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.
edit: credibility off the cliff:
show me where i posted that Wave would get screwed by RAND licensing buddy!
i posted that it did not add to strategic value in a takeout when Mig was speculating that Wave would be bought out.
i posted that the RAND licensing made it unnecessary to buy the company to get access to the pertinent TC IP.
have held my tongue all weekend until i read that outright LIE.
used to think you were one who was beyond reproach, now yer just beyond the pale!
SKS responded to some of his devotees that he thought it was assumed, obvious, etc., that Wave would increase its cost structure to grab market share in 2004... uhhhh, yeah, i assumed that too & it was OBVIOUS!
then he qualifies his rev guidance w/the 2003 burn rate... does that make sense to anyone? if the cost ramp was "obvious" then the orginal guidance was:
SKS: "And on a short term basis we think we can reach the point where the company gets to cash flow breakeven sometime in 2004."
that language necessary implies the "obvious" cost increases of gaining market share (& i suspect that many, many, MANY bought on that comment). it does NOT mean based on today's burn, it means based on 2004's burn!
he got you ALL again & most of you have spent the weekend sweeping more crud under the rug... the lump in the middle of the room is bigger than the furniture, yet to most of you, it isn't even there!
24, you always try to needle about context, yet you just blatantly took my RAND comments & twisted them into a new meaning that has no semblance to what i posted.
similarly, all the apologists have circled the wagons to defend the statement bolded above...
news flash... SKS *did* suggest that Wave Systems Corp would be CASH-FLOW BREAKEVEN "SOMETIME" IN 2004.
you've all been had again by steven's mysteriously shifting milestones.
maybe it rallies tomorrow, maybe even rallies for the week.
but the fact remains that breakeven was just pushed out AT LEAST another year.
but of course NSM is shipping, it's probably even on a boat somewhere.
LOFL!
SKS: "So, the company now has access to the resources that we need in order to operate. The recent exercise of options has brought in additional cash was something that really helped to strengthen our balance sheet. We continue to work towards strengthening the overall company, and the ultimate way to do that is to drive the revenue base so this company reaches a cash flow break even position. And we think that's very achievable in 2004."
i notice that no voids bothered to post any quotes from the Q2 CC & i already know the reason why... it's much more fun to post "true DD" about pie-in-the-sky Euro launches.
John Lewis, [??] Capital: "Hi guys. I was just trying to get,I jumped on the call a little late here, I was just trying to figure somethings out. What was the guidance for revenue to get you to that break evennumber in 2004?"
SKS: "I haven't been really specific on the numbers for that.What I can say is that the market begins to engage in fourth quarter in volumeon a number of different platforms. We expect to realize revenue from shipmentsin fourth quarter/first quarter. Because it will some time to realize, for theprocess to flow through as to how many units shipped, etc., and get the royaltycheck actually mailed to you."
Steven Sprague has made countless statements that are not even close to reality. i've read the posts since last night & a large portion of them substantiate what the financial press called a "Wave of Delusion."
SKS: "So, I think I can help provide clarity to the … So, aswe said before we think sort of the driving revenue of the company starts infourth quarter. That you'll see the actually recognition of the beginnings ofthat revenue in first quarter of next year. It's our hope that in calendar 2004we reach a point of cash flow breakeven for the corporation."
these quotes are all available from the Q2 CC.
it was "obvious" from a business perspective that SKS' statements related to a breakeven milestone in 2004 necessarily included increasing fixed & variable costs to meet market demand.
now he is saying that he omitted what was supposedly "obvious"...
it's almost comical to see so many smart people lap up what is served & ask for seconds! & btw, nothing that i've posted here means the stock goes to $0, blah, blah, blah... for all i know it rallies into December. but i do know that threadbare credibility earned by the INTC announcement has been worn away.
i also know that the multiple statements made by this company's CEO just 3 months ago were completely off the mark & he moved the target yet again. meanwhile, many of you here are in such a kool aid stupor that you have actually rationalized away the meaning of the words stated & morphed "designing" into "shipping" etc., etc., etc.
SKS put the FU back in "fun" when he said that wavx wouldn't be half the fun w/out all of its risk!
whatever...
edit: yeah & named yerself after a car, who woulda ever thought you'd post something as meaningless as what follows this post. thing is, namedafteracar, i just posted 4 or more quotes from the sacred cow that clearly demonstrate w/his own words everything that needs to be said about this entire debate... he said "breakeven in 2004" he did little or nothing to qualify it in any way. it was interpeted by many to mean what most thought it meant, "breakeven in 2004."
"PP guys are more pissed than we are if true."
PP guys are also the type w/lawyers & lots & lots of ammo.
any protracted litigation could bring an end to Wave, "literally" & maybe even in a "few weeks."
Snack - sorry you don't like my "takes" -- to that i say TOO BAD!
SKS has had an unending source of support for this sort of behavior from you & many others... it's called enabling (YES pun intended!). You & others have let him get away w/it for years & years & years.
& btw, the Wave of today is not the opportunity i invested in back in 98-99. the scale doesn't seem nearly as big (despite barge's vision, which the greed side of me subscribes to).
BUT as i write this i see wavx climbing @ the close...
IMO it's a cell phone thang Sam
people left that meeting & said to themselves, Holy **** gotta get out of the 50K shares just added to my "core" this thing isn't gonna see a profit until... who knows, i just want out!
dial-dial-dial
void:
get me out of wavx @ market!
broker:
you sure?
void:
yesssssss!
no secret e-mail list Sam -- we were all invited to the resort for some Berkshires "hospitality."
the "community" worked as it should... somebody had valuable info & posted it (of course it wasn't believed @ first per usual) but now it is disseminated.
it *is* worth noting that this breakeven push-out is now digested info & if the efficient market theory holds any water, the price seems really solid here @ $1.65.
i have buys staggered under the price that don't look like they'll get filled -- maybe not the worst thing in the world...
edit TH: Mjan... keep it on yer watchlist @ least.
i walked away in November 2000 & set up an auto-alert. for a while i'd check the quote occasionally & scan the board once a month or so & eventually the grip of the grape Kool Aid faded.
but i'm really glad i set up that alert.
man, if you've been on this same slog since the QDEK days you KNOW pain! what was your ID back then? were you on yahoo! before RB?
take care & good luck!
yer pal,
SPIN
PS it's called "parody." guess you didn't see it. btw, i like that little worm thingy signature (that was sarcasm, btw, in case you didn't see that either).
edit: Horseman -- SO, is $1.56 still the bottom?
edit3 D&O: that's what i suspected Toro - thanks.
look @ the chart:
http://139.142.147.22/GifChartEngine.dll?interval_day=6&cus=0&indexSymbol=&securityType=....
prolly as much of a coincidence as the downturn following the Q3 CC & the PPers getting their hands on this stock & rasslin' it to the mat w/a full nelson.
anybody have a crystal ball?
or even a magic 8 ball?
damn...
edit: D&O i really don't know what to think anymore bud...
edit2: i *did* sell in the high 4s (around $4.82 or something, when it broke down @ $5) & have been AIMing it ever since, but it's now only as if it was trading in the mid $3s for me (based on my original buy). i need to really think about this over the weekend.
edit3: Snack -- b/c SKS keeps doing it again & again!!! this is serious & i thought it was getting better & it seems apparent that it is not! if SKS keeps making representations that are erroneous (being generous) i will keep making note of it irrespective of whether i'm in or out.
thing is, it doesn't matter what my position is when i criticize him for this BS b/c time & again i have taken him to task against my holdings. so thanks for the effort to try to make it about my trading, when in fact it is about the CEO being unreliable in his guidance!
maybe SKS takes MBA classes @ night!
& just learned that part, b/c it would seem he was totally unaware that the burn would have to grow w/a ramp-up when he predicted cash flow breakeven by end of FY 2004.
seems like something that a reasonable investor might consider material in a buy/sell/hold decision.
& this Snack, is my biggest complaint by far!
& while it doesn't necessarily make SKS a "liar," it makes his words totally unreliable.
he predicted $19mil in revs way back when in response to the GROW analyst's question. He was given room to back away from the guidance but instead re-affirmed it.
during the "best CC ever" he said bubkus about breakeven timeframe & it was definitely a factor in my AH sell.
now he is pushing that goal out a year to a year +
AND, i'd say any of this to your face, his face, his dad's face or their lawyer's face!
SKS needs to focus on making statements that he can back up & that come to fruition. i'd much rather hear him say he doesn't know yet, or it's too early to say w/any degree of specificity.
instead he makes claims & then has to significantly modify them just ninety days later.
you cannot tell me w/any level of honesty that this stuff doesn't upset you!
btw, is your son still gobbling up shares?
tia
edit TORO: none of that is necessary TH!
i'm just curious what you based the call upon --- T/A - F/A - level II volume, hunch, whatever... you said "experience."
not trying to skewer you, just curious b/c i've been trying to figger this out for quite some time & the only thing that fits is either PP manipulators (coupled w/option expiration), or, severely slippling fundamentals (such as mtd's report from SHM).
if you are wrong, just send the Benjamin to Snack as a contribution for drinks @ the wavoidapalooza in Vegas!
fwiw, i haup you are right (just getting really, really, really concerned).
edit: Toro -- what time did the SHM end? tia.
TH have U looked @ 2 month chart?!?!
you are calling this a bottom based on what?
if Wave hires a lawyer it'll prolly be Gloria Allred!
edit: mtd -- grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
edit2: AWK - MB order filled yet?
speaking of, " Have asked the question and will share any answer," AWK, would you please update on the status of your MB order?!?
it seems way overdue IMO.
please tell me you have it & are installing it right now!
tia
edit: has anyone been able to dig into http://www.jpcarey.com
?
they are the placement agent for this installment of "as the wavx churns" & there is a major dearth on info available on this outfit on the web. their site wouldn't work for me *after* it loaded 3mb worth of stuff. i tried it 4-5 different times on two different machines using different platforms & used both ie & navigator w/no luck.
tia
edit2: TY AWK -- please update when you get that thing fired up & on the web!
edit: rachel -- see mtd's post.
if mtd is being truthful, s/he got the info from today's SHM.
fwiw, but i for one wouldn't doubt it in the least.
Wave has always had a massive "fudge factor" & the damn stock ain't acting like the earlier predictions were exactly "conservative."
edit: AND if the SHM ended around noon, look @ the chart! there is very aggressive block selling -- around 250,000 shares were dumped then. that would fit w/mtd's posted breakeven info IMO.
http://139.142.147.22/GifChartEngine.dll?interval_day=6&cus=&indexSymbol=&securityType=1...
edit: SKS said breakeven 2004? NOW it's 2006?!?!
wavxmaster wrote: "I'm not living at Neverland!!"
you sure about that?
edit: Q2 CC i think (8/14/03). SO, maybe the stock *is* a good indicator for rollout rates as it has been sliding downward ever since that prediction 3 months ago... $1.60 might look expensive in 3 more months.
hey AWK:
could you please post confirmation whenever you receive the Intel MB you ordered 2-3-4 weeks ago?
i'm really surprised you haven't received it yet... tia
Snack - i read you loud & clear. you should know by now that i think there is an incredible opportunity here. but until the dreams either become reality or become vanquished it remains mere opportunity & one that is fraught w/risks.
24 - "I don't know where these people [PPers] get off, legally." i see & agree. ty.
i tried to research the placement agent @
http://www.jpcarey.com
the website didn't work & i wasn't able to learn much via google 'cept they seem to specialize in Reg D finance deals & are based in Hotlanta.
I have met Steven Sprague, introduced myself & shook his hand... even told him I was SPIN. Looked him in the eye & came away from the meeting feeling unsure.
Snack, you know my claim to have met him is true b/c it was on the same day we met. i came to LA for the e3 convention & witnessed him evangelicize.
You know my name & much more about me. Presumably so does SKS. You think sending him a private e-mail is brave, yet making these statements on an archived thread for all to see is cowardice? uhhhhh, okay.
i'm 100% long right now... any posts i make w/negativity are 100% against my trade.
my posts don't coincide w/my position. that's not how i do things. IMO that PP is shadier than slim.
the closest i come to having any correlation b/tw my trades & posts is the times when i refrain from posting something negative while i'm long.
half-truths & deceptive omissions have been put before this thread coming from the mouths of spragues. you can puff up yer chest all you want but the record is there & no denial can be persuasive when it comes to many of these matters.
IMO my public admonitions are more effective & i see no point in sending an e-mail that cannot be viewed by lurkers.
Snack, if it pleases you, by all means forward this or any other post of mine you like (or dislike i s'pose) to SKS.
Taksim Square gets hit w/2 pick-up truck bombs @ around 4am eastern. 25+/- dead, 400+ injured. HSBC bldg & UK Consolate were targets.
I've been to Taksim Square & it is a crowded area of commerce, esp @ lunchtime (it was around 11am Turk time). al Qaida involvement is suspected. Turkish stock market closed. Presumably the US & UK will evacuate all non-essential personnel...
fear (& greed).
Doctor: "For the life of me...I can't figure out why everyone thinks getting another two quarters translates into a great pp."
IMO the vast majority do NOT think it translates into a great pp either. maybe they are reluctant to discuss it aloud (or in print for all to see) for a variety of reasons?
it might be b/c of the unpopularity of dissenters, or maybe the fear that if these grievances are aired, the stock'll go even lower?
it could be deep-seeded denial. embracing the fact that the spragues, a family that IMO doesn't care one bit about the very investors that permit them to live lives of bon vivants while voids live the life of Reilly, just might be less than honest.
that is a prolly difficult realization to reach -- one that could be the remaining piece in a game of psychological jenga that if pulled out might cause some to lose their fragile faith altogether.
i'm very grateful that you, one of the "originals" stepped up & posted what i believe many of the originals are quietly thinking. you are among that short list of influential posters from yesteryear that has truly seen it all w/this company & much of what the St. Louis Univ. professor of ethics referred to in the "Wave of Delusion" article as "shennanigans."
when compared w/the situation as it existed in the mid-Spring, this pp is much, much, MUCH worse than the prior one IMO. this one sliced off over a third of the market cap in < 4 trading sessions. this one eliminated $53million in exhange for $7mil. this one has supposed worldwide TC services domination on the heels of the INTC PR, etc.
i understand why voids get mad @ me, CL, BF, cpa, HhH, etc., but none of those posters cited are idiots by any stretch & each comes to the table w/a great deal of wave knowledge as well as knowledge from their respective fields. HhH has a near blanket ignore from most here, but he made a really valid point (well, dozens actually) that is worth evaluating.
in the Spring CC, CL asked SKS about financing needs. SKS said Wave needed $7mil to get through March '04. SKS was very clear to include references to sales of securities as well as revs in the equation that would get them there. execs & employees exercised options into the INTC spike & 4 months later w/no revs, meager sale of SSPX in the face of heavy volume & a 100% gain in a month-long rally. they are back to the printing press.
all inferences now point to revs being pushed out further than previously thought. SKS predicted in the summer CC that Wave could achieve breakeven sometime in '04. He made no such statement in the last "best ever" CC.
SO, here comes Wave yet again w/hat in hand 4 1/2 or so months later to print more shares... when SKS answered CL's questions, he made NO reference whatsoever to a follow-up PP w/in just over a Q. none.
that by itself is an enormous problem that wavoids have the power to change but don't seem to realize it. or maybe they realize it but are afraid to assert their power? i dunno, but there have been clear instances where mgmt has curtailed some of their BS in response to S/H displeasure.
the fact that the PP is class A shares & warrants is a positive, but it doesn't mitigate the end results. not by a long shot!
again, if the TPM rollout was the "sure thing" that some here like to believe, long term bank financing would have been the optimum means by which to get deployments going & revs flowing.
instead, they print more shares @ a discount that results in a loss of $53 mil from the market cap! IMO there are bigger, more troubling reasons why they won't use bank financing, reasons that most voids don't want to delve into. reasons that if true, incinerate all of the optimists' hopes & dreams in one blinding neutron blast.
i really hope voids'll step up & express their views on some of this stuff b/c SKS is @ the helm yelling "stroke! stroke! stroke!" & the wavoids are on the verge of having one & wavx is hemorrhaging!
----------------
24 -- i (think i) understand your FD comments. if i've construed it correctly, you seem to be suggesting that Wave's responsibilties end w/FD in this instance & are merely responsible for assuring that the "accredited" investors acknowledge the confidential nature of the non-public disclosures. whatever happens after they have selected the group of PP investors & obtained the acknowledgement is not their concern or responsibility & that any stock manipulation in the secondary market by the PP agent, MMs or the PP investors acting alone or in concert is irrelevant as far as Wave is concerned.
i guess that's a bunch of "smart words" from me & while i'm @ it, i should say that i'll try harder to get along better w/you in the future. but @ the same time, i like to believe in fair play & i don't see much of it here & the (some of) the same people that'll look the other way w/corporate (mis)governance & other similar shadiness, will also be some of the first to toss around entirely unsubstantiated allegations of price manipulation by negative posts.
i'm long & wrong right now... & i had finally submitted as much trust for Lee as i could muster in a post dot.bomb era. that same trust was vaporized w/the CC, the $2.71--->1.85 decline in days & what i believe was frontrunning on the stock by the very people that Wave & its agent selected to "loan" 'em money.
it was a mugging.
SPIN
PS Snack -- you are 100% correct & it's my bad for assuming you deleted it b/c you were active on the thread @ the time & 2b has been under the radar for quite some time -- i doubted it was Matt (though considering that riptide2004's post included one of the "7 dirty words" in the title, it could have easily been Matt).
PPS GET WELL SOON Nelzoni! BOTH of you!!
edit2: would it be illegal?
for select "accredited" investors to be privy to material non-public information (such as a PP, its terms, dollar amount, prices & date of announcement) & then trade their allocated shares (or warrants) ahead of the market? (edit: yes, before i receive some pedantic school marm prattle about how the shares are not yet effectively registered, i am referring to the much-posted about short-against-the-box theorem)
IMO a PR stating Wave is seeking funding before the year-end released in conjunction w/the "best CC ever" is insufficient public disclosure to permit these select few "accredited investors" to trade ahead of today's release.
unless of course it is a coincidence that wavx traded right down to the PP price before the public was notified...
it was a coincidence, right?
good thing wavx ain't marginable in most parts b/c this "coincidence" prolly woulda hurt voids much more than the mere loss of $53mil in market cap.
but i'll bet SlateColt is not happy w/the price he sold @... he deserved much better than this outcome after a half decade of waiting...
i know, i know, nobody put a gun to his head...
yep, just a coincidence.
let them eat cake!
edit: what hauppened to riptide2004's profanity laden response? it's in my mailbox but never made the board... Snack is your trigger-finger really so fast that it never made the board?
edit: if sprague devotees claim BF's posts are repetitive, assuredly the following post must be similarly characterized, irrespective of its "feelgood" tone.
edit2: wasn't referring to FD, but rather 10(b), among other relevant secs. the "coincidence" seems to frustrate the very purpose & underlying public policy of the Exchange Act.
edit: i woulda thought.
CL bought today too... i bought recently too.
i'm livid w/the circumstances of the PP & the other issues noted in prior posts, but i don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!
wavx is gonna go up & Lee will probably release something that will gin the price back up to where it was pre-CC.
but it didn't need to go down this way...
*that* is the point.
but i'm sure sharp pencils in the drawer like Ramsey, GoKite & 24 know this to be true... but it goes against their pecuniary interests (short-term @ least) to excoriate Lee... but if CPA has ever posted anything believable, it was that Wave employees monitor this board to see what the S/Hs will tolerate.
PJS did not pay back the loan b/c he is altruistic!
CharityWave, notwithstanding of course...
edit:
Schneider: Good. Thanks. A couple of questions, from the press release it said that you are looking for substantial volume increases. I'm wondering if that is from the US are you seeing traction in Asia via NEC or even National Semiconductor? And the second part of my question, the second question is, you said you are considering some financing options, including the sale of class A. How much money are you looking for?
SKS: .So I’m not going to comment on the investment side of this. What I said in the quarterly press release is all I'm allowed to say.
edit: i'm not @ all embarassed!
i would think a lawyer employed in the public trust would not be so eager to defend corporate moves that harm s/hs.
i would think a lawyer employed in the public trust would be very offended by the less than forthright communications coming from HQ & would speak up against some things that are arguably malfeasance or at minimum are entirely reckless.
e.g., do you think it was right for PJS to remark in the 3/31/03 CC that "literally a few weeks" a "series" of PRs? sprague should be embarrassed! do you support the fact that Feeney never paid back his forgiven loan & dumped wavx into the INTC spike @ $5.
i don't consider what i've stated as "backpedaling" @ all... Wave holds 4.5 million shares of SSPX +/-
SSPX recently had a break-out that included substantial (record) volume. Wave coluld have certainly unloaded millions of shares @ higher than it is now (knowing that they needed the $)
they sold around 200K shares.
you defend their decision to print more shares & seek to dismiss my observations.
that's fine, but it says mucho about your posture.
24, why didn't Feeney pay back the "forgiven" loan (a loan that if issued today would violate Sarbannes-Oxley & was done just before the law went into effect).
should Gerry Feeney be embarrassed for not paying back his loan when the company desperately needs operating capital?
nahhhh, float s'more stock & cut s'more bonuses & deal out s'more options... using rubber stamped renewals of the 1994 plan!
yep... sounds fair & appropriate.
edit:
rather dishonest to edit your post 24 & not designate it as such... tsk! tsk!
edit: again 24
trying to distort what i originally wrote.
which was (to the effect) that the 2 *most* valuable things in a take out of Wave, the 2d was its IP, but then countered it w/the fact that nobody needs to buy the company to have access to any of the the IP that is relevant to the TCG specs.
there is a BIG difference b/tw my stating a "top two" list & your "discounting to zero" scenario.
do you *really* think i could post the explanation of RAND you requested & simultaneously overlook the fact that the royalties would be paid to Wave (or their successor in interest)?
if so, why did i include in my RAND explanation discussion about reasonable royalties paid by licensee TCG members to licensor TCG members?
i think you already know the answers to all these questions before you distort the issues.
the point about this RAND stuff is largely unrelated to what i've been posting about today...
the RAND stuff was about whether Wave makes for a good strategic takeout (e.g. someone like INTC or MSFT) & i argued it is not worthwhile for them b/c they have access to the pertinent TCG IP already by virtue of RAND.
edit:
Ramsey2: could you articulate what you think changed b/tw August & November that permitted Wave to disclose new factors to PP investors? are you implying the PPers were privy to run rates, etc? or are you talking about things like Wave demonstrating their tech @ three booths @ once?
please explain how NDAs prevented Wave from seeking capital when the stock was in the high $3s?
it seems obvious that SKS & Feeney knew the stock wasn't worth $5 as they were dumping shares... why weren't they "leveraging" the "momentum" that they wish we could participate in, in terms of the market cap (which is down roughly 2/3s since then?)
edit 2: Okay Snack...
but please be sure to apply that standard equally. i'm not gonna cry when die-hards slam me or similar posts towards others (which there have been *many* such posts).
i also don't consider the words or letters i've used to be "vulgar" @ least not in the sense of Network TV standards & practices, but it's your board (more or less).
so i see where the line is & i'll stay on the side that doesn't result in deletion.
not dilution OR delusion mind you...
PS yeah okay sully, you're right. what i meant in that post that you're parsing 1% of & ignoring the other 99% of is that wave should have been able to trade 150% of the month's volume & done all of it @ the high... yep, you're right!
it's a curious focus on your part though! also, you didn't have any smart aleck reply for my stated bases for my previously stated conclusion as to why the TCG RAND rights don't necessarily add value to Wave as a takeout candidate... abject silence.
just pay the TCG dues & the royalties & you get access to the relevant IP.
edit:
GKS -- has the NEC deal from how many years ago resulted in dime one of additional orders from NEC? *that* is what i meant by INTC & NSM possibly being proven later to be mere market test runs rather than full-scale deployment roll-outs...
& GKS let's look @ this in this sense, you say, "your posts go on" but what is really @ issue if the volume of syccophant optimistic posts versus the volume of skeptical posts.
as you well know, the volume of sprague supporter posts on this board farrrrrrrr outweigh the volume of posts that question that line of thinking.
it's about the total volume on the board, not from the few individuals that know enough about wave & are willing to challenge the zealots.
but i suspect you already knew all of this!
edit2:
Ramsey wrote: "You didn't answer my question about how much would you pay in a PP at this point."
Okay fine -- even though i've posted that IMO it isn't as much about the price as other factors, i'd ask why they were not working on the PP the day after the INTC PR (when they assuredly could have rec'd far north of $1.90 sometime in late august or september.
so you asked me to pick a price -- i'd say $3 (back in september) for the warrants & $2.50 for the common. which IMO is also a fair takeout price ($3). not even the most zealous sprague supporter can say that they are pleased w/the terms & circumstances surrounding this financing when they think back to August.
then you wrote: "As far as the bridge loan, Feeney et al weren't born yesterday. There must be some reason that debt financing is not better than equity...tough spot right now."
there *must* be some reason Ramsey... i agree 100% & *that* is what i'm trying to get @!
tough spot indeed!
edit: "being SPIN Malcovich"
that's truly clever GKS.
i don't need to go to the resort to chat w/SKS... i know what i think about wave's management & the circumstances surrounding this financing deal.
AND in light of the fact that the INTC deal was made public well prior to this placement, IMO the terms of this financing are far worse than the prior PP relative to the public knowledge about the company @ the time the placement was distributed.
If the INTC deal was everything the stalwarts suggest it is, shouldn't Wave have been able to get bank financing?
the "I agree that the financing being closed and announced after the CC is a bit strange" followed by ad hominem is a strong indication of the state of the union of the Wave Nation.
just as strong an indicator as Sully's attempts to pick apart whether Wave could have sold 4.5 mil shares of SSPX... a footnote in the overall issue, but his curious focus.
IMO some people who think wavx will be their financial salvation had better start coming to grips w/the distinct possibility that this stock will trade in the same range for years & years to come w/the shares out increasing every year.
& the "Maybe I should "pony up" and send this as a PM" is just one step from the "iggy!" or "we need a new private board!" responses.
instead of probing the realities of the issues i've posted (which are NOT about s/hs sentiment, etc, but very real problems w/the people running the company &/or the possibility that the INTC deal, etc, really is little more than a market test/trial).
how y'all gonna feel if you find out that the INTC & NSM "deals" turn out similarly as the NEC blockbuster?
wouldn't you rather consider that today instead of six months from now?
ALSO, for anyone to claim that a smart guy like SlateColt who was around dating back to the Silicon Investor days finally capitulating @ $2 post Q3 CC is a friggin positive buy sign?!?
you gotta be sooooooo drunk on Kool Aid to *really* think that!!
edit: fair enough Sully -- i should know better & not leave you ANY room to parse something down & then exaggerate it in order to discredit. & to that end, you limit the disposition of SSPX to open market transactions. tilting every inference in favor of SKS is prolly not the best way to analyze an investment IMO.
but i notice you haven't said a word about anything other than this minor issue. fine. say they could only get $1.5. that still equates w/the results for the balance sheet that 10% dilution & $53 mil market cap decline in 3.5 trading sessions (using highs & lows from last Thurs. before CC through today).
bridge loans v. dilution & SSPX
when a company has "literally a few weeks" before they run out of money, they shouldn't be holding on to another firms shares waiting for more appreciation!
Ramsey, that is like you getting a margin call & dialing up the broker & saying: "hey, i'm tapped out right now, but all this wave stock i'm holding is gonna be worth $187/share soon, so cut me some slack & i'll pay it back later... for now, just decrease my margin maintenance requirements to 40% equity so that i can keep holding. C'mon broker, whatta ya say?!?"
see, 24 says i live ina "fabricated" reality, but that is in essence what Wave just did to you, me, Sully, Snackman & even Machiavellian Zen.
not quite sure what old Hopin & Prayin meant w/the "first public company stock" remark b/c i have held @ one time or another a wide list of members of the Russell, Naz 100 & DJIA, but i do agree that Wave Systems doesn't behave like it is publicly owned...
the pre-CC PR indicated commercial transactions & i was hoping for a revolving credit line &/or a new 13-D filing from Intel or somebody (noting Snack was hinting about Sun for some reason). i hinted about bridge loans repeatedly in prior months -- if Wave did in fact have sizeable orders in hand, securing a bridge loan to roll out product woulda been easy, non-dilutive AND @ really low historic interest rates.
this smelly deal strongly suggests otherwise!
SKS: "I wish that you guys could participate in many of the aspects of the momentum we’re feeling in the marketplace."
yep, me too Steven... meeeeeeeeeee too.
wavx needs to increase around 42% from here just to get even w/where it was 3.5 trading sessions ago!
& i supposedly live ina fabricated reality... i'd tell you all about it, but i'm under really strict NDAs that are too complicated to understand anyway!
"fabricated version of the real world"
nice try Sully. Wave dropped around 200K. SSPX traded > 6mil in the last month & i provided a link to substantiate it.
they could have easily sold TEN TIMES what they did.
nice try bud. you wanna focus on whether or not SSPX was "illiquid" when it is in fact one of the smaller issues in my recent post.
not surprising.
anyone who can defend the actions of mgmt honestly, lives in a fabricated version of the real world. in that same world, NSM is shipping, NEC trials were great, a $53 Mil mkt cap decline to raise $7mil is great, founders shares are cool, "literally a few weeks" is really an undetermined time exceeding 7 or 8 months, David Booth is "entrepreneur of the year," the kids from TGLO have a decent biz model, etc, etc ETC! & most notably, in that world, it is A-OK to lie to shareholders w/great regularity... just ask Zen!
in the real world, Wave is worth TWO HUNDRED MILLION less than it was around three months ago.
two hundred million bud.
THAT is reality.
PS i am fully aware that there are bashers on yahoo that are picking up points i make here & dropping them on that thread & i don't give a feces about it. let them use my posts as cliff notes.
while yer playing brainwashed zombie
"the illiquidity of that issue" was a non-issue over the last month...
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=SSPX,uu[l,a]daclyyay[da][pb50!b200][vc60][iUp14,3,3!La12....
SSPX even traded AH this month & didn't SSPX just do a placement & pay off noteholders?
IMO there may have been a market for one large transaction as well as a series of sells on the market.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=WAVX,uu[l,a]daclyyay[da][pb50!b200][vc60][iUp14,3,3!La12....
"we probably shouldn't expect any "BK" nonsense from you in the interim, huh?"
you should expect whatever the fundamentals (or lack thereof) ahem, warrant bud.
if Wave keeps pulling shares off the toilet paper roll every Q, you can expect me to post from time-to-time about the sludge.
if Wave looks like it might go BK, you can bet i'll comment.
also, if i were "playing CEO" you could also count on me to make some mistakes, but @ least i'd be honest w/shareholders.
it would be my first priority, not some silly afterthought that guys like Zen will sweep under the machiavellian rug!
never did read any reply to my earlier post to you... but i'm not surprised.
"sufficient guidance to the investors"
Ramsey - the wonderful thing about such a theory is that it is fully supportive of what some might consider a delusion that is self-supportive. a well constructed artificial reality that cannot be deconstructed b/c it has a perfectly infallible NDA precept.
"1. Probably didn't do an earlier placement at recent higher prices because it was previously not feasible to provide sufficient guidance to the investors. IMO, NDAs are involved here and it's more complicated than we can imagine."
IMO the fact that the stock traded @ 40-45% higher just days ago going into the CC & the PP is closed in "literally" just a few days after the CC is beyond rotten.
IMO mgmt did this timeline deliberately SO they would not have to talk to investors about it & it'd be almost a full 3 months before they'd have to face investors again (i don't count the "shareholders meeting" @ the private resort day after tomorrow b/c it'll be a syccophant's soiree).
IMO this deal is full on shady. Hadta use a different placement agent & it drops the price from $2.71 -----> $1.85 in LESS than a week of trading, but of course ALL of the downward movement is on the backside of SKS having to face investors' scrutiny.
& yeah, of course i AM jealous of Dudash, et al for not being Kool Aid guzzlers & their prescient dumping @ $2.71. rarely is it profitable to give mgmt the benefit of the doubt.
why wasn't the PP closed prior to the CC so that investors could discuss it w/mgmt? for those dancing around like drunken little spraguettes, are you aware that the company took a FIFTY THREE MILLION DOLLAR hit to its market cap just to raise $7million?
Ameritrade commercial:
Huh. I spent twenty dollars to save a dollar.
AND the shares are diluted by almost another 10% w/the new PP? Wave is barely worth $100mil right now.
Please explain why the company is still holding ANY SSPX (let alone > 95% of their original holdings) ?!?!
SSPX traded up to $2 during this time frame & could have resulted in around $9Mil in Wave's coffers. Wave sold something along the lines of 200K & now SSPX is trading around $1.15 (a loss of value to wave of around $4mil). Please explain why Wave didn't dump every single share of SSPX in the last month BEFORE diluting their own common stock.
In that there seems to be no stragetic basis for Wave to hold SSPX in terms of an acquisition (@ least none articulated here or that i can see from any independent DD) & Wave's cupboard was bare (yet again), why would they hold the SSPX, watch it go down almost 50% & do another dilutive deal that in effect has resulted in the last leg down of a TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR decline in Wave's market cap from the summer highs!!
many will just continue to extoll the virtues, but IMO, the mgmt of this company is really NOT to be trusted. i have formally traded in my prior willingness to trust mgmt based on the way this PP played out... it might be on better terms than the last schylock deal, but it still smells really rotten.
how ironic that they want to be the leading blahblahblahblah of "Trusted" Computing.
i predict that Wave will still be here years from now & will have a market cap of $500Million!
that's great right?
well, not quite.
the combined classes of A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H will equal 250 million shares out & will still trade @ around $2.
oh, i forgot.
WAVX RAH!
WAVX RAH!
RAH! RAH! WAVX!
PS i'll bet SKS considers it the best CC ever (b/c he doesn't have to face any scrutiny until sometime in February)
edit: 24 -- please direct me to that "last straw" line... i plan on trading this stock for YEARS to come buddy.
the "last straw" element, if any, is that i no longer trust SKS, et al even one iota (for reasons stated above). but you can bet that i'll be around (irrespective of whether i post it or not) to cap rallies & suppport bottoms.
i am looking for an exit to my trade, not to wavx altogether!!! far from it. my most profitable moves have been when i didn't trust mgmt, so like the spraguettes, i am more optimistic than ever about *my* prospects w/wavx, but for very different reasons!
cheers!
"none left in the warehouse."
Catrell: Any idea of how many of the NEC PCs went ahead with our software?
SKS: So, we shipped a bunch of them. I mean, it was measured in the, as far as I know there're none left in the warehouse.
these comments had zero to do w/any current product offerings... wonder if the poster's (i forget which one, scroll down a few) reference was nefariously intentional or innocently erroneous?!? maybe that poster thought people would be too lazy to look up the reference? maybe the poster thought people would have forgotten that SKS made this slipperly reference w/respect to the wildy "successful" NEC trial?
great circular logic, 25 year old car! yer "perception" is a joke based on the nonsense you post. maybe you'll get yer wish of full censorship & a private club where you can watch yer capital tread water for six months or so & pat yerself on the back.
wonder why wainwright didn't do the placement?
looking for an exit...
Inst. wavx holding rotation:
numerous new Inst. holders, though net # of shares held by Inst. is down about 100K shares.
the # of aggressive short posts & "new investors" posts seemingly designed to foment doubt have gone up exponentially lately... something seriously f*ed up is happening right now IMO.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp?Symbol=wavx
PS 88 would prolly perceive a CH 11 filing as a buying oppty - fwiw!
GKS - "no one is getting any of my core shares (which grow constantly)."
one's holdings need to keep growing, just to keep up with the dilution.
as for us not knowing what happens that isn't publicly announced... that is what i'm afraid of!!
SKS: "With Microsoft's push for the operating system support for trusted computing in 2005, I think we can easily project that in late 2005/early 2006 the majority of PCs shipping will be PCs that contain the Trusted Computing Platform Module. So that goes from zero today, or from a few hundreds of thousands of units a quarter today, to 70/80 million units in end of 2005/2006 time frame."
that's, ummmm, great (?) SO, how does Wave specifically fit into this projected growth?
not so "easily projected" apparently...
edit: WAVX & "the market":
Zen -- i was under the impression that "the market" always looked forward @ least 2 Qs?!? If true (& noting that we are halfway through Q4 '03), maybe "the market" just doesn't think much of the expected results for Q2 '04, OR, maybe the company has blown so much of its credibility that only seeing the purported pudding under the crust will suffice?
Rachelise -- yes, but maybe b/c of "the boy who cried wolf," you won't hear about those negatives until it's too late. some here still maintain that the NEC trials were a rousing success b/c Wave was able to port the tech to new languages for a new iteration of the tech (nevermind that the chips are a write down or that NEC hasn't announced any further orders, etc).
"third time's a charm" could eventually morph into fool me once, fool me twice, fool me thrice... but we will invariably be the last to know!
would love to read someone's support for this short-against-the-box arb theory... specifically how these phantom arbs are able to obtain 7-10+ mil shares (something on the order of 15-20% of the shares out, depending on which #s are utilized) when 4.5 +/- mil (another 7ish % of the shares out) are already out short & a UPC restriction remains in place.
SO, where exactly are these shares coming from if the deal is not yet final (assuming a deal is in its latter stages)?!?
i don't buy the theory @ this point -- not in the least.
edit: Wildman writes: "Wave stated stated that a funding would be done by the end of the year. It sure won't be done the last few weeks of the year, so that likely means it is taking place as we speak. Nothing has changed the prospects negatively going forward."
The PR i read stated that Wave would seek to secure funding by year's end. more than a slight semantic difference IMO. "Nothing has changed..."? isn't another Q delay for revs negative? isn't a complete dearth of NSM confirmation after now EIGHT months since the PR a negative?!?
oh wait... almost forgot, i'm long so i have to post rhetoric to improve my trade:
WAVX Rah!
WAVX Rah!
Rah! Rah!
WAVX!
awk: in your esteemed opinion:
(1) does Wave always do what it should do?
(2) if answer to (1) is "no," do they ever do things as/when "they see fit"?
(3) ARE things "good"?
tia!
you sure about that Ramsey?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=WAVX
btw, the *only* way in which we mere non-spragues/feeneys can "participate" in Wave's prospects is long (short) wavx, or puts/calls.
D&O - good way to roll w/the punches hombre! no worries on the post-CC exchange, just a friendly reminder for the next time when people start going off (no, not necessarily you) about somebody dumping or possessing a negative reaction to what Peter's son says.
sometimes it's beneficial to see through the eyes of a recovering wavaholic!
if Lee has any arrows left in the quiver, they'd be well suited to shoot them this week (the sooner, the better IMO).
& seriously, does anyone know if the company is still footing the bill for the Manhattan apartment or the Paris office? Let Peter pay for a hotel room & let Bruno work from home if necessary, especially if the CEO is going to characterize things as, "lean & mean."
bring on the DCB!
yer not wrong D&O
if anything, it's probably RNBO.
"PS - If I'm wrong, I'll sure be glad I bought all those $2.35 shares last week!"
SO, you have some buyer's remorse... already?!?
Last Thurs night you were kidding me about the $2.39 shares i sold.
bring on some news & a DCB rally!
SKS: "In some ways, I wish that you guys could participate in many of the aspects of the momentum we’re feeling in the marketplace."
uhhhhh-huh.
click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click! click!
the sound of Mahjah "buying anything that moves under $2.25."
al-Qaida bombings in Istanbul rattled the international markets & clipped the US $
Asian markets tanked.
US markets followed.
weak stocks in downtrends get crushed - even companies on the heels of "the best CC ever."
it's overblown IMO & i want to buy here.
but i'll hafta compete w/Mahjah!
yes you were:
any future revs Wave *might* realize from TCG RAND are speculative.
if Wave goes BANKRUPT, it is likely that the RAND rights that have inured to the benefit of TCG members would remain vested. There is still a VERY real possibility that the ramp-up goes in fits & starts that don't exactly comport w/the "new & improved -- lean & mean" Wavtopia. BTW, did they unload the Manhattan apartment or the Paris office yet?
They have enough cash to last until February & revs just got pushed out *another* Q.
Kitchen: Are you at liberty to say that the National chip is shipping currently?
SKS: I'll let National and their customers discuss that.
Finread? SKS: "...I think it's in their hands to go figure out. We've done everything we can to drive it forward."
SO, why would Wave be so attractive as a takeout when the IP is attainable by merely paying the TCG membership dues & resultant royalties?
that was only 158 words of "smart-speak" but @ least it's honest... better than whatcha get w/sprague-speak any day!
didya see the Nikkei?
think wavx goes up or down tomorrow?
i'm missing the game...
later!
24 - RAND Licensing:
= "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.
Standards-setting bodies, trade organizations, collectives & the like, typically in the formation of the org & via its charter or articles (or whatever formative docs they use), agree to a pre-negotiated/pre-determined set of conditions to "level the playing field" & further the common goals of the entire organization (in this case, the TCG).
The term "reasonable & non-discriminatory" is likely more than enough for most here to understand the essentials of a RAND agreement (& thereby draw basic conclusions about that ingredient in the Wave/TC stew). TCG members who provide IP that contributes to the standards set by the org (e.g., TCG 1.2), in a sense, "contribute" the IP for the greater good of the whole.
The contributions, or what the TCG calls, "Necessary Claims", are provided for the benefit of all members, "restriction free" (more or less) where in this case, the TCG member/patent holder (could presumably also include copyrights & trademarks), irrevocably waives the right to apply restrictions to the use of the IP in question within the defined scope of the TCG's "open standard," as a condition to their membership in good standing & in exchange for the right to share other member's "Necessary Claims."
Generally, the TCG contributing members can't impose new or additional conditions/restrictions on the use of the TC tech/IP rights, or other restrictions on the activities of the licensee (in the scope of the TC tech/IP in question). It probably permits for the "care & feeding" of the licensee-licensor relationship for stuff like ADR, choice of law, rev/profit audits, etc. The TCG also provides for reasonable royalties to be paid by the licensee-members to the licensor-member for use of the so-called "Necessary Claims." Stuff like extra-territorial enforcement & monopoly term expiration are certainly not within the scope of powers of the org, but rather vested w/the respective sovereigns, so there are definitely some restrictions...
The TCG stipulates in Sec. 16.4 of its Charter: "...under reasonable terms & conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination, a non-exclusive, non-transferable, world-wide license under its Necessary Claims to such Specification to allow such other Members and their Affiliates to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell, lease and sell and otherwise distribute Compliant Portions, provided that such agreement to license shall not extend to any part or function of a product in which such a Compliance Portion is incorporated that is not itself part of such a Compliant Portion." There are also provisos for Reciprocity & to prevent circumventing Sec. 16.4.
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/tcg_bylaws.pdf
As i'm unaware of what Wave IP (if any) forms a (partial) basis for the TCG specs, i can't comment on how it may, or may not, impact future revs. As there has been no disclosure from the company (which is perhaps precluded from doing so by membership terms, NDAs, etc.) & there is just a general accounting entry for "licenses" in the operating statements, i have no clue what degree of influence Lee has upon the standards (though i suspect there is some). It is, howiever, one of the reasons to infer that if the TCG prevails, Wave would likely see revs from RAND (& those revs might be significant if the end game results in billions of TC devices).
Thanks for asking - i woulda thought you already knew about this. Maybe it was just another one of yer many attempts to try to make someone look stoopid or discredit them? Only you know that though.
Personally, i'm much more interested right now in which Bill is gonna prevail tonight, Tutor or Protegé. SO, pardon me if i don't stick around for more banter this evening. BTW, can you explain the nuances of a "Cover 2" scheme? Strengths & weaknesses? What sort of personnel is best suited for the approach & what schemes are effective against it?
SPIN
PS Cheers to the '72 Dolphins!
Webster:
okay, thanks for the acronym-free translation.
btw, IMO if Wave can do what is suggested by many in the long-term, 5K shares could be a really nice investment. i was just probing into Doma's ham-handed p***ing contest attempt to deride BF. You'll prolly do well & if patience were the prerequisite for beating the market handily, you would merit independent wealth IMO.
back to readin' comrehension... WTF is this supposed to *really* mean (noting CPA's comments about spraguespeak & NEC)?
"Somewhat the same is true with SignOnline Suite into the financial services companies. I think that the digital signature offerings that we have there are very strong. We've got some really nice business that’s maturing in it. We're keeping it really lean and mean. And when it tips over it will really add to the value of the whole services side."
?!?!?
edit: Wow Doma:
i didn't say you did say that, did i? & i can assure you that i never said it either!
but it remains glaring in terms of the inconsistency b/tw yer statement & the projections of other voids.
SO, is Weby wasting his time w/a measely 5K shares?
SO, if one does have rich relatives, should they even bother to inform them about wavx, given the disparity b/tw Doma's expectations & others being @ minimum a magnitude of 50X?
SO, it's sorta like this other SKSpeak... first he says it doesn't matter whether it's bundled or aftermarket. then, just a graph later, he says he'd rather it be aftermarket.
SO, it's kinda confusing --- can you help me understand what he means here?!?
no acronyms please!
tia!
SKS: As far as whether it's a bundled service or it's marketed afterwards, we, I don't think really care. In some ways, I think there are real advantages to being bundled, and in other ways there's a great advantage in having a direct relationship with the shipping customer.
So let me used two examples for those on the phone. In the case of National Semiconductor every time they sell a chip, our software is bundled along with it. We don't necessarily then end up with a direct relationship with the OEM customer who bought the National chip, because National ends up with a direct relationship with the OEM customer. Obviously that's fine. We don't really have to do much work to support that per se, because National manages the sales effort. On the other hand we're one step removed from the customer, and so the quality of information that we get fed back is not as strong as if in the case of Intel they use an Infineon chip and they have Wave software on it. We have direct relationship with Intel, and that's not a relationship that’s carried through Infineon. So both models have their benefits and advantages and disadvantages and we’ll continue to pursue both. I think long term we would like to end up with a direct relationship with the customer shipping our software. I think that’s where we ultimately want to end up.
PS is Wave @ Comdex this year? it is *the* biggest electronics expo in the world...
edit: Doma, you wrote: "Wave has built that inventory of
tricks..." What "tricks" does Wave have?
Doma you wrote:
i don't think you will ever be seriously rich from your 5,000 shares in Wave
voids have been saying for years that one could buy a mere hundred shares & be fabulously wealthy some day.
now you tell me that one who holds fifty times that amount will not realize the pot @ the end of the rainbow on the yellow brick road to trusted nirvana?
have the voids been wrong all this time? or were they misleading others to keep the shares afloat? or has your perspective on wavx suddenly turned very sour & you just haven't disclosed it? or is it some other reason? i thought Wave was the annointed Gatekeeper?
Shoot, if one held 5K shares of MSFT, INTC, DELL, CSCO, SNDK, etc. @ the early early stages of their respective product ramp-ups, are they not now wealthy if they still own those shares? especially after all the splits & appreciation?
Now you say essentially that anyone who thinks they'll be wealthy from a wave investment of 5K shares is wasting their time?!? Are you listening Weby? Weby posted that is the size of his wavx position & he's nearing retirement! Has Weby just been wasting his time?!? I hope not, b/c he has suffered through the dot bomb & around 5-6 years w/this stock & is probably still in the red on it b/c he believes he will do very well w/his meager 5k shares.
SO, Doma... is Weby just wasting his time here?
i don't think you will ever be seriously rich from your 5,000 shares in Wave
while yer in translation mode (assuming you do in fact take the time to respond to this rather serious inquiry), can you tell me, based on this SKSpeak (below), is he saying anyone has bought anything? or is he saying they're all kicking the tires & telling Wave about features they require? (that Wave's products lack?).
Or WHAT?!?! I cannot figger it out & it's more confusing every time i read it! Please help me out on this, b/c from what i've read from some of the frothier, this was the best CC ever!
But now you say:
i don't think you will ever be seriously rich from your 5,000 shares in Wave
Anyway, what the keef is SKS saying here?
SKS: So on both of those, in the first case, I think the reception that we've seen from the marketplace has been as good as we possibly could have expected. We've taken our products to market. The customers have looked at those products and said these meet the needs that I have in the market. It's given us positive feedback about the things, the features and the functions, that we don't have yet that they'd like to see.
while yer @ it, based on the assertion:
i don't think you will ever be seriously rich from your 5,000 shares in Wave
why should i bother wavx @ all, even if i can afford more than 5K shares?
voids always said a mere hundred shares would make every good void boy or girl wealthy but TTT -- now you say that FIFTY TIMES that amount won't get it done?!?
did you turn bearish recently on wavx & not disclose it?
what has changed that prompted you to say:
i don't think you will ever be seriously rich from your 5,000 shares in Wave
please don't use any acronyms to explain this for the more simple minds who are looking for guidance from a sage such as you. as they say in the States, "keep it simple..."
tia!
PS Bull_D: interesting point, that was right there in front & IMO most (incl. me) hadn't picked up on. But Doma is now saying:
i don't think you will ever be seriously rich from your 5,000 shares in Wave
how does that work?
AND, is SKS saying (supra) that Wave is selling anything? i can't tell what he's saying!
always Snack?
"It's amazing how traders always say the sold at the top and bought at the bottom."
i'd take issue w/that broad-brush contention!
btw, that was DJ's 2d best post IMO -- he sought clarification from SKS (assuming it's a genuine e-mail, which i am) regarding the deployment & rev matters. that had some value IMO.
FWIW i don't buy the financier arb theory -- the UPC short restriction would make that a cumbersome effort. maybe it could be done w/put options...?
btw & fyi -- today's close was almost @ the same price as the 7/31/03 close. the day the INTC deal was announced...
& fwiw, IMO moving to another board would be a massive sign of weakness. you've done a pretty damn good job as board monitor Snack.
assuredly @ least 1 poster would disagree, but overall there has been an environment of solid debate & that's a positive IMO.
PS eamonnshute - didya find that Callahan e-mail yet re: the $1mil inventory write-down? tia. only if you have the time, of course! <g>
DDD
it's cool... i didn't post additional details b/c i believe that Zen knows that i've been using an AIM approach since the summer w/wavx. Zen (formerly RB's "Hopin & Prayin") is also among the group of long, long-timers that have seen me around for many years (though gone for a few in between).
guess i was talking more directly to him than the audience @ large. he & the rest of the long-longs know quite well that i have definitely been wrong hundreds of times! this could assuredly be one of them, but i doubt it.
yeah, i'm no fan of the guys that claim that every trade is a winner either. believe me, i've had many go against me & that definitely includes wavx (esp. as a kool aid guzzling wavoid - i often made mistakes, mostly rally-chasing). as a former void, i don't get too caught up in the hype anymore, though maybe i'm too negative sometimes.
that doesn't change the fact that i'll pipe up when pissed off by mgmt whether i'm in or out. one doesn't have to be currently invested to have a voice about Wave. I might not know some of Doma's acronyms & techno-jargon, but i posted yesterday that Wave's biggest Inst. holder has a really close kinship to the fmr. MetaMarket guy (newbies probably won't have a clue what i'm talking about, but it's a < 6 degrees of separation in the Berkshires)
right now i am not pleased by recent developments (e.g., new shares printed this Q & revs pushed back). but also posted yesterday that i might buy some calls as insurance... b/c i'm wrong all the time!
good luck to you & all the other "frothy" zealots contrary to some theories, i'd like to see all of you do exceedingly well holding this security. it just doesn't seem like a classic buy & hold is the right approach, right now...
@ least you have strong convictions... whereas i waffle to & fro w/momentum & developing biz fundamentals.
anyway, good luck & have a pleasant tomorrow.
edit AWK: edit: ulterior motives?
that is pathetic! everyone here has the *exact* same motive... make a profit via ownership of wavx.
in order to maintain credibility, i post entry and exit points on key trades. the most recent one was a losing trade (down 10%). i posted my reasons for entering AND exiting.
the current price would be exactly the same if i didn't post a thing OR posted non-stop. when i sold @ $4.80, i bought it back around $4.30 & so on & so on...
it is a similar approach to Dudash's "AIM" system & has worked well for me b/c i don't drink the Kool Aid anymore.
more than once (much more than once in fact) i have posted negative views when i was "in" & much more than once i have posted positive things when i was "out."
i have "admitted" that TC is gonna be big IMO & that i do think Wave has a good chance of benefitting from that. and? the fact that revs are being pushed out & Wave is printing more shares is a FAT negative that will pressure the stock for weeks/months.
don't blame me for stating that, even if you don't want to hear it.
the VAST majority of my "complaining" is directed @ Lee. & don't tell me to e-mail the company, the *most* effective means of communicating my grievances is via the message board.
Zen -- i didn't suggest a bunch of "in & out" moves. i pointed to 2 key pivots that the group you cited missed completely. that is not "trading" that IS "investing."
man, some voids act like it's some ridiculous badge of courage to hold the stock w/white knuckles as it drops.
& if i wanted to "bash" i would use a bunch of fake IDs & BASH.
i don't.
& DDD, no, i'm not "salivating." i am pissed @ SKS for not being straightforward w/the shareholders that have kept the company in biz so that he could take a yearly bonus that exceeds Wave's top line!
if he had reaffirmed the earlier stated breakeven in '04 forecast, i would have held.
he didn't, so i didn't.
i'd ***much*** rather see this thing moving towards $5 instead of towards $2.
iggy whoever & whatever you want, the bid will still be $2.27...
1.6 million shares must be wrong & all the SKS defenders must be right!
edit: yep. sold it @ an avg of $2.39 in AH yesterday initiated my sell order & then posted it w/in a few minutes (WHILE my order was pending BTW!)
FWIW oknpv -- i was a big cheerleader when BAIN took a big position in wavx back then... the $122Mil PP saved this company as other dot.bombs went kaboom! it was a ginned up price in a ginned up market bubble & i was so close to selling when it hit $50, but i held it & to my dismay lost hundred of thousands in gains & suffered some really harsh margin calls.
i learned my lessons from the bubble. some here still think it is treason to take a profit (or cut a loss as i did yesterday in AH). some also post that they are on the cusp of retirement & have 25% of their net worth in wavx... that is beyond scary!
AND it pisses me off even more when i see stuff like that & i hear SKS blather on about "great opportunities" & then decline to answer direct questions about things like the NEC activation rate in the euro trial.
awk: so it's 1.6 million on UP days & only 800K on down days?!?! also, take a look @ the chart from $5.24 & count the volume... it exceeds 60 million. some newbies took a massive BATH on wavx this summer. i'd bet that the last remnants are still clinging to the shares praying to get even (which makes the $5.24 point some hefty resistance if/when it gets there again). JMO.