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.
alea, disclosure,
It is a bit baffling, a fig leaf of tipping of competitors is nonsense, I can certainly see trying to obscure price per seat in a given transaction or perhaps in general under the whole negotiating leverage with customers thing, but for the most part I think on most of these things the only people that don't know are shareholders.
The price was redacted from the JA, I don't know if that is normal practice or not, of if Wave did or could have requested the whiteout.
Perhaps it is an SEC-INTC hangover and just a generally bad history of over-stating and under-delivering.
It all strikes me as a rather dysfunctional and irrational use of the 'safe' harbor.
I expect strictly payment on delivery, if a one year license is delivered, then it is paid for in full in 30 days, and revenue prorated. If 3-yr maintenance deals are struck (with a 3yr price point) I expect it to be paid for when purchased (up front I spose) and the revenue deferred. I just don't expect one big PO, each 'shipment' as a PO , each invoice paid 30 days same as cash.
alea, for me it relates to rate and visibility which leads to SP which leads to how much ink and paper they have to feed into the ATM.
Alea, The size of this deployment,
(just some musings)
If one goes to the DRs website root supplied and searches for FBCB2 or otherwise looks through the last months of awards (of which they do not seem to be shy about releasing #s attached or not, big or small) then the only thing I see popping up are the ruggedized notebooks and maybe some sort of vehicle device that seems less likely.
If one peruses the FBCB2 sites numbers keep popping up of 100k-150k systems deployed.
I would suspect the DRS ruggedized notebooks are a small subset of the 100-150k systems.
So what percentage are these ruggedized notebooks with detachable hardrives?? 10%?, 20%?
The JA mentions for “CONUS and overseas operations” or something to that effect. It all seems to me that this is a small piece of the FBCB2 deployment footprint.
As 10k seats is likely something like $500k and a few weeks of a few engineers is likely, what, $100k it seems this deployment could easily slip under the radar of both any sort of PR and any sort of unusual cash-flow bump.
Is FBCB2 going to only protect some machines, nah. Is FBCB2 going to deploy a mixed environment where they use some of Winmagic’s SED management utilities, nah. So does it mean more than $600k? Yes, I think so. But as far as this development by itself and the numbers attached it seems entirely reasonable that many guesses are overestimating the actual size of this specific order.
I do not mean to diminish the importance of getting an actual production deployment of Wave managed TPM/SEDs in the Army an can easily imagine the scale of what that could lead to, but in terms of size and visibility of just this order I suspect it may be easy to get carried away with things.
yes, but as DRS is named it doesn't read to me that DRS is providing all the computers, but I admit I'm in skimming mode:
http://www.drs-ts.com/digital.htm
weby,
it does seem at first glance WInmagic could have been in play but if DRS made the software selection then the Army's hands are tied.
root, maybe some of these;
http://www.drs.com/Products/TS/PDF/ArmorC12.pdf
http://news.drs.com/news/drsruggedhandheld.htm
but probably not 100k of them.
jas, FWIW in a sole source justification the purpose is to justify bypassing the usual bidding process ... the language must be strong, otherwise its not justifiable.
I'm not saying it is in anyway incorrect, just that it is a fait acompli, if you file a sole source justification you use strong must need now only them language, such language is essentially required.
alea, its really hard to strike secret deals with the gov, one would think Wave would either say something in the next few days or they are waiting for actual drives to start to roll. PRing a pre-deploymnet engineering team makes for a cumbersome read, and SED supplies have been irregular and hampered by the Japan tsunami and the Thailand floods. If I were Wave I'd be sick of constant CC where is BEWML stuff and just PR when there is a PO and leave it at that. If the FBCB2 thingy plays out through 2013, one would be talking the 1-1.5m/q range, billed on delivery. Not earth shattering. I think flipping the whole shelf into the ATM facility was a cover all contingencies move.
something is weird, sure the retail investor doesn't 'know', but as often as not there is a rumor run. It seems that something would have to happen in the PR area in the next 6 weeks or so if the timing and scale are as speculated here. Seems pretty quiet.
Q: is the number "615k" just being pulled out of a hat or is there a basis for it. The cutoff limits (e.g. <650k) are used as I understand it to delineate how far up the CoC thhey need to go for authorization ... but "615k"?
Alea cash-flow,
Were that to play out with any sort of significant up front volume then it would represent ‘the other side’ of the doughnut hole. Obviously Wave isn’t required to exhaust the whole shelf through the ATM facility but assuming they do one can at least hope that the timing of everything is such that they can accomplish the exchange at a more favorable dilution rate than 2.2 a share.
That this is still under the radar short of ever inquiring Wavoids certainly adds some intrigue. The whole bailiwick of Wave disclosure should make for an interesting CC.
papagergia, there is no indication of scale.
While FBCB2 stands at greater than 100k seats, this little pre-deployment consulting gig for a rollout that is supposed to start in Feb/Mar could be for a 1k seat pilot, a 20k seat replacement cycle or the whole enchilada of 100k+ seats.
The inforamtion states the drives are to be purchased. The information states that Wave software will manage the drives. The information states that consulting is needed for a "narrow window" to prepare for the first units.
IMO the drives will be ordered and come bundled with Wave software, Wave will likely not see a P.O. directly for the software.
It seems the math would point towards something like $5m+ if one was looking at a retro of the installed base or who knows what if one is looking at normal replacement cycles.
Too foggy and a factoid, too remote a location for a mkt response.
Foam, yes, an expanded notion of the
"shim" employed by PwC. There will be OSes on top, secure elements on bottom, and an adapter in between. The adapter needs diversity out the bottom to interact with the peculiarities of the secure elements and diversity out the top to interact with the various OSes. In between lies the adapter, the Wave proprietary code that bridges these components. Wave then writes dedicated management software for that calls on their installed adapter to interoperably manage the matrix. By juxtaposing itself as the author of a proprietary adapter interfaced between secure element and OS standard interfaces, Wave affords itself the opportunity to install hooks for a theoretically expanding array of products and services in a platform independent manner. At least that's how the cartoon in my head looks.
awk, I'm not saying Samsung isn't or wont do those things, I'm saying Samsung cannot depend on Win8 to solve its TC concerns and hence Win8 has little bearing on the Samsung-Wave agreement per se given the breadth of their platforms. Samsung may use Wave for its SamsungWin8 deployment, but it would seek out Wave for TC in any event. I doubt that it is only because of Win8 that Samsung sought Wave, but ICBW.
jas, yes, the development of the sandbox that Wave plans to play in is relevant. It is distinct from the playing itself, but it is part of the playground.
Foam android Win8
I wasn't very clear last time. i'm not saying Samsung is getting into the OS wars. Samsung sells devices (and chips). Currently they are the Juggernaut of Android devices. Android will compete with Win8. To the extent that the question was something like 'why would Samsung hook up with Wave when Win8m will apparently cover much of the client TC enablement' the answer is, for the moment, Android. Samsung cannot depend on MS to do anything other than make Win8 work. Samsung cannot expect MS to enable its fleet of Android devices or chips headed to non-Win8 devices. Its not about taking on Win8 per se as I indicated, it simply that there is a non-Win8 world, and Samsung hired Wave to help in that world. Samsung may well build Win8 devices. In that case SamsungAndroid will compete with SamsungWin8 (or at least that they way Samsung would like it). Samsung is not beholden to Wintel, or WinARM, or Win8 and Win8 has no bearing on the sensibility of Samsung's seeking Wave out.
Foam/Tpt ... Win8 hasn't buried Android just yet
Until then it would seem Samsung would seek to build TC into devices, not the least of which are its Android devices. I am not expecting Samsung to develop a competition replacement for Win8-TC features or some sort of Samsung branded TC counsule to run on Win8, I expect Samsung to compete against Win8-Mobile, and believe they have enlisted Wave in that project.
I'm I getting this all wrong?
me too, thanks awk /e
alea, yup,
a potential near term threat of unbundling of the cash cow (near in Win8 release terms) but a greater base of platforms looking for server side management, all in the face of legacy and platform branding concerns ... it has always been the claimed strategy, that bundling of OS destined utilities provided runway, not end-game, and hence for me a defined window in which to execute.
alea, ahh, finally somebody points to my concern on this. I'm not in any hurry for Win8, I would prefer better penetrance of Wave prior to Win8.
title, Wave's server side software is what they presume to be about (from my perspective). the client standalone utilities are something that Wave said several years ago they expected to fold into the OS. It seems they have a new customer in the standalone client app space (their previous customer in a broad sense was Wintel), and from what I gleen from the Samsung announcement, their new customer represents non-Wintel space.
awk, ETS Win8,
that is what it was looking like to me, that the single client ETS application utilities are covered in Win8, not ERAS etc, but the stand alone client apps.
awk,
ETS provides a client TPM management utility (which I understand Win8 will provide a new TPM wrapper utility), ETS provides at PIM utility (which I understand Win8 will provide a KSP utility for), ditto for doc/file encryption, ditto for encrypted drive (bitlocker), I don't know about the Outlook wizard, but in general, it looks like for a stand alone Wintel client application (as I see it) that Win8 does ETS, no?
I.e., if one buys a standalone Win8 machine, do they decide to go out and buy ETS for that machine? It looks like from what I can gather, likely not.
ETS and Win8,
It seems at first blush that Win8 will streamline and pretty much cover the utility of ETS, no?
unix, not sure what you are saying,
A hostile takeover typically (or at least often) involves establishing a position (voting leverage) and some combination of tender offers and voting to acquire leverage to gain board access and replace management.
One does not by any stretch of the imagination need to "buy all the outstanding shares" to takeover a company.
TO suggest so would be to suggest that hostile take overs are "near impossible".
They are not.
It is a well held opinion by many here that were Wave to gain more meaningful traction that a suitor would show up and there would be little Lee could do about it. Similarly it is a well held opinion that despite all their bluster, many a Void would take say $8-10 a share and head for the hills. On that the matter is a big 'who knows', but to justify a SP closing in on say $8 Wave's business would have to improve to the point were it could easily become attractive and I would be surprised if the matter didn't come up.
Wave was founded with the Class B shares designed to keep all decisions in the hands of Lee. As all are extremely aware, Lee sells shares, Lee does not buy shares, Lee has options and Lee exercises those options and sells immediately. The consequence of this 'greed' or 'diversification' or 'victim of AMT' or whatever it is is that Lee, in the end, has virtually no control over such matters other than the bully pulpit.
They do have a couple golden parachutes in place, the size of these is inconsequential. Class B is no a mere pittance. By choosing to take compensation largely in the form of cash or the conversion of equity into cash, Lee has effectively put Wave on the market (or in a cynical sense, let the golden goose out of the cage to feed horses).
They have diluted themselves to irrelevance as a voting block and will depend mightily on the trust and good-will of shareholders to fend off anything hostile. Fancy that.
alladin, yikes,
so SamsungShock is an WAVXIhub myth? ... I think I'm pretty guilty of peddling that, I should pay more attention, that bubble sort I call a brain has its moments.
title, if the Samsung notion is true it certainly reflects some insular and contradictory thinking, that customers don't get it but somehow a market is going to respond to some sort of development agreement. If Q4 shows up with a bazillion in Samsung engineering revs, then the market would likely respond with a ooops, missed that one. But the bazillion wont be on the Q4 filing, and they don't seem to get that (and likely not in Q1 or Q2 filing). If there is one thing that Lee has taught the market it is that there is no urgency. If Wave 8ked a $1m engineering deal for the Army's Sole, I figure it'll be worth a dime, maybe a quarter in SP. INTC was a serious rally, folks learn. Samsung looks great, I think it is, and there is going to be all kinds of time figure it out, believe, and respond. Lee doesn't get that.
unix, on the 1200 laptops,
I have a laptop, so it must be true.
alladin, the merits of a Shock and Awe campaign continue to be disputed to this day (the notable exception being dropping nuclear bombs on cities) ... Wave seems to go for Shock and Awe this time of year with some regularity, the merits of which, well ... you never really know.
rick, am I correct ...
Form SCH-13G for 5% owners, but that is an annual report to be filed w/in 45 days of ye allowing for some stealth, Form 4 for 10% owners (and insiders) with 4 days of any event .... ???
Would there be a bad day for that (WEM bundling)?
And yes patience will be rewarded, hopefully my patience as opposed to, you know, others.
nah,
I could go on an on, what bothers me is the two of you show not the smallest inkling to ask the critical forward looking questions of how are younger generations would use and are already using the above technologies? And more importantly, how does Wave's new ideas and services add to their on-line lives.
Yes, I am concerned about costs, but I am also concerned about being a technology innovator and leader, and I think this is why so many here like Awk and Weby get frustrated with the accountant only slant of all things Wave.
Well my thinking was it was a browser add-on that allows a members of a group to read encrypted content from an otherwise public site through the sharing of a common key. the group creator or owner issues a key to group members. The owner of the group (issuer of the key) can disable the group or wipe the content by revoking the key. The content is thus never available to the host (e.g. FB) as the add-on encrption engine codes the content prior to deposition at the otherwise public site. Something to that effect. My understanding is it does not leverage, depend on, nor encourages the use of ETS, KTM, TDM, ERAS, WEM, WES, CSP. I may be mistaken, the alpha is thru an invite iteration so I haven't pursued it. I am aware of no known device component, although I imagine it could tie the key to a cookie. The requisite materials are the browser add-on for both the group owner and and reading device as the add-on is the encrypt/decrypt engine.
k, I'm assuming scrambls to be more recent, not to have been included in last years named product development lines, and would be very surprised if it was not currently running at a $1m/yr clip or more.
Not comparing scarmbls to Xpress,
Comparing WAVX shares to American dollars
Lets say I run a conglomerate, and I have a commodity, something the value of which rises and falls based on speculation and the mood of the market.
I also see an opportunity, one that by any measure, carries signficant risks and perhaps signficant protential.
I am considering monetizing my commodity in order to invest in this opportunity.
If I consider my commodity overvalued I would be more inclined to monetize it and take the risk.
If I consider my commodity undervalued I would be less inclined to monetize it and take the risk.
In this case, I’m assuming CostToWave per employee dedidcated to scrambls at about $200k/year (low end: 401k, medical, dental, LTCI, ESOP).
If 5 employees dedicated to the effort then Wave is trading 0.5% of the company per year to exercise this opportunity.
So at 2.20 a share Wave must believe they are getting a bargain that is worth converting shares into cash to take the scrambls gamble. To me it indicates Wave feels their shares are over-valued or at least well-valued.
alea, so your not expecting a new line item alongside this:
Client-side Applications [ETS stuff]
Wave plans to continue to develop and enhance the current products being developed within this product group and to develop new applications and services as the trusted computing market continues to evolve. Current planned development costs for this product group are expected to be approximately $4.1 million for the year ending December 31, 2011.
Middleware and Tools [CSP stuff]
Current planned development costs for this product group are expected to be approximately $4.4 million for the year ending December 31, 2011.
EMBASSY Trust Server Applications [ERAS stuff]
Current planned development costs for this product are expected to be approximately $2.4 million for the year ending December 31, 2011
eSign Transaction Management Suite [eSign]
Current planned development costs for this product are expected to be approximately $600,000 for the year ending December 31, 2011.
-- Or is it that you don't expect a historical accounting of what has been spent
alea, disclosure,
I'm afraid that a direct question at the CC on this should be answered, I can't see a plausible reason why the CFO wouldn't feel compelled to give a numerical answer.
exactly 14m shares, plus or minus 10m.
rwk, I've always loved phrases like
50% certainty
positively might
Maybe Wave might positively go BK with 5% certainty.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2631711