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.
Eamonnshute: Historically, PR's do not come out of forums such as these, with a few exceptions. However, maybe some journalist attending, or some passing Wavoid might have noticed something to create a stir, a little passion. But there was nothing.
Perhaps some one in charge of strategy and tactics might in the future, figure out that people are in attendance, journalists are examining and writing about what they see, and enterprise people are here shopping--and that maybe, we ought to figure out some way to shine a little light on Wave. This is not an opportunity to be fumbled away again, IMO. Earn those bonuses and options.
After Intel & IBM (although I think the IBM was much ado over not much), one would think they would say to themselves, "you know, this is going to need a little follow-on." Instead we get today's re-annoucement in the driest of language, of already much-chewed food. So who's surprised we are not moving up?
For goodness sake, if you have a hot product, give it a little buzz. We sit here with all this potential, doing Jack Squat, dying a little everyday. With all the imagination they showed in the past with press releases and announcements, couldn't they come up with something? Are we creatively stillborn?
Did all the talent walk out the door with Joe Trippi?
Snackman, you wanna know what is boring? Wave is. Wave has become a big fat boring company, except that they are little and anorexic, but boring nevertheless. Their technology is exciting, but they can not stir excitment when they are knee deep in it. They couldn't pour excitment out of a boot, with directions on the heel.
You partner with Intel, you demo with Intel at the Intel Developer's Forum and what issues forth? The sound of zzzzzzzz. We need some new thinking here. SKS needs a goose, ditto for Feeney, et al. Peter is on permanent loan. A ten year nap is long enough. Time to get cracking.
Sermon over, Rev. Blue heads back to the cave, shoulder's hunched in massive disappointment. Winter's coming and so is the long nap of my own. Last year and the year before, I slept and didn't miss a thing. Ho hum, yawn, yawn.
Bluefang
Eamonnshute: That is a very perceptive post. You are right, the background has changed. And perhaps that is what makes the present silence so maddening. Now the world needs security more than ever, but there seems to be no rush to the company who can provide it. Are we still ahead of our time, or are our salesmen not up to the job?
Bluefang
Snackman: If you only knew how dismayed and distraught I am over you smacking me with that disengenuous label. What you say is true enough and perhaps revenues will come in in late Q4. I don't dispute that in the least. I certainly did not mean to imply revenues were not forthcoming, only that they have not come forth yet and that they might not be all that significant once they do arrive.
But before we go labeling people, let's see if the revenues are significant, OK? If Intel puts us in one tiny piece of their ensemble and doesn't promote us, even though we would be inside mighty Intel's chips, we might still not prosper, right?
For all these years, we have had this great A-list of partners --yet somehow we have managed to escape without a hint of revenues. Revenues have been promised in every year I have been in Wave (1996), but have yet to materialize.
Is that disengenuous to point out? Might not it be construed of people like yourself who have claimed miraculous gains were coming for many years, without getting any--that this is true disengenousness? Do you see my point?
Some might call you a fabulist or even a fabricator for crying wolf (revenues, deployment) so often, but I do not. I know you truly believe and I certainly want to. But when one stacks up all the promises on the one side and all the absolute non-delivery on the other, I just don't know how you can say I am the disengenuous one.
Many of us were ready to throw in the towel when the Intel announcement lit the dark sky. We all waited for the IDF, expecting, perhaps unreasonably, there might be some kind of demo, some news, some indication our technology was gaining traction. Instead, we get whacked with a cold smack of nothingness.
From where I sit, it looks like classic Wave pathology. Build up expectations, then let them freefall away. And then call in the apologists to paper over the gaping holes.
Of course, I expect you and the rest of the loyal Wavoids to take this vacuum and fill it with your earnest beliefs that something is there in the void. But how many times can you do that before the crowd begins to suspect something is fishy, that perhaps the emperor may be a bit naked?
I think my attitude is the very opposite of disengenuousness. To me it reeks of reality. Your position is the one that looks disengenuous to me.
But was your post a prelude to erasure? Are my contrarian views so unpopular you would banish me from this board, too? Is my tiny, sarcastic voice so damaging, I must be shut up? That's what it smells like to me, my friend. I hope I'm wrong, but if not, you will learn you can not stifle or censor facts. Truth will out. Even about our beloved Wave.
Bluefang
Rachelelise: Nothing but respect for you from this corner, but isn't a consultant someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time?
Blue
Nattering nabob of negativism seeks warm embrace of high technology company for long term relationship and security. No delusionals need apply. Looking to occupy a platform of trust. Must have earnings, not yearnings. Must show promise, not just make them.
Bluefang
Notice to Investors: Be prepared for a prime buying opportunity in the very near future, perhaps as soon as today. You must conserve dry powder!
Market analysts are predicting the convergence of Wave's promise with reality at a point that will be most affordable for most anyone.
This notice brought to you by Bluefang
Rachelelise: Thanks for your comment. I find your optimism a bit misplaced. But you do have quite the knack for taking nothing and making it seem like something.
Blue
Snackman: Your posts is persuasive, except for one minor detail, which I'm sure may be rectified by next June.
1. Intel
2. IBM
3. Cubic
4. NSM
_________________
total revenues--Zero
Best wishes--Blue
Snackman: I will readily eat all the crow you heap upon my plate if we go back to $50. Any predictions on when that will happen? I want to make sure I have an appetite for such a big meal. Such a feast will require at least a week of fasting. Would it be possible for you to give me a week, or at least a few days notice prior to our little soar?
You are so right, I never worked a trade show and am completely in the dark about what goes on at them. Thank you for the illumination into the intracies of trade shows for those of us in the dark about them. Fascinating, really.
If Wave goes to $50, I can guarantee you Bluefang will be saying nothing bad about Wave. But tell me, Snackman, if Wave is still below $5, in say 2006, will you still be singing its praises?
Isn't the converse of your comment fair? If Blue has been unfairly bashing Wave for all these long months, what if Snackman has been unfairly hyping the company for even longer?
Would you be prepared to eat at least a tiny little crow thigh, or giblet?
What did I say that was so negative, anyway? I suggested that Wave's name could have been mentioned on something other than the list of participants, being as it is the Intel Developer's Forum and Wave and Intel are partners.
Was I insinuating something nasty here? Not at all. It was merely a mention that here was an event we had all thought might finally have brought Wave into the open sunshine and out from under that dark rock where we have been hiding all these years. If this is bashing, shame, shame, should be my name.
Yes, I will admit to a tiny patina of sarcasm, just on the edges, mind you.
Here's hoping I eat several crows and my dinner partners are triple H and CPA. (I can not be held responsible for their carping under those circumstances, however).
Trying hard to be less boring, Snackie. Do you think I should return to rhyme? Would that relieve the tedium of my boring posts? Do you think that would put a little pop in my posts?
Let me give it just one little try for you to judge, OK?
_______
WAVE FOR THE BRAVE
by Bluefang
Once long ago, upon a very little time
When I were a youngster, a mere lad in his prime
When I was a working boy, and to work I were a slave
I invested in a techno company, a company called Wave
They promised a lot, they delivered a little. They misled and deceived
But I was naive then, and despite the facts, through it all, I believed
My fortune shrank, yea, it did fair shrivel
And all the while, I lapped up the Wave drivel
Bought all the promises, believed it like Gospel
But it was all hot air, just blowing thru my nostril
My Wave shares soared high, then fell with a thud
As most everyone realized, this stock was a dud
So now here I sit all poverty stricken
My money's all gone and the calendar's tickin'
But Snackie's still waving, still championing ubiquity
"You'll be rich, son, you just stick wit me."
_____
As always, your pal--Bluefang
Dear Snackie: Your concern is appreciated and your advice taken to heart. It is so confusing for someone who wishes to be guided by the facts, rather than the heart. I was told, mistakenly I guess, that emotion clouds the judgement.
But now you have set me once again on the straight and narrow.
My apologies to all of you who have found my posts boring. Such tedium on my part can not be forgiven easily. I know I must earn back your interest.
But Snackie, what if I were to turn into a Johnny one-note like so many here (present company excepted, of course)? Wouldn't that be even more boring? If Blue were to simply harp on all the good things to come, night and day with no facts to support them? Wouldn't that be a tad tiresome? If Blue, like Barge, were to see Wave's hand in the rise of the sun and every explosion of supernova just beyond Mar's outer atmosphere--wouldn't that be a little monotonous?
His blueness is so confused these days. But thank you, my good man, for your most sincere constructive comments. As part of my pesonal makeover and transformation from boring to beautiful, I will five times a day, turn towards the East, kneel and say, "June was ours." I will not let it roil the smooth surface of my new calm that announcements have not been forthcoming. If revenues fail to materialize, worry not, Blue!
If our new goal for ubiquity goes from 2003 to 2004, 2005, even to 2010, I will know deep in my heart that June (2002) was ours. I was just too stupid, too boring, too uninformed to know it. I just know I can achieve the nirvana of the mind you have. You are so inspirational, Snackman. Can I ever repay the debt?
Blue
Ah, Scorpio: The old love-it-or-get-out advice! Just stop criticizing. I love the creativity shown by you long time Wavoids.
Am I wrong to think somewhere in this very important forum, Wave's name might have been mentioned on something other than the schedule?
Were we not led to believe that Wave might debut some function that individuals, enterprises, software and hardware makers might find of use? And once again, nothing of consequence?
So sorry for the inconvenience of raising these issues. Somehow, in my warped and twisted mind, I thought they might be relevant. But the true believers now have me convinced it doesn't matter. Stealth and patience, patience and stealth. I must remember that in the face of what seems a yawning abyss of nothingness, followed by darkness and silence. Patience and stealth. I think I have it now.
Bluefang
So here we are at the end of the first day of the highly vaunted Intel Developer's Forum and it appears that once again, the worldwide conspiracy to keep Wave's name out of the public eye has once again succeeded.
Must we descend once again into the black arts which have served us so well throughout our history?
I found dot connecting and tea leaf reading so tedious. Thought those days were behind us.
How did I go so wrong, so quickly? Or is there an uncut diamond in this bowl of rhinestones, cut glass and sequins that I missed? Perhaps our wise elders can elucidate how this vacummous silence is in our best interests. Must be those NDA's.
To what new star do we now point our gyro-compasses towards? The end of Q4, or perhaps to the soon-to-be-arrived new machines for the Christmas market, that once again will not have our chips inside--all a part of the brilliant stealth strategy we have successfully used for so long. It's amazing how our competitors have not caught on after all this time. All we needed was patience.
Imagine, a decade of flying under the radar in the midst of the information era. It boggles the mind. A champagne toast is in order. Make it Cristal! Dom is not good enough for accomplishments as fine as these.
Bluefang
Barge: I'm so dismayed you have dropped your SEC protest plans. We'd have made such a lovely couple. The blasphemist and the true believer, hand in hand in perfect harmony. Well, maybe next go round.
Bluefang
CPA: It's alright to be angry and bitter, if it is come by honestly. The danger of course, is that the bile will color and prejudice future actions.
I haven't forgotten what I feel were outright deceptions, and yet for me, it was time to move on. I will play the hand out and see what it brings. I can wait, spear and sword at the ready.
Life is short, death is long. Let it go, and look forward. Be wary. Be twice or thrice wary. But don't dwell too long in the halls of the past, when the future beckons.
It is a much better way to live. I know.
Best wishes--Bluefang
Weby: Hope you will send that to SKS. If we have what we think we do, it seems a pretty good place to get exposure. Interesting concept isn't it?
Especially the part about, "...most of the money, attention, and energy in information security and information assurance has been
focused on incremental patches and updates to existing systems rather than on seeking fundamental advances."
Best to you & Mrs. Weby--Bluefang
Doma: I'm sure your technical grasp is much surer than mine is, but I asked SKS a question about this many moons ago.
Things may have changed since, but what he told me when I asked if Wave would encrypt and decrypt every frame of video sent--he said no. Wave would act more like an authorizer. If it is authorized, the video, say a movie, could be sent, otherwise not. This would make things a lot simpler and a lot easier on the processor and would be more likely to work.
Have things changed? I have not been keeping up at all, as may be obvious.
Digital signal processing is even more complex and to add to it, an encryption layer, may fatally burden it, until much larger CPU's/RAM/bus come down the pike. The last I checked, this whole sector was dead as a doornail and was not expected to come back to life in the foreseeable future. But now I see some cable co's are offering a form of video on demand.
What's the scoop? Does WaveXpress have any sort of immediate future?
Thanks for all your contributions to this and the other boards.
Blue (rinse)
Doma: IMO, WaveXpress's failure to gain traction in the market is not its fault. The problem is the stutter-stepping by the broadcast industry to embrace a single standard for digital TV. It has been delayed, litigated, administrated, and ignored and today it is not even close to being ready as it was supposed to be, for near total conversion from analogue to digital next year.
Bits thru the air DO work and has been proven. The problem is the competing standards in the digital TV arena. By the time this is worked out, no doubt new technology will be on our doorstep which will be even better--and will mean more delays.
Add to that the expense of high definition TV and true digital broadcast and the current consumer resistance and you have a chicken and egg stalemate.
Until either the FCC recovers from its timidity and fear of the powerful broadcasting lobby and mandates a switch from analogue to digital TV, or the broadcasters unite behind a single standard, Wave Xpress might as well be trying to sell sand in the desert
Wave Xpress is a potent future technology and will bring benefits beyond our wildest dreams, IMO--but the past (the ugly wreckage of Geocast and the huge debts of those who supported it) haunt all who would occupy this space.
Wave Xpress may, in the end, be a little like the mother company--a few years ahead of its time. Most of us thought the battle over set-top boxes, cable vs. digital broadcast, cable vs. satellite would have been decided by now. It actually has, but will take some time to play out. Cable won, satellite TV is dying, barring a miracle. Set-top boxes are still evolving, as is the entire industry.
The future of television is going to look a lot different than the present. For a sneak peek at the future, take a look at commercial radio and the rise of satellite transmission (XM & Sirius). In TV we will see a decline in the networks and a rise in video on demand.
And when the market forces and the governmental overseers come to some agreement--then and only then will we see the rise of technologies like WaveXpress. It is years away, IMO, through no fault of its own.
Bluefang
Bluefang
Snackman: How you interpreted what I said as walking backward, I don't know. I think we are both walking forward. But your eyes are on the heavens, thanking the gods of the markets for their bounty. My eyes are on the street below, looking for the potholes, into which I have stumbled before.
No, I do not see that it is a done deal. I wish I had your vision. I see our chances as greatly improved, but hardly a done deal.
In the end, perhaps as soon as a year or two, we will be able to see if Wave has turned the corner. I for one hope it has, but until revenues result from our recent progress, I don't think we can call it a done deal. But maybe you know things I don't. Maybe your eyes see into the future better than mine. Perhaps your ears hear the distant stampede headed our way that mine have not yet picked up. That would be truly wonderful.
But in all matters Wave, I have to be able to see it, touch it, smell it and weigh it, before I consider it real. I have counted too many unhatched Wave egglets.
Best of wishes--Blue
CPA: My fellow contrarian--I had to reach for a towel to mop up the sarcasm and cynicism that dripped from your post. You may be exactly right and I have no idea otherwise.
Historically, though, big news has not come from these forums, if memory serves, which makes me think it may be something else in play.
Throughout our long history, there have always been unexplained rises in price and volume. We always thought once a little time passed, we'd know the reasons. In fact, there have been many such incidences for which we never found explanations.
You may be right--time will tell.
Bluefang
Dear, dear Alea: Your eloquence almost obscures your message--blame the victims and if that doesn't work, tell them blantant dishonesty is irrelevant anyway in the grand scheme of things. Cynicism rules, right?
Sure, I'd agree any investor who bought on the words of a TV commentator perhaps deserves what follows--but still, someone who is in the business of handling and investing other people's money might want to consider what such ill-advised dishonesty might do to their own reputations.
Bluefang
Snackman: Intel was very promising, as was IBM (II). I'm not unhappy. Share price is moving upward (mysteriously, to me) Volume is intriguing and inexplicable, to me, but very pleasant. I'm certainly willing to wait a few months and see how things play out.
I share your hope and optimism for the future, but am perhaps a lot more cautious than you in declaring success. Personally, I'll wait for the revenues and the other contracts to come in before hoisting the celebratory champagne. And when and if it does, I'm buying you dinner with all the trimmings.
We have all waited for a very long time for success and just when it seemed darkest and bleakest, the Intel bolt lit the skies. There were too many times in the past when I thought we were there and we were in actuality, far from it--that I now view premature celebration as unseemly and perhaps even bad luck.
So, with your permission, I'll bide my time, with fingers crossed, hoping I will have occasion to toast you and all the Wavoids who have persisted in maintaining the dream, while being called delusional and worst. And in the meantime, I'll continue marching to a different drummer, stepping to the contrarian's cadence.
Best to us all--Bluefang
Alea: I beg to differ. After I heard Melcher praising Wave back in 1996, on CNN I bought more shares. I thought I was listening to an unbiased source who was talking about the merits of a company with promise.
Instead, it was an old friend of the founder, posing as an unbiased financial professional. It was misleading and deceptive and IMO, dishonest.
All I'm saying is this kind of practice, in the end, hurts more than it helps. When the victims of such a ruse learn the truth, they are angry and feel used. Simple disclosure cures all of that. It would not have hurt Melcher to say, "Peter Sprague is an old friend of mine, nevertheless, I think his company has merit."
Your position seems odd, (i.e. "Really who will care what Jim Melcher said on Mon. morning?") for someone who has always underlined the importance of integrity in business dealings.
This is not a big deal, but it was a footnote worthy of posting. If Wave has merit and I think it does--these contrived praises are unnecessary and ultimately hurt us when they are unmasked.
Consequently, I would never put a dime's worth of significance on anything ever coming out of Balestra Capital, or from Melcher. Others might draw the same conclusions about Wave.
Best--RG
Weets: Sure you and most of the Wavoids know it, but Melcher is hardly an unbiased Wave supporter. He and Peter Sprague were playmates in the sandbox. When promoting Wave on CNN or elsewhere, he has never disclosed the friendship, which to me is a little dishonest.
The friendship certainly does not invalidate his view about Wave, but it would feel better if he disclosed the long time personal relationship.
Best wishes--Bluefang
EquityOutlook.com has posted a buy rating for Wave--AsIseeit spotted it first. Look up the quote on this board and then scroll down to today's news.
Bluefang
Wildman--are you sure these are the same people? I don't think so. Many smart people were wrong on that whole software scenario.
Wave was right and is still right, but you can bet plenty are working hard to challenge us for the lead.
Best--RG
Old friend Joe Trippi is mentioned in today's Wall St. Journal briefly in a piece on the Dean campaign.
Page B-1 (The Marketplace) left column.
Best--Bluefang
Rachelelise: See previous post to John & Doma. I was simply in error, relying on old info. You, John & Doma are all correct about the voting numbers.
Re: compensation--there were bonuses paid for deals announced, that came undone.
I do not have a figure in mind for compensation, but the loans and the relatively high salaries (compared to our accomplishments) seems to me to be excessive. I think both of us would applaud compensation commiserate with accomplishments.
If they execute, let's pay them well.
My complaint was in paying them well when they had done nothing. The discomfort was further exaccerbated by the continuous predictions by SKS of deployment this quarter or next, without it happening or corrections made by SKS on the record.
Now, to the present--I am very encouraged by Intel. I had just about given up as I think many here had, when that announcement came out of the blue.
Since then, I have had time to see that it is very qualified, and constitutes what to me appears to be a trial run by Intel. They are not embracing Wave across their entire product line--but it is a start, and a very good one at that.
Most of us know the share price will not move up significantly unless other OEM's give us a group hug, or unless revenues start to come in. I'm content to sit and wait for now and suggest all who have been holding this long to do the same.
On the negative side, that SmartMoney piece hit home in many ways. I am troubled by the fact that those in a position to see the market from a better vantage point than myself, do not give us much of a chance. Does that mean we go down in flames? Of course not. But it certainly is a cautionary note.
Let's wait and see what comes of Intel and any others who may jump aboard. Personally, this is the best news since the HWP announcement many years ago.
Bluefang
24601 & Doma: I was wrong--dead wrong and am happy to admit it.
My info was old and I said that and both John and Doma have provided facts which indicates times have changed. That's a good thing in my book.
Thanks to both of you for straightening me out.
Bluefang
Zen: Addendum--if the coach's name were Sprague and the starting quarterback was named Sprague and the free saftety was named Sprague--and the QB never completed a pass, the Free Safety never intercepted or knocked down a pass, at some point would you not question whether the Sprague name carried more weight than onfield ability?
At some point, the position played must have some statistics, i.e. achievements. Following your analogy, would it be satisfactory if the QB said we expect to win 14 of 16 games this season, but instead, won none. If that happened four or five seasons in a row, would you still have confidence in the QB ability to predict the coming season?
That is how I view where we are. Burned not twice, but at least a dozen times or more, I discount for obvious reasons the predictions of victory by those who have yet to claim a victory on the playing field.
If you don't mind me asking, on what basis do you disagree? On the facts, or on the future predictions by those who have cried wolf so often?
Don't mean to be contentious, but it seems to me, it is more than a little premature to declare victory. Re-read the Smart Money piece about Wavoid's being delusional about their chances of success and see if any of those shoes fit.
Best wishes--Blue
John: Thanks for an informative post which is as true as far as it goes. Family shares, to my knowledge, are not included in this, nor are those of friends and supporters. Please see my previous post on this matter. My information came directly from Peter, in a personal conversation way back in 1996-97 in Lee with Plympton present. The facts may have changed since, but I doubt it. If so, I'm prepared to say I was wrong.
This company was set up the way it was, according to Peter, so that a hostile bid by a junk-bond funded seeker could not take control. (this was in a much different time). I believe those 5x voting shares class B, are held by those in total agreement with mgt. for the most part, and if push came to shove, the B shares would outvote the A shares everytime.
They may not be registered that way, but I believe the vote would come down much the way I said. If I'm in error, please forgive me. If facts are available to dispute this, by all means please put them out there. I have no reason to believe the material facts have changed, but realize it is possible they may have. This is an important part of the puzzle.
Best to you--Bluefang
Zen: Your analogy, which was flawed in the first place, may have been stretched to absurdity. I never proclaimed to speak for anyone other than myself, let alone, Wave Nation. Nor do I now, in any post.
Your tactic is familiar and a little weary. Rather than debate the facts, you talk about technique. The facts, my dear Zen, are what's elevant.
Would you care to defend the indefensible? Founders Shares, PCFree, etc.? If not, please have a seat. If so, you have the floor--but please stick to the facts and not to rhetorical devices which you are none too adept at.
I would lay off the analogies too, if you can stand a bit of constructive criticism. To compare a company's management to a football team is precious, to say the least, precisely because a team's performance is based on victories. Wave zero, after more than 10 years is not an analogy which serves you and the Wavoid Nation well.
We paid Peter for his expertise at National Semi and for his ideas and patents. But after 10 years of promises at Wave and no delivery, it seems to me, our "player" should be cut from the team, not awarded signing bonuses and options and allowed to take out million dollar non-interest bearing loans that do not have to be repaid. All this for victories declared, but not won on the playing field. For claims without proof. For vapor, without substance.
When Wave deploys and receives significant revenues, you will see a changed person in this quarter. Until then, the past clouds the future. Empty claims without proof or delivery is what I see. More BS and no substance.
Stick to the facts, Zen, when you rebut and you will have a willing audience. Hue to the tried and true Wavoid response and you will lose those who are interested in fact-based argument. Indefensible is indefensible in any language and there is no analogy on earth that can overcome simple truth.
The simnple truth is Wave has had many at bats, and has struck out every time, thus far. Intel is unproven until proven. Promising, yes--but how many other announcements were promising? HWP, IBM (the first time)Hauppauge--the list goes on, but the revenues don't.
You and I both wait until the facts change, but until they do, don't claim victory. Victory lies in revenues coming into the coffers, not bonuses and sweetheart deals going out. The stock is still in the low $3's. Talk to me when it regains some semblance of what it should be.
Bluefang
Doma: We have clashed on this before. I think if you check, you will see that mgt/and/or family/bd of directors has enough voting shares to override any vote by shareholders.
That info comes from Peter, who said it was structured that way to fend off hostile takeovers. May not show on the record books, but that's the way it is.
Best--RG
Lady X: As one who has broken bread with mgt, spoken on the phone, e-mailed them and met them many times--I share your worries and concerns. Personal contact, or lack of it, is irrelevant to the issues being discussed.
You write a very dispassionate plea for accountability and IMO, there has been little or none. Until there are consequences for bad behavior, there will be no accountability. And lack of accountability breeds more bad behavior.
Intel? One aria, does not not an opera make. Could be the start of something wonderful, but there are enough if's, but's, maybe's and other qualifications in there to fill a barge (pun intended).
Money is scarce. Times require tightening all the way up the line, mgt included. We have certainly seen our share of lean times. Shouldn't they lay off the feeding frenzy a bit just for propriety's sake?
Bluefang
Zen: Coles was paid his astounding amount based on what he had done before. Our mgt. has been in place for a decade and has not yet caught a pass, scored a touchdown, made a first down, gained any yardage...etc. Not a great analogy, IMO.
The fact is, the way the company is structured with two different classes of voting shares--the shareholders can not really exert pressure on mgt, except publicly.
We are pretty much going to have to dance with the dance partners we have now.
We could question why mgt and the board of directors did not put a lien on Peter's patents in lieu of re-payment of the loan, or seize his shares, garnishee his compensation, etc ..why not? Because it was a sweetheart deal.
All irrelevant now, that he has paid up--but simply serves to show shareholders' concerns are not foremost in mgt's mind--they (mgt) come first and always have. That conduct is very recent history and is irritating because it indicates to me the mistakes of the past are very much with us in the present. They need a warning shot through the knee, or possibly higher.
Bluefang
Snackman: Mgt behavior is even more an issue going forward than in the past. As we come up on bigger radar screens, there will be more and closer scrutiny. Little, unknown development companies are not held to very high standards.
The partners of Intel, IBM and whoever else may be aboard are different. They will be scrutinized by the financial and other media and analysts. No-interest loans that don't have to be paid back, Founders Shares, gross nepotism and some of the other reeking Wave practices will be deadly, if continued in the future. When we need money to deploy, it is not likely to be coming in, if this is the kind of mgt. that will oversee it.
Why not rectify the wrongs of the past? None of us will mind their municifent compensation, if Wave mgt deploys and delivers on their substantial promise. But the days of bonuses and options for non-execution and non-delivery should be long gone, IMO.
Otherwise, to the outside world the thought of the Sprague family and its friends feeding richly in lean and cash poor times on scarce shareholder money will seem exactly what it is--exceedingly bad judgement and a shaky company on which to invest money.
If we are to play with the big boys, we had better play by big-boys' rules and quit the personal sandbox behavior which has tarnished Wave for far too long.
Zoomer is exactly right about what he says and I heartily second the motion. We can all applaud the recent accomplisments, without endorsing or condoning the mistakes, excesses and despicable behavior of the past. Let's all hope mgt understands they are entering a new arena in which it is kill or be killed in rather quick fashion.
The rush to endorse security is pressing down on all of us. Wave can not afford to dawdle, fumble, or strike any miscues or we will be but a footnote to history, as a magnificent failure.
Fingers crossed, guard up, lasers on--Bluefang
88C--Enlightening! Mr. Patterson does a hachet job to make a buck. Wasn't he also seen on the grassy knoll and outside OJ's place with a bloody glove?
When do you think he joined the world-wide conspiracy to defame Wave? And how much do you think Smart Money paid for this piece? Do you think they pay extra for exaggeration, distortion, and using the National Enquirer style? Do you think the editors at Smart Money just wrote him a check and slipped it into the magazine without editing or vetting for accuracy?
You are entitled to your opinion that he is a sleazeball, but for such a strong word, you provide no evidence beyond your opinion.
By contrast, his piece was filled with facts, quotes and the cited opinions of others with some expertise. There was precious little of his own opinion in that piece. The facts did the talking.
Bluefang
Zen: Actually, people who know me think I can be quite humorous.
I have intentionally bled the humor from most of posts of late, because the humor has a bite and I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler person.
But I suspect, even with a good dash of humor, hilarity even, you would not find my views palatable. And that's fine.
I respect Snackman and consider him a friend. However, I do think he takes a little more on faith than I'm comfortable with. And it doesn't seem to bother him at all when deployment is regularly predicted and then never happens.
I used to be the same kind of believer. But being burned so often by rosy predictions has made me much more careful.
But to your original point, I don't think it is the lack of humor that grates--I think it is my views. If you want more wit with contrarian views than is offered in this quarter, perhaps you could kindly skip over my posts. That would be true reciprocation and would greatly reduce board clutter and the needless sacrifice of so many electrons for so little purpose.
Blue
88C--Yes there have been detractors and those who have twisted the facts to suit their purpose--but in this case, the facts are bad enough.
Let me preface what I'm about to say by stating I have been a Wave investor since 1996 and am still in--that I think, shows I still believe we have potential.
I have been a critic of exactly some of the same things pointed out in this article and more--and for daring to criticize, I have been labelled a basher, a short, a disinformation specialist and many other things, which I am not. I am a believer in Wave, but I do not think our leaders have always been candid, nor have always acted in our best interests, even if they were attempting to.
As this article points out, Wave investors are less clear-headed people making rational choices based on the evidence, but rather more like true believers. This of course is an over-generalization, but not an exaggeration. It was Wavoids who came up with drinking the Koolaid analogy.
We have believed and persisted, despite the evidence. What Mr. Patterson did, was interview other, hopefully objective people about Wave's chances. Those people said Wave did not have much of a chance to become a titan, as we of course, believe we will.
There is no reason for us to believe that Mr. Patterson or any of the other journalists who examine Wave's history have it in for us, or have an agenda. That is foolishness. Journalists who habitually slant stories do not last long. There is no worldwide conspiracy to lie about Wave.
Part of the problem is that Wave is a complicated story and one not easily understood. Journalists have a hard time getting their arms around our story.
And then there are the basic facts, some of which are simply not flattering, such as the $1M loan to Peter, which was forgiven and then paid off after there was a stink about it. This, in my opinion is not good mgt, nor proper oversight by the board of directors.
Of course there will be some who say if we end up in the right place, what difference does that $1m make?
If Peter wanted a loan, he should have pledged his shares as collateral to a lending institution, and not taken $1M out of the cash box when funds were short. Elsewhere, people are going to jail for exactly this kind of thing. The journalist was right to point it out, and the fact that most of the die-hard Wavoids either condone it, or at least don't protest, is proof of the cult mentality. We should not have to make excuses for our leaders. Their duty is to serve our interests, and not their own.
So when there is what is perceived as a negative story, as in this case, there is all sort of rationalization, complaints about bias, blaming the messenger, etc. I contend this was a pretty fair piece. But, when a non-Wavoid looks at all the pieces of the puzzle, they do not come up with the same picture we do.
I suspect virtually any financial journalist, taken at random would come up with a pretty similar story. If we start to succeed, I think we can expect even more scrutiny by the media and some of the things Mr. Patterson did not report, will be reported to even greater dismay by the Wavoids.
Mr. Patterson looked at our company and talked with knowledgeable people. He didn't give us much of a chance. Whether he is right, or we are right, will only be determined in the near future. Suffice it to say, so far he is right, but that of course could change if the world embraces our technology. Otherwise, we become a sad footnote in the evolution of the Internet.
Bluefang
88C--not only would it be nice, it would be uncharacteristically smart. I don't think we want this lad coming back for a follow up and picking up all he missed the first time around. But, I'm sure the insults have already started. Wavoids can't handle the truth.
Blue
Minority Report: My opinion on the Smart Money article--I thought it was fair and balanced on the whole. Some things could have been explained better and some things were not explained at all, but overall--to me, it accurately summed up where we are and where we have been and our chances of making it in the future.
The criticisms of mgt cited have all been made on this board or RB and they are fair.
We have long known this was a long shot investment. IMO, this board has been involved in shooting the messenger.
The usually astute 24601 picked out the wording of one tiny piece to quibble with CPA over, while ignoring the gist of the story.
Wavoids have always been reality challenged and never more so than in their reaction to a fairly comprehensive piece setting out the good, the bad and the ugly.
Unless the facts change, we are not likely to see any articles "more favorable" to Wave.
We have behaved like a cult, blindly following our leaders and we were called on it. I have no problem whatsoever with this piece. It could have been much worse--i.e. Founders Shares, PCFree and the complete nepotism list. It could have pointed out how quarter after quarter, deployment was predicted almost immediately, without it ever happening.
We got off lightly, with a mild rap on the knuckles, rather than a serious beat down. This could have been a far more devastating piece, that could have crushed Wave at a vulnerable time and sent investors and shareholders running for the exits. Interesting no comment tidbit by Gilder, too--in case the company fails. Not exactly a full vote of confidence from a man who professes to see into the future.
Bluefang