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.
awk, actually the choice you propose is flawed.
The choice is not between bashing management of seeing TC.
The choice is between seeing the forest, or just seeing the trees.
One choice is only looking at the huge opportunity and the remarkable position of a company, a position that can only be had as a consequence of skilled leadership.
The other choice its to look at the BIG PICTURE. A company as above, but one where that same leadership has a tendency to sail ships across oceans forgetting to embark with a supply of food and fresh water.
No amount of destination vision compensates for no food and no water during the journey.
Some look at the big picture and see these fatal flaws, others choose to look at only a segment of the picture, the promising destination, in which case, in being so selective, things no doubt look very good.
kisa, horse manure
nobody is going to jail. The filings are solid, what is happening is what Wave has variably said would or could happen. One would require a level of fraud (as opposed to ineptness) to bring jail into the conversation.
nepotism? : disclosed
competition? : disclosed
cash requirements going forwards? : disclosed
going concern? : disclosed
cash-flow? : disclosed?
old big deals coming off the books ? : disclosed
company charter at conflict with shareholders? : disclosed.
management incentive to work against shareholders ? : disclosed.
is there a market? : disclosed
dilution? : disclosed
warrants? : disclosed
everything might be really bad? : disclosed
This is read the prospectus stuff, not criminal stuff.
maysep,
the guidance was Q3 was at or near b.e.
the reality was Q3 expenses were DOUBLE revs, or more graciously off by 4m using non-GAPP cash flow. That is, on a cash flow basis $1.6 goes out for every dollar in. It is not even in the same universe as b.e. Using GAPP p&l it only gets uglier.
They have a whopping $2m in the bank. Do the math. They have a $2m firewall between them and a 1:1.6 in:out cash-flow ratio. My cat seeks higher ground.
That is a train wreck.
(my numbers are a function of severe rounding, it is not worth my time to parse it further).
WAVX services 39k
If one looks at the filings for the last few Qs and the talk towards the DoD pilots etc in those filings ... and the deadline of Aug 2012 etc stated in those filings ... and that payment was dependent on successful platform certifications (payment per platform) it seems a lot of money was left on the table, that essentially all platforms failed last Q. I could be wrong, but a heck of a lot more than 39k was still on the table, according to the filings.
That is bad.
My browser gave me the choice
to listen to the current CC, or Q2, or Q1.
I don't know which one I selected, but I am confident it did not matter.
But I heard some stuff.
I think he is talking about pipes and TPMs, I've got a tape of thurs night football streaming in the background.
Is there anybody that has anything they want to ask SKS? really, anything worth asking at all? Just one thing worth excercising the vocal cords. One thing. .... ???
after some 10 or 20 or 30 years or whatever it has been suggested, for the first time, that maybe Wave has a role in Wave.
Wouza.
Capitulation from Lee.
yup, saw that.
sorry barge,
I don't dwell here much, indeed, the whole PP thing completely slipped by me.
Again. I equate you and awk, because you offer identity.
You both describe things many believe to be necessary and somehow leap to or imply that they are then sufficient.
Yes, in order for WAVX to succeed their must be a move towards trusted computing. Duh. Yes, MSFT has been moving for several OS upgrade cycles now towards TC. Duh. Yes, if these things were not happening, then WAVX would be toast.
Got it. Some things that any fool could have said 5 or 10 years ago must happen appear to be continuing to happen. NOTED.
So what?
Yes, the earth spins, MSFT moves steadily to TC. Got it.
Yes, Wave hopes to somehow sell something. Cool. Got it. But where is the place for big thinking here? That one subscribe to your convolution that the presence of necessary events suddenly constitutes sufficiency?
I find your necessary events boring. Yes, they are necessary, but by their nature, necessary events are boring.
The question is what is sufficient to generate appreciation of WAVX. You do not, and have never, touched on that (at least rationally).
You, and awk. Perhaps I should just say bawk or barawk.
Yes. These companies rely on some combination of metal, plastic, and electricity. And yes, MSFT is moving towards TC (as they have been for a long time). Cool.
And WAVX is doing a PP (in case you didn't notice barawk) with a rather FAT warrants component.
Have you ever asked yourself if you will still actually own any WAVX when it is all said and done?
telstar, FWIW,
the companies position has been, for months, many many many months, they do no not explicitly expect some sort of DoD breakout until 2013 .... Wavoids have frequently created other timelines, led by awk, speculatively substantiated by NW, blown ridiculously out of proportions by the pseudo-informed .... (it is almost mean to mention snackman) .... and in all of this there is awk's MEASURABLY insane thoughts, NW's considerably more modest impressions (NW essentially communicating and earliest possible date notion) and then the drivel //// just put them in a bin (barge, snackman, royce, weets .... we all know the drill).
We know the equity, so far, has performed based on cash flow. I invite anybody to demonstrate deviance. Cash-flow currently is poor, SP shows it. Should CF improve, SP will show it.
The delusions of millions of seats flipping switches were held by visionaries ... uh, that would be awk. I disputed that. Awk said I did not get it.
Scoreboard.
I was hopeful for 10k seats maybe here or there for 2012 as DoD early indicators. Maybe that has happened. Some of the pilots are actually paying pilots. So (and it is tough right now to feign modesty) the titan savants were FOS - EXACTLY in the manner i said they would be, Wave is speaking towards DoD traction EXACTLY WHEN I said they would be, and insensibly, folks all wait drooling for awks next vision.
Nothing, nothing, nothing, is more hilarious than that. The is a whole board dedicated to slurping that stuff ... never mind that I, Lord Dig Space, own accuracy on this matter.
barge, you say :
"The predatory politics of the Trusted Computing Group is responsible for the Slog...NOT Wave"
I don't recall placing blame or any such matter ... I was speaking towards a perception of certainty you expressed. None of your content amends my concern, oddly, you only spoke towards strengthening those concerns.
You absolve Wave when it is convenient, and anoint them when wistful.
All good fun, but if you absolve them for things outside of their control ... why is it you think those things will go away?
And so on. And yawn.
barge, that was great fun,
only one thing can boggle the mind ... and that would be the opposite of what you said.
It boggles the mind that anybody who has followed Wave Systems would not have serious doubts.
It is that simple.
That anybody can follow this company and not have huge serious doubts is unfathomable.
That film gave me nightmares,
I like to think I was too young to watch it, but when I look at the date (1978) I wasn't really that young at all. I think people should pretty much never see Christopher Walken in anything until they are about 80 years old, octogenarianism kinda taking the edge off and all.
So, to seague back to WAVX (for on topic relevance)... "From now on, you're on your own." (thanks google)
blue, I believe you are correct
forward looking speculation is forward looking speculation, whether that speculation about the future ends up coming about will depend on events in the future and whether they come about.
alea,
It again shows that I do not belong in the common ground fence mending business. But yes, as 24601 has at times observed (paraphrasing of course, and apologies if I am in error) ... >there is plenty of stuff to go after, could we (or they or whoever) perhaps at least stick to legitimate targets? <
blue, I am largely done with this discussion.
I believe it is well shown, as you seem to acknowledge, that the preponderance of your statements on the matter proved vacuous.
"owed $4m" has been walked away from
$4m as an object subject to recourse has been walked away from, spose it could be, but it makes no sense.
Generally, that one has assets they were fortunate to have developed by developmental grants that only require repayment upon success is normally, normally I say, met with "good for you, lucky you, I wish I won such care free asset development with such casual repayment provisions pinned only to whether I am successful", not "yikes, look at this big missed debt, fire the aquisitor".
Again, for the last time. Wrong Fish.
On the other sutff, I felt is has been explored, variably described, reconsidered and so on. I direct you to www.ihub.com/wavx (2011-2012) for that analysis.
YES. It seems something in the order of one dollar to one million dollars of bad debt was being recorded as a receivable, and it just wasn't, and that the company failed to exact recourse against that amount, which, as memory serves was in the hundreds of thousands but less than a million category, and it got very confusing for me, and my memory is imperfect on this. I can't remember if it was differential recognition of 700k and just a bad debt of 200k (for some reason this number 118k just keeps popping up in memory) or what.
But your 4m is the wrong fish.
So parse what happened with that circa 200-700k-ish bit that I keep reminding you of, and there you have your point, that is the point where Wave and/or the experts they hired failed to recognize something in time for recourse. Most of it, (in previous hashings) it seemed were accounting things, but a bad debt is a bad debt. Saying you have an AR of 200k when you simply don't is a bad debt. That is a real material cash-flow type of error. About what they spend on donuts and decals in any given month.
You can mix that with the 4m isra.gov thing all you want, but I believe you are in error. It is unimaginable to me that the isra.gov royalty agreement would have ever survived a recourse effort as I believe your mud n the wall assumption of "missed" to be in error. Wrong fish.
Normally, gain normally, the consideration is WOW, you developed this asset on somebody elses coin and you only owe them something (a small amount, principle only plus modest interst) if you are successful. Wow. Yikes. Fire people.
WRONG FISH
tkc, agreed, when compared to say goodwill then yes it is more real, in the event Wave sells SFND software, isra.gov gets a cut. I don't think defrevs or goodwill gets a cut of future sales of the SFND properties.
It may have something to do with the continued distinct branding of SFND products (the continued branding a demonstration of ineptness according to blue as measured by his commentary on Gartner's remarks on branding) ... but it may be that distinct branding make sfor an easier placement of a firewall around SFND revs in order to reconcile royalty payments to isra.gov and not have such installment seek to leverage, e.g., ERAS should the product lines become blurrd or blended.
SFND sales in the preceding(acquisition) 12 months were some 6m, 3.5% of that being something like 200k. Should e.g SFND revs double (FY13 vs FY12 e.g) then were SFND revs to reach 10-12m, isra.gov should presumably be entitiled to 350-400k. LIBOR it seems likely in this application is in the 1% range, such that 4m in liability (grants received unpaid against balance) is in the area of 40k. Given the thin scratch SFND was surviving on, it may well be that isra.gov is willing to fold earned royalties back into principle, and they may continue to be willing to do that given that bk leaves them dry.
I do not think sales increase the liabiity. I think (BICBW) that the liability is the dollar amount of the grants received and not paid back. Those grants received earn interest (amount goes up) and get paid against at 3.5% of SFND sales (amount goes down). [but see also earned royalty fold back into principle if such things can or are occurring, it this is happening then Wave is taking a 1% loan against royalty payment obligations] As all sales went down dramtically (SFND, ERAS, catfood, doughnuts ... as sales of everything except decals .. they actually didn't sell decals, they *paid* for decals), I could see that the royalty payments were not enough to offset the interest the grants earned.
Should the SFND property never perform, then that line would grow (and become realized if and only if, when and only when SFND sales gained traction). Otherwise, at some point, upon the extinction fo the SFND proerty and the associated products, isra.gov rights the thing off ala Solyndra.
My expectation is that SFND sales fell along wih all other Wave sales, that if such sales recover (Wave and SFND) to appreciable levels (b.e. eg for SFND roughly 10m/yr or so, then that number would drop by something like 300k/yr until such a point that 100-120m in sales had been achieved.
this is what I go tfro an explanation of a person familiar with similar thingys in biotech takeovers where a sales based royalty liability was part of the deal (as so many biotech thingy have rather convoluted royalty agreements often including developmental costs grants). The notion that such a royalty arrangement is some sort of missed gotcha moment (ala blue) is considered to be ure rubbish by my source on this ... in the 'you are kidding me, right?' fashion.
tkc,
Somewhere there are two things that my pertain to this:
1) addtional grants were recieved POSt acquisition (state din the 10k I beleive)
2) the grants DO enjoy some interest accrual under some LIBOR rate (again I believe this was in the 10k)
So, as SFND revcs flop aroud, and the payments or AP component of those to isra.gov flops around and it seems some grants are still being afforded (or at least were in Q4 post acquisition e.g. it seems) then some modest changes in the amount of that contingent liability will wiggle some.
That's my take at least, but mostly it would seem the best answer is it likely reflects an interest installment (a confusing thing, and increase in a liability that might actually be realized should Wave sell several 10s of millions in SFND software).
So in the end, i think it is interest against unpaid components of previous grants.
blue, I disagree,
I do not think the contingent potential liability thingy (isra.gov) slipped past the recourse timelines, I believe what slipped passed the recourse timelines was th bad debt and other regognition thingys to the amount i described earlier, as memory serve 700k, and those are IMO, clearly missed.
I believe the isra.gov thingy simply got added to the liaiblity column because the auditors required it, but it would be head-scratch as to how Wave would pretend to seek recourse on that and as big a reach to suggest that is was ever missed at all. It was not disclosed initially as a contingent liability, I believe it is separate from not seeing the failed write-off of a bad debt (that being in the sub mill zone, the amounts of debt versus other rev recognition not at my finger tips.
Again, I believe your claim that the royality agreement was missed is pure speculation, that the liabilit5y is dependent on successful sales of some $115m in products (in the ball park of total Wave sales since inception) and as such should Wave double its total sales since forever, $4m of that goes to isra.gov, and that is now stated publicly.
Perhaps I am overlooking where this "owed $4m" was missed in time for recourse. I think the missed in time for recourse is the bad debt stuff, which apparently should have been written off and not carried according to the auditor, and THAT changes the price of the transaction by some unknown sub mill amount.
blue,
correct, accounting errors. That something is or is not put in the correct column is an accounting error.
you go from that and say a material fact was missed.
I have no idea, but it is qwuite a leap to go from "accounting error" to the notion that Wave or SFND or Israel forgot about a royalty arrangement against future potential unrealized sales.
I really think you are chasing the wrong fish.
You began by saying Wave missed the fact that the "owed $m" to Israel, it seems you have backed off on that, but still insist that they "missed" this potential future liability which indicates that should they manage to sell $115m in SFND goods that Israel gets$ 4m of that ... I find that to be presumptive.
Whether it gets recorded as a liability now or whether it does not get recorded as a liability now and simply that revenue, if and when it occurs, is accounted for differently (i.e +111m or +115m - 4m) is not a material jaw dropping event (to me). It is at least according to the independent auditors, an accounting error, initially trumped up as "owing 44m" and now rebranded as a "jaw dropping miss"
Aqain, where is the Credant royality agreement in here (e.g.)? The auditor clearly wanted the isra.gov royality agreement stated.
It wasn't, now it is. And your jaw drops.
Wrong fish.
*blue, your statement to which I responded:
>"You seem to say, "Well, here's a bit of bad luck, misfortune, or even a minor slip-up or two, but tomorrow will be oh, so much better.""<
Is complete BS. I said their errors are catastrophic and blundering, that they will never amount to much, and that they can't succeed in any dramatic fashion regardless of whether they get the next big contract (as so often argued by some) because fools that will not learn are fools that will not learn regardless of the amount of rope afforded them. I am banned from venues for such sentiments. I have stated repeatedly if you drive the trai n off the cliff as they did last year, another $10,$20 or $100m just affords the opportunity to drive a bigger train off a bigger cliff.
I have been consistent (for some time) with that, and I don't know what part of that you consider fake criticism. I have stated clearly, my association with WAVX is strictly a matter of looking for exit points.
Can I sell you a decal?
Blue, not putting something in a liability column you equate to missing something. Maybe they missed it, or maybe the auditors required it to be in the liability column. You insist it is a miss in some sort of de facto way.
Should Wave sell $115m in SFND products, they will only get $111m of it. The auditors required that to be clear. From this you declare it was factually missed. I don't think they or I care.
You insist that the value of the takeover is measured in whether Safend Protector gets $15.00 a license or $14.48 a license (up to but not past the point of grant repayment).
Again, chase a different fish.
You have acknowledged error in this in the past, only for it to resurface in its errant form again once it passes some sort of reiteration threshold.
It is your fish, you have the facts on it wrong, that was pointed out to you now as it was before.
I expect to have this same conversation (again) with you in December.
Maybe we should all just bookmark it and save the bandwidth?
tkc, your content has me fully baffled, i really can't reconstruct a derivation for it, but I trust that 1. you pay more attention to it than I and 2. you are more qualified to interpret it than I.
I see this:
Royalty liability (4,043,000 ) on the acquistion breakdown sheet in the 10k.
Blue said Wave (missed) "owed $4m" as a consequence of that entry, and I dispute that.
From that I do not see the 4.3 you refer to, and I haven't looked further.
Your notes are bouncing back and forth for me and it is confusing. The point to me is the 4m in liability entered would represent some 115m in sales at the 3.5% you site, and I am unaware of some 115m in sales and in the absence of such sales the Isra.gv has no claim.
My interpretation is, if SFND/Wave sell $115m in stuff, the Israeli govt gets $4m of that. I would think that royalites earned (consequent to sales) (by Isra.gov) are booked as AP, not as some sort of fuzzy "royalty liability". The royalty liability represents what might/would be required to be paid if and when (at any time? point SFND manages to sell 115m in stuff. It is not a credit card, I only own them if I sell stuff. Otherwise, they can piss off.
I do not believe that when Wave bought SFND that they had an unseen outstanding bill for earned (by Isra.gov) and unpaid royalties for $4m (blue's position).
I see the royality liability shown in the 10k as 4.043m in migrating to 3.933m in the Q1 and then to 4.121m in Q2, a wobble I cannot explain.
I assume that a royalty liability is a liability to pay royalites on products sold.
In summary, my understanding is the Israeli Government provided grants to SFND, those grants are to be repaid at a rate of 3.5% of sales ... no sales, no repayment. It seems I was in error as those grants apparently appreciate in value (obligation) under some LIBOR rate. The company, apparently, continued to receive grants after the acquisition date, contributing to some change in the numbers of the liability post-acquisition. It is unlear to me whether SFND continues to receive grants, they certainly did after acquisition, that may have been administrative carryover, or it may be that they simply continue to enjoy government support. That is unclear to me. My understanding is that repayment of these grants is a function and only a function of SFND sales. It is dependent on nothing else, no sales no repayment. To that end investors in WAVX (and hence SFND) shoudl observe that revenue from SFND sales will observe a 3.5% skim until such a date (no time limit) as the grants are repaid.
Hence, in the event that SFND sells some $115m in stuff, some $4m of that will go to the Israeli government. I interpret that differently than debt.
Now, if there was an earned (Isra.gov.earned) component (likely measured in the 10s of thousands and not millions, each million of sales generating an AP of 35k) then yes .. that, I spose, could be called "debt", an unpaid component of AP.
The grant instrument requires revenue to become payable, the payable component being 3.5% of that revenue. I do not think of that as debt in the classical sense, payent obligations are nto determined by calender criteria, they are determined by business success. I am not aware of callable leverage or collateral in any way. So, yes, if SFND is successful in selling products, the must repay the early investor (Isra.gov) for its grants ... at a rate of 3 and a half cents to revenue dollar all other circumstances of time and so on irrelevant.
BRCM (and INTC and others) had or has an agreement with Wave that if they sell stuff they owe Wave money for selling it. I am disinclined to assign that as debt in the classical sense. Certainly their participation in selling those products incurs a liability, as does Wave's participation in selling SFNDs products.
The best case scenario is of course that Wave makes these payments ... that means they sell $115m of SFND products at which point I suppose I am suppose dot be sad, cause it was really only 110m in revs for Wave and not 115m.
Unless I have it all wrong.
blue, revs vs liability
It seems to me you are still
blue: "I have never considered revenue to be a liability, which you seem to think I did."
The liability we speak of (Isra.gv.roy)is entirely pinned to and dependent on revenue. No revenue, no liability. It is not "sucking 4m out of the Wave treasury". It is a partner taking their cut as the money goes into the treasury (again, not pretending to be too familiar with the specifics).
The broader thrust of your content has been this as an inept miss resulting in Wave owing Israel $4m ...and that is simply not so.
The fact is, IMO, the SFND acquisition was a good one, in Garter's words "successful completion", they perhaps being a bit more worldly in understanding how badly and how often badly these things can go.
It seems to me some errors were made, some material (the what appear to be unseen debts in the 700k area) and others largely a matter of form, decorum, and the confidence (or lack) that comes from it.
Feeney was obviously, uh, challenged on this, and from what I can see, they hired people to perform additional services to fill the gap, and it looks to me the folks they hired did less than admirable work. This is important to me ... did they hire Feeney's old college buddies? Who were these others to whom many thousands were paid? I am less than impressed with their work. But the truth, to me, is that in the end, it is MOSTLY, not ENTIRELY cosmetic in nature, MOSTLY but not ENTIRELY a mater of differential recognition and not cash-flow material .... and it seems Gartner's summary is "successful acquisition" and that is what it looks like to me.
On balance, I think, for a bunch of inbred overcompensated arrogant self-serving pricks from Lee, (please repeat the previous 3 times) that they more or less acquired and folded in the property as well as could be expected.
Chase a different fish.
Blue, sorry I have no idea if anything was missed, I am saying the independent auditors required something be shown in a liabilities column.
Presumably folks at these companies also use toilet paper, and I do not see a line for it, presumably the auditors did not feel it required a special mention.
Thererr are all sorts of royalites flying around and on this one in this circumstance these auditors required it to be stated.
Wave owns the royalty privileges to the SFND-Credant-Protector software ... well, Wave and SFND, and the Israeli government. Does it show up on Credant's internal filings to its VCs in the liability column ... I have no idea.
These things are not debts, these are the things successful folks pay to their partners in the event they have success.
Again, I see no evidence that anything was missed (I mean maybe?) but what I see is auditors requiring certain disclosure. Is it your argument that SFND would suddenly forget to make royalty payments? Or that they would suddenly stop taking royalty payments from Credant? Or that the whole notion that purchased properties might have associated royalty agreements and you are really p.oed that not enough of them were loudly clear enough to you from the beginning? Ot that Wave should not have bought SFND because they have early investors entitled to royalties should SFND properties ever succeed? And all of tis being broadly lumped into INEPTNESS?
Ineptness is to over value the royalty consequences of successful properties to the point of simply not acquiring successful properties.
"Count me out cause I don't want to share?" is that what is being measured?
Yes, the independent auditors wanted that feature of the property disclosed as a liability. Again, any notion of it as a debt or any such thing is silly. Moreover, were Wave to buy all of AAPLs IP{ for 12 cents, woudl that be bad bacuase there might be some royalty drag? That, without those royalties they coulda made 1.005 trilllion instead of 1.00 trillion? We are complaining here about margins after success ... not DEBT..
The pivot into executive compensation is largely not germane. I believe they are overcompensated, a point I believe I was making years before you jumped on that bandwagon.
As far as critic? My exposure to Wave is the lowest is has been since April of 2009. That is true in 1. number of shares 2. value of investment 3. percentage of portfolio ... can you say the same?
They put decals on cars and I sell. You?
My description of Wave lacks the words you assign to me. Please afford yourself a review of posts signed "dig space".
The failure to appropriately anticipate and navigate the doughnut hole (now looking like a cliff) is a matter of catastrophic failure. Immeasurable ineptitude, silver spoon no skin in the game arrogance, screw the shareholders as long as the company ... and their exec options survive. Those are and have been my words.
Assign your missives to somebody else.
It shows in my portfolio, does it in yours?
The Israeli Government was an early investor in SFND, and has certain royalty rights on SFND *sales*. Rights they have had. Presumably royalties they have on occasion been paid (I don’t know what triggers payment, that for example profitability or foreign takeover do or do not have an impact on the royalty scheme) and that they maintain such royalty rights until a certain amount has been paid.
So *IF*SFND (now Wave) sells certain things *THEN* the Israeli Government, as an investor, gets cut up to a certain amount.
Upon reviewing the transaction, independent auditors required that this truth be presented publicly in the liabilities column of the SFND property. This to me is a requirement that future potential sales of SFND products by the new company do not be over interpreted, that folks realize the Israeli Government gets a cut in the event that the SFND property (now Wave) is successful in selling products (a cut with a limit as I understand it, that limit now described in the liabilities column for my considered consumption).
But your statement that Wave now has “$4M royalty owed” I believe to be factually in error. I do not believe Wave has a $4m debt to the Israeli Government, and indeed their latest filing shows no such debt.
Again, *against future sales* the auditors required Wave to disclose a liability, that is entirely different than buying an outstanding debt.
They may be one and the same to you, they are not to me. I believe on further consideration you too would see them as wildly different beasts. One of them (a debt) generally has repayment timelines, interest and is often collateralized. That is very material to me. The other is that a property of yours has royalty payment component (should you manage to successfully sell the item(s) to which the royalty applies) and that auditors require that contract to be acknowledged in the liabilities column. I don’t know enough about these things to state whether or not its not being stated as a liability in round one of disclosures or not is a demonstration of massive ineptness or not. But you are calling the appearance of something in the liability column a de facto debt.
When Wave sold $10m in software to GM, the preponderance of it showed up in the liability column. Blue, its appearing (the pile of cash GM gave Wave) in the liability column WAS NOT A DEBT.
Certainly had Wave been buying mountains of debt they did not see that would be a serious demonstration of ineptness. My understanding is they *did* buy some unseen debt … $700k as memory serves, and that is a material error, the sort that diminishes the bonuses to the people involved IMO.
The take home point of this is … in order for the liability to be realized … Wave/SFND must be successful, in other words the SFND property must perform, and perform well, for the Israeli Government to realize the royalties, for the royalties to be paid, and for the “liability” to diminish as a consequence of those payments.
Payments entirely dependent on success. Obligations entirely dependent on sales. That is not debt.
Given the huge silos of readily criticizeable stuff that spews from Lee, it would seem that some restraint on recklessly comingling notions of debt obligation vs royalty payment consequent to successful sales would be in order. I think the blurring of this detracts from the value of seeking to articulate accurate criticism.
And I am all for accurate criticism, I like to think it is something I often do.
Blue, (SFND) it has been hashed out a number of times,
but then the story tends to revert to the pre-hashout errant assumptions.
I believe that on balance the SFND acquisition was a good one for Wave, indeed a necessary one.
Even Gartner, who pre-acquisiton defined Wave as a niche player (bottom left in their quadrant scheme) migrated Wave to visionary player post acquisition. Wave essentially occupied the position previously afforded to SFND, now owns the FIPS certification that was previously a property accessed only through agreement, and now has the various DLP solutions are part of its DAR portfolio.
Now, am I or others "ok with the handling of that one?"
Well, certainly I prefer all things to be handled perfectly, and that was not. Had it been handled perfectly the current circumstance would essentially be indistinguishable from the actual current circumstance consequent to imperfect handling.
As well discussed, the material errors border on minuscule. Some items are being recognized differently than previously recognized. It seems there were some missed actual material debts, as memory serves in the sub/near $1m level which, if handled perfectly, may or may not have had an actual impact on the amount of cash and shares used to acquire SFND. Lacking much skill in this area, I am uncertain as to who to assign those errors to.
blue, rain or shine *edit
hell or high water,
one cannot require a behavior,
and then damn its appearance.
You, I, and many others have been more or less requiring this behavior. The behavior occurred. It would seem to me that efforts to spin a required behavior to the disadvantage those being required is just not fair practice.
I certainly am perfectly willing and able to develop explanations that are less than bullish ... but the man was being damned for not doing something and being told to do it. He has now done what he was being damned for not doing and being told to do.
Even a the thinnest thread of fairness has to pause and say, o.k., well maybe it wasn't much, but it is what I asked for.
Absent that one is a juror I want to never face (which, of course, given my propensity to operate withing the law should never be an issue).
But seriously blue, one cannot draw and quarter someone for not doing something, and then draw and quarter them for doing same.
A person starts to come off as a b**** if that is all they have.
*on edit it seems your were perhaps being more fair than my first read afforded. It is the case that coming so late one may be exhausted, but I will accept baby steps as it appears in your post you did as well.
awk, a public display off astonishment is not a hydrant,
and an insider putting $50k on the table can only be good.
Still, it is a bit shocking.
It seems the evidence is the cash-flow for this company will likely flownder for some time [although I am hopeful that BP takes another installment in the coming weeks (it was 18k seats of a planned 80k seats as I recall)] and BP has henc ebeen on my list for some time as a company that can provide a little Q4 cash-flow relief.
The one waits to see what mil 'IOC May' pans out too.
It seems OC may is make it or break it for this company.
A million seats would do wonders for their fiscal house.
Waveland is in stunned silence,
its like going to the WInter Olympics and having the women's figure skating team hit the ice in head-to-toe Mt Everest mountaineering parkas and boots.
I mean really, SKS and an open market purchase ... am I in the wrong venue?
I don't believe family = Form 4, but certainly directors and senior officers, basically SKS, Feeney, and the board, maybe a couple others.
I'm still thinking it has to be a typo ...
and if one is inclined to buy previous rhetoric, that means the pipeline has to be empty for 60 days (a notion I have largely considered to be rubbish), but if what has been said is true, it doesn't bode well for Q4.
Either way, I welcome skin in the game. It lets a little air out of the that tire during the next CC.
Seeing I said I was going to echo SKS' exposure ... which in theory might mean I'm supposed to go buy now, yikes.
barge, I agree something will have to give sometime soon
I am not comforted by the fact that the Wave principles seem to prefer the sidelines.
You can compare SKS to Ellison, gates and all of the others you have so often compared him to, but they did something, they owned stock. When the exercised options, they held the shares ...
The difference is clear and unmistakable.
I have chosen to echo the exposure risk of SKS. My current exposure risk is rather slim.
yup, 34-38m looks about right. For me I would just like to see the cash-flow improve, and it least in theory that is something that supposedly could happen.
IOC, I will defer on this to anybody with real knowledge,
and regret my response to BD was little more than sarcasm dripping with cynicism.
It would seem from the definition you cite and the use of present "... which is manned by an adequately ..." then it does surely seem that IOC is not IOtoProcure, but that since it is manned it has been procured.
In the guidance from Wave (using the term loosely) they seem to expect their gov/mil opportunity to materialize 2013 and it was tagged with $30-50m on occasion.
That lines up with alea's 1m seats statement although I do not know the basis of alea's 1m seats (or 500k seats at twice the price or whatever).
I know nothing of the lag from P.O. to IOC for anything, much less this technology.
If one sanitizes away as much as possible the woven-in obfuscating Lee-speak, it seems one can extract what appears to be a somewhat consistent thread.
Dec of last year supposedly saw WEM pilot deployments. Quarterly reports reveal services contracts with mil that consistently pointed to Aug 2012 as the completion date. Portions of the revs for that contract have been previously recognized, and the Q3 report should better inform the nature of the conclusion of those efforts.
Those on the whisperwire have been pointing to those pilots, the Q reports back up those pilots, and lee speak speaks towards those pilots. The contract price ws $1.7m as memory serves. This is separate from the ArmySole DRS SED thingy from Feb.
Using BP as a model it seems Wave P.O.s/get paid on delivery. BP was in all sorts of various stages of being installed and the 8k didn't show up until it was delivered/installed.
It seems it was likely a work order (install your stuff) and then a purchase order (the stuff is installed). So I expect Wave to be installing whatever they hope to sell in Q1, and to not see an 8k-like event until it is actually IOC (again, that is how BP appears to have played out).
BP was essentially a done deal before the 8k, even spoken to at one stage that way, but if mil follows the BP path, I believe the road map is for Wave to install around a million seats, under a timeline to achieve that by May2013, and to bill/get paid then (with some services sub-8k revs in Q1).
This, to me, puts a lot of pressure on the private enterprise segment of their business, the results from which so far are disappointing.
While they make crazy b.e. statements, their filings said they need $5m to go 12 months to end Q2.
So far, their filings are proving much more reliable than anything else. $5m still requires some private enterprise sales.
"One could expect first purchase orders April 30th, if they were so inclined. I think they'll be a tad earlier."
sure, why not, ... or why not a triple-tad earlier and make it February.
It seems Wave is trolling for coin again,
a sort of come one come all microcap hat in hand session:
http://www.meetmax.com/sched/event_15259/~public/conference_presentations.html?event_id=15259
The silent majority,
some view Wave in terms of buying opportunities,
others in terms of exit opportunities.
I believe most are in the latter, regardless of what anybody says publicly.
alea, yup
and for those reasons it is inescapable that no matter what, any success will be limited. Big deals is just more rope. A broken process and fundamentally flawed reasoning doesn't change just cause somebody stuffs 30m in your pocket.
The optimist notion is that when an alien ship comes and obliterates the iceberg in front of the Titanic (a ship traveling a hazardous speeds in a manner outside of its design parameters) that all is well and they can now safely forever travel that way. No. Not so. Routine systematic failure begets more of same. A lottery ticket in between does not reeducate the ticket buyer.
They are broken.
I still think I may make some money, but they lack skills, cannot or will not see that, and are forever limited by that.