting through to investors past, present and potential.
Blue
Given the dire situation Wave finds itself in currently, why on earth would the company not PR any sales?
Here we are, within two pennies of triggering another de-listing notification, which will only add to the concern about Wave's vitality--and still, nothing but silence.
To me, it defies logic Wave would not announce virtually any sale at all. Furthermore, the fact Wave has not announced anything pertaining to revenue--indicates to me either the amounts are so small as to be virtually irrelevant, or there simply have been no sales whatsoever.
Either way, it is troubling and discouraging--particularly after the new CEO said we would begin to see signs of the turnaround starting in Q3.
No, we do not have the numbers, yet--but IMO, one can read between the lines. If there were sales, I believe the company would have found some way to reassure shaken investors progress is being made.
The silence tends to confirm the lack of sales, IMO.
Blue
New Wave: I thought it was anything that was 10% of revenues or above, from any one source. But that is from memory and may not be accurate.
If it is accurate, it only means any one source of 10% revenue must be reported. I don't think that would stop Wave from voluntarily reporting, say a 5% contract or even a 1% deal, if there were any.
Blue
Snackman: That's not what I said. Here's the exact quote:
"I'm going to guess what you [Player 1234] expect to be $4.9M for Q3, will be closer to $4.5M and possibly below."
[Note: I misread Player's $4.9 figure to be his estimate of Q3 revs and he corrected that to say it was what he felt would indicate progress, not what he thinks the figures will be.]
The fact is none of us truly know and all of us are just guessing at what is going on. I think Dig has done some interesting analysis on the numbers, but it will be next month before we know what the latest numbers are and what they mean.
To me, the single biggest void and most important fact is no new OEM sales (at least ones big enough to require reporting).
After nearly a year on the job, that alone (no new OEM sales) is troubling in the extreme. That is a figure that IMO, sends a blinking red light to potential investors. Sure, it may change drastically, but few have made money betting on what Wave may do.
I expected to see some small orders followed by larger ones and progress of some kind under the new leadership. Instead, we have seen nothing to indicate progress other than the "analysis' by some who said Solms did not backpeddle on his forecasts when he had opportunities to do so.
To me, that is pretty weak tea--given all the quarters where buckets of tea were made with that same old tea bag. [No relationship to any political parties intended].
What we have seen in the year Solms has been aboard is good effort, replacement of the old sales team with a new one, modification of Wave products and the expiration of some time frames the new CEO gave--but no new sales of any significance.
Some are disgusted by this lack of performance, myself included, and some are trying to spin nothingness into something positive. Let's wait for the numbers and any announcements carrying revenue. Otherwise, Wave under the new leadership remains sadly, too similar to the old Wave.
Today's news release is a prime example. It sounds good that Gartner has tagged Wave as a "visionary" in 'Magic Quadrant for Mobile Data Protection.'
But, unfortunately, like all of the other news releases under the Solms regime, it carries with it no revenue. Sound familiar?
How long must investors wait for some proof the new leadership is succeeding? IMO, that waiting period is coming to an end--if the Q3 numbers are as bad as I think they will be.
Blue
Player: And, if not? What would that tell you? We get the Q3 numbers next month, right? How are you interpreting what is happening? Without real info, we are left to speculate.
Ironically, the silence is saying something, IMO. I think it is saying Wave simply can not sell the products as presently constituted.
I'm going to guess what you expect to be $4.9M for Q3, will be closer to $4.5M and possibly below.
Solms must have one eye on the falling share price and the other on big investors who could hardly be happy they invested and from that moment on, the share price fell almost half. They have got to be banging on his door, rattling his email chain and letting Solms know just how unhappy they are.
If he had anything to tell them and us--I don't believe he would intentionally allow the situation to get this rotten if he had anything at all in his bag.
How do you see it playing out, if this scenario is an accurate one?
Best--Blue
Unless there is some mighty contract about to be unveiled and Solms has to keep quiet to keep from queering the deal--he has failed in his debut year.
His failure is our failure. I think he was done in by a crappy product. When one looks back at all the other Wave thingies, they were all second rate and not well executed.
Maybe the products are such, he just can't sell them. Maybe a team of re-engineering specialists are slaving away at some secret skunkworks 24/7 right now trying to forge something useful out of them.
All speculation on the silence and the lack of sales, while the air fairly hisses from the Wave balloon by the hour.
Requiescat in pace
Blue
Player, thank you for correcting my mistake. You are right, of course. However, isn't the usual practice, that if there is a material announcement, often the companies wait until after the market closes to make it?
In that case, usually it happens right after the market closes.
I don't expect any announcement from Wave between now and midnight tonight, do you?
Thank you for your correction.
Best--Blue
W Train: Personally, I don't think the Wave share price reflects fund holdings, but rather a failure to meet stated objectives. Usually, rising share prices reflect fiscal stability and growth.
Wave, in a year, has not announced a single sale, to state the obvious.
Until it appears Wave starts to meet the CEO's stated time frames and quits looking like Plunder Dome is still in effect, I think we can expect the SP to languish and fade.
Results trigger rises, not hope. Wave has been rich in the promise dept. but the delivery boxes always seem to arrive empty.
In less than ten minutes, Q3 closes and with it go the new CEO's unfulfilled promise we would see signs of a turnaround beginning this quarter.
Is this the end of the world? Absolutely not. But, is it a positive sign? No, not at all. More troubling is either the CEO's faulty predictive ability or his inability to sell in this hot security market.
At this point, even the loyal die-hards are expressing open impatience and even anger at the continued silence from Wave. It may also raise the issue of Solms's competence to lead--something, IMO, that lies at the feet of Wave's products.
It is hard to reconcile the current climate of repeated enormous and embarrassing hacks, with Wave's failure to sell a product that claims to secure what now are mostly insecure transactions, storage and transmissions.
I think Wave shareholders are due explanations and accurate timelines when things will begin to change. For the first year, Mr. Solms earned high marks for ridding Wave of parasitic family members who drew high pay and bonuses, but delivered nothing of a positive nature for the company.
The big dilutive funding Solms engineered was likewise positive, instead of negative.
But that is where the good news stops. The deadwood has been pruned and stacked. Funding for the immediate future is in the bank. Now it is past time for Mr. Solms to prove he is the right CEO for Wave. To do that, he and his team have to deliver sales--elusive thus far.
Confidence in Wave's future is at an all time low, IMO and will not recover, nor will the share price, until Wave begins to sell.
Blue
Dig: We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Again, it is not the size of the alleged deal, it is that Solms said it would close in August. No, not a big deal, I'd agree, except it rubs a tender spot for most investors who kept seeing deadlines pass with no action for many a moon.
Yes, that was the old regime, and there's no confusion here about which is which. The new regime is not guilty of the sins of the old. However, since the old regime never met a single deadline I can remember, one would think Solms would cut off his right arm before he would say something wrong and end up looking more like SKS when it comes to delivering.
As for Solms statement we would see signs of a turnaround in Q3 & Q4--it is not that important whether the turnaround comes now or pretty soon. What is important, it appears we will not see any signs of a turnaround for Q3. That makes it look like the old regime is still at the helm and Solms knows that is exactly how it will look.
So there is the nexus of what is troubling me. If he had even a small deal with revenue in his bag, he'd pull it out and show us. The implication to me is, he doesn't have anything in the bag.
When you look back at Solms, nearly a year with Wave--not all of it as CEO, but most of it, and when he wasn't CEO, he was VP of Sales. Isn't it fair to ask where the hell the sales are, after a year in the saddle?
Look outside Wave's door--virtually nothing on the Net is secure. Think how just that one factor is holding back Net Sales--that no one can guarantee their own money or their customers' data is safe, nothing is safe. Could there possibly be a better atmosphere to pitch security?
Where are the sales? Where's a single sale?
Blue
TKC: Yes, Solms has done all of that--cleaned house of those sucking the company's treasury dry--that alone is huge. He was indeed faced with a dire situation fiscally and he dealt with it successfully.
But none of that was the issue. It may seem like nitpicking, and maybe it is. Solms knows damned well how bad it will look to say something as squishy as we 'anticipate' Bell will close by August and fail to close it.
That's the part I focus on--don't you think he is the kind of man who is dying to do exactly what he said he would do? Don't you think it is killing him to be viewed as anything even close to his predecessor? If he could report something, he would.
A year in the saddle in a few days, sales so far equal zero.
We were supposed to see a turnaround in Q3 and Q4, according to him. Do you see that happening?
That is the issue. He knows exactly how sensitive we are to that kind of thing. What is your conclusion?
Blue
Snackman--what you said is true enough. But if you were Bill Solms and you were well aware of the previous CEO's missteps, and if you had something to PR--wouldn't you put out an announcement if it contained revenue?
If it doesn't contain revenue, why bother?
Look, I'm not saying the guy is a failure--judging him only a very narrow spectrum, he simply has not done what he said he would do. That's all. I don't think that means the sky is falling at all.
Both Solms and the rest of us know it is results only that count at this point. If you are the CEO and know the shareholders are really impatient, it seems to me a smart scount like Solms would make sure he didn't promise anything he couldn't deliver.
Time frames are important to shareholders--considering how often they were violated by the very people who set them. He knows this.
That's all--the first signs from Solms are not encouraging. Let's see what Q3 brings. If he doesn't show signs of a turnaround when he said we'd be seeing them, that's even further discouraging. Hardly the end of the world--but he knows well how it will look--that's what I find so telling. Maybe others see it differently.
We gave SKS way too much rope, and he hung us. Solms, IMO must walk a tightrope, never promising what he can not deliver.
The first steps are not positive, but hardly fatal. It just doesn't look good to me. Perhaps you see a year of silence in a positive light. I don't.
Blue
Dig: Whether the Bell deal was of consequence or not is not the issue, IMO. The larger issue is the time frame Solms set in saying the deal would be done in August. It is the credibility of the CEO in question, IMO.
The two-day thingy mentioned, refers to yet another time frame Solms set--in saying we would start to see the turnaround in Q3 and Q4. Next Tuesday will close out Q3 with thus far, no news or announcements of any deal.
These may be small items of no consequence in most companies, but our history is we were given time lines for break-even again and again by Steven.
But, instead of break-even, each quarter we ended up further behind--proving either the previous CEO was the worst predictor of business in the western world or a bold-faced liar.
Given all the other whoppers SKS told, I am inclined to believe Steven had no regard for the truth or his own integrity and credibility.
But this is a new regime and it should be given a chance, independent of what the old one did. And that is exactly the problem here. Solms has missed one time frame (Bell) and appears about to miss a far more important one--the signs of a turnaround he said we would see beginning in Q3.
It could still happen, but given the history, these early signs do not look good to me. I haven't closed the door and do not think Solms is a liar. But, for whatever reason, he appears not to be able to meet the time frames he set for himself. That alone is troubling.
Any footsteps down the mendacious path previously trod by Steven about deals and profitability, should set off alarms, IMO. Those of us burned so many times by the previous CEO, have every right, IMO, to be concerned when the new CEO can not keep to the time frames he sets. Solms should either put up or shut up about time frames.
It is further troubling that after nearly a year on the job, supposedly after hiring top-notch salespeople, no sales have been reported. To me, that signals significant issues somewhere along the line.
Business clearly needs better security. Wave claims to have it, but despite a desperate need, Wave has not been able to make a single significant sale in a year or more.
Blue
Snackman: You did trust SKS and he lied to your face, as he did to many of us, myself included. You continued to trust SKS after profitability projections continued year after year. You
Bill Solms does have to earn credibility and thus far, he has not.
He said the Bell deal would be done by August--and unless there is a last minute push, it will not be done by Sept. That alone would raise questions about the man's credibility.
As for the turnaround, Solms said we would begin to see it by Q3 abd Q4. Q3 has but two biz days left in it and nothing so far.
Pardon me for concluding his credibility is not doing so well, based on results, not his words. His words have not matched deeds--a practice all Wave investors are well familiar with.
You, despite being woefully deceived by the previous regime, now seem to be placing blank-check trust in someone who may look good resume wise, but since we now measure only results, he appears to have missed at least one time frame he set for the Bell deal and he is two biz days from missing another, more important one.
I don't think we have to wait until Nov. to see how Q3 went. Solms is well aware of shareholder impatience and if there was any progress to report, I think it would have been reported. But, let's see what Mon. and Tues. bring.
Wouldn't you agree if Tuesday comes and goes with no news, the CEO will have dealt his own credibility a blow? Wouldn't these early signs of missed time frames cause you to rein in your rather long credibility leash?
Blue
Dig: With one exception. The Bell deal was supposed to have been done by August, according to Solms. How is that within the time frame--nearly a month later--no deal?
The other time frame will expire on Tuesday--if there is no news or sales. OK, I can wait two days to see.
But, suppose Tuesday comes and goes with no news. Do we then wait for Q4 results that will come nearly six months from now, well into 2015?
I think, if Tuesday passes with no news, he will have missed the first two time frames he set for himself. If that happens, he should either give us an explanation [Steven never did] or admit failure.
One can not keep extending the personal runway for Mr. Solms, IMO--or keep making further excuses if he can not meet his own timelines.
In your opinion, are we still on schedule?
Blue
Wave Duke: Your entire construct of good times for Wave investors seems to rest on a truly slippery and big 'if.' If Wave executes...
Hasn't that been our downfall all along?
Feel free to wait for what you believe is coming, I can wait until there is evidence it is coming.
Best wishes--Blue
It is uncanny to me you seize upon the least relevant fact in a post full of facts spelling out Wave's difficulties--without ever addressing the major points--the missed deadlines, the no new sales since Mr. Solms took the reins.
If you have the time and inclination, perhaps you could address the major points in the post?
Has Wave, under Solms met your expectations? Does his call for a deal to be done by August bother you, in terms of credibility here in the fourth week of Sept.?
Does his time frame for the start of the turnaround (Q3, Q4) bother you when nothing has happened and only 5 trading days remain in the quarter? Don't forget the CEO was the one who said we would start to see progress in this quarter and next. So far, I see nothing different. Do you? Or will you give him until the last day of the last quarter and maybe a little bit more?
Does it concern you Solms seems to be following the path laid down by SKS?
But to answer your one question--no, I do not currently own any shares, but given the time and money I have put into Wave, I do consider myself a shareholder--and if the current nasty climate of nothingness changes, I again will be a Wave shareholder.
I wish you well in your endless pursuit of ROI from Wave. Thus far, the long history seems to indicate it will not end well for shareholders. Nevertheless, I hope you strike it rich.
Bluefang
As Wave's share price drifts downward in the absence of promised news indicating a turnaround, we now are about 11 cents away from triggering a new delisting notification. Delisting notifications were common during the Sprague regime--with many close calls and one actual Nasdaq delisting.
SKS kept skipping out of harm's way, by slowly descending the Nasdaq stairs to more and more minor markets.
So far, with only 5 trading days left in the quarter where we all were supposed to see the much-vaunted Solms' signs of progress, the lack of news or deals (not counting the demos and presentations or letters of intent) is taking its toll.
The pretensions of the Sprague regime are being replaced by the broken time frames of the Solms CEOship. Either way, the shareholders lose big time.
If Wave doesn't make a positive move soon, one begins to consider the complete implosion of Wave. The failure to sell under the newly-constituted high-powered sales team and the new leadership is troubling in the extreme.
IMO, it again focuses attention on Wave's products. The message I'm seeing, is Wave simply can not sell security in a market dying for it. The conclusions are obvious.
We shareholders did not say the turnaround would begin in Q3 and Q4. The CEO said it. He still has five trading days to deliver before his credibility is shredded and he is regarded as essentially no different than his predecessor. Sad.
Blue
WTrain: Whoever bought 70K shares at $1.21 this morning, only lost $6,300 by day's end. My condolences to the poor buyer. There must have been something to give that buyer hope, but if there is, I can't see it.
If one looks at the trading chart for today, it is a descending staircase made up of more than 400K steps south.
Blue
Wave Duke: Exactly what do you consider our Wave blessings? 98% + losses of shareholder value? More promises of engagement yet to come true? More dilution? A current share price worth less than a dime to those who bought in before either of the two reverse splits?
If there were blessings to be had, please point them out, because for some reason, I can't see anything faintly resembling a blessing in terms of Wave.
My blindness or am I misinterpreting the continued silence and missed time frame the new CEO set for (1) a revenue-bearing account, and (2) the promised start of a turnaround allegedly set to begin this quarter and next?
If you see light emanating from this black hole that is Wave, clue me in, please. It sure looks like deja vu.
Blue
Why must we resort to Kreminology to know whether we are making progress?
No announcements, but somehow that is promising? If there was something to announce, I believe they would have done it by now.
The mgt is certainly aware of growing shareholder discontent and our need to see revenue coming in--just to keep a slight pulse on the dream.
Player is right--they announced a time frame and it did not happen within that time frame. Hasn't happened yet. It sure sounds like the same old, same old. Given the preceding, one would think they would do everything possible not to track the same trail their predecessors did.
Personally, I think they are completely desperate inside Wave. I think if they had something in their bag, they would have either pulled it out or indicated something positive was near.
When they continued the old practice of sending PRs out for routine presentations, they must know how it looked to us. So why did they do it? Pressure, IMO. They have nothing, so they tried some of Steven's old tricks--why would they do that knowing so many shareholders have their hands on the triggers? IMO, because they can't sell Wave any better than Steven could and the pressure is unbearable.
I'm glad to be out at the moment--staying in was costly. When there is revenue, maybe--but it appears either mgt did not look before they leaped--or it is something else, darker perhaps.
There are seven trading days left in the quarter. If nothing is signed, they are going to have to give shareholders some bitter news. It is not going to be pretty if it plays out the way it seems to be heading.
Ear to the ground hears not a single distant hoofbeat.
Blue
Dig: I was referring to posts elsewhere commenting on this possible suit.
Blue
I believe the lawsuit being contemplated or solicited for, would be a civil action to recover money lost as a result of either illegal or inept actions alleged.
That would not preclude criminal charges being filed, if any act was considered illegal in a criminal sense.
Blue
No lawyer here, either, but common sense often matters. The usual statute of limitations for filing suits runs a few years in most states--so the old board would seem to fall under that time frame.
Who might pay a judgement, if rendered (in a theoretical lawsuit at this point) seems not as important as if a judgement is rendered on what may have been illegal acts. Someone may be held liable.
IMO, it doesn't much matter if the defendant pays, or if the insurance co. pays. Fault can be assigned.
The last few posts were meant to point out the advance pooh-poohing of a potential lawsuit before it is filed and before the allegations can be known.
It seems to me, to be particularly foolish to carelessly brush aside as unfounded, way in advance of the facts, should such a suit be filed. That's exactly what happened in 2005. Wave's insurance co. paid out $1.75M in settling, IMO, a powerful case against Steven and Feeney. The case was characterized by the leaders as nothing more than a nuisance suit. It was far more, IMO.
Shouldn't we withhold judgement on a potential lawsuit against the Wave Board of Directors until a.) it is filed and b.) what is alleged, is known?
Blue
We agree about 'only trolling is yet afoot.'
There are no formal allegations at this moment, but perhaps the grounds for formal allegations exist, considering the egregious conduct of the fired CEO over quite a bit of time--primarily the continual misleading of shareholders with lies about all the good things in the non-existent pipeline and the phantom big deals in the bag.
Maybe where you play, that is fine--but from where I sit, if it does not constitute securities fraud, it comes awful close.
You say it may be malfeasance to blame. Perhaps malfeasance and its twins, misfeasance and nonfeasance were also present during the previous regime.
Besides, the point of the post was not about a potential lawsuit against Wave directors, but instead, the advance negative categorization of the complaints in both the one that was filed and settled in the plaintiffs' behalf and the one which may be filed.
The same people who assured shareholders the first lawsuit was the result of money-grubbing lawyers looking for a pay-out, are now starting the denigration of what may become a second lawsuit--one without a single allegation thus far.
I have no role in the current troll case, but if asked, I think I could supply a dozen examples of what, IMO, rise to the threshold of securities fraud.
My point was about the aspersions longtime supporters cast upon both the 2005-6 lawsuit and one that may be filed in the future. We were told the first one wasn't worthy of comment or notice, when it was worthy of both.
In fact, IMO, if some of the shareholders still supporting Wave now after the past machinations and losses--had read the allegations in the first lawsuit, I contend they would no longer support Wave, because it was abundantly clear that self-dealing and nothing more was at play. Wave's top two officers were attempting to profiteer from mistakes and misinterpretations caused by Wave.
It has long been my contention the prior administration never cared a tinker's damn about shareholders, except for worthless words insincerely expressing concern for our plight.
There was never a single deed indicating shareholders ever rose to the leadership's notice or concern, except when SKS and Feeney stepped in it real bad over the employee's award of shares (exempting employees and mgt from the first reverse split) and they had to coax the angry shareholders back into the corral with a compromise agreement and personal phone calls from the CEO.
At the present time, I would agree with you, there is not a single allegation in an as yet unfiled lawsuit. But that does not mean there are no grounds whatsoever to hold the somnolescent BoD responsible for shirking the duties of governance for which they were so handsomely rewarded ($100K/yr).
Let's wait and see what the future brings. It may bring nothing and it may be eye-opening--we can't tell until a suit is filed.
I, for one, would love to know the truth about the deal with Rich Lee, possibly above board, but stinky in the timing and in the lack of explanation and in the radio silence following the agreement involving about $400K--about the same amount owed on the Sprague's Undermountain Farm that was in foreclosure.
Suspicious? You betcha, given the history here.
Blue