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.
Wikipedia: Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but we are noted on the Wikipedia entry for FDE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDE
Looks like it needs an update
I'd love to think so, but there is traditionally a jump immediately prior to earnings news and conference calls etc (check back to see). I think the jump today means nothing unless the news is good, otherwise it will be back down quicker than anything afterwards
Re 1 for 3: In looking at whether the split should have been 1 for 2, 3, 4 or whatever, in my view it is important to look at the signal that 1 for 3 sends out to the world at large, and in particular the various players in WAVX. Of course, to make "sure" of continuing compliance with the $1 rule, the split should perhaps have been 1 for 20 (giving us a start price of around $11). But doing so would tell the outside world that management doesn't have much confidence in the stock price holding. I think the same more or less applies to a 1 for 4.
Clearly 1 for 2 isn't plausible, given that we are hovering just above $.50, and it wouldn't take much to move the price below $1 after a 1 for 2 split. So I think what 1 for 3 says is we are very confident that there is very little downside to the stock price, but we want to have a small margin of safety in case the market cuts up rough.
In my view, 1 for 3 is the best possible call
I agree. Reverse splits are like currency devaluations on a macro level. Most people view currency devaluations as a weakness, but at the right time, and for the right reasons, devaluations have been the launch vehicle for significant future growth (Look at the UK White Wednesday devaluation in 1992)
Assuming the stock split goes ahead, why wouldn't that attract new shorts to step in to force the price back below a buck and negate the whole effect of the split?
Yesterday's London Times had a 24 page supplement on Internet Security. Not one mention about hardware security (TCP etc). Every single pundit was talking about software security.
Is there an education problem somewhere?
Cosmo: Even accepting it was a meeting scheduled by Duttons, do you believe that Duttons would allow the meeting to go ahead 4 weeks before a possible delisting (or appeal, or move to Nasdaq small cap, or whatever other options exist other than the status quo), without something positive going to happen? My guess is that Duttons would pull the presentation in the absence of anything to prevent the delisting
After all, Duttons don't want to lose credibility themselves by promoting a company with the spectre of delisting haning over it, and no plausible counter explanation .
An intriguing further thought: If the Duttons presentation is geared towards finding participants for the next funding round, and the assumption is that the funding will be done at a heavily discounted price (as have all recent past funding rounds), then why don't some key private stockholders (on this board!!) take the opportunity to buy in at that time as participants. Let's hear what Steven has to say there, rather than simply be passive observers!
Cosmo: I just don't know. But sure as eggs are eggs I wouldn't allow myself to attend that presentation if I didn't have a guaranteed 100% cast iron response to the question "So tell me, Steve, why should we invest in a company whose shares are about to be delisted?" I mean, many investors are probably statute barred from investing in a delisted compnay, if they aren't, they wouldn't invest prior to the delisting (which begs the question why have the presentation prior to delisting, rather than post delisting?"), so again one can only surmise that Steven must expect something to happen prior to the presentation that will boost the price.
TJust thinking about it, the only other explanation for the presentation is that it is geared specifically towards finding investors for the next round of fundraising, which might be needed in a few months (as I believe Duttons were instrumental in introducing the participants in the last funding round). As we know, or strongly suspect, those investors have unloaded into the market at a small premium (hence the blow off at $0.70+?. However, once delisting occurs, it will be a damn sight harder to sell into the market, which either means a very heavy price discount ($0.20?????) or an expectation that delisting won't occur. Which takes us back to where I strted this thread!
Hmmm! Very intriguing!
Cosmoworld: That is one interpretation, though I cannot believe that any new institutional investors would be party to a simple ruse like that. After all, what happens after the 10 days at $1+? Back down to the $.50's and $.60's?
My feeling is that the presentation would need to be backed by something that firstly could boost the stock significantly in its own right (though it could be that the current stock level is simply the market absorbtion of the recent placing), and that hopefully the investor presentation might ride the coat-tails of that and propel beyond the $1 mark, and stay there!!
Either way, at the Dutton presentation, someone is going to ask SKS pretty early on "Tell me, Steve, why should we invest in your company if it looks like it will be delisted in 4 weeks time?" He cannot simply then talk about the prospects in 2007. Or am I missing something here?
Re Delisting/Dutton Presentation
It strikes me as either very naive, or alternatively very confident, to make a formal pitch to a load of potential new investors within 4 weeks of a possible/probable delisting. The inferences to me are obvious!
Any thoughts?
PS Steve never struck me as THAT naive!
Wow! the institutional bashers are out. I guess that means something big and awesome is about to happen
The only criticism I have re the latest funding is that no mechanism seems to exist to invite existing stockholders to participate in the funding round. In the UK, new funding is often raised by way of a so-called "Rights Issue" which is geared entirely at existing stockholders.
It just strikes me that if Wave needs to issue discounted stock, why not offer the existing stockholder base a first refusal? Or doesn't such a mechanism exist in the US? If it doesn't, it should (cue everyone write to the SEC to get the rules changed in sufficient time for Wave's next funding need).
Allshore. The MM's make money on the difference between what they buy and what they sell. If they can buy cheaper, they make more. How do they buy cheaper? By walking down the share price on negligible volume, and taking out all the stop losses on the way. So often, one can see prices fall just ahead of really good news. Perversely, the price can go up before bad news, in exactly the reverse way.
So, all in all, nothing has changed. Maybe some MM is sitting in his office on boring Friday, needs to meet his targets, or whatever, and has an attack of the mischief blues...you know the rest. Just as plausible an explanation as any other.
Why does everyone panic when the price falls suddenly? Doesn't everyone realise that the market for Wave shares is not a perfect one, i.e. the price doesn't go up when demand exceeds supply, and vice versa. We ahd a situation a few weeks ago when the price fell sharply, everyone panicked, only for the informed to say that it was probably MM-induced, and lo and behold, they were right. The following morning the price went right back up.
The brave buy when the price falls like this, others weep sorrowfully about what does it all mean (The answer is 42!).
Maybe the company will go bust Monday, maybe it will announce the deal of a lifetime and the stock price hits $100. Both are equally likely (or unlikely!). More probably, price will bounce up either later today, or Monday.
For the last few days, watching the shaare price has been more boring than watching paint dry. And yet people believe that a sudden drop by a few cents, almost with military timing, represents the bearer of bad news. Puhleaze.
All I do know is that todays fall tells us nothing, other than the MM's are having a bit of fun. Period!
Trustcousa
My gut feel is that there is news coming, and the MM's are marking down to load up on stock. It's happened before with Wavx, many times
Barge
I post once in a blue moon, but am always encouraged when I read your posts and your thoughts, even when the going has been rough.
It would be sad to think that your (I hope!) momentary annoyance prompted by an arrogant comment from a newbie deprived the board of your thoughts
I can't help but wonder whether todays price movement isn't just the new shareholders selling (in one form or another). It happened after previous fundraisings so could have happened again. We will see!
Also, I am concerned that a Board member bought shares yesterday. It would be starnge to say the least if he bought shares a day before a jump on the back of some major news!
Not so. I have owned a software business, and have been in the identical position. Many technical staff are taken on, as well as temporary contract staff, for initial product development. Once the product reaches the deployment phase, the overall need for technical resources reduces. As I recall, that was always in Waves business plan. They are not releasing all technical staff, just a few. Same happens in most technology businesses, though the larger ones can redeploy the tech staff on other projects, while the smaller ones, like Wave, release them. In fatc, I would be worried about Wave's financial management of the business if they kept all their tech staff on.
Maybe with the business moving away from R&D and into marketing/deployment, it is not unexpected that technical staff are being laid off