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.
Mig- your right. I questioned the lack of volume yesterday but today as I wite this the volume is roughly equal to or slightly more than yesterday's total volume. I'm looking forward to a good day. I'm cautious about speculating about pending news but the volumein conjunction with the price jump is nice to see. Just my two cents.
Share price increase is very nice but where is the volume?
Gruber & McBaine Capital Management
Bio on Gruber below:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/AboutOCW/donorgruber.htm#jongruber
An investment in open sharing
An enthusiasm for what’s “cutting edge” in technology has molded Jon Gruber’s life, and has now made its mark on MIT OpenCourseWare.
Gruber, an entrepreneur who is the president of Gruber & McBaine Capital Management, the company he founded in 1987, has been a consultant to government clients, a tech analyst, and now an investment advisor focused largely on technology stocks. In fact, he is known in some circles as “the father of technology investing.”
Recently, he decided to give a $1 million gift to MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW), an unprecedented act of generosity for MIT’s global initiative that is committed to publishing virtually all of MIT’s course materials freely and openly for the benefit of mankind.
A MIT Class of 1964 alum and generous supporter of MIT (in 1998, Gruber had established a career development professorship at the MIT Sloan School of Management), Gruber wanted to give MIT a large gift as part of his 40th MIT reunion celebration in summer 2004… But he was not sure where he wanted to direct that gift.
A conversation with former MIT President Charles M. Vest tipped the balance in favor of designating his latest gift to MIT OCW. “(OpenCourseWare) was a most distinct idea - something that no one else has done,” Gruber said. “And it was clearly one of Chuck Vest’s favorites, too. There was no ambiguity there. He was very, very upbeat about it.”
Upbeat for good reason: With 1400 courses published thus far, MIT OCW is already helping to make the world a better place. An example: University faculty in Baghdad are using it as a model while they work to rebuild their country’s education system.
Gruber’s gift will support the development and open publication of course materials in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science - his undergraduate major - and also in MIT’s various programs in the visual arts.
“I chose visual arts because of my family,” he explained. “My mother and brother are both artists and photographers, and my sister is in the arts and singing, so my father and I are the only ones in the ‘other world.’” (Gruber’s father was an engineer from Carnegie Tech, now Carnegie Mellon University.)
Gruber and his wife, Linda, live in the San Francisco Bay Area and are patrons of several arts organizations there. The couple’s daughter, Lindsay, holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia; son Wyatt, a Duke University grad, also holds a degree from the MIT Sloan School.
Thanks All!!
Have anyone's shares been adjusted yet in their acccount? I have Scottrade and the my shares do not yet reflect the RS.
Barge et al- I've checked out the other board but I prefer to stay here. I haven't seen anything that qualifies as due diligence there as of yet. I don't understand why we need censorship when it comes to negative opinions. I enjoy hearing the short's opinion because you should always be evaluating an investment. I feel that I'm intelligent enough to hit the "next" button should a comment be useless, repeated or without merit. That includes people who are married to this stock. I don't think many want to hear anything negative even if it's true. I'll shut up now.
Slate - IMHO it depends on how one views WAVX. If one views WAVX as only an investment, then if WAVX gets bought out only the price should matter.
"Small presence in Asia in the not to distant future" - I like it!
(OT)WSJ - Two Top Lawyers Leave Milberg As Firm Tries to Avert Indictment
By JOHN R. WILKE and NATHAN KOPPEL
May 16, 2006; Page A1
WASHINGTON -- Two top partners of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP have left the big class-action law firm as it mounts an urgent campaign to head off being indicted for paying kickbacks to clients, lawyers close to the case said.
David Bershad, 66 years old, and Steven Schulman, 54, face likely criminal indictment themselves in the case, these people said. The case, which is before a federal grand jury in Los Angeles, has been under way for six years. The departures were triggered by a guilty plea last month by a New Jersey businessman who admitted taking secret payments as a plaintiff in Milberg class-action lawsuits between 1991 and 2005.
But there were indications late yesterday that the departures may not be enough to stave off an indictment of Milberg Weiss, which is headed by senior partner Melvyn Weiss.
Long feared in corporate boardrooms, Milberg sued at least 75 companies for securities fraud last year, including General Motors Corp. and Blockbuster Inc., and files more class-action cases each year than most other major law firms. In 2004 and 2005, the New York-based firm settled an estimated 90 such cases and extracted more than $1.5 billion for investors, according to Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. In the process, Milberg's partners have become extremely wealthy.
The loss of Mr. Bershad, who handled partnership finances, and Mr. Schulman, its most aggressive case generator, could reverberate through scores of securities class-action cases in which billions of dollars in damages are at stake. Milberg is currently one of the lead counsels in the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, which alleges that more than 300 technology companies artificially inflated their IPO share prices. A proposed settlement of about $1 billion is awaiting court approval. Milberg is also working to finalize a settlement with KPMG LLP in a suit alleging that the accounting firm marketed fraudulent tax shelters.
Lawyers say the investigation has cast a pall over the firm. "I think it is more difficult for Milberg to be engaged by new clients when they have this hanging over their head," says Richard Schiffrin, head of rival class-action firm Schiffrin & Barroway LLP. "If Milberg is not indicted," he adds, "they will have the ability to go forward, even without David Bershad and Steven Schulman."
Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have been told that the two men will have no involvement in firm management or cases and have agreed to take a leave of absence, pending a resolution, people close to the case said. Lawyers for both men didn't return phone calls yesterday.
In a statement released last night, Mr. Bershad said he and Milberg's management came to a "mutually agreed-upon decision" to take a leave of absence after nearly 40 years, "in the belief that my action will improve the firm's chances to avoid unfounded charges that would be detrimental to our hundreds of hard-working employees and the hundreds of thousands of class members we represent."
The departures of Messrs. Bershad and Schulman are only part of a last-ditch effort to avoid a Milberg indictment. In recent weeks, the firm has expanded its legal team and reached out to top Justice Department officials here, arguing that such a move would be a death sentence -- as when accounting giant Arthur Andersen collapsed after its indictment, even though the government's case against the firm was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.
The threat of a Milberg indictment rekindles the controversy over indicting firms for the alleged criminal conduct of individual managers or executives. Last year, federal prosecutors in New York threatened to seek an indictment of another big accounting firm, KPMG, but backed down at the 11th hour after a review by senior Justice Department officials. They concluded that an indictment would hurt thousands of innocent employees and deprive public companies of competition in auditing services.
The investigation of Milberg has taken repeated twists. Its original focus was William Lerach, who left Milberg in 2004 to form his own firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, in San Diego. But prosecutors determined they could not bring a case against Mr. Lerach.
The Justice Department standoff has drawn a former federal judge, Stanley Sporkin, into the fray. "If the firm has violated the law, then it must accept responsibility [but] this should not mean it must receive a 'death penalty sentence,' which likely would be the result of a federal criminal indictment," Mr. Sporkin said in an April 24 letter to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and other officials.
Mr. Sporkin, who has also served as enforcement chief at the Securities and Exchange Commission and general counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency, said he doesn't represent Milberg. He said he wrote the letter because of the vital role class-action cases play in policing corporate conduct and recovering damages for investors.
The long-running investigation has focused on whether some plaintiffs in securities class-action cases brought by Milberg were paid illegal kickbacks in addition to whatever damages they received as members of the class. The guilty plea last month by retired New Jersey mortgage broker Howard Vogel represented a breakthrough in the case.
In court filings in the case, prosecutors asserted that a "Partner D" -- Mr. Schulman, according to lawyers close to the case -- assisted Mr. Vogel in receiving $1.2 million in kickbacks for initiating securities-fraud class actions against Oxford Health Plans Inc. and Baan Co. The suits were settled in 2003. An attorney involved in the investigation says Mr. Bershad is the "Partner C" described in court filings as having assisted in diverting payments to Mr. Vogel for serving as a lead plaintiff.
A former Milberg partner said Mr. Bershad was "the money man" at the firm, charged with administrative duties such as negotiating partners' compensation. But Mr. Bershad also had an active practice. In 2003, for example, he was lead counsel in a class action against Rite Aid Corp., which settled for about $300 million, and another suit against Lucent Technologies Inc., which settled for $600 million. "David is one of the leading lawyers in this field," says Mr. Schiffrin.
In the wake of Mr. Vogel's plea agreement, many lawyers voiced surprise that Milberg was alleged to have paid kickbacks as recently as last year, given that Congress passed sweeping class-action reform in 1995. In the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Congress hoped to eradicate professional plaintiffs like Mr. Vogel. He or members of his family have appeared in at least 40 Milberg cases.
And given its prominence in the class-action bar, it is also surprising that Milberg is alleged to have diverted money to Mr. Vogel in relatively small-dollar matters, says Stanford Law School professor Joseph Grundfest. "It is like a billionaire accused of shoplifting at Costco," Prof. Grundfest said.
(OT) Where Are They Now: George Gilder - WSJ.COM
By MARCELO PRINCE
May 8, 2006
This is the eighth in a series of articles in which we'll catch up with newsmakers from the past decade. For other installments and more go to the WSJ.com 10th Anniversary1 page.
At his peak, George Gilder had the power to move the markets. These days the conservative pundit turned technology guru is just trying to get people to pay attention to him.
Mr. Gilder's fascination with telecommunications companies and their technology wasn't dimmed by the Nasdaq meltdown of 2000 and 2001, which wiped out many of the loyal readers of his once-influential newsletter and nearly tossed Mr. Gilder into bankruptcy. The 66-year-old author and former Nixon speechwriter continues to seek out promising high-tech firms and promote them in the Gilder Technology Report2, though his audience has shriveled from more than 75,000 subscribers six years ago to fewer than 5,000 these days.
"The trouble with my business is that everyone came in at the peak," Mr. Gilder said in a recent interview. "The typical Gilder subscriber lost all his money and that made it very hard for me to market the newsletter."
In the late 1990s, a mention of a company in Mr. Gilder's monthly newsletter often sent its shares surging, a phenomenon that came to be known as "the Gilder effect." Investors clamored for his advice and he was paid tens of thousands of dollars to give speeches on his "telecosm" theories, about how bandwidth would become unlimited and free and give rise to new products and services.
Together with his friend and publishing partner Steve Forbes, Mr. Gilder hosted popular conferences featuring tech executives and luminaries. He was profiled in magazines, from the New Yorker to Wired, and feted by fund managers, venture capitalists and investment bankers.
GILDER'S TRACK RECORD
Here's a look at how $10,000 invested in stocks in George Gilder's "Telecosm Technologies" list, which debuted in April 1997, would have fared over the years.
Year Gain/Loss % Gain/Loss $ Year-End Balance
1997 21% $2,100.00 $12,100.00
1998 48% $5,808.00 $17,908.00
1999 284% $50,858.72 $68,766.72
2000 -44% ($30,257.36) $38,509.36
2001 -43% ($16,559.03) $21,950.34
2002 -56% ($12,292.19) $9,658.15
2003 130% $12,555.59 $22,213.74
2004 3% $666.41 $22,880.15
2005 5% $1,144.01 $24,024.16
2006* 26% $6,246.28 $30,270.44
*Year to date
(Figures in parentheses are losses.)
Source: Annual performance data provided by Gilder Publishing LLCThen came the tech-stock crash. Even Mr. Gilder's boundless optimism couldn't save many of the telecom firms that he had long promoted. Favorites like Global Crossing Ltd., WorldCom and JDS Uniphase Corp. unraveled and their stocks collapsed. "I did not put the companies through a rigorous financial test or filter. It was a real disaster," he said. "I was a naïve guy doing this. It almost didn't matter what the hell I did when all the companies went bankrupt, there is no way to look good." (For a look at the performance of Mr. Gilder's picks, see the chart at left.)
"There are two pieces to investing. There is what the company does -- the product -- and there is the stock price. That's the part that Gilder forgot. What price are you going to pay for this?" said Fred Hickey, who for two decades has edited another tech newsletter, the High-Tech Strategist. "He thought the price was unlimited because there was unlimited opportunity. But there was a limit to it and he found that out when everything crashed."
The selloff not only tarnished Mr. Gilder's reputation but erased much of his personal fortune, which was largely invested in his favorite companies. Mr. Gilder has spent much of the last few years paying off tax bills and debts. He has sold the conservative American Spectator magazine, which he acquired in 2000. He still owes money to former partners in his publishing business, one of whom has put a lien on Mr. Gilder's home in Tyringham, Mass. "I was as close to bankruptcy as you can get without filing," he said. His company, which once had more than 50 workers and was being groomed for an IPO, now has three full-time employees.
Last year he published his latest book, "The Silicon Eye," which tells the story of Foveon Inc., a closely held maker of chips for digital cameras founded by Carver Mead, a semiconductor pioneer and professor at California Institute of Technology. Despite its promising technology, the company has struggled to win customers. Foveon has "failed to succeed as fast as I hoped," Mr. Gilder said, but he remains optimistic about its prospects. The book, which was a finalist for the U.K.'s Aventis Prize for science books, has not sold "especially well," he added.
Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com Corp. and inventor of the Ethernet networking standard, still considers Mr. Gilder "a hero and a mentor." Unlike other tech commentators, he said, Mr. Gilder brings a deep understanding of philosophy and economics to his analysis as well as an "almost poetic relationship with technology."
"It's true he was wrong a lot toward the end as the Internet bubble was bursting, but a lot of other people were too," Mr. Metcalfe said.
Mr. Gilder still holds regular discussions with subscribers on his Web site3, where he said a few of the people that angrily withdrew a few years ago are returning. He continues to recommend and invest in some of the same tech companies -- at least those that survived the crash. Some of his picks like Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Corp. have rebounded in recent years, while others like Microvision Inc. and JDS Uniphase, which he stopped recommending in December, have not.
The fallout, however, has changed how he puts together the newsletter. Previously, any company whose technology Mr. Gilder loved was added to his "Telecosm Technologies" list. Now his choices are vetted by Charlie Burger, a physicist who serves as the newsletter's principal analyst. Mr. Burger examines each company's financial health and stock valuation. "If it doesn't pass or he judges it wildly overvalued, I don't put it on the list," said Mr. Gilder. "I may write about it, but I don't put it on the list."
When he isn't working on his newsletter or one of several book projects, Mr. Gilder increasingly spends his time advocating intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. Mr. Gilder, who helped found the Discovery Institute, a conservative think thank, is comfortable in the role of social contrarian. He was an outspoken critic of feminism in the 1970s and an early proponent of supply-side economics in the 1980s before turning his focus to the high-tech world.
"I do think that writing about technology and picking stocks is a very powerful and edifying discipline," he said. "It requires you to have a purchase on reality that is much more rigorous than the average evolutionary biologist has or the average free-floating technology writer has."
Surely the there are separate employees of Wave Express and their shares can be diluted. Dilution protection happens often with early stage investors negotiating them into term sheets. Employees end up being the ones penalized. However 25% of something is more than 50% of nothing.
For example-
Total 100 share at the start
Wave owns 50
Wave Express employees own 50
Next round
100 new shares issued for a total of 200 shares
Wave w/ anti dilution clause gets another 100
Wave Express employees own 50
Treasury shares 50 for sale
24601- perhaps Wave will be getting a proportional amount of shares thus the only ones diluted are those employees that hold Wave Express shares.
If you see him before he presents, tell him to pull mic closer to his face. Its tough to hear the speakers on the webcast without doing so. Thanks!
Vacationhouse- I will agree with you that the Yahoo message boards are not the best way to learn about a company such as wave. They, however, are not the type of investors that we need at this point.
I would counter - If a company doesn't have any earnings, does anyone really care. If they have earnings, investors will hear.
What new investors?- Institutional firms worth their salt are going to see the same things we see- that Wave paid for the reports. The investors that purchase shares as a result of these reports aren't going to be making purchases that move the stock. Real news will.
Escrow56- In your opinion- has the volume increase for Wave and has anyone else started to cover Wave as a result of the Dutton coverage?
What did they give up by spending this $$$? Maybe they could of hire a better PR firm that could get them more exposure in the mainstream media.....We'll never know.
bbigtim - Agreed. There are much better ways for Wave to be using $24k at this point. I'm surprised no one at Wave has the common sense to see this. I admire their technical knowledge but their idea of how to move share price is completely off the mark. Did Feeney sign off on this? I was frustrated when the paid for the Dutton 'research' and can't believe their doing it again. All just my opinion of course.
RedChip Visibility, a division of RedChip Companies, Inc., and the Aurelius Consulting Group Inc. in a joint marketing agreement have been contracted by Wave
Systems Corp. to increase investor awareness of WAVX to the small-cap equity community. These services may include investor conferences and digital and print
distribution of WAVX investor related materials. WAVX has paid RedChip Visibility and the Aurelius Consulting Group Inc. $24,000 for two months of investor relations
services, which includes the writing of this newsletter.
Microsoft Delays Windows Vista Debut Again (WSJ)
Consumer Version to Miss
Critical Holiday Season;
Unit Shake-Up Is Expected
By ROBERT A. GUTH
March 22, 2006; Page A3
Microsoft Corp. announced a delay in its long-awaited Windows Vista operating system, and people familiar with the matter said the company is planning a major management shake-up in its Windows group.
The Redmond, Wash., software company said it will begin broadly selling a version of Vista for consumers in January, compared to its earlier plan of offering the product in time for the holiday selling season.
A version of Vista for large business customers will be available in November, said James Allchin, co-president of Microsoft's platforms and services division. He said the company needs more time to improve the quality of the product, which Microsoft has already postponed once.
The delay comes as Microsoft this week is expected to name Steve Sinofsky, a senior vice president, as head of the division that oversees Windows, according to people familiar with the matter.
The delay and management appointment highlight a broader effort by Microsoft to inject more management oversight into the Windows group, Microsoft's largest contributor of revenue and profit.
Tapping Mr. Sinofsky, 40 years old, adds an executive from Microsoft's Office group to the Windows division. Mr. Sinofsky, who joined Microsoft in 1989 and served as a technical assistant to Chairman Bill Gates, has earned a reputation in his current role as head of the Office product group as a no-nonsense manager willing to push back against engineers, according to people familiar with the executive.
Microsoft's expected reorganization partly reflects an effort by Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to instill management rigor at the company, which has been marked by slower growth, an increasingly diverse product line and a new array of competitive threats.
Mr. Ballmer took a major step in that direction in September when he merged seven business units into three and appointed three top lieutenants -- managers from the sales and marketing side of the company -- to head the groups.
As his first major step, Kevin Johnson, the head of the division that includes Windows and MSN online services, is overseeing the broader restructuring of the Windows group, which in addition to tapping Mr. Sinofsky, could include merging certain parts of the unit with other Microsoft divisions, these people said. Microsoft executives were meeting late yesterday to hammer out final details of the plan, they added.
People familiar with the matter said the restructuring is not directly tied to the Vista delay. Still, Mr. Sinofsky is expected to eventually assume duties that have been handled by Mr. Allchin, who last year announced that he would retire after what had been expected to be the Windows Vista shipping date later this year.
Microsoft's Office group is known for a more disciplined management style, and has tended to pump out new products on a timely, predictable schedule. By contrast, the Windows group has always valued engineering prowess over management oversight.
As the Windows software got increasingly complex, that model in recent years spun out of control: Problems with Vista forced Microsoft in 2004 to stop development of the software, remake large portions and add more controls over its engineering ranks.
WINDOW TO THE PAST
Here's a look at some major Windows releases.
Operating System Year
Windows Vista 2007*
Windows XP 2001
Windows ME 2000
Windows 2000 2000
Windows 98 1998
Windows 95 1995
Windows NT 1993
Windows 3.1 1993
Windows 3.0 1990
Windows 2.0 1987
Windows 1.0 1985
* ExpectedVista is still widely expected to be a major event for the industry, perhaps the biggest technology transition since the Windows 95 operating system arrived more than 10 years ago. More than 90% of PCs world-wide use some version of Windows. Any delay that affects the crucial fall selling season is a blow to the company and to the legions of hardware and software companies that follow its lead.
The shift to January for the consumer version of Windows -- the second major delay for the product -- is particularly troublesome, said Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Technologies Associates Inc. That's because consumers, who account for about 38% of total PC sales, buy a greater proportion of computers in the fourth quarter than businesses do, he said.
Suppliers to the PC industry, such as chip makers Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc., have also been betting on Vista to boost sales. "This is going to mess up the whole Christmas selling season for the hardware companies," Mr. Kay said.
Mr. Allchin said that the major reason for the delay is to give Microsoft more time to test the security and other "quality" aspects of the product. He said that since Microsoft needed the extra time, certain partners asked that the consumer version of the product be delayed until January and not sold in November. Though Mr. Allchin didn't identify the partners, analysts noted that retailers need time to set up their sales channels and would want to wait until after the Christmas season.
Microsoft shares traded at $27.74, off 15 cents, in 4 p.m. composite trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market before the late-afternoon announcement and subsequently fell to $27.02 in after-hours trading.
Write to Robert A. Guth at rob.guth@wsj.com
Started Shipping to Gateway 1/26. Did I hear correctly?
Dutchbj - It is a bargain!
Most investment managers that have control over large pools typically are restricted by their investment process, their clients, mkt cap size or share price (no stock below $3). Some microcap managers may take a look at us now. Even then most micro cap managers start searching at mkt caps above $100 million. In addition some index managers (Barclays, Norther Trust, Vanguard etc) and hedge fund managers can/will purchase shares. Bottom line- our universe of institutional buyers is small right now. Don't expect Merrill Lynch to be writing a report on us any time soon. In any event, we (individual shareholders)are lucky to know what Wave's prospects are (more solid than ever) and have a share price that is so cheap. I don't mean to sound flip because many holder have been in this stock for years (including me)but once the tech is more widely adopted and more solid revs take hold, the share price will take care of itself.
Clicking on that same Yahoo Finance Link shows a warning sign at the top of the page with the statement "WAVX has failed to meet NASDAQ continued listing requirement(s)." What's up?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WAVX
US equity markets are closed 12/26 and 1/2
Snack -for the next 12 hours and 55 minutes you are correct.
Snack - Sorry but your post reminds me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House yelling "ALL IS WELL, REMAIN CALM" as the crowd runs over him.
Has anyone called any of the resellers to see how product is moving?
Hmm... I wonder whether the report will be positive or negative? I can think of 33,000 reasons why it will be a positive report.
The Nantucket Conference
The attending of this conference concerns me a bit as I would think Wave would be well past attending these. Why? THese conferences are set up for investors (VC and the like) to get a look at companies that need funding and for companies in need of funding. Perhaps the last shelf was not enough after all. Any thoughts?
About the Conference
http://www.iaevents.com/pke05/
Department of Defense (DoD)
Identity Protection and Management Conference
Orlando, FL
18-22 April 2005
Since 1999, the DoD has aggressively pursued technology improvements in the manner in which our people and business partners authenticate in the physical and virtual spaces. Over time, it has become clear these technologies are so inextricably linked that we need to globally oversee the Identity Protection and Management within DoD both logically and physically. In concert with this view, we have transformed the DOD PKI Conference into a DoD Identity Protection and Management conference.
This conference is meant for Information Technology and Security Professionals, Physical Security Specialists, Developers, Security Experts and Program Managers that develop, deploy, plan for, or use security products and services as well as personnel who support these activities and the functional communities that will use these products and services. Additionally, this conference will address the needs of Building Managers, and Physical Security personnel responsible for facility security and force protection at DoD installations. Both programmatic and technical representatives will be on hand from the Public Key, Biometrics and Smart Card areas of DoD, the US Government, Industry, Academia, the International Identity Management Community, Allied Countries, and other organizations. This conference will focus on how these different communities interoperate with US Government and International Community Initiatives while adhering to national and international standards.
The conference will provide updates on programmatic activities involving DoD’s plans, implementation and vision within their Public Key Infrastructure, the smart card and biometric technology implementation; and associated identity management initiatives. It will include updated information as it pertains to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12). The impact of this directive will have immense impact on how the Physical Security Community addresses Physical Access Control in the future.
The conference opens with a series of presentations from the International Community, the U.S. Government, Industry, and the DoD that will define what Identity Management means, where we are, where we are going, and how these different communities are working toward technical interoperability with compatible policies and levels of trust. We have tentatively identified nine tracks for these discussions, namely:
Smart Cards
Biometrics
Public Key Infrastructure
Public Key Enabling
Acquisition
Policy/Legal/Regulatory
Austere Environments
Physical Security
Training
The discussions will cover the major programs, programmatic issues, and interoperability with other technologies; applications in the physical security, human resources and budget community; and how these programs will be consistent with the Global Information Grid (GIG) architecture, other programs throughout the DoD and programs with which DoD must interoperate.
This conference is underwritten and co-chaired by the DoD PKI PMO, with the assistance, cooperation, and support of co-chairs from their Identity Management partners in the DoD Access Card Office (ACO), and the DoD Biometrics Management Office (BMO).
The co-chairs welcome any and all suggestions for this conference. We are looking for volunteers to speak or assist in other ways. The points of contact for this conference are Joe Lisi (DoD PKI PMO, jtlisi@missi.ncsc.mil), Min Chong (US Army BMO, min.chong@us.army.mil) and Bob Gilson (DMDC/ACO, GilsonIR@osd.pentagon.mil).
oknpv -couldn't agree more!!!
theguvna88 - While possible, that 60mm share day hasn't show up on the filings for the top holders with Vanguard and a few other index funds holding being the largest institutional shareholders. Fischer, Blair, Wealthtrust and Reynolds, the only active firms, hold 100,000 shares combined. I'm sure the board holds more than the top ten holders. Possibly non-registered vehicles like some hedgefunds may hold the vast number of shares but their usually not the holders you want to have. My preference for holders of the stock are those that are buy and hold investors since they take stock out of circulation. There are over 8000 registered investment advisors in the US. Probably about 1000 of those have micro-cap portfolios. The majority of those uses their own research for their decision and their not traders.
Another question for the board- If anyone has an account at a larger wirehouse (Merrill, UBS, Wachovia)....ask your broker what the smallest company their research staff covers?
Awk- I wouldn't spend it on that. If the market demand is a great as what is expected, analyst coverage will take care of itself when revenue occurs. Let the big boys spend $$$ on promoting security. Trust me, analysts at buy side firms run their own screens, they don't rely on research firms. (I'm not talking about wirehouses like ML or Citigroup) When Wave shows rev growth investment managers will find them. Some of the instutional ownership shows that already. Quality active management investment managers like WH Blair will start to take positions. Most of those firms use little external research. They're looking to dicover the idea themselves.
You're calling me to the carpet on the spending for a company which I'm not involved with on a day to day basis. Perhaps they could search for a PR firm better than Jaffoni and Collins. Maybe they use the 30+ K for a few extra sales calls or a booth at another conference. Maybe they use it to make sure that their data is correct in investment databases like Factset or Thomson or other tools that investment managers screen stocks from ( small companies often don't realize their data may be missing or not accurate in these databases.
solas I was referencing post 74981
Buffet guy suggested I read the review in prospermag.com
which is a written for according to their website the Sacramento business community.
Awk,
Thanks for replying in an intelligent manner to my question re: Dutton last night. I still would like to know if analysts read Dutton's research. I don't particularly care about reviews of Dutton from a local paper. I'm more concerned with who is using Dutton's research that can actually take a significant position in WAVX in the open market or make a recomnedation that retail investors will read.
I would agree that analysts are not reading ihub otherwise your's would not have been the only intelligent response.
Still believe in Wave. I just wish they'd spend their precious cash a little differently.
JM Dutton & Associates
With all the talk about Wave being "covered" by Dutton. Has anyone used their research before? Does anyone work on the buy side that uses Dutton. If so, what's your opinion? It's my understanding that most independent research firms sell their research to investment managers and/or brokerage firms and don't charge the company.
I looked at their list of companies they cover and there are no sell ratings on any of them. Accepting payment for coverage doesn't seem very objective nor conflict-free and their coverage list speaks to that. IMO Dutton is similar to the Wall Street Transcript, which Wave used several years ago. A poor, maybe even desparate, choice to spread the word given the great things that seem to be coming down the pike.
Eamon- Agreed! As much as the price of the pp is below expectations, the deal is straight to the point and it's done!!!
Debt???? Who would loan Wave $$$$ with their revenue history. What would they secure it with? Certainly wouldn't be attractive in terms of an interest rate.
Converts- Again, what interest rate would they have to pay? You would still be diluted.
As much as I would prefer earnings to sustain Wave, I'd rather have this than some of the other choices.
Certainly explains the lack of volume and volatility up to the call yesterday.
WEBCAST/REPLAY: To access the webcast and the replay, please go to http://www.wave.com. The archived version of the webcast will be available for 30 days. (Windows Media Player required.)
TELEPHONE: via 212-271-4560 or 415-537-1970. Please call five minutes in advance.
From today's WSJ - How does this affect Wave?
Crack in Computer Security Code Raises Red Flag
Obscure but Worrying Flaw
Compromises 'Fingerprint'
Widely Used on Internet
By CHARLES FORELLE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 15, 2005; Page A1
With worries about online security already at a high pitch, the discovery of a crack in a widely used Internet encryption technique has raised another red flag among government agencies and computer-code experts.
The technique, called a "hash function," has been used for years by Web-site operators to scramble online transmissions containing credit-card information, Social Security numbers and other sensitive data. Hash functions are at work, for instance, for most of the millions of transactions that take place on the Internet every day. The system, involving an algorithm, or mathematical formula, was thought to be impenetrable.
But last month, a team of researchers from Shandong University in eastern China began circulating a draft of a paper showing that a key hash function used in state-of-the-art encryption could be less resistant to an attack by hackers than had been thought.
Hash functions generate digital fingerprints, or "hashes," of documents or data. As with fingerprints, the uniqueness of the hash is what makes hash functions a great tool for verifying the authenticity of information.
But the Chinese team found different pieces of data that yielded the same hash when team members used a hash algorithm called SHA-1 -- and their method generated the identical hash far more efficiently than experts thought possible. SHA-1 is a federal standard promulgated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and used by the government and private sector for handling sensitive information. It is thought to be the most widely used hash function, and it is regarded as the state of the art.
Cryptographers say exploiting the flaw for malevolent purposes doesn't seem practical, even using a lot of computer power. Hash functions are also often used in conjunction with other cryptographic techniques, which haven't shown any flaws. But if someone were to exploit the newfound flaw, the most immediate threat would be to applications involving "authentication." A hacker theoretically could set up a dummy Web site that appears to have the security credentials of a trusted, secure site -- and then steal data that is shipped to this site by unsuspecting users.
Despite what are believed to be remote chances of abuse, the discovery has set off alarms in the computer-security industry because it overturns a bedrock belief about a popular encryption system. "Our heads have been spun around," says Jon Callas, chief technology officer at encryption supplier PGP Corp. of Palo Alto, Calif. "Everything is now topsy-turvy." PGP has begun to replace SHA-1 in its programs.
Another provider of widely used security systems, RSA Security Inc. of Bedford, Mass., is doing an inventory of its products to see how they use SHA-1 with an eye toward phasing it out. (RSA makes the popular SecurID cards used by many companies to ensure that only employees have remote access to computer networks.) The National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends not using SHA-1 in any new applications and is instructing federal agencies to develop plans for removing it from existing ones.
The Chinese team hasn't published its paper on SHA-1, but the flaw is "real," says Bruce Schneier, a cryptographer and chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc., who has seen a draft of the paper. "Academically, this is stunning work."
The Chinese researchers "haven't caused panic yet," says Avi Rubin, a computer-security expert at Johns Hopkins University. But "it's definitely a wake-up call."
The discovery follows recent research showing flaws in other hash functions. And it comes at a time when information-security concerns have been sharply heightened by problems not involving hash functions.
Recent breaches at data aggregators ChoicePoint Inc. and Reed Elsevier PLC's LexisNexis exposed personal data on more than 100,000 Americans to identity thieves. And a poorly designed online system allowed scores of business-school applicants earlier this month to view decision letters ahead of time.
Hash functions take a piece of data -- anything from an e-mail message to a giant database file -- and generate a short string of ones and zeros, 160 of them in SHA-1, that functions as the datum's unique fingerprint. Nothing else should generate the same "hash," and a person in possession of only the hash can't figure out what the e-mail said or what the database contained.
Those properties make hash functions well-suited to "authentication" -- they are used to make sure the Web site to which you send money actually belongs to, say, your bank or credit-card company -- not some rogue operator out for a scam. Hash-function-based authentication is at the core of "digital signatures" used to verify the identity of users producing documents or e-mail messages.
Two different chunks of data yielding the same hash is known as a "collision," and the Shandong team found the one in SHA-1 far faster than thought possible. Their work hasn't shown any instances of a more serious flaw that would enable attackers to create duplicating hashes for their choice of data.
Burt Kaliski, vice president of research at RSA Security, says collisions don't greatly affect many applications of hashing. But it's possible, he says, that a person presenting you a document to be signed digitally with a hash has secretly created a second document designed to "collide" with the first. Then, by signing the first, you're unknowingly also signing the second.
Also worrying cryptographers is a stream of recent hash compromises. At a conference in August, problems were reported with MD5, widely used to ensure integrity of computer data, and other, lesser-used functions. And a French researcher threw cold water on the commonly held belief that using two hash functions is more secure than using one.
Recent research has also showed that MD4, long known to have problems, was so weak that collisions could be found with a few hand calculations -- no supercomputer required. A Czech cryptographer using the Chinese method claimed this month to have found collisions in MD5 in only eight hours on a standard laptop.
Hash functions are perhaps the least well understood cryptographic functions, cryptographers say. The functions perform a bunch of math on a piece of data, switch the order of some bits, chop the result down to a fixed length and spit out the fingerprint. Basically, "you stir it all around and hope you can't unstir," says Mr. Schneier.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology says it recommends moving to improved variants of SHA-1 that generate a longer hash, making it harder to find collisions. The National Security Agency says SHA-1 is fine for now, but should be phased out by 2010.
But Mr. Schneier and some other top cryptographers believe federal agencies and academic researchers need to develop entirely new flavors of harder-to-break hash functions. "All the red flags are up for the SHA family," says Arjen K. Lenstra, a researcher at Lucent Technologies Inc.'s Bell Labs. "We can no longer trust them."
SHA-1 was based on MD5, which came from MD4. Xiaoyun Wang, the lead author of the SHA-1 paper, says her team's method "does not seem to apply directly" to the stronger SHA variants. Still, in an e-mail she recommends developing "different style algorithms." The small team's work has been presented at respected cryptography conferences and its hash-function paper, while unpublished, has been reviewed in draft form by experts.
Experts say the research weighs particularly on the technology underlying secure Web sites. An online-banking site, for example, displays a "certificate" of authenticity to a Web browser, which then compares it, using hashes, to a third-party certificate repository to be sure the site actually belongs to the bank.
Mr. Lenstra and colleagues used the Chinese method to produce two different certificates with the same hash -- something that shouldn't happen. The certificates aren't for real sites.