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.
HhH: I do not disagree in the least with your disagreement. Actually we are not in disagreement.
I too saw the Director's purchase as a net positive. But my qualifier was that this did not change the total picture, was not enough in and of itself, to start the ball rolling in Wave's direction. Was a great start, though as you ably pointed out.
Re: the CC & SHM--yes, I too saw it as a positive that SKS was beginning to talk real and stopping with the dangling of unrealizable fantasies in our faces. The disappointment came with the tooclose follow-on backpeddling.
Otherwise, as frightening as it sounds to me, and perhaps to you also, HhH and Bluefang are in agreement. Gads!!!! This may be proof positive of our innate, congenital basher selves.
Best--Blue
Snackman: I think if you check with 24601 and some of the others, you will see what I said about Wave either being rebuffed or ignored by PC OEM's early in their history, is true. Was not meant as a slam of Wave. It was merely a statement of what is considered a truism in the industry. PC OEM's, for instance, only started incorporating CD writers and players, DVD players and writers, when there was a market for it. Wave was a little ahead of its time here.
______
The hope for a deal with Phoenix was also discussed both on RB and SI at the time. I had conversations with SKS & Peter at the time. Again, not meant as a slam, but rather as a summary of what was believed to have happened. Had this deal been brokered, we would have been in the PC's years ago.
Again, it is my belief that Phoenix's internal problems cropped up at a most inopportune time for us and that Wave did nothing wrong. I have nothing more to substantiate this, other than my memory, which is suspect. But my guess is 24601, Countryboy, Plympton and perhaps Wildman may remember the discussion and how the deal came undone. It would not have been proper for Wave officials to talk about the internal problems of another company.
Happy Thanksgiving, my friend. No slight was intended here. When there is, you know I am more than happy to acknowledge it.
Blue
Greg: My best memory of Wave's dealings with Phoenix Technology--it was perhaps 1999 (not sure) and this came after a rebuff of the PC OEM's to Wave. Wave had been trying to get PC OEM's to include Wave and eventually learned PC OEM's only include technology when it is demanded in the marketplace.
The dance with Phoenix would have been an in-run around the PC OEM's and in my opinion was a brilliant strategem on Wave's part.
[Greg: I know you know this part, but for the benefit of those not clear about what this discussion is about--Phoenix made the BIOS (Basic Input Output System) which is the part of the computer that allows it to boot up and begin to operate. Phoenix had perhaps between 80 to 90% of the BIOS market for all PC OEM's at the time.]
Unfortunately at just about the time Wave and Phoenix were talking, Phoenix had severe internal problems.
It was never publicly disclosed what the actual problems were and Wave investors were left with the impression that Wave walked away because Phoenix was preoccupied with their internal struggles.
Whether this is what actually happened or not, I can not say. I made a sustained effort to find out what took place, but came away empty-handed, aside from Wave's version (SKS & Peter). Perhaps other posters may remember more details from this time than I do.
Best wishes--Bluefang
OT: 2bStealthy: Rambus up 4.17% on higher than normal trading. I bought in years ago and sold out way below the high, but for one of my biggest successes in the market. Not sure I would get back into this stock, but haven't researched it.
My conclusion was it was too expensive and had a tendency to litigate rather than negotiate.
But how is this relevant?
Blue
2BS: Rambus the memory company, or Rambus of Myth? Thanks, I think, for the compliment.
_____
P.S. 2BS--how perceptive! Yes, I am a veteran of four newspapers in three states. Mark Twain said newspapering was a great way to kill time, but a shaky way to make a living. I killed time for eight glorious years as a scribe of the tribe of ink-stained wretches. Didn't know it had permanently marked me, though. Gads!
Blue
Blue Rain on Post-Thanksgiving Parade--My take on recent goings-on.
Prior to Intel announcement, things were spiralling down and only the most die hards of the die hards were still believing. Many had abandoned either the ship or the hope.
Then Intel lit the dark skies and many came back aboard the good ship Wave. Then, once again, the quiet settled in and the darkness came a-creeping back, muting and covering hope.
CC disappoints almost universally, micro SHM even more so. Timeline for revenues pushed back. Despair, a near constant companion for most of those who no longer drink the Kool-Aid, was back in our midst.
A member of the Bd of D purchases shares on the open market! A quick flash radiates through the darkness, brilliant, but short-lived. But it is enough for the Kool-Aid drinkers to take heart and they sup deeply of the thin elixir.
Reality, nearly always a stranger to the 'VoidLand keeps his distance. Fantasy, fueled by hallucinogenic tea leaf readers and delusional dot connectors takes Reality's place at the table.
Revenues, agreed in lucid moments as the only possible permanent lifter of Wave hopes, is still in the receding distance like the mirage of water on the highway ahead--you never reach it.
Once again, the Wave share price drifts lower on low volume.
Christmas is coming. There will be a new round of gaily-wrapped, exquisitely packaged set of dreams placed beneath the tree by the Dreamers of Big Dreams. Realists who pick up these beautiful boxes and shake them will find them curiously light and hear nothing rattling around inside. The Dreamers shake their boxes and smile knowlingly.
The long winter Dream of Wave continues and the ghost of Christmas Future dances as always, sprinkling sugarplum fairy sparkles in the nightime reveries of the Loyal Wavoids who think patience equals prosperity.
For these dreamers all snug in their beds, the outside howling cold wind heaving bitter flakes of snow and the call of hungry wolves is not heard. They sleep on.
Bluefang
Snackman: You insist on sticking the basher label on anyone who criticizes mgt. What if those critics are not bashers at all, simply honest investors who are apalled at mgt actions?
Of course there are some complete bashers, who do fit the type you outlined. But it is pretty easy to see past those.
On the other side of the coin you have the blind loyal company apologists who find a good explanation for anything mgt does, no matter how outrageous.
Somewhere between these two extremes, the majority of investors fall. They want good mgt, good strategies and execution of plans. They also want revenues, or if projected revenues fail to arrive on schedule, they would like mgt to account for what happened.
You have tried to paint me as a basher, when in fact, I'm not. I am a long since 1996, never shorted, never traded in Wave.
Instead of trying to come up with some conspiracy theory for everyone who criticizes Wave, as you did with Magdalina and others, why not calmly and dispassionately simply discuss the issues?
This is why we are here. You seem to see your mission as protecting Wave from any criticism at all, as if just criticism will cause the share price to fall. You also seem to see your mission as making optimistic posts that have little basis is reality, beyond your own beliefs and opinions.
What you have predicted here time and time again, has failed to materialize. Why don't we stop the name calling, as well as the pie-in-the-sky projections and move forward in a positive and rational way?
Bluefang
Boom: If you include me in that category, I'm still here. Lurking and hoping I've been completely wrong all along.
Bluefang
Bingo: I hear you and I understand it is probably a futile effort. Nevertheless, it is hard to let some statements go without at least an argument or to point out how it is wrong, IMO.
As far as people agreeing with me, that is not a concern. I'm not running for anything and do not need a constituency. I was simply trying to counter some of the fallacious myths that have been perpetrated on this board by some.
You write about condemning the Spragues without a trial. What about the past 10 years? Wasn't that a trial of sorts? All that money, all that effort--to what end? So the share price can drop to $1.59? Maybe ahead there are riches for all. More likely, IMO, something a lot less.
If I want to spit against the wind, just ignore me. If you want to comment, that's fine too. If I have been discourteous to you, I certainly apologize.
On the other hand, you say, I continue to make unwarranted assumptions. I'm sorry, but I think I have given reasons for any assumptions and can't think of any unwarranted ones. They may not be correct, but at least they had some logic to them.
You are certainly free to disregard, ignore and contradict. Please forgive me if I have been discourteous in any way.
These last few days have been stressful on everyone and perhaps if both sides can be a little more courteous to the other, perhaps we can indeed have a full discussion. In the end, it will be a little time before we know who was right, not that that is particularly important.
Best to you, Bingoman--Blue
Vickers2: Thanks. Blue
Rusty: I believe Gerry Feeney purchased a lot of shares on the open market too. Not sure if he has to report it. Anyone know?
Blue
BowWave: You made me smile. As for a deal, I get your point. But you can still ignore me if you like.
Now, let's get back to Wave and leave the personal stuff behind, OK?
Bluefang
Matt: This board is not going down the drain in any way. Contrarians and those who have differed with mgt over the years have been stifled. There has been a release of that pressure over the past few days and there has been vigorous debate by both sides.
IMO, that is not going down the drain, that is exactly what I thought we were here for.
Your administration has been fair and equitable in allowing debate. Important issues have been brought up and both sides have weighed in.
Now that the boil has been lanced, I expect us to go forward in a much healthier atmosphere where dissidents can voice their opinions too. Thank you for allowing us to participate here.
Bluefang
Snackman: That was a truly naive post, IMO. Shorts, traders and momentum players to have a role, but to a much larger extent, the fortunes and future of a company are determined by its revenues.
We have been promised revenues for so long now and the latest promise puts off the earlier promise for one to two years more--that is why our share price is not higher. Shorts and bashers have nothing to do with it.
The company says it will execute, then doesn't. End of story.
If Wave executes, the story is different.
Bluefang
Bingoman: Of course I believe in majority rule and I am aware that my view is not a majority view. Perhaps part of the reason is posters such as yourself have tried to choke off the airing of important questions in the past.
Some of us think these issues should be debated in full. I understand it makes you uncomfortable. How uncomfortable do you think it makes those of us who are worried, to hear you chant day after day that wonderful things are happening, mgt is brilliant, and our future is assured?
Neither of us actually know, but there has been enough evidence placed on the table to warrant reconsideration of each of those posits you believe.
If wonderful things were happening, if there were good answers to our questions, I do not believe our stock would be dropping like a stone. In your mind, I'm sure you blame us for pointing out the problems. The correct posture, IMO, would be to examine those who created them.
Bluefang
Awk: And would you extend the verbal diarrhea remark to include Tampa, Internet, Bonnie and others who chimed in to say they too thought relevant issues were being brought up?
If it were only the compensation issue, I would be happy to sit down and shut up. It is far more extensive than that and you know it. As a long, you have witnessed many things that were not right here and I have never heard you raise your voice against anything mgt did, with the possible exception of Founders Shares.
If memory serves, you did make some mild objection that it concerned you.
So Awk, you have the privilege of repetitively stating that things are good, even when they are in the toilet. Isn't that the proper place for diarrhea of either sort, which by the way is written, not verbal?
Let us please post opposing points of view, without you trying to stuff a Kool-Aid soaked rag in our mouths under the guise we have nothing to say and that no one supports us anyway. The readers here can ignore whom they like and read what they like and conclude what they think is best.
Bluefang
Snackman: Peter was at a public function and was representing Wave leadership. It was his choice to get crocked.
How is that low to ask the question if our CEO of Wave Express should seek treatment for what may be a problem, or to continue to represent us at business meetings after more than a few drinks? To me, that is a relevant question and in no way tries to dig up any dirty laundry in Peter's private life. The problem was this was not in his private life, it was at the annual SHM in which a lot of us investors were present. It was at a public outing.
If he wants to drink in private, that's fine. But please, do not be drunk at an official Wave function. There's a difference and I'm sorry you are so busy defending him and his son, you can not see they are causing problems by their behavior, not us for raising the issues.
Bluefang
Spin: I have no problem naming names. His name is Peter Sprague, currently CEO of Wave Express and the last time I saw him drunk, he was sitting at the head of a table in NYC after the shareholder meeting. At the table were a number of Wave loyalists, perhaps 12 to 20. He picked up the tab for dinner and drinks on a Wave Amex card.
I paid my own tab.
We pay for his NYC apartment, "wink, wink, office I mean." We buy him drinks and dinner and we give him a king's ransom for salary. He in return, produces no known product, tries to stiff us for a million dollar no-interest loan, sells his shares virtually every quarter and continues to draw down our diminishing resources.
For this, the Wave loyalists, stand up and applaud.
Now Snackman may want to know where I got my medical degree, because how can I as a layman say he was drunk? You want the evidence, just ask, Snackie. It was in a public place on our dime and we were there for the SHM. I'm happy to share details as to what I witnessed.
Blue
Waverider: Once again the insinuation that I am a trader or a short. I am neither.
Longs are never a problem unless they insist a festering sore be ignored. Unless they insist on seeing bad mgt as good mgt. As seeing poor leadership as real leadership. As seeing gross abuses of shareholder money as legitimate business practices. As seeing overcompensation for underperformance as fair reward.
Do you loyalists not have any other weapon in your bag than labeling critics and contrarians as bashers?
Bluefang
Doma: First of all, I would not have us be in the deperate spot we are today. I would have insisted on a lean operation until revenues came in. And I certainly would not have allowed myself, my father, my other relatives and the officers to walk out with shareholder money in the form of "forgiven" loans, bonuses, etc. until there was not only a product, but until it was selling.
If they executed, maybe no problem. But to have the compensation, bonuses and stock options they have, plus Founders Shares when there is no product and no revenues--that is a problem. Let's don't even get into the quarter million bucks given to Mr. Tin Foil and quietly written off.
The present mgt squandered precious resources when it didn't count, and now when it does, they don't have the money to take us forward. We are looking at more dilution in the face of uncertain revenues.
I don't think the question is so much, where do we go from here? As it is how did we get here in the first place? Who drove us into this dead-end street?
Bluefang
E-Shute: I have said it over and over again and will not say it again. I pleaded for a discussion on these same issues before and was met with the same kind of treatment given Magdalena for her temerity to raise questions.
In a nutshell, promising us deployment within 90 days in 1997 and not delivering it up to 2003 would be my starting point.
SKS has simply failed to get us into a box to this point. Intel is a question mark. I consider it bad leadership when news releases misspell the names of our partners, misspell the name of a foreign city where we are demonstrating two years in a row--those are little things which to me demonstrate a much larger problem.
Most of it has been said here recently and if not mistaken, you have not chosen to debate the issues, nor has any other Wave loyalist. Instead, you (and the rest of the loyalists) quickly got out your paintbrushes and covered all of us bringing up the questions with the basher label, which we are not.
You could start with debating the issues, instead of trying to impugn the credibility of people like CPA and Magdalena and myself--all Wave longs with no agenda other than to clean up what has become an embarassment that is showing up in our share price. If you can defend the indefensible, my hat's off to you.
Bluefang
Weby, Dear Weby: Your answer was nothing more than, "if you don't like it, please sell your shares." There is something in between.
There is such a thing as pressure on mgt to see that past mistakes are not repeated; pressure on the Bd of D to exercise control and oversight; and pressure on the CEO to give us realistic and accurate timelines instead of pulling them out of his nether regions.
Your answer is no answer at all. It assumes a binary position: those who feel mgt has been atrocious must either sell or keep quiet about gross inequities including overcompensation, "loans" to officers which are forgiven, bonuses paid for deals not done, a CEO who promises deployment next month or next quarter when he clearly knows it is nowhere in sight and another CEO who is often drunk in public and does it on the Wavx American Express Card.
Perhaps you may feel you have no other option other than to assume the position and squeal like a pig, but the some of the rest of us think this company should be run like a business and not like some private game preserve for the Spragues.
Bluefang
Weby: You wrote, "Waging business requires leadership and decision..." And you could not be more right. The reason we are having this 'democratic' discussion is because there has been no leadership. We have been subjected to changing timelines without explanation, fictional guidance that changes with the wind
In response, the loyalists say, "Well if you don't like it, why don't you sell?" as if that was an answer.
Then you have Magdalena making a perfectly acceptable point that perhaps the Bd of D should perhaps know a little more than they do...the questions Bagaley was asking about salaries, as if he was hearing it for the first time.
The question Magdalena raised about Wave Express's CEO and what he makes and what he does in return for that salary?
Those are good questions and relevant issues to us shareholders. To hear her painted by the attack dogs led by Snackman as a basher, to me shows the loyalists are more than a little desperate because some real questions are finally being asked about this management.
The last three times I saw Peter, he was inebriated and that was at official Wave functions. Is it relevant to ask if Peter has a drinking problem, and if so, how serious, and if serious, should he continue on as CEO of Wave Express?
This is not bashing. This is proper inquiry. If his name were not Sprague, my guess is Peter would have been out on his ear about three or four years ago.
I see Maggie raising some excellent questions, as well as the ones CPA has put on the table in the wake of the SHM and what happens? Awk immediately asks Maggie why she is here. Snackie turns hackie. A few more pile on. Ugly.
There is something between a coup d'etat and smiling at all the excesses and mistakes. We can ask accountability. It is our money that is funding them.
There are indications the Board of Directors has been less than vigilant in protecting our interests and in overseeing corporate governance. Our option for all of this, is not to either like it or sell. That's total bunk. My guess is if they began to get rather pointed questions from the shareholders they might be a little more vigilant and a little more involved.
It is time we opened our eyes and started asking the hard questions. I publicly thank CPA for representing our interests so well. He asked real questions and relevant ones and it sounds as if the answers coming from SKS were stutter, stumble, bob and weave.
That is far from conclusive proof of anything, of course, but it is one more indication all is not well within Wave.
And how like Snackman to ask if CPA had a stopwatch when SKS was evading his questions. The issues behind those questions and the problems they represent make you nervous, don't they Snackman? They should. They make me very nervous.
Bluefang
CMF: Don't think Rachelelise's post was deleted. I just copied it for you. #20191-- Hope this does not violate the repetition rule. It's relatively innocuous. Best--Blue
_______________________________
Posted by: rachelelise
In reply to: Larry Dudash who wrote msg# 20186
Date:11/22/2003 8:45:23 PM
Post #of 20247
LD
A small percentage decided to participate again. I don't have the precise figures. I assume we'll see when they submit the gov't forms.
Weby: You wrote: "I would caution everybody on the board that a shareholder revolt is not usually good either for shareprice or the potential of raising capital from private investors."
Assume for a minute the management of a hypothetical tech firm was taking the company down a sinkhole, had diluted the shares by 500%, and was unable to raise any more money anyway--would it then be such a bad idea to change the mgt team?
I'm not saying that is the case at all, I don't think we know. But I do know if SKS thinks he can get away in the first half of 2004 w/o significant revenues, and I'm saying none of this ridiculous "Rascal's Comedy Club" that you loyalists cheered so heartily for--that amounted to pennies and did not even pay the costs associated it with it--I can guarantee a shareholder revolt and probably lawsuits on top of it.
More than 5 years ago SKS told a publication for the record that he expected we would be in nearly every PC OEM within 90 days. That came after Wavx was delisted from Nasdaq after SKS got caught trying to BS the Nasdaq, telling them he had signed contracts with all the OEM's and couldn't produce one when confronted with his statement.
Five years later after he made the 90 days to almost all of the PC OEM comment to CRN, we have questions about whether we are in one, and is it shipping after it was announced that it was.
Credibility is the issue here. I am extremely skeptical of any timelines for revenues or anything else SKS says, because he has never been right in the past. When he makes one deadline on deployment, and/or shipping dates, or revenues, I will take him a little more seriously than I do now.
One last thing: All you guys asking us to wait until May, better be real careful of what you ask for--because if we wait until May and hear what we've always heard, "significant revenues near year" I suspect the hammer is going to come down and Wave will be blown out like a candle.
If the past record of veracity and accuracy of SKS gives DooWopGuy and the rest of you reason to be optimistic, excuse me if sit in the worry chair, while you guys man the cheerleading section.
Bluefang
Rachelelise: You write: "It's not that your comments have no historical basis to support questions, but I don't think you are thinking like a CEO when you posit them."
Didn't know I was required to think like a CEO, only an investor.
Once again R, a well-written, finely choreographed dance around the issue of credibility and changing timelines. Is it that hard to stick to the subject?
If SKS is truth-challenged, why now, do we all of a sudden believe he speaks the truth?
I'm not saying no Intel boards have shipped, but I'm increasingly suspicious as I know Wavoids would have been among the first to buy them and not one order has been filled--at least by any who post here. Is that not a little curious? Again, I'm not holding SKS responsible for that, but it would appear, once again, our timeline and our reality has slipped out a little.
If it were the first time, no big deal. But at this point, with critical revenues on the line, Wave flirting with Chap. 11, and a long history of "deferred shipping dates," it is more than a little worrisome.
When you posit your counter-questions, it does not appear you speak as a person who has been continually disappointed by continual missed shipping dates.
Best--Blue
Bingo: Let's see if I have this straight. Rather than talk about the issues, you give me yet another variation on, "If you don't like it, why don't you leave?" Bingo, this is one I haven't heard yet, so you get an A for creativity and an F for not writing about the subject matter at hand.
Blue
2BS: You tried to slip the punch. Nice try. I am not questioning SKS's accuracy (he has proved beyond a doubt his predictive abilities are right up there with his spelling abilities).
No, I was challenging his integrity. He told a reporter for the record in 2000 that product would be shipping "next month." If you don't have a product and if you don't have any orders, making a statement like this, is if not outright lying, is fibbing in a big way.
To quote from your post: "Have you ever invested in a new market company? R&D phase biotech/biomed companies are great examples. They suck a lot of money for years in hopes of having a drug accepted by the FDA."
Yes, I have invested in both biomed and biotech companies. And if one of them ever said we will be shipping a new medicine next month or next quarter without some basis, they would have had their asses sued off and would have been investigated for fraud.
SKS has gotten away with it because we let him, the Bd of D has let him and because they are such a little company, so laughable in so many ways, no one is going to investigate his outrageous and completely false claims. But if we ever do succeed, if that stuff keeps up, we will be stopped dead in our tracks by a fraud investigation and multiple lawsuits.
The question was not whether there is a market or can we get our stuff to the market. The question was about SKS's credibility.
We were delisted before, because SKS claimed he had signed contracts with nearly every single one of the OEM PC makers. Nasdaq asked SKS to show them just one contract and they would not be delisted. Ancient history, right? Absolutely not. He told whoppers to the NASDAQ and got caught and he is still doing it today. That was my point.
Feel free to try to shift the issue around to more favorable ground, 2BStealthy, but it soon becomes clear you are avoiding the actual question. Integrity and credibility are important. Feel free to dodge it. You have made it abundantly clear you do not want to address it. So let's close the books on it.
Bluefang
DooWopGuy: Now, the contrarian counterpoint. Your post was well written and well-reasoned, per usual.
What you said about the Trusted Computing Market developing, rings true to me. I believe that part.
What worries me was the mid-part about whether Wave should rush to get to the break-even point, or rush to capture as much of the trusted computing market as possible, while spending the necessary funds to accomplish this. Of course we would all pick the latter choice. This is perfectly logical and is a great idea, were it not for Wave's sorry history of complete non-execution of anything, Haup boards, dongles, keyboards, smart cards, BIOS, etc. etc. over the past 10 years. With the lone exception of Intel. More on that subject in a minute.
It is also an argument for the Sprague gravy train to keep rolling for the next two or three years without accountability.
If I see revenues coming in in significant numbers, I immediately change my tune.
Three years ago this month, DooWopGuy, you said to me, "The next few months will tell and that's when I will make a decision."
That's the problem I have--the due date never arrives. When we get to the due date, it has always moved out another quarter another year or two. Now there is confusion about whether the Intel board is indeed shipping. No one seems to be able to get their hands on one. The suppliers mysteriously "have sold out" with no one reporting back they have been able to buy one. I bought two Wavx Haup boards within 8 hours of learning they were available.
Why do I find the the lack of Intel boards suspicious? Because insiders told me Wave rarely, if ever, met deadlines. But this may be all Intel's doing. But wasn't it Steven who said the boards were shipping?
So here, at the exact point, after 10 years, where the rubber finally meets the road and our product is supposed to be on the shelves--it seems to be missing in inaction. That to me, is so Wave, through and through.
So, my dear DooWop, as much as I love you and respect you, what you took away from today's SHM may indeed be great. But I have a long, sad history to balance against that optimism. I hope you are as savvy and perceptive as I believe you to be, but I can not escape the nagging suspicion that they may pulled the Kool-Aid soaked wool over your eyes, as they have with so many others, for so long.
Just my contrarian view--Blue
im01: You tell a guy who has been waiting for seven years, going into 8 to wait another 2 years and two months? Based on what? Your happy, optimistic, forward-looking assurance?
I'm sorry I do not mean to insult you, in the least. But this board and at least two others have been filled with your kind of, "Gees, you just wait and see and we'll show you something!" for going on seven years.
If I can not believe the CEO, is there some reason I should believe the guy who swallows the bait,hook and sinker provided by this same CEO, and who gulps it down?
Yes, we should hold our breath, suffer more loss, more dilution while the Spragues award themselves bonuses, mislead the rest of us, and draw a very fat salary to boot. That does not seem like a prudent course to me, unless there is some evidence to warrant what you are asking us to take on faith. Some of us feel we have been duped for seven years and you come along and say wait two more years. Not this little Kool-Aid slurper.
Blue
2BS--Listen, I agree that with a new market forming, there might be an increased burn rate as those new markets are serviced and that would require more financing.
That is not what my post was about. My post was about SKS constantly outwardly adjusting our timeline for shipment and now for the breakeven point.
Why is the breakeven point so important? Because we have lost money for more than 10 years, with revenues predicted for almost everyone of the last 7 in which I have been invested. The bottom line has a lot to do with share price. Not many investors want to be involved in a company that loses money for 10 straight years.
My point had to do with the credibility of mgt who made each of those predictions of revenue at all those points along the way to the present.
Without getting into a rehash of the entire past history, there is one particular moment that is like a blinking neon sign in my mind. The time was Nov. around this time of month, three years ago and Steven was in Las Vegas for Comdex. He was interviewed by a CRN reporter who asked him point blank when shipments of product would begin. Steven replied "next month."
Three years later, we believe this time shipments HAVE started, because Intel said so, not Steven.
This, to me is indicative of what I am talking about. I'm not talking about financing new markets. I'm talking about the man's credibility, or lack of same.
2BS--what I fail to understand, and perhaps you can explain, is how you loyalists seem to forget the most recent prediction of timelines, everytime Steven makes a new statement about deployment, break-even points, etc. I have trouble believing him now, truly about anything.
Perhaps this time is different. But how would we know, if all we have to base it on, is the statement of a man who has been consistently wrong on every timeline I have ever heard come out of his mouth? That's my problem in a nutshell. If you could address just this one point, it would be helpful, not only to me, but to many who feel Steven says whatever is convenient and not necessarily what is true when he addresses these kinds of issues.
Blue
N4--Thanks for the clarification. It's amazing to me how such a tiny sip of Kool-Aid ladled out by the master has such a calming effect.
Anyone want to consult the records and compare what SKS said he said and what he actually said?
Best--Blue
Timmers: That was not the point of the post. My point was basing any investment decisions on anything SKS says about our future, timelines, deployment, acceptance, etc. can be risky at best.
Blue
Snackman: The difference is the CEO said one thing at one meeting and another thing at the next. If it were the first time, big deal as you say. But when it is Chapter 88 of the same book, that is different.
SKS has been predicting deployment since 1996. So now when we finally get deployment six years later, the time line for break- even keeps sliding out too. Meanwhile all our shares are watered down with every new financing, with much more ahead.
If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. I based my investment on what SKS said in 1996 and to me personally in 1997 and figured if he was wrong by a year or two, so what? To still be waiting for revenues, going into my eighth year with Wave and to now hear it might be one or two more years out--can you understand why I am a little impatient and a little angry?
Blue
Timmers: And if you had acted on SKS's guess that the share price would go to $99 a few years ago--would you be rich, basing it on his view of the future?
Blue
Snackman: Why am I still here? Because I am pig-headed stubborn and I keep hoping the B of D or a shareholder revolt will bring some new and honest blood to the mgt of a great idea.
Snackman, not to be sarcastic, but the underlying implication in your post to me was, "If you don't like mgt, why don't you leave."
There are other options and I plan on staying here. Just read this board, Snackman. Look at the loyal 'Voids who got blindsided by exactly what I have criticized here and on RB--the complete lack of credulity of our CEO.
This is unacceptable behavior for the CEO of a publicly traded company. Zen and others have condoned duping shareholders as necessary to continue in business.
Unchecked duplicity spawns more duplicity. That is what I think we are seeing here. If someone had yanked hard on SKS's leash way back in June of 1997 when he came out with that outrageous statement about us being in every OEM PC within 90 days--perhaps he either might have been more accountable, or might not have been around to keep doing it. This is serious business. This goes way beyond the caveat, "forward-looking statements".
Blue
Gentleman: If you are right, the company has managed to anger not only its most loyal core of shareholders, but the financial community too and the people who might have been there to lend a future hand. This kind of treachery rarely ends well. Very unsettling.
Blue
Asiseeit: You are putting the most positive face on SKS's statements possible. Much of my criticism has focused on exactly that same tendency on Steven's part.
We simply can not be a credible company when we have a CEO who says, "X will happen in Y months." And when it doesn't, he acts as if he never said it and makes new predictions that are also left unfulfilled.
After years of listening to this "unreliable" talk from the chief executive, I have come to distrust virtually everything he says on any subject. Some call this being negative. In my view, it is being realistic.
Snackman calls my posts criticizing SKS for making these kind of wild predictions as being focused and fixated on the past, but it is still happening. It is damaging our investment. If we are upset, what then are any analysts, or financial heavy hitters to think, when they see the same kind of crapola come out of every CC? First the statement, then the backsliding, then the new timeline--round and round we go.
Don't think it is my imagination, but SKS has never been right yet about deployment yet and that goes back seven years for me. This takes its toll cumulatively and absolutely. IMO, it is high time someone told him to either shut his pie hole, or get numbers and dates that are grounded in reality.
When I suggested this to SKS in person, albeit in somewhat more diplomatic language, he seemed offended and claimed he had never said what he had been recorded as saying.
I would like to know how the B of D views these plastic time lines that only stretch foward, never shrink backward. To me, it has become an extremely relevant issue, i.e. the break-even point on the table of discussion today.
Blue
TwinkieD: Thanks. Do you happen to remember when it was supposed to happen?
Best--Blue
Spin: How long ago did SKS say break even in 2004?
Best, Blue