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.
That's not necessarily a bad idea. No one should in every situation have unfettered discretion.
RWK. Thanks for your calm appraisal. The bottom line for me is simple: the sp may be shorted down with the help of the emotionalism of some disgruntled Wavoids, but, at the end of the sturm und drang, Wave;s revenues WILL materialize, and Wave's SP WILL reach the expected heights. My meager pension check comes once a month; I'm not going anywhere; so I'll just sit by my computer and watch the follies from the sideline.
OT - Thanks for the kind words about my health. My doctor said I'd adapt, and I guess I have. I am winning a pro se IRS tax deficiency case, and the IRS attorney said, "I have to mention this to you: You're tough!" I am only trying to be 'tough' with respect to Wave, and to communicate an appropriate degree of toughness to those doubters who are here on the message board.
Do you really mean that? Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Everybody here has had huge paper losses, but we have persevered. Many are PO'd by the real or imagined defaults and managerial defecits of Peter and SKS, but now is not the time for our actions to be animated by raging emotion. Committing financial suicide is not a viable personal financial strategy.
architect, all you say is absolutely correct, in my opinion. I come from a career that was divided between several distinct sub-sectors: LBJ-era OEO 'poverty' law, USG Executive Agency non-law, Fortune No. 1 and 5 corporate law, and a small crude oil trading firm. The point is, I have seen the legal/financial/regulatory game played from the vantage of participation in all angles. What you say about the essential CENTRALITY of developing, maintaining, and protecting trusted relationships is right on. I wish the message board here would be accepting of the fact that sometimes going through the hoops of regulatory COSMETICS has to be done so that nominally antagonistic parties who do trust each other can affect a substantively appropriate solution to a contentious problem, while publically adhering to all of the publically known procedural requirements. As Snackman said, the listing panal needed a 'plan'... I'd say they needed the appropriate COSMETICS to support their decision favoring Wave. This proffered reverse split is just that... nothing more, nothing less.
JMO, of course.
That kind of candor may well be what's needed (to bolster shareholder and market confidence), but practice it, and not fulfill it in the slightest amount, and we will have another bogus class action and SEC enforcement lawsuit to contend with, at a time when there is likely to be enough revenue arriving to make the filing of such bogus lawsuits WORTHWHILE. To h#ll with 'transparency', let management chart and stay the course. They are executing, are they not?
I'm lost. Thanks for the DISinformation. Maybe now, I'll get 'found'.
That might happen, but my expection is that a coming tide of good news will swamp such short sellers, forcing them to cover en masse. I'm waiting, and I'm 'locked and loaded'!
But, I'm a little guy....
Lucky, I don't have a specific reference for the term, 'real value'. That is simply my usage to explain the concept of an objective measure of the totality of objective factors that determine how much a company is worth. As anyone who has spent any time bidding on EBay can say, in the 'real world' there is no totally objective way of determining the 'real value' of anything, because at some level of analysis, some degree of subjectivity or emotion enters the calculation. That said, there are many methods or measurents by which one can estimate a 'real value' for a company or business. The most common method is to estimate the projected amount of all future earnings, and discount that amount back to today's date. Another measure that might be used is the present net asset value, basically, what is a fair price to sell the company for. Another measure is book value. The point is that when you own company stock, you own a share (a proportionate share) of something real, which can be different from the 'value' of that share of something real that is represent by your stock share price. Think about it -- what does an undervalued or overvalued share of stock consist of?
correction: Barge and Scorpio will both vehemently disagree.
buying heavily on Monday... now that's a breath of fresh air.
ISRG, Lucky. They had good fundamentals, for a development stage, cutting edge tech company, and, as I recall, did a reverse split just before their stock price took off. The problem that micro-cap tech companies transition through their development stages have with maintaining their share price is the nature of their investors. The investors tend to be too much swayed by grandiose visions of ultimate great wealth, and therefore are less confident of the technology promised by the company, which leads to emotion-driven analysis of the company's business strategy and progress, rather than a steady, cold-blooded appreciation of how, and to what extent, the company is progressing toward its financial goals.
Amen, mates!
So, I'm naive. What else is new?
awk -- succinctly put... BRAVO!
But, all other things being equal, the percentage real change in value of any share price appreciation after any split, whether forward or reverse, will be exactly the same. You are assuming that the nominal appreciation of the split and unsplit shares will be the same. It doesn't work that way, because if all things that affect share price appreciation remain the same, i.e., the company's fundamentals, the nominal share price change between unsplit versus split share scenarios will necessarily be different by the REAL amount necessary to make the REAL VALUE of your shares equal. Thus if the fundamentals, over the same time period produce a REAL value of $100 for the company, and you own an initial 10 shares, and the company's REAL VALUE (use net asset value, for example, for your yardstick) doubles to $200 over the relevant time period, then the derived REAL value of your share position should also double, regardless of into how many shares your position is divided. Your initial 1/10 of the REAL VALUE of the company will remain 1/10 of the REAL VALUE of the company, whether a reverse 10 to 1 split occurs, or whether a foward 1 to 5, or 1 to 50, or 1 io 500, or any other forward split occurs, all other things regarding fundamentals not changing, of course. The real issue here, as with any split scenario with any company is how the split, or the possibility of a split, affects or alters the fundamentals, or the market's PERCEPTION of the company's underlying fundamentals. Unfortunately, from what I've read here last night, this board largely seems to suffer from battered wife syndrome, and instinctively seems to perceive any unanticipated move by management as some kind of inexplicable or irrational move to harm them. I would say that persisting in such panicky and paranoid reactions will only work to the detriment of a small shareholder, thereby allowing the bigger, more sophisticated shareholders to walk away with an even larger PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE REAL VALUE of the company than they already own up to this point.
how do (i.e., will) you lose? Could you please explain?
Say it simply" It would be stupid to vote against authority to do a reverse split, if the known facts concerning imminent substantial revenues are true.
recall: ISRG....
I think the public's awareness of the VA debacle tilts things against a 'wait-and-see' attitude for enterprise buying of the first iteration of Seagate's FDE drives, Weby's equivocating notwithstanding.
Weby, could you tell your students that all non-random data contains information. the operative question is always whether or to what extent, that information is reliable or unreliable information. all rumors contain some 'information'... the problem is that so little of it is reliable. That's why one will sometime hear a judge in a trial say, "I'll admit it (proffered testimony), 'for what it's worth'". Or why, in ordinary conversations, one will hear, "Don't dismiss that rumor out of hand".
yep, you're correct... senile recollection plus too much
insomniacal late night message board posting have befallen my retirement diversions.
Unixguy, A literary question: Didn't the Bard write, "Methinks thou protesteth too much."?
As legally-mandated intrusions into citizens' internet communication grows, there is some merit in reverting to real-time, face-to-face communication, after checking for taps and 'wires'.
Seriously, do the keystone cops in Washington really want such restrictions, and have they thought through how such kind of idiocy would further degrade the health of the economy? Elections do matter.
Jaybeaux, my thoughts and best wishes are with 1260 also. We turtles are all in this journey together, and should all make it, in good health, to that happy sea symbolized by, 'See ya in 'Vegas!'.
that pr is coming. do you honestly doubt it? just answer 'yes' or 'no'. (yawn).
Scratch my earlier reply on this matter. it's obviously wrong, per Weby and subsequent posters.
Seagate is a publically traded corporation, not an LLC... right? So maybe Seagate LLC is a SEAGATE/WAVE joint venture for this technology collaboration. So what exactly is the Wave logo that is mentioned... I didn't know that we had a 'logo' in the sense that most PC OEMs use a 'logo'.
All of the cited pronouncements, while tantalyzing, are still very consistent with the limited means of key recovery M'soft has announced and documented (i.e., USB tokens, pieces of paper, and copying the keys to a disk at a separate centralized location. This is not rocket science and can be done without much wave or outside collaboration... certainly not 'in-depth' collaboration. I don't deny the liklihood of deep M'soft/Wave collaboration existing, but IMO, this is not it.
Perfect storms are set off by the unlikliest confluence of events. I've long ago stopped predicting what will start THE BIG MOVE.
This looks like a MAJOR product line revamp
meaning that designs that were not Momentus FDE-type drive are going to be replaced/transitioned to/re-designed to, the 'Momentus FDE' design standards. It's as if Kraft Foods might have 12 flavors of Kool-Aid(tm) of which 11
flavors that featured sucrose and dextrose sweetening, and artificial flavors and colors, and one flavor that was designed recently to have only a sugar substitute instead of the sucrose and dextrose. Then, some exogenous event (like the VA stolen data flap) occurred that showed that a complete ingredient revamp made sense for the entire Kool-Aid(tm) ofproduct line although the main focus of that complete revamp would be a change to the use of all-natural FLAVORS and COLORS (i.e., perpendicular recording). In such case, their new product line announcement would likely emphasize the change from artificial flavors and colors, rather than the new across-the-line change to (non-fattening) artificial sweeteners. Substitute TPM-enablement for (non-fattening) artificial sweeteners, and I submit that this is the analogy that explains why TPMs and FDE technology is not mentioned in the Seagate ann going to be aouncement. Bottom line: "Chill Out... please!". It's going to be all-right.
Maybe the bundled Wave stuff is not yet available (from a technical 'packaging/marketing,advertising&sales angle) at this time. Companies have to manage product roll-outs in an orderly manner, and throwing every feature of a product line offering into the announcement of a major product line revamp into the product revamp announcement is not the smartest nor most efficient way to go. Don't be so Wave-centric and parochial. Perpendicular recording for example, is much more important to Seagate's bottom line than is TPM-enabled encryption. Frankly, Wavoids need to chill and gain a bit more market, and MARKETING, perspective.
you seemed to hint of positive results after 2007. I guess I overestimated your thoughts.
I wonder how many VA IT data analysts and administrators read about TPMs on this message board. That would be the first question I would ask in plaintiffs' discovery in these cases. There's gonna be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on, on M Street NW (in DC). IMO
He probably followed the Yahoo Finance message boards.
Thoughts...? One of the most painfully clear and concise synopses that I have seen on this board. And, by the way, good lawers, such as yourself, do have a great amount of 'technical sense' in the broadest acceptation (strict, logical reasoning) of those words.
The issue, IMO, seems simple. Both Microsoft and Wave can provide key management for Vista, but Microsoft's BitLocker is the less capable encryption process as it only protects the hard drive's data at rest, whereas Seagate + Wave's encrypted drive solution encrypts the data on the fly. Therefore, enterprises will need to purchase the Seagate + Wave solution to get the most robust solution. You are simply looking at Microsoft playing the game of market segmentation by aiming at the least demanding market segment that has the lowest requirements for platform-based encryption functionality.
Do I detect a softening of your stand?
This may seem a bit off-the-wall, as well as possibly OT, but I am reminded of my days in Kuwait as a young State Department diplomatic officer. I learned about how Kuwait handled citizenship and concommitant 'identity'. Kuwaiti citizens, i.e. those residents who could legitimately trace their Kuwaiti lineage to membership in one of the three tribes that constituted the Kuwaiti 'nation' had citizenship by common recognition or reputation. There was a smaller group of residents of Arab tribal descent who had just drifted in, over time, from the surrounding desert and inserted themselves into the Kuwaiti society (does this sound familiar?). They were loyal, hard-working 'Kuwaitis' in all but actual liniage, though they were not 'citizens'. The Kuwait government solved the problem by practicing what everyone knew to be an outright fiction, that is, it arbitrarily decreed these non-citizens to be members of one of the three traditional tribes. What does this have to do with our identity-proofing issue? Maybe the simplest solution would be to fingerprint everyone who needed to be identity-proofed and assign them an ARBITRARY name-of-record that would thereafter be their immutable identity for authentication purposes. This would not preclude any recorded association of this assigned identy with any known prior identity that a specific individual may have had or used, just as currently authorities keep track of known aliases and AKAs that individuals have used.