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.
Dig: Pardon me for correcting your repeated mis-characterization of what I did and didn't say.
You are the one who got it wrong and now you are dusting up all the feathers in an attempt to have me be the one who made the error.
Putting something in the liability column or not--has nothing to do with Wave's jaw-dropping failure to catch this royalty agreement.
Next, you go on to suppose Wave is going to sell $115M...ha ha. In what warped, hallucinogenic, fogged-in Wave world does that happen?
They missed it, period.
You are just wrong on this and come next Dec. bookmark, or none, you will still be wrong.
Thanks again for putting words in my mouth I never said. "You insist that the value of the takeover is measured in whether Safend Protector gets $15.00 a license or $14.48..."
I never said any such thing. I never once discussed the value of Safend, only the way Wave screwed up the purchase by not doing careful due diligence within the allotted time limit.
Why don't you go back and read the original and then the amended version?
I think what is operational here, is someone's desperate need to be right, when they are wrong. If I am wrong, as you pointed out, I admit it. Try it, sometime. It's not so painful.
Why did Wave have to postpone the Q1 CC and then restate the terms of the purchase? That might be a good place for you to start your research. Do you recall anything said about the time allowed for discovery before the sale took effect?
That's what I am talking about, not some differential calculus based on what-if-Wave-sold-over-a-hundred-million.
As for me, I'm off to other topics.
Best wishes--Blue
Dig: If anyone was chasing fish, it was you. I responded to a misstatement of my position.
To answer one of your questions, which I think you think is fueling my criticism (but isn't)--Wave represents less than 1% of my portfolio.
But it is not the amount, it is the principle of all the actions taken by said, overcompensated putzes from Lee.
The Safend purchase is egregious and whether you want to believe or not, Wave missed the $4M+ obligation to the Israeli govt as a percentage of future sales--they did and had to restate things because of it.
I do not agree this is minor and a mere technicality and that the outcome is the same either way.
If Wave sells product from the Safend purchase, the Israeli govt DOES get up to $4M. I call that sucking it out of the Wave treasury. Without paying this royalty, Wave would be $4M richer--assuming the unlikely event Wave was actually able to sell something.
My point stems from the same financial overseers who overpaid SKS by $70K last year. Yes, he returned it when caught, but why did it happen in the first place? How did an extra $70K get overpaid to the CEO?
There is quite the long, Wave financial laundry list, which I have already posted in past messages which you have critiqued as being too long and not particularly relevant.
Prominent among them is the Options Plan I, which exempted mgt from the reverse split all the rest of us had to endure. Feeney wanted us to swallow it and vote it in anyway, after admitting it was an error.
There are many others,i.e., see Unclever's questions to Feeney about numbers which did not match up. Her questions were on target, yet went unanswered and instead triggered an attack on her by Feeney and the Wave Fang And Claw Club.
We critics are not the problem; Wave is.
Attacking the messengers or the questioners has a long history among the Wave supporters, along with the censorship.
Why don't we go back to ignoring each other, because I don't want to spend my time on this.
If I have the facts wrong, simply present them and I will acknowledge the error(s).
On the Safend purchase, I believe you have twisted logic, facts and credibility into something quite unrecognizable. Maybe I'm just dense, but it appears others with sufficient background are baffled with your account, too.
Yes, you have offered up some criticism of Wave mgt and for that I applaud you.
Perhaps you may be well served by peering into the mess that is the Safend purchase and see what the actual facts are, rather than the way you presented them.
Blue
Dig: Sometimes I have to read your posts a couple of times to sniff out the actual meaning--not your fault--mine--comprehension problems.
Forgive me if I misstate what I think you are saying. But it seems to be along these lines. Wave did make some kind of error, but it was minor and the consequences would be the same if they had not missed the royalty agreement which states royalties up to $4M would be owed the Israeli govt under certain conditions.
Like you, I am far from a whiz at interpreting rather dense and complex financial passages.
You may be right. However, I see it as an obligation which could suck $4M out of the Wave treasury if Safend is successful. AND, it WAS missed, causing Wave to cancel the Q1 CC and to correctly restate the terms of the sale to include the missing royalty fee.
If I am guilty of comingling terms--financial obligation with debt, let me apologize. I have never considered revenue to be a liability, which you seem to think I did.
I believe, however, even the erstwhile supporters have critiqued the handling of the Safend acquisition as "incompetent."
Yes, it has been hashed out on the boards and the supporters have either marked it as irrelevant or a past fact. My reason for listing it, is because Wave has made a number of miscalculations (trying to be kind, here) and this was the latest.
My point was the "past facts" seem to continue to happen into the present. And that present is one in which the share price continues to hover around or below one dollar, triggering de-listing warnings--which are not a positive development.
The CEO's compensation package has steadily risen to where it is presently $1.4M. Supporters are guilty of counting unhatched chicken eggs as full dinners served, of Chicken Cordon Bleu (obviously a favorite) with vegetables, truffle gravy, coffee and dessert and an after dinner drink with generous tip included.
That's why, you and many others overestimated Wave's future revenue by a galaxy or two, back when we had those silly surveys and Learjets and yachts were on the menu.
You may view yourself as a critic of Wave, but I don't think anyone else (except two others) would put you in that category. 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."
Maybe you are right. But for those who have waited a decade and a half for Wave to finally do something right, the continual missteps are more than inconvenient. They are painful with long term portfolio consequences.
Long term holders of Wave are being punished on almost a daily basis with dilution and declining share value. Big deals promised, evaporate and are never explained. Constant predictions of profitability issue forth, only to fall flat as a fritter on the incoming tide of rising expenses.
We see the ineptness and then look at the compensation of those making the missteps, and it is a little hard to take. Hence, my question, are you OK with it?
I am happy to revise my rather bleak view of Wave and its management if they stop lying and making false promises and finally start making a profit, instead of enriching their engorged and bored family members and friends with stupid ventures like WXP and Scrambls.
But that revisal will come only upon actual events, not potential.
Best wishes--Blue
RWK: Warrants and options are not the equivalent of holding the same number of shares.
If you are given warrants and options and do not exercise them, they expire worthlessly. And it has cost you no money.
Not so with shares. If you plunk down X amt of money to buy shares, and the share price is down by say 50% at the time of the sale--the real loss is 50% of the cost of the shares, plus commissions to get in and out.
Player is correct, IMO.
Blue
Zen: Well, we hold almost opposite opinions. I hope your version comes true instead of mine.
And if there ever is an event to celebrate some joy over a real Wave accomplishment, I'd be happy to buy you a drink or two.
Just because we disagree on the way a company is run, is no reason for us to be enemies. Certainly not, from my perspective.
Best wishes for your success--Blue
Zen: You wrote: "Some of us more positive types are far more even keeled than your bitter, negative obsession."
I'm not sure Wave supporters can best judge the evenness of keel, either of the Wave boat's progress, or of the sanity of supporting Wave in the face of such ineptness, nepotism and deception.
You folks have had to swallow a lot and are still swallowing. I don't know about you, but the $4M royalty owed to the Israeli govt Wave missed, stuck in my throat.
What about that Q1 CC? The one that was cancelled 8 min. before it was to begin? Is that the normal way to run a company after 25 years of practice?
What about adding yet another Sprague (Kevin) to the jolly old payroll?
Those are events and actions Wave took, not me. Are you OK with them?
It would be one thing if you were talking about my 'bitterness' if I were making up falsehoods about Wave.
I'm not. I am merely pointing out Wave has made a ton of mistakes, shown a genius for the wrong move at the right time, and for enriching family members at our expense.
Do you feel those types of things should be ignored, hidden and/or covered up? Or do you feel shareholders have a right to know the good and the bad?
Do you think all that swallowing has to be a necessary part of supporting Wave? I don't.
Blue
Amen, Wildman!
Blue
24601: All of those observations may at some point come true. However, I was simply wrong back when I said them and I have admitted being wrong about trying to pin a date on Wave's demise.
Have you ever admitted to being wrong about anything connected to Wave? Even when cornered and shown the evidence?
At the times those posts were written, there was more chance Wave would die than survive and thrive.
But, as said before, I was simply wrong and you may not have noticed, I have refrained from making that particular mistake again.
Anything of a more recent vintage you care to trot out to disprove the negative picture Wave has painted of itself?
What about Safend? You OK with the handling of that one?
Blue
Zen: You have long been an optimist--through unbelievable events, mind-boggling ineptness, lies and all the rest of it. I envy your positive state of mind about Wave, but not your ability to disregard important markers warning of dangers ahead.
Despite the "bitter recitation" you describe, it is all factually based. I suspect it is the facts which are bitter to you--and those I am not responsible for--only for pointing them out.
I do truly hope your dreams come true. This kind of patience deserves a reward.
May Wave turn out not to be the corrupt, family piggy-bank it appears to be, and instead turns out to be the kind of investment which finally pays off for investors such as yourself.
Of course, I don't think that will be the case, but you have obviously heard enough of my yipping.
Best wishes for your success--Blue
Oh, you feverish supporters! The CEO finally buys some shares and both the critics (myself included) and the supporters immediately drag the 50K+ share buy onto the autopsy table and begin cutting, trying to find the real reason for it.
Hey, I'm glad he did it, whether for good reasons or bad, cynical or straight.
But, when one looks at the totality of Wave, all the bad things, etc., this is but one small step in the right direction.
But the supporters see signs and signals--the coming tsunami they say, has sucked out the tide for two miles and they are predicting it will come rushing in--a wall of water-borne orders, sales, revenue and sweet heaven at last.
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
Let's give the man a thumbs up and then get back to analyzing the bigger picture. Wave still has a far journey to make to achieve credibility, profitability and respectability.
Not much as changed, IMO.
Blue
Steven buying on the open market? Good! His reason? Maybe not so good.
Perhaps my bias is showing, but I am so suspicious I think he did it to take away one of the major criticisms from the cynics and supporters alike. It cost him a little more than $50K.
I think he has been stung by the constant criticism of insiders not taking a stand with their own money.
Now, if only the criticism of the nepotism would start to burn a bit and he would ditch a few of his relatives and family friends.
This is a good start and SKS should be credited with finally seeing how bad it looked that none of the insiders were buying w/ their own money.
Best, Blue
Alea, Barge, et al:
Completely and totally agree with letting the contracts and the revenue numbers speak, instead of SKS, who has proven unreliable, even devious, when it comes to the truth about progress.
We all want Wave to succeed, but there are numerous obstacles, not the least of which is the management and the growing family and friends on the payroll. If Wave was successful, it would be easier to bear this, not that any company's investors should have to swallow it.
This management has (take your pick) selected a strategy unlikely to succeed; built a product difficult to use; hired salesmen who can not sell; and/or, don't care whether Wave actually makes progress, as long as it appears to be in the game and the hunt--so the salaries and bonuses can continue during the life of the never-ending slog.
There are some other options, too, but these are the most likely, IMO.
The main trouble with the current system is we have an endless wait time for either success or failure to be declared. There is no real way of telling whether Wave is winning or losing--however, 25 years without a profit is a pretty loud statement in that regard.
The way it is set up now, the supporters can claim we didn't give it enough time if Wave runs out of money. 25 years?! Not enough time?
That argument would be in place of the truth, that Wave wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on dubious purchases (ishophere, David Booth, WXP,etc.) and when it did have money, it was not spent wisely (Scrambls).
Wave's operation is presently constituted as a closed system, where truth is kept out by design. We investors are left to guess at what is really going on.
What we can see, is truly ugly. Insiders refusing to spend their money on shares and lying about why they don't buy, while expecting us to buy while dilution charges ahead constantly and the share price drifts ever downward.
Deals promised are not delivered.
In addition, high salaries and bonuses for "performance" are passed out, allowing Wave mgt and Family to continue to profit handsomely, while shareholders suffer greatly.
The false promises of profitability are given repeatedly, with no apparent guilt felt at all. There certainly have been no apologies or explanations for what seemed like lead-pipe guarantees of real performance that did not come to pass.
Instead, we have been lied to at every step of the way, about every step, and after 25 years, we wait for an extremely long shot--the govt to pull the fat out of the fire.
Ex-Pat recently posted elsewhere that the govt, before awarding an important contract, wants to see evidence of scalability. Does Wave have that? Would anyone take the word of SKS on that issue, given his record?
The argument frequently used is, that TPMs would not be in all the computer boxes, some 500M+--if they were not going to be used. Sounds reasonable, right?
TPMs were first sold, if memory serves, in 2006. We are now six years down the road since the introduction and usage rates strain to hit minimum measurability, currently far below 1%.
I see that as a powerful argument against wide-scale adoption, no matter what the Wave technology 'seers' say. The proof of the TPM pudding is in the usage and right now, it is almost non-existent.
There is still TPM resistance in the areas of privacy, performance hits and control.
From 2006 to 2009 Apple shipped Macs with TPMs. In 2009, Apple stopped including TPMs in their products.
To me, it is unreasonable to expect this bleak landscape to significantly change for the better--yet, that is the hope we Wave shareholders are left with.
To me, the chances of Wave success is between slim and none, with the weighty end of the pole dipping sharply towards none.
As a final blow to Wave's chances, technology rushes ahead. Is there a better, simpler, more efficient way to secure computers on the way?
Blue
I don't think so.
A call for investigation
Re: The basic Wave assumption may be wildly inaccurate and just plain wrong.
The assumption on which most of the posters proceed, says Wave has an excellent product, worthy of adoption.
I challenge that assumption. Not that I know it is incorrect or wrong--I don't.
But when Wave has been trying for as long as it has to get someone, anyone interested, beyond marginality (Dell, perhaps)--with no more success than Wave has had--one must go back to the starting point.
First, a little background. Wave has a long and ignoble history of deception about almost everything. SKS lied his fat butt off about deployment of Wave's product back in the 1990's.
First, he claimed to a CRN reporter all the major PC OEMs were aboard and would adopt Wave. Could not have been further from the truth.
Then, he began lying about when Wave would ship its "product."
As it later turned out, at that time, there was no product, no prototype--only a design.
SKS has lied repeatedly about break-even. He foisted the whole inside-job Papa Gino "reference case" on investors, even when some supporters knew the driver behind it was a Wave supporter, poster and evangelist.
He has lied about deals done, needing only signatures; why he and the other insiders "can't buy" [lawyers say no]; about the number of seats and he has lied to my face and to the faces of many other longs about many things--important and not so important.
Based on that history of deliberate deception, I challenge the basic premise--that Wave has a good product, but for some unknown reason (shorts, market-makers, worldwide media conspiracy to hold Wave down, otherwise astute technology analysts who simply "don't get it," Wave is unable to sell security in a market screaming for it.
I am asking all interested in Wave to discuss that one point for a day or two--both pros and cons, critics and supporters. Why? Because it is a worthy subject to tackle and it may hold the answer to most of our questions.
The main question being, why is Wave always a few months or quarters away from astounding growth, always on the cusp of amazing success, but it never, ever takes off? Instead, it is in almost constant dread of delisting [it was actually delisted from the Nasdaq in 1995-96].
The supporters claim the technology is elegant, easy to use and is reasonably priced.
The critics say, not so fast--Wave has been slammed by objective reviewers (PC Mag--"subpar suite at best") and difficult to use.
Let's get to the heart of it. If it turns out Wave does have great technology, then we can ferret out the real reasons why it is not selling--and perhaps aid the company in its mission.
If it turns out the entire thing is a big lie, we can move on.
Most of us agree mgt has not been stellar. I call them hopelessly incompetent and dishonest, to boot. Others think the CEO is mere too optimistic.
Something is seriously wrong here. Are we all living a lie, thinking Wave has the best product, but some unknown and mysterious force is holding the company back?
That, to me, makes no sense at all.
We have some great minds following Wave. What say, we harness them to find out, once and for all, what the truth actually is?
I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, if proven so. Against a background of serial deception and mendacity, I'm ready to look at everything and anything with an open mind.
Blue
True enough, but now we have been given both reasons for the principals not buying into their own company--and in fact, selling at inopportune times for the shareholders.
Both reasons given by SKS do not have "truthiness" in them or about them.
Blue
What about his publicly-stated reasons for not buying?
Does anyone remember that whopper? He said the lawyers would not allow them to buy because the insiders knew about all the deals in the pipeline. You know all those big deals, right?
I suspect that pipeline was the same one John Cusack used in "Being John Malkovich" which dumps somewhere in Jersey, or Snooki-land.
Blue
Wildman: You were once extremely optimistic about Wave's chances. It appears you are now growing impatient after all these years--what is it, something like 15 or so?
What was instrumental in changing your optimism to pessimism? Perhaps Wave can take a lesson from someone who supported the company, despite the missteps and who might again, under the right circumstances.
What are your biggest gripes?
Best--Blue
And, for the cynical among us, an alleged Wave future purchase order which may come in April or earlier--is not verifiable by shareholders is it?
If this purchase comes about in all of 2013, I'd be amazed. I think SKS just made it up. It has the same stink and feel as many of his past whoppers.
April is more than 7 months away--far enough in the future to keep the fanatics clinging to the hope-rope and plenty of time to come up with a good excuse why it didn't happen.
It must have been Antarctica flooding or Somali pirates captured the boat with the purchase order on it...
Be careful of relying on anything forward looking coming out of this company. It simply can not be trusted.
Blue
Barge: I agree with your comment the share price means nothing, in which you referenced Wave at the height of the Internet bubble, back when Wave hit $150 (in today's share price terms, before the reverse split).
But things have calmed down since Feb. 2000. Tech analysts now have a much better way of evaluating stocks which depend on the Internet, witness Facebook and Yahoo--and on the other side, Google and Apple.
Wave has had much exposure in some of the best magazines and newspapers. I can't believe those paid to sniff out the next biggest thing, would miss the biggest truffle of them all--Wave.
So, I think your argument was true then, but not necessarily now. Investors and the financial community have had a chance to look at more than a decade of Wave's many attempts since the bubble burst.
I believe Wave's current share price of high 80-cent region, is realistic, based on the entire panoply of the company. That includes mgt, expenses, revenue, contracts, news releases, nepotism, potential, integrity and the intangibles.
That Wave has been consistently much lower in recent years than it's admittedly, illogical high point during the bubble, is a reflection of Wave's achievements or lack of same.
I know there are some who fancy themselves as Wave technologists who consistently point to developments which could possibly lead to more traction than we have now. [Companies other than Dell, significantly contributing to revenue.]
The problem is, these same "seers" have always promoted what is coming, as done deals. Somehow, the record shows those done deals have come undone, i.e., business in hand, tens of thousands of seats, big contracts which only need signatures....the list goes on.
Reality must intrude on the fantasists at some point. If, after 25 years of trying and $360M (est.) down the drain, and the share price is still below a buck, I'm not sure it is reasonable to argue people don't get it.
In fact, I would argue they do get it. No one wants to touch Wave except the feverish supporters and the traders. The market at large sighs and goes elsewhere to shop.
The actual record matters more to investors than all the sky-high predictions in the world. The record is factual; the Learjet predictions have not come true in all this time.
I will go with those who use facts rather than fantasy to guide them whether or not to invest in Wave.
True supporters discount all the negatives. True investors know negatives count as much as the positives.
Wave seems perpetually balanced on the cusp of success, but it never comes. Isn't there a time limit for hope? Shouldn't some bell ring at some point signaling Wave's time for traction has come and gone?
How long can we look to the future and say 'it is coming,' without a single, solid indication anything is coming, other than more of the same?
Best, Blue
Barge: Two points, please.
(1) In all you posted, I did not see Wave's name mentioned. Did I miss it?
2. If the Wave flower is opening to the sun, the market is shunning it.
Seems as if a great bargain at 91 cents a share, ought to lure more buyers. Instead, they are selling.
Do you still think it's a case of they don't get it?
Personally, I think it's a case of they do get it--all of it, especially the mgt part.
Blue
Kisamura: There are other ways to handle disappointment and/or resentment about the Spragues and/or a large investment in Wave stock just before a major dilution.
There is the creative revenge of the YaVaughnie Wilkins kind (billboards).
Dead roses, dead fish (Paulie, get it?) a bag of poop in the mail, etc. Not real subtle, but these convey a point of view.
Not one to get depressed or despondent, my release is satire and ridicule. Thankfully, Wave, its CEO and CFO, the BoD, its business plan (not talking 'in hand', here) and the results over the past 25 years provide enough material to work until the end of time.
Blue
Alea: I think the Sprague problems go far deeper than what you suggest.
WXP one time at the hands of Michael Sprague and father, Peter, lost $85M.
Going down that same path is Scrambls, headed by Michael Sprague again.
We won't know until it's too late, what Scrambls is costing the shareholders and the company.
But, it seems to be not much different in conception, execution and revenue potential (next to none).
I just wonder where the outrage is?
How many times must we fund a playpen for bored Sprague siblings and a drunken father who hasn't hit a lick in many a moon?
Does anyone wonder if this kind of venture has a negative drag on the Wave share price?
We have heard over and over, while these same dubious dubies were losing money hand over fist, we must have patience.
Well, I'm all out of it.
Four Spragues a suckling, no profits buckling and the shareholders in for yet another ducking (euphemism).
How much of any of this is necessary to trusted computing?
Blue
Barge: The case study by psychologists looking at Wave Express and TV Tonic supporters would be doctors trying to treat persistent illusion.
The news was uniformly bad on WXP and I believe the total damage, counting interest, is calculated at close to 85 million dollars.
As Wildman said, Scrambls seems to be tracking the same fizzling arc, run by the same relative with what many of us think will be the same results.
Wildman's note that Scrambls was funded at a low point for Wave shareholders is precise. Forgive the bluntness here, but why would any rational person expect Scrambls to deliver revenue? It is a non-revenue model. What part of non don't we understand?
Furthermore, from all outward appearances, Scrambls seems to have been created to give one of the idle Spragues something to do with his time, with our money--as before.
This is part of what seems so crazy. It is almost blind, deaf and dumb to shareholders who foot the bill. How can they NOT know how insulting and enraging this is?
All the same promises and predictions made for WXP are being trotted out for Scrambls, in what seems to be a tragic re-run of a ridiculous campaign to make nothing appear as something.
I almost expect the Spragues to announce any day now, a new venture by a grandchild, called Bink Express. This would debut a new Wave-funded recordable pacifier, which digitally stores all of a baby's sounds for playback later to proud parents and grandparents and can be e-mailed to neighbors, friends and enemies.
I would expect SKS to hold a news conference and announce BXP. With his trusted CFO by his side and nodding vigorously and seriously, SKS would estimnate Bink Expresses potential revenue at $100M.
I can picture SKS telling the world it wouldn't matter what language the "goo-goo, da da, ba ba" was in, it would have universal appeal and thus could be sold globally.
I would then expect the CEO to hold up his grandchild and announce in the fine, family tradition, Steven K. Sprague III, age 8 months, is the next president of Bink Express.
As wild as this idea might sound,there would probably be supporters who would hail the idea of the Wave Binkette, Secured Babbling at the Edge.
It is no more ridiculous than thinking running recycled old golf tips from Estonia and second rate cartoons would bring in millions and then could be sold for $30-40M after losing $50M in cash.
All hail the Wave Binkette! Coming soon to a new baby store near you. Daddy, are we rich yet?
Blue
Alea: Here we are coming towards the end of 2012 and you are talking about Q3 and Q4. Has it ever been different? We are always looking ahead with Wave. The present and the predicted never seem to quite catch up to us with Wave.
SKS's comments about strong sales toward the latter part of the year are not taken seriously by many, except for the extremely hopeful crowd.
To me, all the signs point to a revisit of Desolation Row. The past few "news releases" are nothing more than announcements of discussions, etc. This is substance abuse. It's an abuse of the term "news" by Wave. The recent press announcements are completely without substance.
No big signings have been announced and Wave, if Dig is right, is out once again raising more money, instead of doing the prudent thing and trimming expenses. Lots of places to cut without having to touch a relative, either.
My theory is, Wave mgt is so inept and so heedless of the long-term pain mgt has inflicted on the shareholders, they are both deaf and blind to the obvious.
I see the last half of this year as even worse than the first half. Don't forget Q1's incompetence on the Safend deal set a low-water mark that'll be hard to beat.
So, my crystal ball says no big deals with revenue attached, but more dilution in the short run. In the meantime, Wave is trying to avoid the delisting tag again.
Wave, if it did cut some of the ridiculous expenses and hit break-even, I would guess the share price would quickly near $4 or $5 a share, if due to nothing but pent-up desire.
Alea, I don't share your cathedral architecture parallel. It seems a different sort of case. Maybe if that cathedral was planned for the middle of the desert using Italian marble, with no way of transporting the stone to the desert. That more aptly fits the Wave model.
Wave is out peddling its product without many takers. That product is based on the TPM model, which might as well be underground a couple of miles. Where's the proof the product is a good one?
Where is there any sense there's a market anytime soon for said product?
That's a lot of Wave's problems. Then, there's the management dead weight and all the rest of it.
I just don't see where your optimism comes from, other than the concept we all need security. There's a whole world of ground to cover from the concept to actual delivery of a product the world both needs and wants. Wave is still light-years away from that.
Anyway, as a critic, my view is pretty bleak. But I see it as reality based. Wave has yet to prove me wrong. How sad is that?
Best wishes--Blue
Might as well make it three of us in the I-don't-know camp.
What bothers me the most is that TPMs, even if they are inside more than a half billion computers, the technology is old in terms of Internet time.
Wave keeps waiting for some event, group, govt., or enterprise to use the TPM in a good way which will show the rest of us what we are missing.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing is a chaotic approach to embracing the TPM as part of the security solution.
The fact so many TPMs are out in the wild with no significant usage, to me, is an argument against their ultimate adoption. If it was going to happen, it should have already.
I know some feel exactly the opposite--that all those TPMs would not be in computers if there wasn't some grand plan for them. Well, if there is a grand plan, I'd like to see it.
Hard to know what will be the eventual winner. Right now, I'd bet against the TPM taking home the bacon. It was designed and built a long time ago. Newer technology may be available which can do a better job.
Just judging from the share price and the anemic volume, it looks as if the market thinks about Wave's chances,the way I do. That's scary.
I'm still in a holding pattern some 2500 miles from Vegas, gas running low and storm clouds on the horizon. GPS shows desert all around as far as the big GPS eye can see.
Best--Blue
Barge, the simple truth is there has been so much hype about Wave and past MS OSs without much traction, if any.
Revenue coming in as a result of MS partnerships has never hit the 10% reporting threshold, which would be something like $3M. That's not a lot per quarter.
The June Is Ours war cry meant absolutely nothing in terms of revenue.
That was touched off by a MS statement about security and a big ruckus, along with hopes were raised among the believers. Squat followed!
Lots of those kinds of things--Seagate SED's were going to be the lift-off. "I could sell 100,000 today if I had them." SKS. And when he got them? Squatski!
PWC was another blind alley after a big shout-out.
What has GM meant in terms of share price? IBM, HP, Intel, etc.? Don't need to go through the litany.
So, I am going to wait. Win 8 will be here soon enough. Whether it contains the fuel Wave needs--I'm a bit skeptical--doubtful in fact, and that doubt comes from experience.
Many think TPM activation means Wave success. I believe the truth is activation would mean a minute amount of revenue for Wave. Even if there were some tailwind for Wave from Win 8.
They would only get a sliver of the business, IMO.
Whether Wave could expand the sliver into something significant through a great product, excellent service and cutting-edge strategy--remains to be proven.
Look at those three components I named and ask yourself, have any of these ever personified Wave, let alone all three?
Yet, I do not deny the possibility I am way wrong and you are right.
I just think success breeds success and failure breeds failure. Wave has never been known for the former.
I don't think MS's next OS is going to move the needle.
May Win 8 prove me dead wrong!
Best wishes--Blue O.T. [p.s., cd not reply privately, but thanks]
Interesting discussion. Alea's assertion seems to be it is ineptness and not malevolence, guiding the Wave ship.
I think malevolence is not the right word. Mendacity is what I come up with.
But even at Wave's mendacious best (or worst) there was still a healthy quotient of ineptness mixed in. Still is.
Dig is right in saying if Wave should happen to sign a big deal, it does not mend the essential brokenness of Wave's approach.
The managers of Wave do operate exactly as if they had no skin in the game. What a coincidence! They don't.
Whatever missteps Wave makes in the short or long run hardly have any effect on the managers who have guaranteed performance bonuses equal to half a bloated salary (SKS).
So who pays when there is a miscue of the Safend type? We shareholders do.
We pick up the broken glass, scrub the floors and buy new fixings, which may or may not suffer the same fate with the next fumble.
The essence of capitalism is hard work, skill, boldness, performance are rewarded.
So what do we have with Wave? We have a family with undue power, paid handsomely whether Wave goes good or bad. Hard work? Skills? Performance?
Where is the incentive?
At the top, there is a sense of entitlement without any sense of responsibility. No one requires accountability. No wonder they do what they do.
They take and take and give us promise after promise, which are almost always broken.
That does not have to be actual malevolence, but it is something close enough to be uncomfortable, and it is something truly ugly.
The cluelessness, tone-deafness and utter shamelessness of Wave's top guns as they bumble and fumble about is grating. They don't even know, or else they don't care how they are perceived by those picking up the tab.
To me that is the worst kind of arrogance. Dangerous arrogance.
I think those who attribute Wave's failures to ineptness alone, miss the larger role of deception and lies in keeping the suckers in and still pitching their pennies.
Not once, in my memory has Wave ever explained a major miss on a projection--unless cornered and forced to give some explanation.
These are not the actions of honest men who admit when they have failed. These guys just make up, say, new break-even predictions. The old ones are past facts, not relevant to Wave's future success.
I think Wave should be judged by the totality of its history, past facts and all.
To me, the message coming thru Wave's long and dark history is not one of benign ignorance, or good-natured slip-ups.
Rather, it is one of deceive and deny. It is a conspiracy and confluence of deliberate lies to make one and all believe Wave is closer to success than it is, when it may not be close at all.
Within that element which intentionally and serially deceives the shareholders, financial community and even the press and public--there is something hard in the center that looks and feels a lot like malevolence.
If not its twin, then a brother.
Blue
The Share Price, indicative of nothing and yet, everything.
Wave's SP is currently 95 cents and that was on Friday's light volume of 144K.
Big investors and institutions are not waiting on the sidelines for Wave, despite comments to that effect.
Wave's predictable arc is built into the market price.
All the negative things we have discussed bring down that price.
Not much is keeping the SP up these days. Certainly not the expectance of a big deal, defense or other.
A big DoD deal would raise the share price, but probably not as much as many think.
I said Wave's predictable arc. There are all sorts of unpredictable events and situation that can drive the price up or down.
Personally, I keep an eye on both the price and the volume for clues to anything brewing. Volume for a Friday of only 144K shares indicates to me, that is only normal trading--no deals in sight.
The info that is released from Lee is so unreliable, we must form our own benchmarks, alarm lights, buy signals, etc.
In some ways, it is Kremlinology. In other ways, it is Russia during Cold War days, when nothing the Kremlin said could be believed.
The alleged level field is an undulating sea of jello.
Those longs who bought and held, have been badly burned. Those who believed in Wave have been reduced to cinders, if not ashes.
We sit and discuss the merits of a technology few of us have access to, or have ever seen used. We rely on hearsay.
The company has simply shut the shareholders off from any consideration, otherwise they would not be so blatant about the growing nepotism, high salaries and the 'performance' bonuses.
Who do I blame for the current state of affairs? The non-critical supporters and the Kool-aid Gulpers who call SKS a genius and never see any harm in the inept mgt's many mistakes or in the plainly dishonest statements from Lee.
If shareholders were to become incensed at Wave, as they were when the first Options plan was released [the one which exempted mgt from the reverse split]--perhaps they might be more sensitive to our concerns.
That is the first and only time I have ever seen mgt care about what we thought. It didn't last long.
But, it's obvious they publicly give us the razzberry.
Has anyone noticed how some of the strongest supporters have become critics of late?
One wonders if that is a harbinger of change, or merely another wishful blue dream.
Blue
Do you remember lo those many years ago, SKS was the new head of Wave and he said famously, "Follow the supply chain."
Well, we did and it led nowhere.
Dig--I think you finally have the right idea. Wave has postured and bobbed and weaved so much, no shareholder can trust words from Wave, especially on deals, seats, profitability and revenue .
The prudent thing is to wait and see if anything is going to come of it.
Dig is right. Wave has been truly wrong and stupid in the past.
And to make it worse still, the company adds more family and friends to the payroll.
Worse still, funding Scrambl is such a stupid idea. That, and sponsoring the car.
Best--Blue
Barge: Thank you (I think) for the kind words, although 'Blue' and 'purest' are rarely used together.
And while I think you meant there was an inherent conflict with those two sentences in the same post, let me remind you, when it comes to Wave, history and potential are not mutually exclusive.
Wave does have a history of posturing without foundation--no need to recite that litany again.
And, simultaneously, Wave does have potential.
History to me is the past. Potential is about the future.
Wouldn't you agree with a history as bad as Wave's, one should view the potential part with a little caution?
A running back with a sad history of many fumbles does not mean he can not score a touchdown the next time he is given the ball. But, to be realistic, everyone in the stands holds their breath, because of that history. A fumble is expected.
The post you put up is interesting and it is going to take a day or two to digest--so much meat in there.
Anyway, best wishes--Blue
TKC: You may be exactly right about that point. Your background enables you to pull meaningful threads out of a jumble which is purposefully jumbled (IMO) by Wave to obscure. I applaud you.
Specifically, you are right and I am wrong on that matter. However, Wave's salesmanship leaves a lot to be desired and always has.
Whether their piece-rate per sale ratio is up there where you put it, obviously Wave is not selling nearly enough in number and never has.
We agree, I think, about the inept mgt. and on nepotism and how both hinder the company badly in the eyes of both potential customers and investors.
I see Wave sales as encouraging, until one looks at expenses. You see a number. I see waste and wholesale squanderance.
Not sure if you were around back when Wave had minute revenue,[less than $20K] but still had a $400K/yr+ lease in NYC (it was mainly Peter's shack pad); a research facility in Princeton, NJ, which was actually in an adjoining town; an office in Lee and one in Calif; and an office in France. All of that against sales of next to nothing.
So, perhaps I am conditioned to suspecting the company of grandiose schemes, of using the illusion of a bigger company to cover the disaster that Wave has been over the long haul.
It is one thing to simply label Wave's hideous history as "past facts." It is quite another if those unfortunate errors in judgement, morality and integrity are an unbroken continuum in which major mistakes are continually repeated by inept managers. They do not learn, and why should they?
Where's the penalty for being wrong, for lying, for self-dealing? As we all know, the BoD is not the acute and observant kind who look after shareholders and who exercise strict governance. They have to be awakened to rubber stamp mgt's requests.
Anyway, I ramble. Thank you for your correction.
Best-Blue
Alea: Somehow in today's discussion, we seem to lose what I feel are the most pertinent points.
Wave, like it or not, has welded its entire future to usage of the TPM.
Whether that was a good idea or not, can be debated later. Let's stick with present time.
The profound and widespread ignorance by consumers and businesses of TPMs and what they do, is such a monumental obstacle to success, that I would put Wave's chances at single digits. [Illustration: Blue holds up one finger].
Then, one must add to the probability stew, the mgt mistakes and jaw-dropping ineptness most recently exhibited with the Safend purchase.
Then, we must thicken the stew with the meat--Wave's failure to sell anything to anybody, ever--for more than it cost to make and deliver.
Yes, there have been many attempts at approaches--all have met with disastrous failure, i.e., Phoenix Technologies, WXP, FinRead, Haup card, the dongle, smart card,etc., etc.
For seasoning, let throw in all the break-even lies from the top.
Last and not least, is the high-profile, galloping nepotism and the extremely high pay and undeserved "performance" bonuses.
No matter how long it cooks, the fragrance of that pot on the stove is not going to attract either customers or investors.
You may notice when you sit down to eat the Wave Fiasco Stew, it has a bitter taste, is full of empty calories, contains no nourishment, gives you daily diarrhea, weakens your immune system and makes you sick as a dog.
When I see imaginary dots hoisted onto the Wave scale for consideration and evaluation, as if they were real, I want to gag.
When I see Wave's 'elegant' technology solution presented as the quietus to Wave's mismanagement, I hurl the cookies.
25 years without a single penny of profit--all the while, promising the imminence of the most amazing returns. It's like Bernie Madoff's clientele pestering him in prison for entree to a new fund administered by him.
That is the proof of the pudding, to mix metaphors in my culinary mix-master.
Those are the absolute Wave factoids, the arc of its singular pathetic history and with it, a bleak hope for the future.
Chef Bleu, in The Blue Room--bon appetit!
Dig: I think maybe you missed my point--which was not the all-time high of Wave's share price and all the attendant fall-out subsequently.
I was sarcastically commenting on Skimoor's hopeful statement that mgt was trying to contain the share price from going thru the roof. As if mgt has ever voiced a single concern about shareholders--not to my knowledge, ever.
But to your comment, my real purpose was to urge caution, since optimism about Wave seems to break out every third day or so and usually, and almost always, disappointment follows.
The crux of my post, was "Over-promising and under-deliverance is the standard Wave model. I, for one, will be glad to see that change--if it does."
Best wishes--Blue
Barge: My eyes are definitely not closed. Wide open.
As for your characterization about those of us who urge caution re: Wave,"the critical theorist crowd"--how about instead, "the oft-burned critical empiricists" as an alternative?
I see in Wave a history of strutting and posturing theatrics, without a gram of reality behind it.
You see the posturing and the theatrics of Wave as reality. So our views differ completely, even though we both have hope for the future.
As Bill Parcels famously said about potential, it means you haven't done 'squat'(substitute word for expletive) yet.
I don't deny Wave's potential. I just am a little impatient with Wave's long struggle to reach it.
And the part that throws me off, is the wildly extravagant and utterly premature claims continually made for Wave--based on what they "might" do, if conditions were right.
The excuses and rationalizations issued after the many failures to reach company-set and publicly-announced goals, contribute to my sense of caution.
Let's wait until it is truly real before we jump the gun to celebrate.
Isn't that the best way to approach Wave, given the history?
Blue
Alea: And to go with that sales figure--what number do you estimate for expenses?
If sales hit $100M or even $1B, it is irrelevant if expenses are higher. If the cost of deals is always more than the revenue those deals bring in, revenue is not the way to look at Wave, IMO.
But, I agree with you about foregoing the speculation and sticking with deals with numbers attached.
With Wave, that is the only prudent way.
We have learned from sad experience not to trust any of the statements from either the CEO or the CFO.
The shareholders' lawsuit allegations taught us both of them were more interested in capitalizing on a Wave mistake, than in commercializing a company for shareholders and investors.
So, my question is, how many times can they fool us and expect us to still hold out hope for the future?
Best--Blue
Skimoor: In my long experience with Wave, they have always been able to restrain the price from going thru the roof, except for the Internet bubble, when it hit $150 (in today's prices).
If nature abhors a vacuum, I would say the same thing about supporters of Wave.
There is no shortage of hope, or hype, in the absence of solid developments. Some of the theories about what was going on, were so far out there, it was science fiction.
Usually with Wave, there is a simple explanation for odd trading patterns that have nothing to do with success, real or imagined.
The DD you posted, especially the bolded part was extremely interesting.
However, given the many false starts, head fakes, and wildly optimistic interpretations of mundane events in Wave's history, I would urge caution.
I know many feel they have been suppressed and laughed at for so long because of their sincere belief in Wave, they are itching for a real development.
If that DD you posted is on the level, I would say that is a significant marker on the trail to success. But Wave being Wave, I am able to contain my own hopes quite well.
I always urge caution, given Wave's penchant for over-optimistic statements about the future.
Over-promising and under-deliverance is the standard Wave model. I, for one, will be glad to see that change--if it does.
Best wishes--Blue
Are these Wave's darkest days? The nothingness is soul-deadening.
Is there any hope whatsoever, Wave can even begin the approach to its potential?
96 cents is 32 cents if you were reverse splat. After 25 years, that is not encouraging.
Perhaps the long wait might be more tolerable if the mgt suffered as the shareholders have--if they cut back or cut out the bonuses until there is performance?
But no, they have added another Sprague to the trough, plus the babysitting, horse-riding nanny to the payroll. Salaries and bonuses have risen, while performance and share price have dropped.
Maybe we could tolerate that if the company was doing well. But with the company doing so poorly, it is ripping the scabs off a cancer to see the draining of the treasury by blood kin, and friends, year after year.
As much as this topic has been discussed here and elsewhere, one would have to assume SKS and the other personnel at the top of Wave have read the criticisms and have chosen to disregard it entirely.
Either they are tone deaf or simply don't care. Either way, it is bitter for Wave shareholders.
Blue
I stay in Wave because I am a glutton for punishment. The technology as originally debuted was a great idea.
The original great idea which gave birth to Wave was truly innovative and had so much potential.
But Peter let go the reins after trying hard unsuccessfully to make Wave a superstar and his son, Steven, has pretty much mangled things every since.
The company has morphed into something truly ugly. Almost no progress and unrestrained suckling by the First Family and co. No effort whatsoever, to rein in expenses, because it doesn't matter to them.
Many thanks for your advice and concern for my portfolio. I am the owner of many other highly successful stocks.
Wave is special. Too much time and money down the rathole to abandon it, so I throw good money (not much) after bad, in the hopes the other stocks can support the losses in La Tristesse (Wave).
I'm in it for the long haul. I missed inception, but got in 1996 at a buck a share ($3 today because of the reverse split).
You post here and on another board--almost always way, way positive. Can you share with us what you see, we skeptics and un-believers don't?
Bleu
Ski: It's complicated. One can own shares in a company in which one does not approve of managerial talent or strategy.
One can see repeated acts of dishonesty, i.e. the CEO and CFO's breakeven predictions, etc.--and still hang on to hope eventually the right way will prevail.
It is not so much me being negative as it is the bad behavior of the company--Safend, etc. There just seems to be no end of it.
My suggestion: Skip over my posts so your view of the company is not corrupted by my long history of engagement with Wave.
Best wishes--Blue
Skimoor: You certainly set out an ambitious and admirable agenda for a buying company, to which I heartily agree with every aspect. It contains all those things missing from Wave lo these many years, especially integrity.
But, my point was, why would any company want to buy a money-losing concern? What is it Wave has, to attract such a company to a purchase?
Don't forget there are A and B shares of stock. The B shares are safely in the hands of insiders and they carry more votes than the A shares.
The ostensible price would be roughly a hundred million dollars for Wave.
In terms of the deals going back and forth in today's world, that is not that much.
But what would justify paying $100M? Good will? Good mgt? Big contracts?
No to all.
Maybe it is my bias, but I just don't see where the value lies.
Especially, once one separates the fantasy claims made for Wave, from the reality--it is a black hole that sucks up money.
Maybe, under new mgt, Wave could be fixed up to turn a profit. How long would that take and how much additional funding would a buying company have to pour into it?
Unlike some supporters, I just don't see how or where Wave can tap into a gusher. Maybe it's there, and I don't see it.
The fact that all contracts have cost more to service than they bring in, to me is a red warning sign to potential buyers to be cautious.
For the current Wave mgt, that's hunky dory. They don't care if they continue to operate at a deficit, because the way it is set up now, just keeping the doors open, keeps the money hose washing the family and friends with cash. Why change it?
Wave has been steadily looted by the founding family since inception and it continues to this day with no signs of change in the air. In fact, they have fortified the company to prevent a buy-out.
Maybe there is some salvage value I am completely missing.
Wave depends on TPMs being utilized. But first folks must be told what they are and whether they have one. [They do.] Monumental job measured in years, if ever--before you get to profit.
Best wishes for your scenario to come true and not mine.
Blue
Ski: I'm not so sure Wave is marketable. 25 years without a profit, more than a third of a billion down the drain and the share price is a buck and a penny.
Doesn't sound like a winning sales pitch to me.
Furthermore, the fellows structuring the sale would be the same fellows who have been rewarded all along. I suspect a buying company would not want to fund the golden parachutes and payouts for all the relatives.
I have other reasons for thinking shareholders would be by-passed in such a sale, if it could be engineered.
But the big thing is, what would they be buying? The patents? I don't think so, altho I know there are those who claim the patents are pure gold.
A buyer would not be purchasing a valuable business, nor would there be much in the way of assets.
What exactly is the draw?
And, if you are one of the insiders, why would you want to end a going concern that is really paying off big time for the insiders?
Personally, I think we are stuck with the mgt we have and their strategy, if they have one.
A sale of Wave, IMO, is not likely.
Blue