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.
Well I am an end user and I have a computer with a TPM in it. I am certain I am not the only person sitting at home that has a computer with a TPM in it. As a matter of fact I have 5 PC and lap tops here that have the TPM on board.
24601..If you believe that people are using this product, then the problem is the inability of this company to monetize that opportunity in a fashion that makes what they purport to be doing sustainable.
If they are being used in a fashion where Wave is out of the equation for whatever reason this may be a lost cause. I don't see how they are going to change the behavior of those end users.
I would agree but they don't have any reliable viable model from which to base that.
If one is looking for a glimmer of hope you might be able to hang your hat on the fact they only tapped slightly more than 20% of the available shelf. If they know they have a deal closing in the near future this could have been done knowing what expenses were going forward until that time.
Or it could have been done to keep the price from cratering as far as a full on emptying of the shelf might have caused.
True, but that still does not excuse the lack of fiscal prudence shown during the history of this company. One could make the argument that had this been treated in the manner it should have been the chain of events that took place over a year ago may not have happened.
Being around as long as I have I get the sense that the former group operated with the sense that eventually the rest of the world would align with their vision.
The actions by this new crew seem to indicate they realize there is a shelf life...we just don't know the expiration date yet.
Intiuitive3...what you say may be true, but it was never presented in that way to the shareholders. The carrot was forever dangled..how many investment choices were made based on that information?
As an investor I believe you need all the information-good and bad- to asses the risk of your investment. Can you say you were able to asses how at risk your funds were?
I can remember reading comments about this type of behavior being "good" for the company because it was basically the shareholders keeping it a float, it was what was needed to be done. The flip side would have been a more scrutiny on the projects that siphoned money away from the core business-the wavexpress, the scrambls etc..
The questions are arising today about the financial stability of the company and the effect it may have on closing sales and they have trimmed a lot of the dead weight. What if that was an issue in years past when the scrutiny that is being applied today was virtually non existent then?
It wasn't just the cash, you could make a laundry list of things people have posted that they suspected would just be a minor nuisance or have no significance- and nearly all of them affected the stock negatively.
There are probably quite a few shareholders who have gone all in on this stock that are asking themselves the same question today. I believe because of the significant time and money that have been invested they will probably reach the same conclusion to stay and possibly lose it all. Many shareholders have said they were here to the end one way or the other, but I really don't believe many actually felt they had a chance of being completely wiped out.
Indisputable truth abound around this stock. The DD that has been presented has been enough to convince shareholders to stay and invest more of their money. But in the end that is all it has provided. It has not enhanced the portfolio of shareholders that have been long and strong.
Serious weight was never given to the financial scorecard that is presented 4 times a year. That was trumped by message opinion, links and totally unreliable foreward looking statements from those no longer here.
Any placement or issuing of shares has overwhelmingly not been kind to the shareholders.
While many eyes have been focused on the space, it has been the eyes on the company that have provided the best guidance and the DD that has focused on the company has been the most beneficial, and raised the flags for those willing to look under the hood.
At this point if they don't have any ramp up in sales this might be the best you can hope for.
Checkinin....the best thing that ever happened for me was when I realize that Sprague was string the shareholders along and started treating this company like a company and not the shares I held as a golden ticket to some rigged lottery. In spite of all the DD there are reason this company has never attracted big institutional money and the like. Once I arrived at that spot I divested myself of all my shares until I discovered a very small portion that for some reason were not sold in an account I barely paid attention to...so yes those shares have been split a few times.
I believe in the space and realized that if this company was ever going to make any money I would rather catch it later when I can quantify that success. Following this company has been a great way to watch the whole space.
Alea, if one truly wants to take the prudent approach it MUST be assumed that there has not been any sales of substance and that there are not any on the horizon. The history shows this to be the case and until that changes I cannot think of one reason, if my money were at risk, to believe otherwise until it happens. This line of think does not make one a bad person or one with any agenda There are too many years backing this up now to say not this time or it's different this time.
Everything else is just wishful thinking, and that has collectively cost this shareholder base millions of dollars on paper. On paper only because they have refused to sell.
August 13th, 2015 30 days + 180 day compliance period
Mark the date July 14th 2015 Root, Blue and others concerned about compliance....from the NAZ site
"
If a company trades for 30 consecutive business days below the $1.00 minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq will send a deficiency notice to the company, advising that it has been afforded a "compliance period" of 180 calendar days to regain compliance with the applicable requirements.
Thereafter, if such a company does not regain compliance with the bid price requirement a second 180-day compliance period may be available. A company listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market may be eligible for an additional 180-day compliance period if it meets the market value of publicly held shares requirement for continued listing, all other initial inclusion requirements for the Capital Market, except for the bid price requirement, and provides written notice that it intends to regain compliance with the bid price requirement during the second 180-day compliance period, by effecting a reverse stock split if necessary."
It looks like both of you hit the nail on the head. The problem facing wave going forward is the share count that exists now. They will not be in compliance with either once the 30 days expires. There is no way the stock becomes compliant without any revenue coming in at this point, and if they have to use the shelf that only drags the price lower. The RS becomes the only real choice beside repurchasing shares-but that would just remove shares from the float and sans news would probably not raise the price enough to become compliant
If the stock falls a mere .14 from here to mid July a RS 1:2 barely gets them into compliance for either requirement with 45.9 shares outstanding as of now! There will be some naysayers who will say it cannot happen, but there isn't any other way outside of revenues. We saw and called this before and were laughed out of the building. I think even a strategic buy in sans revenue news might not be enough.
It's been said before but I really think this saga is going to turn definitively one way or the other before Memorial Day.
The leash is short and I can't believe you will have the support of even this shareholder base staring another RS down this year should it be needed.
The only impression we can get from Solm's is a gut feeling. It just feels so different in the way he interacts from the ousted ceo. He also dosen't carry the years of baggage the former did, although many want to judge him on a timeline and criteria the other was never subjected to.
The void is about the only thing that has been consistent in this whole ordeal. For consideration, if the get a deal say the size of PWC does that resonate if there is no follow up and with the DELL revenue drying up-since DELL revenues were always there when prior deals were put in place.
I see a lot of emphasis put on CFBE. Is it significant if this is achieved with mostly cost cutting and a minimal to modest revenue increase?
We need to see significant deals announced or a group of deals with following shortly after another.
You don't want to see the gaps between orders this company has experienced without a recurring DELL type revenue in place.
To coattail off that, one needs to look in the context of who holds the shares. The hardcore long time longs aren't selling, they are going to hit it big or lose it all. Not enough institutions interested with a big enough holding to be making a move on either side of the trade. The bigger question would be how low would the price if the buyers, who were the tax sellers before the calendar year, were not there?
Without the dribble coming from wave's ceo there isn't any false interest being drummed up and you don't have the steady flow of shares from the ATM that were available in prior years...which is probably bad news if you are long and holding tight because those are probably your shares now.
What you are left with is a stock prices being dragged down by any volume, and without the nudge and wink any positive PR without dollars probably allows the price to tread water or move slightly higher.
The action here looks a helluva lot like an OTC penny stock to be honest.
A Bitter Pill...What's happening is the share price is reacting for the first time on a financial basis only IMO. There will be no Sprague whisperer to the rescue this time.
There is probably a direct correlation to the saltiness from some of the longs with this drop. I think for some this might be the first time they are taking a very real look at the losses they may have sustained in this equity over the years. They were always there just not couched in the hype that would be hurled from the confines of the horse farm.
Hard lessons to be learned here for sure. The takeaway for me almost 9 years ago was there are plenty of opportunities to make money in the markets. There are no reason to chase anything.
When there are individual shareholders that have larger holdings than some financial institutions and those within the company that might be a red flag.
Hind sight being twenty twenty, would a strategy of sitting on ones hands until some sales began to materialize been a bad plan? Has anything changed to see it any different today?
I still see CFBE as a goal, but I warn the wavoids to look at how they get to that point. Is it by revenue or reduction of cost- a huge diffference in my book.
If he was brought in to do sales then that is another indictment of the former leadership. Thats ridiculous if they expected that from somebody that involved on the tech side.
Interesting. Well, one could easily dismiss this as not a great loss because of how very little it added to the coffers. But dollars to donuts some of those very people who might share that thought now probably declared game, set, and match when he came on board.
The match part may have been correct if used in the context of the boy wonder wielding it and using it to light and make ashes of shareholder value during the time Bobby T. was here.
Here's the question I have. If memory serves correct did he not basically bring the encryption goodies with him for the secure hard drives? From that PR I read it sounds like the same animal for the new company, so did he leave with what he brought with him?
Thibadeau left wave..........
Trading from the 20th of December or so in 2013 was 2,360,400 shares in 2014 was 1,323,000 In 2012 there was only 260,500 shares traded pre split. Adjusted those shares were lower than today and that volume would be just a few hundred thousand less than traded in 2014. While I think there is an argument to be made that tax selling dragged the price down, the concern has to be there is no underlying strength in the stock to support a higher share price than the faith of the wavoids. That is not a recipe for a successful investment, or a successful strategy for a company moving forward to rely on it's shareholders.
Anybody care to disagree that relying on shareholder support was a big part of the strategy employed prior to 2014?
No tax loss sellers buying today? No volume yet. Either halted for some reason or no interest. The tax loss selling seems like more lipstick as a way to explain away the obvious.
Or they had it backwards, trying to rush a complete solution when the end user was only trying to dip a toe in the water to today trying to push one product VSC, ND the high profile of these latest breeches has potential customers looking for an all encompassing solution.
The lack of sales that we have seen up to this point leave open to speculation any number of scenarios as to why. Especially if the all encompassing solution isn't what wavoids were led to believe.
Alea and this is the perfect black mark laid across the sprague era. Take the VSC product. We don't know if this will get any type of toe hold in the marketplace. How nice would it have been to have taken the arc with this product that they seem to be on, while having the revenue stream they could count on from DELL at the same time.
If the VSC made headway they would have then had 2 revenue streams. Quite possible DELL looks at the company differently, and then you have money to fund the other stuff going forward, and you now have relationships from which to sell other product into.
I would dare say that at the absolute minimum there should have been a moratorium of any criticism leveled at this new management group for at least 18 months.
I don't think anybody can really grasp how much change had to be undertaken.
Over the years my view of this company and the problems that revolved around it were eradicated last year.
The concern I have now is how much damage was inflicted, how much the charging ahead, trying to tell the customer what they needed instead of seeing what they wanted, how difficult is that going to be to overcome?
This board was always a rubber stamp, and to see them act upon this removal told me things had to be dire. What we are probably aware of only scratches the surface.
Any traction has to be considered a positive at this point, and I really don't think it unfair to say if the second quarter of 15 still shows more of the same, any hope of turnaround is probably gone.
Under the old regime I think one could have made that argument given the corporate governance of finances. A dollar toward the business or toward the the race car. A dollar towards R&D or a dollar paying the lease on equipment used to cybercast the Olympics via Wavexpress which was basically mothballed mere weeks after they ended.
Dig I think it's easy to lob out a term like no sales. To my eyes that is like reading posts about shares being worth X if Y happens.
I have learned over time to read no sales equating to the lack of sales in numbers that can sustain the company. After all that is the goal and in that effect the company fails. Or "no" sales equal shareholder dilution yet again.
The nut that has yet to be cracked is can this company continue as a going concern very long without diluting the shareholders, and to my eyes that question is a resounding no.
If you flip it to say can this company continue as a going concern diluting shareholders without sales, I have to say probably longer than the above question.
That really speaks volumes to me when you have had salable product in some form or another for the last 9 to 10 years.
24601...just curious. Is there a difference in characterizing those lack of sales as zero and the touting of the product as robust, elegant, complete solution or however else one wants to categorize it when the sales and deployment are not there to back that up as well?
I don't think the limit has been breached yet. Not when you still have people looking to Twitter and LinkedIn for signs. The shareholders have been looking to sources other than the hard numbers for years, and the hard numbers have trumped everything every time. Until those numbers turn everything else is just a futile attempt to will something in the way one wants to see.
Titlewave, I had a very dear friend over this week who just retired. He was one of the luck ones who didn't come with a silver spoon but did have a father who interested him in the workings of the market, and the benefit of good due dilligence. The kind that came before it was easy for the average Joe to buy a stock. The kind where your research involved pouring through the WSJ or Barron's and digging into the Value Line at your local library.
He is of the belief that it has more to do with product than company. This message board stuff is fun and games. I have mention this company to him in the past just to get an unbiased opinion out of him. I didn't want it to be tainted by the years of stuff that have gone on so I steered him away from the message boards.
He researched based on SEC filings and numbers and said there was no way he could put money into this company. He is a guy who craves the new technology plays in any sector and really does his DD. And then checks the DD. He did think the financial state of the company does come into play because in essence what you are protecting is the lifeblood of many companies. He feels the tech must either be clunky and not very seamless, or is not being demonstrated in a manor that is bringing in sales. Red Flag in his mind given the number of breeches in the news we know about. A company should not wait for standards if there is a product ready now for their needs.
We both thought 18 months would be a fair time table. He did delve into some of the actions of those in the company and thought there was a possibility there was also damage control that needed to done along with assurances that things had changed.
When in comes to the messages boards he was absolutely horrified any CEO let alone board member would interact over a message board with shareholders. At the minimum it looks suspect and he also thought it probably wasn't something the SEC would be thrilled with. Felt the only reason is an agenda, that's why you don't see other companies engaging in this medium.
I got the feeling he would rather burn his money in the back yard than invest .01 in a company where some common shareholders were privy to interaction others were not aware of.
I agree with your assessment BTW. Pretty shameful to see how quickly one wants to give Solms a grade when Sprague was operating under a pass/pass scale
I'd give you the ticker of one of the companies we discussed but I don't want to be accused of pumping.
Looking back I would say he meant they figured out how to run a company on a model where the majority of the capital is derived from investors.
Sprague had this crowd funding thing figured out before it was all the rage..........
Clarity is the hardest thing for most investors in this stock in that they have immersed themselves in so many dots that their wave centric vision has been transposed on the whole space. After so many years it's crystal clear that this company is wholly dependent on others and not the other way around despite the conclusions one might arrive to otherwise from everything they have gleaned.
Easy Barge, the Wave play for DELL was a hedge in this space. They had eyes on this space just like wave and realized they need to have this type of product in the box to be compliant should the market move towards this type of solution. In effect they also wanted a first mover advantage in as well. I am beginning to think that the lack of clarity moving forward in this space and the financial standing of wave under the former leadership is what caused DELL to move in another direction with their purchase of Credant, which I can remember was soundly vetted by many on the boards as being substandard to what was being offered by wave.
I think this is a great basis to show that wave was the DELL hedge in this space. There is still no clear cut winner in the space, DELL by virtue of their size is in a very good position to sense trends and more importantly needs of their customers, both consumer and enterprise. Based on the feedback or lack thereof, the sales and lackthereof, it probably made tremendous financial sense for them to own their hedge in this space.
Zen...even if one wanted to defend the lying about orders and pipeline, it just cements that he had no clue about the market space and what it was really going to take going forward to make money and be viable in the space. You don't say the things he said knowing that the impediments were still going to be an ongoing issue. Yes a CEO needs vision but one that needs to be based in some sort of reality. The fact that he hasn't left a year after being removed let's me know he hasn't been approached and the genius vision thingy is one shared only amongst his message board disciples.
Not only that TKC, I will go one further. For years we were told they were in the cat bird's seat in this space via their standing in the TCG. With the company's they had piloted with and the OEM that were including product. Not only WERE they in the perfect position to get a read on their own failings to convert in this space, but everybody else's as well. Especially when I have read for years how they were going to be able to piggy back and make money off product that wasn't solely wave in name.
The merit of sks is nothing but hot air if the company never becomes self reliant on it's product and not by selling shares. The straw man argument is to place the blame anywhere but in the lap of the one who was running the ship. The vision he harbored may have been grand in scope, but was tunnel in reality.
The facts bear this out. He was incapable at managing the financial side of the business, and that was laid bare when he was fired. His vision which had much support dwindled to the point where he could not even muster enough inside the company.
The people that were responsible know far more about this than anyone here on the boards. These were the same folks that I could make a very strong case on what their compensation has been for years, cared a hell of a lot more about pulling in a check than shareholder value. Do a little research on what some BOD members pull in and compare that to what wave's BOD compensation is...shocking.
Plain and simple his utter lack of fiscal prudence that initially damaged the shareholders began to threaten this company. The pet projects that sucked cash reserves for years were a drain on the core mission of the company. The argument that these would enhance the product portfolio is bogus when the core product is not even in the hands of the end user.
At the end of the day the, sprague, the shareholders, and ultimately the company have been victims of this "vision".
I find myself choking on the word vicitm and sprague in the same sentence. Profiting from the largesse of the shareholders seem more apropos in dollars and kudos.
Now if only somebody can figure out how to make the TPM useful in the same way the neglected cigarette lighter in the vehicle became the indispensible usb port.......
Somebody tell Tanya she is in need of a TPM...a trusted pushup manager
Barge I saw your post on Chromebooks at AB and was not aware if you saw this from the other day.........
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/laptop/3573470/samsung-exits-laptop-market-including-chromebooks/
Exclusive: Samsung exits laptop market including Chromebooks
Following in Sony's footsteps, Samsung has stopped sales of its laptops in Europe
Following in the path of Sony and its Vaio PCs, Samsung has decided to exit the laptop market stopping sales of Ativ Windows and Chromebook devices in Europe, PC Advisor can confirm.
It's common knowledge that the PC market is in decline with Sony pulling out and selling its Vaio business back in February of this year. Despite being a giant of the tech world, Samsung has now followed suit.
Things have been quiet from Samsung this year on the laptop side of things with no new devices at IFA 2014 in Berlin. The firm's main recent releases have included the Ativ Book 9 Plus and Ativ Book 9 Lite.
"We quickly adapt to market needs and demands. In Europe, we will be discontinuing sales of laptops including Chromebooks for now. This is specific to the region – and is not necessarily reflective of conditions in other markets," said a Samsung spokesperson.
In the case of Sony, the move resulted in significant job cuts. The firm also restructured its TV division and although a handful of staff were moved to the new company, the forecasted total loss of employees amounted to 5,000.
In Samsung's case, we haven't been given any information on any job losses but we're requesting more information so we'll update this article should we hear any further. Samsung isn't necessarily out of the business forever, though.
"We will continue to thoroughly evaluate market conditions and will make further adjustments to maintain our competitiveness in emerging PC categories," added the spokesperson.
Right on Alea...but it seems from reading the boards that expectation remains the same and I don't necessarily think the company should be looked at or judged under the same faulty criteria that was used up until the point that Solms took the reins for the exact reason you state.
That is going to be a hard sell to longs who only saw things through a very filtered lens for far too many years now.
They won't like the fact that company under Solms isn't the same one under Sprague. The stark reality is the company under Sprague wasn't at all what the longs believed either.
Vader...the reaction and expectations that many of the longs here have been based on years of faulty data. Faulty guidance from within the company. Due dilligence that was slanted from and highlighting those very same messages.
This stock has always overtime reflected the true worth of the business and business model. Many people refuse to believe or even taken in this reality, this truth. The only consistent truth in the history of this company over the last 15 years, save for a few bouts of speculation which drove the stock higher.
The expectations of today were cast many years ago. This cross is being borne for better or worse by those in charge now and these guys may be righting a sinking ship or may have been handed products that never were what they were purported to be.
It's a brew of all three I think this new group is facing.
Am I an investor at these prices..no. Nor will I until I can see some sustainable growing revenue stream for more than one source.
Why the attack? DELL moved on, will I?
You point to the DOD demanding TPM and then nothing happened. In that time frame they bought Credant which basically offered up the same thing that they were getting from Wave. If they said F it in relation to Wave why? They didn't move on, they moved away from Wave.
The why to me is important because if it was the product that's what Solms inherited.