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.
Snackman -- couldn't agree more!!!
I am tired of those that try to make you believe untruths.
as stated previously, i have had no involvement whatsoever w/Wave's ongoing legal problems.
it is the last time i will address this issue, as it is the 3rd or 4th time i have done SO!
though TOU for repetitive posts prolly only applies to Dudash's T/A opinions.
cheers!
not spinning a thing - just pointing out some significant inconsistencies & revisionist history.
not surprised by yer willingness to allow the multiple ad hominem messages to remain, fwiw...
regards.
edit: SO, did SKS hold a 35mm slide up to the light?
i would be happy if Wave Systems Corp adhered to the code of ethics they posted on their website (& had done SO at all times that i was a shareholder in the past) -- unfortunately (& IMO), they did not & do not.
IMO there is a reason that Wave is the target of an SEC probe.
feel free to revise history howiever you see fit.
edit: "...to show us a slide..."
SO Snack, is that the story yer sticking with?!?
Public Reply / Private Reply / Keep / Last Read Replies (14) / Next 10 / Previous / Next
Posted by: Snackman
In reply to: None
Date:7/23/2003 2:53:58 PM
Post #of 47059
To All,
Last night we had a private room at a great restaurant in San Francisco. Steven talked to us for four hours. This was a small group of investors, about 9 to be exact. Other than Barge, me and XAM, the others do not post on the boards.
These are only my impressions and I will gladly welcome corrections from XAM and Barge.
I sat next to Steven and Barge was on the other side of him. I could not get in a word edgewise because Barge kept talking to Steven about WEB Services. Actually this is a joke.
I got in a lot of questions as did XAM and Barge. In four hours a lot can be discussed. I keep hammering him on finances and here is my impression on what he said.
He said that a SP investment is probably not going to happen. The reasons given were that it is very difficult for a company to invest in a Public company. They have guidelines, committees and a lot of bureaucracy involved with it comes to investing in public companies. Now, if we were a private company, the deal would be much easier to do. I don’t think it is going to happen but would be surprised and happy if it did.
He admitted that we probably need between 4-5 million dollars, in the short term, to take us where enough revenues will kick in satisfy our burn rate, which by the way, is coming down as fast as they can manage it. His goal right now is to get that short-term money without having any dilution, Zero. In order to do that he needs to get the money from the sale of assets. I got the impression that sale SOL is the best possibility and that other things are in the works such as finding a buyer for our SSP stock. He would love to see SSP bought out. He mentioned that with our holdings, anyone of the other major holders of the stock could take over the company if they so desired. We are the swing stockholders of SSP stock that could make the deal happen. He said we still have good relationships with SSP.
I asked him about Maximus and DoD. He was give permission to show us a slide where it listed companies that were able to do business with the Govt. Unless you are on this list it is not possible. The list was headed by Northrop Grumman and many other names you would recognize. These companies hope to have a plan for security by April 2004. That is the first deadline they imposed on themselves. (I hope I have this right). We were right in the middle of only about 10 companies.
Back to financing. I got the impression that he is not worried about raising funds before October. I asked him why we need more money now when we were told that the last funding should carry us to the end of the year with projected revenues. He said some of the deployment by the OEMs is being pushed into Q1 of 2004, NOT ALL, but some. But on the bright side, he expects to be shipping 1 million units a month next year.
There will be MANY PC OEM’s deploying our Tech in the box before the end of the year. The numbers will really gear up in 2004.
Infinion and National are prime sellers and he mentioned STMicro as a strong contender to be coming on board.
I told him some insider buying would go along way with regards to the moral of the stockholders and to the street. He said that some insiders have been trying to buy for the last four months but their lawyers have not let them do it because with material news coming out it would look like they bought on inside information.
I got the impression that we will get an announcement next week. He said we would get one more than a week from now and less than 6 months. I would bet a lot of money on next Wednesday or Thursday. I do not know how good it will be but I believe we will get something. I think the announcement could be regarding SOL but that’s just my guess.
He said he was in the Bay area to work with a company that is working with HP on touch computer screens for voting. Barge and I did not buy this explanation as to why he was in California. We think there were other reasons but he could not talk about it. Again, that’s just Barges' and my opinion.
He reiterated we are the glue that holds TCG together. Without Wave there would be no TCG. He says the others do not understand what Wave has developed. They are in the dark as to what is needed and what we have. He felt as soon as HP deployed enough units along with IBM that all the others will fall into place. The reason he said they don’t understand it is because the box makers are only selling boxes and they don’t understand what is inside to make them work. They are only interested how much each screw costs. He seemed very confident we have begun the rollout and that it will only increase as time goes on to the tune of a million units a month next year. I believe he said the only difference between a trusted computer and one that is not, is about $25.00. Which one would you buy?
Oh yes, two more things. We talked about putting a shareholder on the BOD. There are positives and negatives. The positive is that it would make a great story in the Wall Street Journal and the negative is that it would not play well with institutions and major partners.
NEC. Seems FINREAD is a long way off and we have the only working unit. The Banks are not moving fast enough in this direction. However, he believes NEC will be interested in TCG though out the area they service and that this will happen before FINREAD.
The Compac/HP deal with Israel is still there but in limbo due to EDS. I got the impression it will happen but the time line is unknown by everyone.
As I keep trying to end this post another thought came up. There is no way Wave will be bought out now at this stage of their development. A buyout possibility will only occur after millions have been deployed and we are running cash positive. I totally agree with this assessment. Again, the POSSIBILITY will be there at that point in time, it does not meen it will happen then or ever.
As Barge and I drove round trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco and did not get home until 5:00 A.M., I am sure that I will remember more things when I wake up and will put them up.
I will say this. My son was there, and he had never heard Steven speak. He is 31 years old and owns a lot of Wave, for better or for worse. He told me, and this was unsolicited, that if he did not own Wave, he would go out and buy it the next day after listen to Steven for four hours last night.
That’s all for now.
Snackman
thanks awk! i'm confident that you want everything to be 100% above board in yer wavx investment & thank you fer the ongoing kind support.
always,
SPIN
greg s -- is pointing out potential SEC violations by a company exec on that company's stock message board w/in the boundaries of the TOU?
see, i'm wondering about the FACT that certain wavoid elders claimed to have had dinner w/Wave Systems, Corp. CEO Steven K. Sprague in San Francisco eight days prior to the Intel PR on July 31, 2003.
some of these wavoids claimed in public posts that the CEO had disclosed a powerpoint slideshow which included specific references to Northrop & the DOD, but there was no subsequent PR or 8-K related to anything NG.
a year later super sleuth DDers have found links which indicate that some of Wave's stuff is being marketed via Northrop.
it seems, IMO, that some select wavoids were possibly privy to inside information at that San Francisco dinner, information that, as a shareholder in Wave Systems (at that time), was not made accesible to me.
SO, i'm wondering if discussions related to potential Reg FD violations related thereto is a permissible subject on an iHub board pursuant to the TOU?
thanks in advance for yer expert (as current INTC board monitor) opinion!
100% JMO!
Dudash - if yer T/A suggested that wavx was might go to $50 soon, wavoids would be hoisting you on their shoulders as a HERO.
100% JMO!
second fave Trippi/Wave webpage
« Howard Dean - A Negative Scenario / Main / Dean Links »
November 06, 2003
Joe Trippi - Mastermind?
I've been busy trying to close my Howard Dean/Emergent Media story for Wired, which accounts for a few days of silence here, but I did notice this very interesting Joe Trippi profile at The New Republic.
Trippi is such an interesting character that I was tempted to make him the center of my story. I chose not to because I wanted to talk about the structure of the campaign rather than background of the man managing it. But now I'm especially glad I didn't go this route, because Noam Scheiber's piece is very good.
Scheiber talks about Trippi's experience as a stock speculator and participant in the infamous Raging Bull message boards. Trippi was a vocal investor in Wave Systems and then an employee of the company. Scheiber is fairly charitable about this, only indirectly alluding to the collapse of Wave's share price. (It ran from the teens to the high forties in 1999 and 2000 and bottomed out at about .75 after the crash - it now floats at around $2.50.) When I first found this out, while doing research for my own story on Dean, I wasn't sure what to make of it. For one thing, I haven't yet figured out if, at the time that Trippi was praising the stock on the message boards, he was also taking a check from the company, or if he stopped hyping the stock when he was hired. And, though I figured quite a bit could be made of this by somebody with an ax to grind, it is the kind of thing that seems most significant to people who are unfamiliar with the rather peculiar environment of the R.B. message boards during the height of the boom. I spent a lot of time on Raging Bull when researching Dumb Money. From Sheiber's piece, it sounds like everybody in the Wave Systems forum knew exactly what was going on with Trippi - and were completely thrilled that one of the online traders who was long on Wave was in a position to communicate directly with the company executives. I suspect that, given the denoument, this may be a slight exageration. On the other hand, Wave survived the crash - albeit after its shareholders took a brutal haircut - and that's more than can be said for most of such bubble companies.
Anyway, for a look at Trippi way back when, here is an interview with random1 from January 27, 2000. This quote is a perfect expression of the machismo of the R.B. boards just before the bubble burst:
"Most of my online friends just cannot figure out exactly what I do for a living, and to tell you the truth there are days where even I don't know. I can be in a Senate race in Oregon one day, on MSNBC or Fox as a commentator the next, and then suddenly find myself on a plane to Greece or Africa, the Middle East, or even Belgrade in the middle of hostilities. Nothing concentrates the mind like a secret police guy with an Uzi pointed in your direction. I get my biggest laughs from online slammers who think they can somehow freak me out of my stock."
Online slammers refers to short-sellers who would jump into a company discussion and spread false rumors (or true ones), trying to create some downward movement so that that could "cover" at a lower price.
Posted by garywolf at November 6, 2003 06:29 PM / TrackBack
Comments
Talked to Trippi today - he says he informed the board immediately when he became an employee of Wave and stopped hyping the stock. I also asked if he still owned any WAVX - he said he didn't know. We had a short, interesting conversation about campaign tactics, and he announced his intention to put 2-3 million volunteers on the street during the end stage of the campaign against Bush next October. A nice, big, bold claim...
Posted by: Gary Wolf at November 7, 2003 03:06 PM
As I recall in that era of the VERY difficult discounting of what WAVE was "worth" it seemed to me that Trippi was clearly "upfront" when he went to work for the company. The core group there was pretty savvy and intolerant of hrsht and many played the rises and falls on news pretty well.
It's still a bit of a puzzle how WAVE DID manage to p*** away the value of a patent that should had given them an edge in the whole E-security arena. Their patent should have yet more value in both the expanding commercial uses of the net as well as for the the "war on terrorism" but seem to have excelled at "will to fail" efforts within.
You may still be able to cruise RB to correlate Trippi's disclusures with joining the company. I'd be surprised if there were dishonesty there, Jack Keane 907-727-5336
Posted by: Jack Keane at December 8, 2003 01:45 AM
http://www.aether.com/archives/000020.html
SPIN
PS yeah, but yer post remained & was both OT & an "attack."
PPS it would seem you missed the point of the sports analogy altogether. c'est la vie i s'pose.
the Cyprus thing almost tempted me, but the audio tape was a fake on 24... i had second thoughts.
good luck!
"National has a number of potential design wins and existing design wins in the marketplace. We’ll communicate those design wins as those customers decide to communicate their products to the marketplace. We’re very pleased with our national relationship..."
SKS
NSM "announcement" was fifteen+ months ago!
Snackman, was today a good day or a bad day for Wave?
can't really tell anymore, they all seem so similar!
all wavoid armchair pyschology & subsequent attempts to steer/shape the dialog aside, as you already know, i spent about a month in Turkey last fall & except for the very far eastern regions bordering Iraq, Iran, Georgia & Armenia, i pretty much saw the entire country.
IMO today's PR is just another joke. the only tech in which Wave could play any significant role in Turkey that would be even remotely exciting as of today would be secure cell phones. Turkey doesn't have much (if any) fiber, their landlines completely suck & virtually everyone uses cell phones. towers stick up all over & clutter the landscape (& wireless is an infrastructure short-cut).
Of course, given some of the states which border Turkey to the east (& certainly some of the Turkish political factions), secure cell phones might also come w/a panoply of other issues (including a military-enforced secular "democracy" that has seen a half-dozen coup de tas in the last generation) to consider which might preclude fast & widespread adoption IMO.
Having seen most of the country first-hand, i can say w/certainty that they are a decade behind in computing technologies. Walk in to the biggest banks or markets in Istanbul or Ankara (for example) & you'd be lucky to see a few 486 machines tethered by ethernet cables duct-taped to the floor and called a "network."
The Turks are trying (& succeeding to some extent IMO) to move fast to catch up, create a market economy, join the EU & firmly align themselves with the West, but a huge portion of the country is poor and agrarian. Though the majority are bilingual and clearly identify w/the West (& damn near every one of them seem to want a U.S. visa!).
It'll be a great tech market (someday) IMO, but as far as selling ETS to the Turks today? that is a complete joke!
AND, if Wave held back this news for any reason whatsoever, it was an absolutely idiotic plan IMO.
The *only* time in recent months where this news would have garnered any degree of outside notice (beyond the wavoids) would have been during the recent NATO conference.
day late & a dollar short IMO...
good luck!
NW - when a demo equates w/revs, wavx will go parabolic.
remember when voids proclaimed that WinHec & the MSFT dog & pony show would translate into a stable pps north of $2?
pure conjecture & there are still 25M reasons why wavx won't close above $2 on a weekly basis for quite some time (if ever).
Wave's "relationship" w/MSFT is underwhelming at best.
Runnin' on empty -- runnin' into the sun but i'm runnin' behind...
edit2: Wave's basis in SSPX = $3-4
You can verify this by tracing back the original exchange in shares (though Wave originally held preferred that were converted or exchanged for common a few years ago -- past 10Ks set out the details).
Wave will take a loss of @ least 50% on that "investment."
btw, awk, who told you that Wave has some MSFT "relationship"? What details (if any) did the source provide about this purported "relationship"?
The only public info related to Wave & MSFT is four years old & Wave has a long history of announcing "relationships" & never updating investors when the "relationship" ends (or when the Euro card reader trial fails, or when the chip company decides to scrap the chip that was supposedly on some slow boat from Asia, or when some phantom Mexico deal falls through, or when there is a lawsuit in Israel that kills some Wave deployment deal, etc.).
Has Trippi figgered out yet if he still owns wavx? Why doesn't he just loan Wave some of the $8M he took in fees from the Dean campaign to prop them up for another Q?
60K share sell tanks wavx? What was it that Snack posted recently about no buyers & no sellers?
Zen, is that buddy still holding all his PP shares? Is he still a well-heeled wavoid?
Still think a buck (or below) is impossible?
good luck!
edit: What do these 5 stocks have in common besides being the 5 most popular on iHub?
Hot Stock Boards Today
1. CMKM - CMKM Diamonds Inc. CMKX Quote/Level II
2. Triangle Multi-Media Ltd., Inc QBID Quote/Level II
3. Wave Systems WAVX Quote/Level II
4. InterDigital Communications IDCC Quote/Level II
5. Pinnacle Business Management PCBM Quote/Level II
past is prologue.
edit2: awk - clever wavoid "stealth" technique. of course i cannot prove the negative which supports that theory. but there is no PUBLIC info to support it either & until there is, the little CEO who cried wolf lacks credibility IMO.
edit2: orda - yeah.
Softee would sue first and ask questions later. Literally as many as 1000 suits in some years for infringement that usually ended up in settlement (leaving many defendants bankrupt).
Misuse is fast proving to be a solid defense that can vitiate the viability of the underlying IP, deeming it unenforceable during any period where it is misused (not just against the adverse parties, but deemed unenforceable as a whole).
it's sort of an "unclean hands" approach. it has huge ramifications for a firm like MSFT, and some notable legal scholars (e.g., Judge Posner in Chicago using an economics perspective) have substantially advanced the theory in recent years and posited that the Constitutionally guaranteed limited monopoly was not designed nor intended to bring harm to others, but rather to advance the useful arts & sciences.
so when a company improperly uses its IP for example, to squash competition in a manner which violates antitrust law, they run the risk of having their IP judicially declared unenforceable during any such period of misuse.
there's also a recent case (think it's RIAA v. sciamatta SP? 2d Cir i think) where the Def is tying a RICO theory to misuse to defend against a napster-based infringement claim. the case is still in the early stages, but if that theory succeeds, companies like MSFT will ultimately become much more cooperative IMO. There's also a case involving Lexmark on appeal (in the 6th Cir i think) which could spread the doctrine cross-country if it receives an appellate imprimatur.
it's a positive development for companies like Wave & given Wave's shaky financial position & presumed inability to properly pursue any IP litigation, maybe even a white knight of sorts.
100% JMO.
edit: here's a string cite for anyone interested:
leading cases:
Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, 293 F.3d 1014 (Posner, J., 7th Cir. 2002); Ty, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., (Posner, J., 7th Cir. 2002); Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir.2003); Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2367; Alcatel U.S.A., Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, ("DSC I") 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996)
cases by circuits:
First Circuit -- Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994). Second Circuit -- CBS, Inc. v. ASCAP, 607 F.2d 543, 544-45 (2d Cir. 1979); Reliability Research Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 68, 69-70 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Coleman v. ESPN, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 290, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1537-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Services, 746 F. Supp. 320, 327-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Third Circuit -- Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Moor-Law, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 758, 772-73 (D. Del. 1981), aff'd, 691 F.2d 490 (3d Cir. 1982); Foreign Car Parts, Inc. v. Auto World, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 977, 979 (M.D. Pa. 1973). Fourth Circuit -- PRC Realty Systems, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Realtors, Nos. 91-1125, 91-1143, 1992 WL 183682 (4th Cir., August 4, 1992); Service & Training, Inc. v. Data General Corp., 963 F.2d 680, 690 (4th Cir. 1992); Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990); Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, et al. v. MAI Systems Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Va. 1994). Fifth Circuit -- Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 861-65 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917 (1980); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1463, 1465-66 (N.D. Tex. 1992). Sixth Circuit -- National Football League v. Rondor, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 1160, 1168 (N.D. Ohio 1993); Budish v. Gordon, 784 F. Supp. 1320, 1336-37 (N.D. Ohio 1992); Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. Co., CV 02-571-KSF, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3734 (E.D. KY. Feb 27, 2003). Seventh Circuit -- qad., Inc. v. ALN Assoc's, Inc., 974 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1992); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Claire's Boutiques, Inc., 949 F.2d 1482 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1942 (1992); Saturday Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1199-1200 (7th Cir. 1987); F.E.L. Publications, Ltd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 214 U.S.P.Q. 409, 1982-1 Trade Cases ¶ 64,632, 1982 Copr. L. Dec. ¶ 25,376 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 859 (1982). Eighth Circuit -- Hill v. Xyquad, Inc. 939 F.2d 627, 631-32 (8th Cir. 1991); United Telephone Company v. Johnson Publishing Co., 855 F.2d 604, 610-12 (8th Cir. 1988). Ninth Circuit -- Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (applying law of the 9th Circuit); Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465, 1482 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'd, Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990); Supermarket of Homes, Inc. v. San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors, 786 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., No. C 92 1539-FMS, 1994 WL 446049 (N.D. Cal. March 18, 1994); LucasArts Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co., No. C-92-4410-VRW (ENE), 1993 WL 760205 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 1993); Microsoft Corp. v. BEC Computer Co., 818 F. Supp. 1313, 1316-17 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 1392, 1399 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, 562 F. Supp. 775, 782 (C.D. Cal. 1983), aff'd, 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984). Tenth Circuit -- Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Colorado Magnetics, Inc., 497 F.2d 285, 290-91 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1120 (1975); Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. v. Feist Publications, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 214, 219-220 (D. Kan. 1987), aff'd, 916 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Eleventh Circuit -- BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing Co., 933 F.2d 952, 961 (11th Cir. 1991), vacated, 977 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 943 (1994); Mastercraft Fabrics Corp. v. Dickson Elberton Mills Inc., 821 F. Supp. 1503, 1511 (M.D. Ga. 1993); Georgia Television Company v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., 1991-2 Trade Cases ¶ 69, 516, 1991 Copr. L. Dec. ¶ 26, 765, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1372 (N.D. Ga. 1991). D.C. Circuit -- National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 614, 651-53 (D.D.C. 1991).
edit2: orda -- very much so. was involved in just such a case last year that never made it to trial.
orda - the doctrine of copyright and trademark misuse (offshoot of time honored patent misuse doctrine) is beginning to take a foothold in a number of circuits & is at what wavoids like to call a "tipping point."
the era of Softee's scorched earth litigation strategem in coming to an end.
btw allman IYO is or was there anything "odious" about Wave mgmt's behavior over the last decade?
100% JMO.
grub / e
grub / e
grub / e
here's my fave part of Wavewebsite
http://www.wave.com/about/Corp_gov_docs/Wave_Code_of_Ethics.pdf
btw, the guy behind the woman on the home page looks like he has a migraine, maybe he bought wavx at $5...
is it July yet?
thanks awk!
didn't bother to listen to the last CC.
apologies in advance if i was impatient, got a 2pm tee time.
ciao!
edit: Gee Snack, that seems sorta hostile.
it is highly unreasonable IMO for wavoids to boldly proclaim things & not provide support.
then again, the Paris office was closed, right ?
edit: nice deletion.
"ask J&C"?!?!
you are joking, right ?
edit (awk): good question cmf!
who keefing knows?
the SEC would have to first approve the shelf registration, which to my knowledge based on Wave's filings, has not yet been declared effective.
it's all conjecture at this point, but if i hadta guess, prolly somewhere between $5M & $20M for a global settlement.
is it July yet?
good luck!
edit: awk, would you please direct me to the document which establishes that the shelf was declared effective? tia.
Texastree - that remains remotely possible.
but the fact that Wave hasn't earned enough to buy a decent used car in almost a year as a result of the vaunted Intel and IBM "deals" tends to support the de minimus allegations IMO. moreover, the "misleading" allegations have some merit IMO. Heck, even 24601's parlex web page claimed Wave's stuff was "embedded" (he later pulled the site offline, but some people prolly did a screen capture of it prior to the removal
the fact that Wave management was selling gobs & gobs of stock into the allegedly artificially inflated price is a problem that is not going away.
anyway, might wanna tweak the management of those expectations. it seems highly unlikely IMO that a "toss out" is in the offing.
100% JMO
good luck!
edit: no problem Jay
1) so it would seem.
2) you would hafta ask Judge Ponsor.
3) yes, but i doubt the court would do so sua sponte (on its own initiative). it also seems highly premature at this point where there has been no fact finding yet or any sort of hearing/s & i don't think Wave filed a motion to dismiss (rule 12(b)(6)).
even if they did move for dismissal, i don't see what their grounds would be b/c the complaints seem to sufficiently allege valid claims and articulate causes of action. fwiw, dismissals aren't all that common to my knowledge.
4) as tempting as it may be, i will refrain from making any pun regarding the "hold up" remark. certification can be akin to "rubber stamp" where there is no disagreement regarding who will be the lead plaintiff/s. not the case here -- at least two groups wrangling over who will get that status.
not sure i agree w/you on the "no news is good news" theorem (but i'm also a recovering wavaholic). it suggests to me that you can prolly expect Wave to be a defendant for quite some time (which obviously cannot be good for business) & in the event the SEC releases any adverse findings, the procedural delays in the civil matter will have been an advantage to the claimants as any such SEC determination/s will presumably be folded into the class actions and derivative claims pleadings by amendment.
if the SEC does find insider trading, Wave's goose is cooked in the civil matters IMO.
i suspect that there will be a determination that certain individuals violated insider trading laws, with fines & disgorgement being the most likely minimum results.
100% JMO.
good luck!
edit: SO Doma, i was WRONG! the "office" lease is three years longer than i guessed. where did you learn that they were able to break the lease? was it the same source as scorpioesq's $5M phantom contract?
sorry - prolly didn't read the post
don't recall seeing this anywhere. didn't the last 10K indicate Wave had a long-term lease for the Paris "office" that ran until 2007 (or so)?
where did you locate this info?
how did they get out of the lease?
not that i don't trust you, but would you provide a link please? you must admit you have made mucho predictions in the past which have not even come close to fruition.
btw, many hearing impaired people are able to read.
yer post seems sorta like bigotry IMO.
good luck!
i do have Pacer access.
nothing new - Wave still hasn't filed any responsive pleadings.
claimants have filings to establish which group will be the lead plaintiff, but there has been no ruling.
good luck!
hey CL!
do you think Stevie can convince the lawyers to work for copies of CSP instead of being paid?
Wave hasn't filed a thing in the lawsuits since April.
good luck!
thanks Jay!
wonder how much they will save by eliminating the 800 #?
if you were in charge Jay, what would you do to raise the funds needed to keep the lights on?
think they could break the lease on the Paris "office"?!?
good luck!
thanks JD! is it July yet?
didn't Wave disclose that the TeamSprague cookie jar would be empty in July?
isn't tomorrow July?
how in hades are they gonna dump that $25 worth of paper when every fluffy PR is met w/more selling?
has the SEC approved the shelf yet?
can't dump the sspx either (3K volume so far today).
isn't tomorrow July?
good luck!
didn't Wave used to have a toll free # on its website?
now they have a toll call # on the home page?
guess it's one way to save a little coin, but IMO it comes off as sorta shabby marketing when world dominion is just another few Qs away!
then again, the CSP is free, so why shouldn't customers have to pay for the call?!?
good luck!
"Some times the obvious is right before our eyes isn't it?"
it sure is, Whitewash... it surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre is.
good luck!
IRISH - now it's Quixtar
like so many other POS companies, just changing the name while the game stays the same!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4375477/
nice post!
certainly you could ask the same of Stevie.
surprisingly, you never tire of his regular stream of embellishment, exaggeration & hyperbole despite the same dismal results.
why is that?
100% JMHO!
the "market" obviously disagrees RWK, but if yer hauppy, i'm hauppy!
ciao!
"... shares that are cheap relative to intrinsic value such as is the case with Wave..."
you mean like a price-to-sales ratio of something like 400-500?
or maybe the enterprise-to-price ratio of something like 300-400?
or maybe you meant the price-to-book of something near 10?
or was it the return on equity, which is a negative > 200%?
or maybe it was the SIXTEEN CENT book value per share?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WAVX
you purport that wavx is: "...cheap relative to intrinsic value..." yet you cited nothing whatsoever to support this claimed "intrinsic value." if you think it's "cheap" now, what do you suspect will be the result of the floating of another $25M? that is, of course, assuming the SEC even declares the shelf effective, which according to the most recent Wave filings has not yet hauppened.
informing this board of the Berlin listing was not rooted in "FUD" & i possess no direct evidence of the existence of a naked short effort thereto, other than obvious trends i.e., capped rallies & a 45+ degree downtrend for 12 months.
why hasn't Wave undertaken any effort to remove the foreign listing? or if they have, why haven't they informed their shareholders?
anyway, have a good weekend!
. <font color=red> !!!FREE DIG SPACE!!!
s5elected bolds - just fer you:
think there are individual/s &/or entities who simply cannot wait for Wave to dump $25M in new paper?
good luck!
100% JMHO
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04062514.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y
OUR TAKE
Naked Shorting in Berlin
By Rich Duprey
June 25, 2004
Despite sounding like the scene from a risqué, smoke-filled cabaret, hundreds of companies are finding themselves set up to be the victims of a naked shorting scam on a small and, until recently, unheard-of German bourse, the Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange.
Short selling is a perfectly valid tactic of investors. Oftentimes, it is a short seller who uncovers the dirt of a seedy operation, or at least some weakness in a business plan. Professional short sellers are known to be very thorough in their research.
In a regular equity transaction, an investor buys shares of a company -- goes "long" -- in the hopes that they will go higher. When it does, she sells the stock and pockets the profit. She's buying low and selling high.
A short sale works the same way, only backwards.
When an investor shorts a stock, he borrows shares from a broker's inventory and puts them back on the market, hoping the price of the shares fall. He's actually borrowing shares from someone who is long. If the price falls, he buys them back (called "covering") at the lower price and returns them to the broker. He, too, pockets the profit by selling high and buying low.
The Motley Fool's old Rule Breaker portfolio even shorted companies on occasion, like it did with Guitar Center (Nasdaq: GTRC) and Sirius Satellite (Nasdaq: SIRI).
"Naked shorting" is a completely different kind of striptease act. There is no borrowing of shares, so there can be no returning them to the buyer. This can result in more shares being traded than were actually issued, diluting the value of the stock, which can lead to panic among legitimate investors as share prices are driven sharply lower.
Until the Securities and Exchange Commission began cracking down on the practice of naked short selling, Canada was a prime location for these operations. Now they've apparently moved overseas to Germany, to the Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange. In fact, Investors Business Daily has said that a single broker at market-maker Berliner Freiverkehr is primarily responsible for listing hundreds of companies on the bourse without their knowledge.
Most of those listed without their knowledge are small, over-the-counter stocks like 5G Wireless (OTCBB: FGWC) and China Wireless (OTCBB: CWLC). Not exactly household names and thus more easily scammed. But a few other larger companies have been affected as well. Teva Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: TEVA), Check Point (Nasdaq: CHKP), Amdocs (NYSE: DOX), and Koor Industries (NYSE: KOR) have all found themselves trading on the bourse without their consent.
The insidious practice caused GoAmerica (NasdaqSC: GOAM) to be threatened with delisting from the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. It claims its stock was manipulated on the Berlin-Bremen exchange and that caused it to fall from Nasdaq's good graces. It is appealing the decision.
Companies have been demanding that their stocks be removed from the German exchange in droves. For the most part, the bourse has complied, but it takes into account how long the shares have been trading there, whether they are also listed on other exchanges, and whether the listing standards in the company's home market are similar to those of Berlin-Bremen. It, of course, denies any wrongdoing.
Short selling is a valid investment strategy, one even practiced here at The Motley Fool on occasion. Yet the practice of naked shorting has left many companies feeling, well, naked.
Fool contributor Rich Duprey feels the public would be traumatized if he were to go naked. He does not own any stocks mentioned in this article.
beee--eye--ennnn--geee--ohhhh
splain this:
why did i load up on wavx last spring @ $1 & dump it all just below $5?
never say never.
according to Weby, voids fear missing a $10 gap up.
i fear being trapped in an SEC-imposed trading halt (among other things).
guess that's what makes a market.
whatever Snack.
if the SEC turns up nothing & the CA suits result in nothing & Wave someday proves to be the security world's sliced bread, i'll drop more dough back in well before the rest of the world knows about it.
almost haup it does take off eventually b/c i'll be there & as a former wavaholic, i'm usually able to read wavoid trading like a comic book.
but an official sounding Wavoid Web Site doesn't really convince me of much, nor has 99% of what i've seen from this company in the last year.
also, by all means, please keep bolds' attack post on the board, they are like notches in the belt.
is this June the one that is yours ?
100% JMHO!