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.
I'm sorry, Matt...
But you have obviously sided with the cultists, if for no other reason than they make up the majority of the posters on the WAVX thread. Recently I have made a number of posts that did not even refer to other posters but were merely critical of management. Snackman deleted them and you upheld his deletions. Then he crowed about it, crowed about how much "rope" I had left, etc., etc., etc. The problem is that board is moderated by someone who has expressed probably a hundred times the idea that you should just "trust" management and not worry. For six years he has done the "revenues are around the corner" routine. He--the moderator--routinely questions the integrity of anyone who challenges the Wavoid mantra. He doesn't care if it's Zeev or Larry Dudash or GregS. (And, yes, Greg, I understand that you prefer to ignore the slings and arrows. That, obviously, will keep you out of trouble, so more power to you.)
I challenge you, Matt, to post the last three messages of mine on the WAVX board that were deleted and tell me why. They were NOT violations of TOU. I'll wager that even the jailbird hecklers will agree with me if you put them up here. If not, go ahead with the execution date.
Matt: What you don't get...
is that there may be all sorts of scams out there, but WAVE is the only one that runs a cult. And, Matt? It takes facilitators like you to do it. You can pretend to be blind to the Wavoid abuses, but I doubt you're that ignorant.
These others have been hounded by Wavoid gang-attacks:
1. Greg S
2. Zeev
3. Larry Dudash
You think they've all got ulterior motives, Matt? You think they're all out to get the poor innocent Wavoid masses?
Matt: You are referring to this?
Sent By: IH Admin [Matt] Date: 1/20/2004 12:41:00 AM
You are at 3 posts/day and about to be less. You are masterful at being a dickhead. Grow up or go back to RB.
****
The post in which you demonstrated your unprofessionalism and immaturity? I thought it was illustrative, so I re-posted it. I'm curious whether you use that language in most of your business correspondence?
Perhaps taxidermy would suit you...
yes, I can see you stuffing ferrets very enthusiastically. Good luck in any event.
But, seriously Matt...
I know, you love Snackman and don't hold his Fascist tendencies against him. Which is admirable, in a twisted sense. But are you aware of the fact that the company he touts is presently the subject of a formal SEC investigation? Are you aware that the management of this company has spent $80 million dollars in the three years from 2000 through 2002 in order to generate $1.4 million in revenues in those same three years? Are you aware that the CEO and CFO and Chairman have pulled down more in salaries than the company has booked in revenues? Do you get any of this Matt?
P.S. That's eighty million in sales and g & a alone. I'm not even counting the other waste.
Matt: Your sense of humor is defective...
probably because they don't pay you enough to coddle the zealots and cultists (Snackman, et al) that subsidize this cult-facilitating organization known as IHUB. They do pay you somethin, don't they Matt?
Cheers,
Jailbird hecklers: Get some new material!
The phresh-phish/bring-us-some-soap schtick is mildly humorous, the first five hundred times. After that it's sorta juvenile. But, anyway, who am I to criticize somebody for joshin? Carry on. That's three and out for me today. Cheers!
P.S. I predict some fool will follow this with a crowing post about my having wasted my third post of the day on him. I don't know who that will be, but he obviously will have even less imagination than the extremely dim-witted Ruellit individual who believes that five hundred iterations of the phresh/phish schtick is still as hilarious as numbers one through twenty. It'll be interesting to see who will be so lame.
Matt: Here is a sampling of others...
who have run afoul of the Wavoid cult:
Zeev.
GregS.
Larry Dudash.
You think those people are fools, Matt? Cause I don't think so. Yet each one of them has been harrassed, has had their integrity challenged, by the Wavoid zealots. A group you apparently feel cannot cope with even three messages a day from me. Each of which the cult leader/board moderator deletes arbitrarily within about five minutes of their appearance--rubber stamped by you--in your role as cult facilitator. I hope they pay you something for doing this job, Matt. I hate to think you're whoring for free.
P.S. To Ruellit: Who cares who this message is directed to? You read it, didn't ya? You think Matt ain't gonna see it?
Good morning Matt!
I see you have gone completely off the deep end and sentenced me to prison. Would you like to share with the other jailbirds what the nature of my infraction is? Would you like to point to one violation of your TOU? You won't, of course, for one reason: you can't. 'Cause, Matt, the only rule I broke was contradicting the Wavoid zealots.
Are you aware this company--WAVE Systems--is presently under a formal SEC investigation? Does it occur to you that maybe the zealots who have invested gigantic chunks of their net worth in a company that has blown TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS over the course of nearly fifteen money-losing years, might be playing you for a damn fool? Of course, not, Matt. You got yer marching orders. I understand that.
zen: Also infinity squared is a big number...
and only slightly less probable than the Wavoid revenue pipe dreams. Especially the break-even in 2004 scenario (even given Steven's re-definition of the meaning of break-even). However, one must dream, I suppose. Cheers!
24601: What new and wondrous things...
are you able to accomplish now with your TPM-equipped PC? I presume your installation is fully operational at this juncture.
zen: Are you inebriated today?
Those are two of the most insensitive messages you have ever posted. I am embarrassed for you.
Weby: Point by point...
1. "Never both sides of an argument." Why should I present the Wavoid view when there are already about nine hundred voices doing that? You have your views. I have mine. You don't need me for reinforcement. Do you?
2. "Never recognition that you might be wrong (just a pat unbelievable phrase)" Huh? I have always been extremely conscientious about admitting the possibility of being wrong. You don't believe that I believe I could be wrong? The words mean what they mean, Weby. And, yeah, I don't expect to be wrong. But I never said my words are gospel. You take em fer what they're worth. Maybe nothing. Maybe something. That's for the reader to decide.
3. "Never a recognition that there are factors that you don't know or that mistakes, and costly mistakes, are a given in a multimillion dollar enterprise." Wrong. I've conceded on multiple occasions that I'm not a technologist and I never pretended to have knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes. I leave that to you folks on the inside e-mail list. As to costly mistakes being a given, of course they are a given. Every firm makes them. I have to say that? It's common knowledge.
4. "Never a recognition that YOUR advice may have made people fail to buy at $.82 cents." It's not my practice to call a bottom. Anybody who thinks they can do that with any degree of reliance is foolin himself. If it was a smart buy at 82 cents, long term, it's probably still a smart buy and it'll be one at $5 and one at $10. All depends on your risk aversion level. Mine is clearly higher than yours. I make no apologies for not calling the bottom, weby.
5. "I am NOT trying to out you. I am saying that one who does not OUT oneself should not be fully trusted. That there is a relationship between being able to attest to the reliability of machines and humans." I think disclosure is important too. This is why I have, almost since day one, disclosed the magnitude of my investment in this stock. In my case, it never exceeded 5%, except maybe on the $50 days. Heck, I've put my entire portfolio up there. So maybe you can't figure out where I live, but you can certainly tell something about my thoughts on investing. How about you, Weby? You ever disclose what portion of your portfolio is in this stock? I'm guessing it's an unhealthy number--one that normal people would consider excessive--but why don't you put it up and see? Hey, maybe I'm wrong.
6. "Give me some proof that Signonline did not make a contribution to the bottom line and/or the 2006 bottom line. Until I know differently, I'm gonna assume it played a part in keeping the French bank things going. If it did and I am right...it will pay off in the ultimate game. Prove me wrong. Don't just state it as a fact...when it is YOUR, rather irrelevant, opinion." I don't recall ever commenting on Signonline, and if you prefer to consider the absence of proof of failure sufficient justification for whatever the purchase price, again, be my guest. I believe this is where you wander into Wave Of Delusion territory. (By the way, what evidence is there--in dollars and cents--that the "French Bank things" are still going?)
It's my sense, weby, that you are deeply into this stock and that you are protective of management in order to protect your access. Which is great. For you. Don't see how that works for the regular guy on the street though. But, then, they're on their own. Right?
That's it for me today.
Interesting remarks, weby...
incredibly feeble, but interesting...
"It's not that he could be wrong. It's that he IS wrong. He is the proof of why there is a need for authentication on the internet...because anonynimity of accusation can be even more dangerous than invasion of privacy. This company may still fail, but if it does...anybody here who loses money is completely responsible for it...not Lark, not Snackman, not Me, not SKS."
What in the world does Wave's product (or service or whatever it is it's supposed to be selling) have to do with anonymity on stock message boards? Is it going to make it possible to "out" whoever you want to "out"? Because, Weby, I don't think in the overall scheme of things that is very important at all.
As to whether anyone knows if the Isophere investment was a good one, you got to be kidding me. Seven million bucks for an internet portal? The stated purpose being to acquire certain human resources during a time when the internet was in meltdown and said resources were readily available virtually everywhere? You think maybe that mighta been a smart buy?
Weby, it's folks like you and Snackman--apologists who rubber stamp everything management does--who foster the sort of incompetence that the entire investing world can plainly see. You forgive the idiocy, you forgive the blatant nepotism, you forgive the misleading guidance, you forgive everything these folks say and do. If that's your concept of intelligent investing, well, be my guest. But don't blame me if the rest of the world sees it for what it is--A Wave of Delusion.
P.S. It's frankly a bizarre (and indefensible)position you've staked out on this privacy issue, Weby. We've already been down this road once and you ended up backpedaling about twelve miles. Sure you want to travel that way again?
I'll be happy to help, Snackman...
How to fix it:
1. Replace at least three of the BoD members, preferably the visionaries amongst them, with businessmen that have some sense of how to make do in the real world. I seriously doubt that Nolan Bushnell, George Gilder, or Nicholas Negroponte know how to balance a checkbook, much less run a company (and don't give me Chuck E. Cheese as an example, thank you very much).
2. Replace the CFO with someone who has the word NO in his vocabulary and is not afraid to utter it when confronted with monumental stupidity (on the scale of, say, Isophere.com).
3. Require Steven to be accompanied by at least one other responsible officer/director on each conference call so that at least a semblance of reality may seep into the conversation.
4. Disavow the message board culture. Cut all ties to it. Start to run this thing like a business instead of cultivating the cult following.
That will do for starters. I imagine it's already too late, but perhaps not.
DOMA: Chainsaw Al Dunlop...
might have been a good choice for CEO--while there were still some unsquandered funds. Too late now, though. Michael Milken for CFO?
HhH
Perhaps Feeney was seen...
obtaining a passport. His exit would be worth about a buck a share. Heck, give him another huge bonus and buy him a one way ticket to Timbuktoo! It'd be worth it.
Possibly, Snackman...
which then would put you, what? Down 50% on a six-seven year holding period? Oh, I know, ya gotta believe!
Three and out. Ciao!
zen: Are you that submissive?
"We have the right to vote our shares. Period. Anything other than that is an imagined possession in the mind of the beholder."
You don't think you have the right to honest disclosure of material events? You don't think you have the right to arms-length transactions between related parties?
I think you have become so accustomed to having those rights abused (via the ubiquitous nda, for example), that you have consented to their forfeiture. But then, you were one who forgave management their misleading remarks because they were for your own good, as I recall.
Weby: Surely you understand the difference...
between being a creditor (like your bank) and being a equity participant. Your bank doesn't pretend to have an equity interest in your house, in fact, the last thing they want is to end up with an equity interest in it.
On the other hand, if you own ONE SHARE of a company's stock, you are not that company's creditor, you are a co-owner of it. Sure, your ownership represents a microscopic interest. But it is ownership nonetheless. And as such, it is entitled to certain rights. I won't bore you with what those rights are, because I'm sure you have an academic grasp of them already.
Your view, frankly, is the perfect illustration of what is wrong with the very concept of Wavoidism. That somehow management isn't answerable to shareholders. That investing ought to be "faith-based." That it's okay if nobody ever does any straight-talking because if you're deceived, well, the deception probably enabled you to hang on to your investment that much longer and was therefore for your own good.
Weby, no investor in their right mind subscribes to those principles. Gamblers, maybe. Cultists. Predators. But not investors.
Yes! We are shipping!
Of course, we were also supposed to be shipping last year and the year before that and the year before that. It was just that Steven never exactly essplained what he was shipping or who he was shipping it to. Apparently he was referring to those bulk shipments from the Equestrian Center to the folks at Manure Mountain.
Rachel: Regarding the BIZ deal...
from the DEFM14A dated 7/25/01:
(bolds mine)
"...period ended March 31, 2001, financing activities generated $16,000,000 from the receipt by BIZ of 2,000,000 shares of Class A common stock of Wave in exchange for the issuance by BIZ of 3,600,000 shares of Series B Stock. Advances from related parties totaled $548,000 during the three month period ended March 31, 2001. In the first week of June 2001, BIZ received net proceeds of $3,400,000 from the private sale of 1,000,000 Wave shares and which was partly utilized to repay related party advances totaling $1,665,000 plus accrued interest of $11,000."
Two points: Regardless of the wisdom of BIZ/SSPX's holding of WAVX stock until it dwindled in value from $8 per share to about half that, the reality is that 2 million shares of WAVX stock had a market value of $16 million on the date of the transaction. WAVX could have used those 2 million shares to purchase some other asset(s) on that date and would have had $16 million in buying power. So the cost of the SSPX transaction is the $16 million. Period. (This is GAAP, rachel.)
The question (and some of us asked it at the time) was, what were they getting for their money? What assurances did they have that this BIZ organization had the wherewithal to live up to its promises? Indeed, even the faithful had questions about the wisdom of the transaction. WAVX investors were assured in a CC following the transaction that management was able to discern an ability to perform on the development contract (or words to that effect), in response to an uncharacteristically skeptical 24601 question. My recollection is that Peter fielded this question and that Mr. Feeney made no remark. And I, of course, interpret his no comment as concurrence with the Chairman.
The rest, obviously, is history. BIZ was underfunded clearly. I wonder if Mr. Feeney ever had a glance at those financials, or if they did the deal blind. I suspect they, in fact, knew BIZ had no real financial substance but chose to toss the dice because: a. the PR value of being able to toss around the name Broadcom, and b. they fervently wished something would come of the EDS connection. In any event, conservative investors such as myself view this sort of transaction as foolish and wasteful. The sort of deal a stronger CFO might prevent (or at least mitigate).
One other point: You will note that approximately half of the proceeds of the first million shares sold by BIZ went to repay "related party advances", just short of $1.7 million. Any guesses as to whose pocket that went into?
It was a fleecing, rachel. The sheep was Steven. The blind shepherd standing in the corner with his fingers in his ears was named Gerard.
Permit me to observe one thing...
And that is the state of Trusted Computing is so far from producing meaningful revenues for this firm that the suggestion of breakeven in 2004 is utter INSANITY. It is comparable to the Donald Duck Lunacy of 2000.
Rachel darling....
WAVX gave up 2 million shares of stock, valued at appr. $16 million bucks to get their SSPX stock. Out of the development agreement, the one that was supposed to be for $10 million, the company actually received payment of a grand total of $555,556 before the deal was killed. By my reckoning, this deal was a pretty good one. If yer name was Winkler. Or Shah. It was a fleecing, rachel. A royal fleecing that is no doubt the talk of the garment district to this day. I imagine it has elevated Winkler to near-icon status. No, rachel, there ain't no two ways about it. There was a fleecing. The sheep was named Steven. The blind guy in the corner with his fingers in his ears was named Gerard. One hopes they earn another round of humongous bonuses this year!
And that's four and out!
Matt: Yer asleep at the wheel again!
Attention Joe Trippi!
And apologies to alea, but if I post this on Snackman's board there is about a 10% chance of it surviving.
Anyway...
Dear Joe:
As you might have guessed, I essentially like your candidate. He's a straight-talker in the mold of Harry Truman and that is extremely appealing to a lot of people. But I think he needs to move off the IRAQ topic. It ain't making him any NEW friends.
Two issues I think need to be better addressed (actually, pounded).
Point one: Contrary to all the whimpering you hear from the Republicans about Democrats engaging in Class Warfare, the fact is we're already in a Class War, thanks to Dubya. And guess what? Unless you're rich, you're on the short end of the stick!
Point two: Why is it NOT considered unpatriotic to move American jobs to other countries? The Republicans virtually sleep wrapped up in the flag, yet the Democrats let them get away with facilitating the down-sizing and the off-shoring of an entire CLASS of Americans! And the only one who seems to be bitching about it is Lou Dobbs! How insane is that?
Aside from the campaign issues, I think something's got to be done about the sorry state of Democratic leadership. Terry McAuliffe STINKS! The man just brings nothing to the table, aside from friendships with some well-placed folks who ought to care more about what happens to their party.
Okay, enough ranting for one day. And that is three and out!
doma: Still think 80% of the NEC SCRs activated?
Oh, I know, that's what the folks at WAVE told ya. I think they might've been joshin, though. It's a shame they can't disclose such stellar results publicly, don't ya think? Probably be able to do a whole nother option exercise/sale cycle on the pop they'd get! Damn the ndas anyway!
P.S. To 24601: Did you get that thing put together yet? Or should I conclude your Silence Is Golden mode speaks volumes (as usual)?
P.S. to Weby: Give me an example of where I rewrote history. I can think of several instances in which I interpreted current events accurately only to be met with the usual hail of brickbats!
P.S. to Joe Trippi: Joe, if you can see this, would ya please stop with the never-ending e-mails? Take the time, instead, to find out whether you still own WAVX stock and then come clean! My guess is ya bailed!
RACHEL: Yes, kudos are due to Winkler...
first and foremost for fleecing the Wave brain trust way back when. Not that any garment guy couldn't have picked Steven's pocket while simultaneously swiping his wristwatch. (All while Feeney dozed in his cubicle.) I certainly hope the bonuses are grand again this year!
ZEN: I'll get back to saving you tomorrow....
in the meantime, amuse yourself with this unbelievable rendition of Mr. Tambourine man by (well, I'm sure you can guess)...
[Suppressed Sound Link]
and now, back to the salt mines. Deadlines and commitments, etc., etc., etc.
A prediction...
Martha Stewart will be found NOT guilty.
(No way the "clerk" who has flip-flopped on his story will be a credible enough witness for the prosecutor to get a conviction.)
Three and out! Hasta luego!
PS: My last message on the WAVX board lasted about fifteen seconds. I guess the censorship word is a no-no! If we don't talk about it, perhaps we can pretend it doesn't exist?
go-kitesurf: Response from ethics expert...
received on my query pertaining to your CAD-CAM article:
--- "Hill, Gary" <Ghill@kstp.com> wrote:
> Dear Howard:
>
> First a disclaimer. I'm assuming everything you
> told me to be true. I have
> no way to know who the individual is, what his
> holdings are, what his
> relationship with the CADCAM Forum are or for that
> matter his credentials as
> a "journalist." Still if your descriptions are
> valid these would be my
> views.
>
> It's generally not good practice for reporters to
> own individual stocks in
> companies that fall within their "beat." It's an
> inherent conflict. The
> tempation will always be there to "plug" the company
> and to soft pedal any
> potential problems. Even if you managed to resist
> these temptations the
> appearance of a conflict would remain. Readers
> would quite rightly question
> if they are getting accurate information if they
> know you have an underlying
> financial interest.
>
> If the situation evolved more innocently, let's say
> you were on the city
> hall beat for years and then were suddenly thrust
> into a business beat you
> should still disclose the conflict. Our Code of
> Ethics calls on us to
> "Disclose Unavoidable Conflicts." Better still to
> avoid those conflicts to
> begin with, dispose of conflicts if they arise and
> use disclosure only as a
> last resort.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Sincerely,
> Gary Hill
> Chair SPJ Ethics Committee
>
ORDA: New blood...
at least somewhere in the upper echelons. I think Feeney should go, absolutely. Replace him with an experienced CFO who will be more than yes-man for the powers-that-be. Also, I would want to see two or three new members on the board. Not visionary types. Lord knows there's enough of them already. The board needs some management talent and, at the same time, the organization needs to shift to a more open management style in which there is some board participation in upper level decision-making. (For instance, someone who would have had the good sense to torpedo the Isophere.com acquisition.)
I would also welcome a different Conference Call format that involved voices other than Steven's. Perhaps a quarterly discussion that involved two or three board members, preferably frank discussions featuring real-world expectations. This company (and the price of its stock) suffers from a severe credibility problem and, in my opinion, it's going to take new voices to remedy that. Steven seems constitutionally unable to be realistic. Someone needs to be.
Of course, merely my opinion.
Orda: Becker's views...
would tend not to support the SKS "break-even in 2004" scenario (even as amended to: "break-even in 2004 based on 2003 operating expense").
(bolds mine)
"This growing understanding of the bigger picture of identity means that their implementation activity will start to ramp up in 2004. This upturn will make many identity vendors happy, but while this upturn will create a feeling of growth and momentum I don't see *serious* identity market acceleration occurring much before 2005. This means that while prosperity is available for some companies this year, smaller companies will have to be well managed for at least another year to feel prosperous."
It was a step in the right direction when the adults at the SHM acknowledged a 2005-2006 break-even time frame for WAVE. Steven's immediate backpedaling on the more realistic assessment was unfortunate and further diminishes his already seriously eroded credibility (and not only in my eyes). This company needs professional management. The current group is not ready for prime time. It probably never will be.
Scorpio: In a word...
NO. Just another product announcement. Everybody wants to sell somethin new--the question is whether the consumer a: wants it, and b: is willing to pay the price. I remain skeptical on both counts.
Rachel: Steven forgot to ask his advisor...
the first time he exercised options and sold. Which apparently raised the missus' ire. One would hope he learned something from that incredibly dimwitted move, but somehow it wouldn't surprise me if he forgot yet again. But then, I'm not one of his more ardent admirers. I imagine it shows at times.
Four and out!
Matt is asleep at the wheel!
Howard: I don't find anything clever...
about Rand's fiction. She is clearly not Hemingway, as you mention. As a writer, I would rank her about equal to Horatio Alger (in other words, grievously flawed). As a thinker, I suppose she is entitled to a certain amount of respect, given the people she's influenced (Greenspan, for instance), although most of her thinking seems about as subtle as the Berlin Wall. Actually, come to think of it, I would probably have more respect for her thoughts if they didn't come packaged in novel form.
To be fair, having trashed one of the right's favorites, let me balance things by adding that I think John Irving's A Prayer For Owen Meany was the worst work of fiction published in the latter half of the century. (And I used to be a fan of his.)
Twentieth Century thinkers whom I rate highly? I'll take a pass on that one. A bit too high-falutin a topic for anybody named Hamhock.
That would be three-and-out for me. Hasta luego.
Ronb: That's worth a member-mark...
from one who considers Miss Rand one of the most overrated minds of the twentieth century, not to mention one of the truly abysmal novelists of all time.
Go-Kitesurf: Pardon me, but...
I don't see where you identified yourself as a stockholder in the company you discussed in your CAD-CAM article. Coming from someone who just descended from the soapbox vis a vis the shoddy journalism of a certain Reuters writer, it strikes me that you purposely omitted a very important point--that you have a stake in the company you were hailing. In the future you might want to refrain from preaching sermons on journalism, gks. File it under: People who live in glass houses, etc.
Three and out!
Happy New Year!
The SKS e-mail being authenticated...
is somehow considered a positive? It's a good thing when the CEO suggests in a public forum that firing and/or suing the sitting CFO was an option? I'm sorry, but if this email is the real thing it is the most unprofessional communication yet from an individual who has released some doozies in the past. The reaction makes me wonder if anyone here has ever owned any stocks other than this one. Because, boys and girls, this sort of thing just ain't done.
Scorpio: Wouldn't a "trivial" matter...
be investigated informally? I think the announcement of a FORMAL SEC investigation means the matter is not trivial. It may be something of less than earth-shaking importance, like a technical violation of insider trading rules, but I seriously doubt if trivial is the right adjective.
Here's something to ponder...
Given that the firing and/or suing of the CFO appears to have been under consideration at some point in time, one must wonder if perhaps the SEC investigation was an inside set-up. That the company (or someone inside the company acting on his own) actually blew the whistle. Why? In order to force a resignation (perhaps thereby providing an escape hatch from an employment contract)? Would such a scenario be too Machiavellian? I don't know. Probably. On the other hand....
Anyway, that makes three and out...
Happy New Year to the Wavoid faithful!