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.
re: bolting @ $0.94
24, i'm not going to get into a p***ing match w/you or delve into your less than couched accusations.
Wave looked like it was on the verge of going out of business prior to the INTC announcement. The co. was running on absolute fumes.
Mgmt also has a track record that leaves me skittish. The *only* recognized analyst who has ever covered the company had less than favorable things to say when interviewed by the financial press for precisely the same reason.
SO, yeah, i had been in for almost a month as the co. teetered on the brink of insolvency & was scared. But i white-knuckled it & was well rewarded.
Sorry that i don't pray @ the Wave altar & don't take every word that comes from Lee as Gospel.
And sorry that i think today's MSFT PR is worrisome... & yes, orda, review the bolded section of my prior post. it requires an internet connection to the MS Server software to verify permission levels (sounds a lot like mini-attestation to me)
i think the only answer that i'll find from this discussion is to "sell to my sleeping point."
there are a TON of other stocks out there (even some that chart @ 45 degree angles instead of parabolic spikes & succeeding 50% slides).
i wasn't trying to stir up any trouble. not every expression of worry or disapproval on a message board is "bashing" or "manipulation."
ya know, sometimes it really is just worry or disapproval.
whatever - no offense was intended.
edit: i'm a "free" member & can't reply to PMs until "happy hour."
Doma - the bolded section sounds like attestation-lite to me (of course, as you've noted (repeatedly) my understanding of the tech is pedestrian @ best).
please explain, w/out sophistry, why this isn't moving in the direction that Wave ostensibly "owns."
(& btw, MSFT has said zero about cross-platform interoperability, which is good IMO)
tia!
Microsoft delivers rights management tool
Last modified: November 4, 2003, 10:50 AM PST
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Microsoft released software on Tuesday that will let workers restrict access to documents created with the company's Office software and other applications.
Windows Rights Management Services (WRMS) is designed to allow corporate networks running on Windows Server 2003 to include a server that manages and enforces restrictions built into documents.
As previously reported, support for the technology is built into Office 2003, the overhaul of the widespread productivity package that was released last month. Workers using the new Office applications can set various restrictions on the documents they create. For example, they can limit who can read or alter a document, assign privileges for copying and printing, and set expiration dates.
When someone receives a restricted document, that person must briefly log in to the WRMS server--over the Internet or a corporate network--to validate the permissions.
The new services have drawn criticism from some rivals, partly because they impede the ability of competing productivity applications to access documents. Secured documents can only be opened by Office 2003 applications or via a new add-on for Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser.
WRMS is expected to find a ready audience, however, among businesses such as financial and pharmaceutical companies that face strict document-handling regulations. Such tasks currently must be managed by add-on software. Adding support for rights management to the applications used to create documents will make the technology easier to use and more widespread, according to Microsoft.
"Our customers have told us they need help protecting sensitive information from accidental and intentional distribution to unauthorized recipients," Mike Nash, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Security Business Unit, said in a statement.
While Office 2003 will be the most significant avenue for creating data that links to WRMS, other software makers, including computing service giant Electronic Data Services, are supporting the server release.
As previously reported, WRMS is available as a free download for Windows Server 2003 users. Instead of buying the software, customers must pay for a client access license for every user who needs to access files protected by WRMS. Individual licenses cost $37 per user, or $185 for a pack of five licenses. An "external connector license" that allows blanket access for people outside a corporate network to access secured documents costs $18,066.
Doma......NO!
i didn't miss it, but i also tend to be a bit skeptical about things spoken by corporate evangelists @ conferences, don't believe everything i read in print (e.g., Schloppy Sheng) & don't doubt that MSFT could say one thing today & miraculously change their collective mind (w/a wink of course) in a heartbeat.
quit asking me questions, The Simpsons are on in a few minutes!
everything must be cool since you say it isn't possible. btw, i was in Turkey recently & haggling is a big part of their culture... the vendors would often say a certain price was "impossible" only to change their mind as i started to walk away.
but hey, you say MSFT couldn't possibly usurp Wave in attestation (where in my mind the antitrust aspect is the most compelling reason they wouldn't), SO, i'll just take your word on it!
but you could be wrong...
DUDE! last post...
instead of asking ME (counter-productive IMO) questions in order to probe my technical expertise (which is vastly inferior to yours & i readily concede the same), might the world of wave be better suited to try to answer this issue?
hundreds of thousands of posts & there has been so little analysis of what the competition might be up to... over the years Wave had to circulate among the "Gorillas" to try to convince them to shift the paradigm (no small feat IMO, which they DID accomplish).
Wave has worked w/damn near EVERYONE in technology over the years & have likely disclosed lots & lots of their IP.
Over those years, Wave had ZERO leverage (except maybe as a pawn in the MSFT v. INTC struggle, again IMO) & the terms of the deals they struck in all likelihood favored the other party.
SO (to borrow a word from SKS), isn't it even remotely possible that MSFT has an alternative plan that will comply w/TCG standards AND exclude Wave?!?!
is it possible?
so much of the DD here is focused on what Wave is doing (& if i were a competitor, I'd assuredly have someone monitoring this board) & so little is performed on what pitfalls might lie on the road to the "Emerald City"
if i wanted to stir up the locals, there are many other topics i could touch upon, but that is NOT my "AIM"
i have no intentions other than to get a handle on what this means for Wave's prospects & instead of selling (which was what my gut was saying when i read the PR), i posted it for consumption & analysis & held the stock.
hopefully there will be some visibility provided tomorrow @ RSA, but even if there isn't, that doesn't mean i'm concluding doom like the mailroom guys in the commercial (you're in the UK so you may not have seen it).
Doma, if I am willing to post about this stuff & if the wavx board gets tens of thousands of hits daily, there are probably a few other lurker-shareholders out there wondering what all of this means too.
they might be reticent to post as much though b/c the standard response is to shoot the messenger (& if you don't believe me, do a search of all yahoo message boards for wavx & see what other investors say about wavoids).
anyway, i'm just looking for answers, NOT a fight!
edit: putterboy - excellent quote!
whatever Doma...
okay, you are married to the tech & the vision & the dream of incredible wealth... i got it.
no, i showed up after two months & posted an MSFT HARDWARE PRODUCT PR.
i could have kept it to myself & just sold.
instead i held & posted the PR.
where were you all day?
i'm not seeking an argument & the "help support" comment is misguided.
i'm also not trying to foment doubt & drive the price down so drop the oliver stone schtick b/c i am fully invested right now in wavx & have no capital to take advantage of any further drop.
but instead of "supporting" wavoids, maybe you (being far more technically astute than me) could provide some thoughtful analysis of what this development really means.
there was quite a curious dearth of that during today's trading too, btw.
again, i am NOT looking for any arguments in this dialog... just looking for some answers!
is that so unreasonable?
edit: Doma, can you explain (first take a couple of breaths b/c i'm not trying to incite you) a scenario where MSFT could replicate anything & everything that Wave has w/in a year (they have something on the order of $50-60 BILLION in cash on their books btw).
one thing this board is *very* good @ is decrypting tech developments.
it would be of incredible value to channel that ability towards competive analysis (which has always been sorta lacking in the Wave Nation IMO which prefers to focus on what Wave is doing & tends to overlook the rest of the market)
That Wave can keep a secret!
out come the pitchforks!
24, you'll see from my edit of last post that i didn't have anything to say publicly of late.
in no small part it is related to zealots that come w/overly defensive rhetoric that i haven't (bothered) commented.
Doma - i wasn't aware that NGSCB was available yet <g> & had remained hopeful that what Softy calls an "SSC" might be something that Wave would have their hands on, but i tend to think now that MSFT is going to carve out their own path while complying w/TCG (TCPA actually, @ least until tomorrow when TCG specs are released).
If what was once "Palladium" (btw, have you seen the tech mag article that notes that "Palladium" is extremely similar to what Wave & AMD proposed in their white paper?) becomes the standard in 2005, is it possible that two years from now that MSFT will have crafted similar tools? (yes, the market-based/antitrust theories about Wave being in the middle to do attestation has merit IMO)
in my post to OK i made some comments about the tape & some really weird messages... i don't claim to be a Zeev-like trader & cannot accurately decipher what that odd trading portends, but i do know that there was MASSIVE size on the ask all day & that it consistently followed the ask downward all day...
what does that say to you?
imagining NDAs
you are correct about the volume in the day or three preceding the 7/30 INTC PR
but there was also a million+ day just a week or so prior (which was surrounded by 100K +/- share days) & it was also the first time in many weeks that the bid rose on consecutive upticks.
i knew about the INTC demos in the Spring, but it was those consecutive upticks on surging volume (& bids of SIZE) that screamed BUY!
i don't fully subscribe to the "efficient market theory" but i don't fully discount it either.
NDA or no NDA.
hey, i'm about as skeptical of a buyer as you'll find here & i was a buyer last week so i voted w/my capital that Wave is gonna execute on its plan & the market cap will rise.
but the tape was saying some stuff today too...
edit: 24 -- i reported it to the authorities & was then out of the country for a while on vacation. didn't really have anything to say publicly about wavx until i spotted that PR this morning (& have been focused on some other securities lately).
Zen - you sure about that?!?
go back & look @ where i re-entered wavx @ $0.92.
the tape *was* talking...
rather loudly in fact.
24
what i see is the distinct possibilty that the average decision-maker in the corporate IT buying realm might just go w/what is easiest & not necessarily the "best" & that the guy from Forrester (or was it Gartner?) who suggested that IT spending wouldn't embrace Wave's tech just might be right.
i think that the vast majority of the unwarranted conclusion jumping is done by those who proclaim it is a "done deal."
not trying to be obtuse, but don't you (he_ll, doesn't everyone?) ever wonder whether some behemoths can/will squeeze wave out of the mainstream market oppty? i wonder about that all the time irrespective of the self-assured ruminations here.
today's RNBO PR also suggests (to me @ least) that the divide b/tw the TCG hardware guys & MSFT is running pretty deep & Softy has no intention of conceding the market to the hardware crowd. Bill has only sent out two company-wide memos in the last 10 years. the 1st was a strategy-shift towards internet biz & the 2d was last year's security memo.
i've read recent speculation & "gifts" about MSFT's interests in acquiring Wave.
IMO all of that speculation ended decisively w/today's PR.
edit: Lucky - i'm not saying at all that the TPM model is inferior (& i don't need an elect. engineering degree to assess some of the many advatnages that the TPM model provides). i'm just saying that sometimes the path of least resistance (& massive marketing dollars) wins over the better mousetrap.
AND, the better mousetrap still has to deal w/millions of legacy PCs that won't function in the TPM world (not a small issue IMO)
Z
i'm not suggesting failure in the least.
but the "space" that SKS claimed to "own" seems to have squatters, holdover tenants, etc.
and IMO, if Softy decides to marginalize the TCG it truly "owns" the (OS) space.
i read Dvorak's recent rant & could only wonder why he was so upset (while he was simultaneously trying to convince readers that TC is a "joke" & that TCG was a paper tiger & more like a "drinking club" (his words)).
my inference was that he knows it *is* coming.
whether Wave gets the crumbs (reminds me of Tom Hanks' character's wife's description of his job in "Bonfire of the Vanities") of attestation, etc. really remains to be seen. (they'd be some pretty big crumbs IMO)
but one has to ask if BF's questions have merit:
if Wave is "the s***" why is the stock performing so poorly (in the face of a massive across-the-board equity rally no less)?!?
the dance floor is quickly becoming far more crowded than a casual reader of this board might otherwise surmise.
anyway, i'm holding a lot of wavx (today) & will keep looking for some better visibility as to where this sub-segment is going tomorrow.
OK re: "All or None"
your order may have been the problem. wavx often trades like a penny stock w/drastic intra-minute swings & wide spreads.
my last buy (friday) (which seemed great @ the time) took almost four hours to fill. it came in drips -- pieces of 1000s, 100s & even one piece that was 20 shares!
"AON" might work when buying on the way up in a spike w/80-90+ RSI but when trying to scoop some from the bottom it has never worked for me.
day orders placed around lunch-time have always worked much better for me when trying to buy in any size @ or near the bottom.
JMO
btw, i've noticed many strange things in the recent action. e.g., many times the actual HOD doesn't appear in detail quotes (or shows up for a while & then disappears for an hour), or the MMs drop it $0.10 for less than a second on 100 or so shares & bring it right back up. also, the trading pattern has changed completely (which used to be incredibly predictable) and today the MFI index & volume figures disappeared after 1pm on "askresearch" -- friday's trading showed over 20% inst. action on Thomson's (which is incredibly unreliable fwiw) & around a dozen "superbuy" messages (mutual fund "window-dressing" perhaps?) & 300K in AH last week?!?
something really strange is happening under the surface IMO.
how do we get MasteryTV PRs & *nothing* about China?!?!
seriously re-thinking this investment...
So does Wave really "own" the "space"?
a google news search of rainbow+microsoft today yields 67 hits.
WXP makes a deal to market in the hottest growth region on the rock (CHINA/KOREA/JAPAN) & it doesn't release a PR?
people who espouse the "done deal" theory might consider the massive end run that appears to be accelerating.
CEO/COO/CIOs will presumably see value in MSFT's solution. that 1st mover advantage joyfully bandied about here seems to have eroded substantially today.
the lack of analysis from the "regulars" today is disconcerting to say the least.
at least TechWeb was nice enough to give Wave a mention in the headline!
edit: thanks for the TA Larry - the FA seems a bit more opaque unfortunately.
_________________________
Recent Wave of Security Vulnerabilities Sharpens Interest At Expos
November 4, 2003 (2:43 p.m. EST)
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb News
A growing plague of worms, viruses and various computing vulnerabilities has forced security issues to center stage for enterprise IT managers. At a pair of conferences this week, security vendors are taking advantage of the renewed focus to unveil new products and product updates.
At the annual Computer Security Institute (CSI) Conference and Exposition, which opened Monday in Washington, D.C., and runs through Wednesday, Computer Associates unveiled its eTrust Identity and Access Management Suite, a collection of six of CA's security modules including eTrust Admin, eTrust Audit, and eTrust Single Sign-on.
The first component, eTrust Admin, will ship later this month, said Computer Associates, at a price of $12 per user per year, with a management server license price of $2,800. The new version of eTrust Admin will feature a revamped user interface and tools for provisioning hardware and applications, and allow users to manage their own identity and access accounts to free up IT for more important chores.
Other modules will follow, said Computer Associates, with all the components integrated into a single, coherent interface.
High Tower Software, meanwhile, also put the CSI podium to good use Monday with its roll-out of its second-generation TowerView Security software, which has been ported to Windows. TowerView, which collects data and events from network security devices, then displays them to administrators in real-time for spotting potential problems, including behavior that may indicate an on-going attack, has been migrated to a pair of 1U rack-mounted appliances enterprises can deploy in the data center.
The TowerView 1000 and TowerView 2000, which will sell at prices starting at $48,000 and $90,000, respectively, are scheduled to ship in the first quarter of 2004. The 1000 model of the appliance will be suitable for managing about 30 network devices, said High Tower, while the more expensive 2000 will handle between 30 and 90 devices.
Also at the Washington, D.C. trade show, Kensington -- best known for its line of desktop accessories -- on Tuesday introduced a USB-based security device for laptops. Dubbed the PCKey USB Access Key, the memory stick-sized device plugs into a portable's USB port to provide both data encryption and two-factor authentication of that data. Once it's inserted and the user's password authenticated, the PCKey decrypts data from the system's hard drive as the data is requested by applications, then passes it back into the laptop's memory for use.
Across the Atlantic, security and encryption vendor RSA is holding its Conference 2003 in Amsterdam, and on Tuesday touted a new development kit that independent software vendors (ISVs) can use to build in Federal Information Processing Standards-validated cryptographic security into applications aimed at federal government customers.
The RSA BSAFE SSL-C 2.4 kit is RSA's first SSL development toolset for developers writing in C, said RSA, and allows them to integrate standard public key encryption algorithms, message digest algorithms, and other FIPS-level security standards in their wares. RSA is pitching the kit as a way for developers to quickly produce FIPS-validated products without having to go through the federal validation process themselves.
Also in Amsterdam, Microsoft formally announced its Windows Rights Management Service (RMS) in a better-late-than-never move. Not able to roll out RMS in sync with the October launch of Microsoft Office 2003 -- on which it depends for locking documents and files -- Microsoft debuted the add-on to Windows 2003 on Tuesday.
RMS is the first-ever digital rights management software out of Redmond, and allows users of the Office 2003 versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook to set permissions and policies regarding the viewing, printing, and distribution of those applications' documents and messages.
Rainbow Technologies was the first vendor to announce it was working with Microsoft to build a hardware appliance that would integrate RMS in a ready-to-go platform. The appliance, which Microsoft is developing with Rainbow's assistance, will allow client PCs to be activated as part of the RMS environment from within the network perimeter.
Some companies didn't need the boost of a conference to strut their security stuff. San Jose, Calif.-based Secure Computing, for instance, introduced Sidewider G2 Firewall 6.1, a new line of firewall appliances on Tuesday. The appliances feature new management software, improved intrusion detection -- including automatic dropping of connections under assault from a denial-of-service (DoS) attack -- and advanced firewall-to-cluster tools that clones the firewall to any cluster configuration. Prices for the six new Sidewinder models range from $2,900 to $69,000, according to Secure.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20031104S0013
i feel yer pain DJ
dumped IVAN @ $4.30 to buy WAVX @ $2.68 (& didn't sell when i read the MSFT/RNBO PR)
on the bright side, the link above this post is flashing, so the worm has turned! <g>
hang in there,
SPIN
RWK
how many aapl investors made similar remarks twenty years ago?
superior technology does not always win...
fwiw
Rainbow and Microsoft Developing Hardware Appliance for Windows Rights Management Services for Windows Server 2003
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=RNBO&script=410&layout=-6&item_id...
IRVINE, Calif., Nov. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Rainbow Technologies, Inc., (Nasdaq: RNBO), a leading provider of digital content and transaction security for SSL VPNs, secure remote access and software anti-piracy today announced that it is working with Microsoft Corp. on a hardware appliance for Microsoft's new Windows Rights Management Services(TM) (RMS), an information protection technology for Windows Server 2003 that helps enterprises and organizations safeguard their sensitive digital information from unauthorized use.
To provide flexibility to meet customers' deployment requirements, Microsoft is developing a hardware appliance that will enable customers to manage RMS operational services without connectivity to the Internet. Rainbow is working with Microsoft to complete the design and development of this deployment solution component. This appliance will provide the ability to enable client machines to be activated as part of the RMS trusted environment from within the network perimeter, providing a flexible deployment technology to fit how an organization works.
"Our experience in developing high-assurance security for the U.S. government and large commercial organizations that need to secure business- critical information made us the ideal candidate for co-designing this new security appliance with Microsoft," said Shawn Abbott, president, Rainbow eSecurity. "This new security appliance leverages our proven success in building security solutions, authentication and authorization technologies, and content protection. We look forward to working closely with Microsoft on the best solutions for RMS security."
Windows Rights Management Services allows information workers to distribute information within their organizations and define exactly how and under what circumstances it can be used, such as when it expires and who can open, modify, print or forward it. The ability to express and enforce document-level protection will allow organizations to internally share information more broadly, with less risk of inadvertent or intentional misuse.
"Some customers have told us they need to manage Rights Management Services operational services without Internet connectivity," said John Manferdelli, General Manager of Windows Security, Microsoft. "We're pleased to work with Rainbow Technologies to deliver a hardware appliance to meet their deployment requirements."
More information about Windows Rights Management Services is available at http://www.microsoft.com/rms .
About Rainbow Technologies
Making security simple since 1979, Rainbow Technologies, a leading provider of proven information security solutions for mission-critical data and applications used in business, organization and government computing environments, has been breaking the security paradigm by making complex security simple to implement and use for more than two decades. With headquarters in Irvine, Calif., Rainbow maintains offices and authorized distributors throughout the world. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.rainbow.com .
Rainbow Technologies and NetSwift iGate are trademarks of Rainbow Technologies, Inc. All other company and product names are trademarks of their respective organizations.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor" for forward-looking statements. Certain information contained in this press release and included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and other materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") may contain, without limitation, statements regarding market share leadership, compounded aggregate growth rate, and competitive landscape. Actual results could deviate from these forward-looking statements, which are made as of the date of this press release. The Company assumes no obligation to update information concerning its expectations.
For further information, please contact: Dan Chmielewski of Rainbow Technologies, Inc., +1-949-450-7377, dchm@rainbow.com; or Deborah Jones of Strategies, +1-714-957-8880, ext. 113, deborah@strategiesadpr.com, for Rainbow Technologies, Inc.
SOURCE Rainbow Technologies, Inc.
11/04/2003
CONTACT: Dan Chmielewski of Rainbow Technologies, Inc., +1-949-450-7377,
dchm@rainbow.com; or Deborah Jones of Strategies, +1-714-957-8880, ext. 113,
deborah@strategiesadpr.com, for Rainbow Technologies, Inc.
vc-24 is correct.
the effectiveness of the modifications is a condition precedent to the exercise of the warrants, but does not necessarily require the exercise.
a couple of commas (parens even better) prolly woulda helped:
"The exercise of the Series H Warrants[,] upon effectiveness of the modifications and waivers[,] will result in approximately $1.9 million of cash proceeds to Wave."
your interpretation is understandable based on the lack of those commas & the language does make it seem as though the $1.9 flows from the effective date, but IMO, 24/RWK's interpretaion is the accurate one. FWIW.
regards,
SPIN
PS Jean Valjean
okay unclever
but i can't even understand this less than cogent statement:
"CEOs were paid tens of millions of dollars to go bankrupt; by your logic, SKS should be getting 9 figs."
i was just using the study *you* posted to demonstrate the fallacy of yer camp's belief that SKS has been "fairly" compensated.
curiously you utilized only his base salary to conjure the falsity that his comp is in line & yet again concealed the fact that the *lowest* revs in the sample were nearly $2mil.
even accepting yer premise, the *lowest* company in the sample still realized TWELVE TIMES HIGHER TOP LINE than Wave.
repeat: that is 12x for the lowest results in the sample!
we both know that SKS receives total comp well in excess of $400K & took only a nominal bonus reduction, yet continued to garner NON-perf based bonus.
i too will leave it for each reader to decide henceforth, but *you* posted the study & the numbers do not even remotely support what you indicated. in fact, they categorically support that SKS' comp has been beyond bloated for his entire tenure.
the BofD didn't pull the salary numbers from a hat... they pulled it from yer pocket!
heck, pay him more!
'cuz i don't care!!!
just bring on the news!
have a good day,
SPIN
PS Tommy - of course i do not expect SKS to earn 1/1472nd of the median salary. that too is a silly posit & the fact is that i don't care anymore. caring about the corporate governance caused me to make some trading mistakes that i refuse to make again. As long as Wave executes i couldn't care less anymore. But in the bizarro world of wavedom logic, being a trader is being a traitor & SKS has "earned" every penny. it's pure nonsense & i'll betcha that an enormo % of this group trades all the time & caps every rally (though they always claim keep their "core," whatever that is!).
PPS nothing personal taken either btw & fwiw.
i don't need "superior data" - yours proves it!
you posted a study that demonstrates that SKS is paid the median of the S&P Small Cap concerns.
you just conveniently left out the fact that the median company in that same study's sample realizes ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO TIMES Wave's annualized revs (based on most recent Q).
let's take it to apples & apples. Wave realized around $36K top line for the most recent Q. That's $144K on an annualized basis
1472.22222 X $144K = $212Mil
the fact that you would even suggest that there is no validity IMO until i provide "superior data" is simply incredible!
...and dare i say, "disingenuous."
i don't need "superior data."
the ostensibly inferior data i'm working with proves the point quite nicely. the fact that it came from one of the most loyal of the loyalists gives it that much more credibility.
whatever,
SPIN
Unclevername - did you read pp8 & 12?
You wrote:
"...I missed your discussion on why this data was skewed and your link to a more reliable and comprehensive resource of comparable executive compensation."
-------------------------------------------
i don't need a "link to a more reliable and comprehensive resource" b/c the one posted by one of the most loyal members says it ALL & completely underscores my belief that Steven Sprague has been grossly over-compensated lo these many years.
from your "evidence" which purports that SKS's compensation is in line:
-------------------------------------------
p. 12
"REVENUES - Companies reported median [annual] revenues of $212 million, with a range of $1.7 million to $2.5 billion" [emphasis added].
-------------------------------------------
Wave's entire history of revs (something around $225K) is literally 1/1000th of the sample's median, which you stated was supportive of the SKS is fairly paid theory!!!
but ya know what?!?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jimmy crack corn & i don't care!!!
have a good day,
SPIN
PS nice one on yahoo awk!
one last point...
can't recall who posted some analysis of exec comp but i *do* remember that they used data from S&P 500 corps & then stated that the use of such obviously sksewed data somehow supported the ridiculous conclusion that SKS has received entirely mundane comp.
as i type this, CNBC is reporting that Ellison held his salary in abeyance for three years & is just now taking it again.
comparing ORCL w/WAVX would be equally absurd in most senses (as was using an S&P 500 comparison for some measure of "reality" in exec comp), but the fact that Wave's execs only took a nominal reduction in comp over the last few years is glaring to say the least...
selling my drum,
SPIN
24:
but it seems imbued w/some sort of victory.
i didn't qualify my concession on the relationship of the 13.5 ---> 15mil shares for option purposes as neatly as yer statement might suggest.
nor did i expound on the slime factor of SKS couching the meeting in terms of Series H_ell "clean-up."
it smells of deliberate obfusKsation IMO.
but my leaf has turned & i don't care!
just bring on the next news & allow me to dump & then re-load. execution of the biz plan is all i ask @ this stage & won't belabor the bored w/points w/my views on sub-par corp gov.
best,
SPIN
PS i wanna thank YOU personally b/c it was yer philosophy that i borrowed & mutated into a new view.
Jimmy crack corn...
PPS rip -- it seems that the TCG structure might preclude any one founding member from devouring Wave. Maybe by committee, & maybe down the road @ a higher price (& w/a premium) but it is still quite unlikely IMO.
rip re: gas in the tank
may well be closer to fumes, but i do believe SKS' contention that many "options" are available to them, even if there is some deployment "slippage" which while no certitude is assuredly a distinct possibility.
if you've been holding since 98 you prolly know a bit about WaveXpress & can presumably see the inherent value in that technology. Wave stated more than once that they contemplated an IPO, though the climate didn't bode well for taking it public. that possibility remains & the climate is warming.
they own 20-25% of SSPX.
if they have executed deployment deals (along the NSM lines) they could leverage those deals w/bridge financing.
they have the ability to flip more option shares into the market.
they could even float a secondary after they take care of the "H" deal (assuming there is measurable top line).
they have no debt.
they seem to have the imminent revs to lower the already reduced burn rate.
i don't concur that the on-hand cash is crisis material. it's annoying that they blew through $122mil, but it doesn't seem to be anything that the many bilge pumps @ their disposal cannot handle.
IMO a bigger concern is that w/RAND, other TPM players could catch up while the market ramps & it may be in a Gorilla's (or three) best interest to stall deployment for a Q or 2 to allow their R&D to close the gap & permit them to establish rival offerings.
let's haup "riptide" doesn't become R.I.P tide!
SPIN
rip, the RMBS & QCOM analogies are apt.
chew on it & research just what the TCG is, their mission & the implications thereto.
that'll prolly answer 1/2 yer questions & allay 3/4 of yer concerns.
SPIN
succinctly Snack...
i think that is precisely what i was saying & it is why i hadn't posted ad nauseum on the issue in prior days.
nor do i intend to in the future.
rollin'.
rollin'.
rollin' down the ri-ver,
SPIN
awk: things ARE good!
wearing a sandwich bored which reads: "The End is Near!" has been a big, BIG mistake for Howie & his ilk.
i'm not a member.
it's profitable to merely accept things as they are & be a leaf floating down the river.
this is one Wave subject that is not binary:
it'll never be absolute IMO. Spragues aren't gonna get indicted & the stock halted, nor will anyone ever gush praise about how mindful they are of creating S/H value via corp gov policies.
i had the epihany: so what if they never receive that praise, fiduciary duty is a silly ideal in law texts.
Machiavellian management that gets the products into the channel & realizes big revs, *still* realizes big revs (& my shares'll swell).
it is a jungle & i'm just a little leaf floatin on the Amazon...
but watch out for the Gorillas - they can be mean when they're hungry & Wave is a banana that many might like to devour... though the TCG structure is a certain source of comfort on that issue.
SPIN
wait a minute 24...
"...a disservice to those who previously were mislead by the posts that now stand quietly recanted."
there is no "quiet recant" whatsoever as to my view on the appearance of sleaze of the maneuver to rubber stamp the comp plan from 1994.
this is an entirely different proposition than it was almost a decade ago. the compensation structure & incentives thereto should categorically be hitched to specific, delineated performance benchmarks.
if they are no longer a "development stage" concern, they should not adopt a mere renewal of a "development stage" concern's comp plan, valid through 2009!!!
i also misunderstood yer "smoky room" queries as to the ASM. i was thinking PJS' Manhattan office & you were apparently thinking the Metropolitan Hotel. On reflection, i think it'd be a helluva lot harder for Wave execs to shove that comp plan down S/Hs throats when a few hundred of 'em (zealots or not) were staring back @ 'em in the flesh.
to that end, i *do* think there is a substantial difference in floating the proxy in a "special" meeting that will not be attended in any significant numbers.
the *only* point i conceded is that the increase in the # of shares available for options from 13.5 to 15mil could potentially have an adverse effect on the H calculations for 19.99% purposes.
i resent the "quietly recanted" implication. it would be easy to bang the drum of sleazy deals, financing SKS' private entities, Founders' Shares, still unpaid loans to Feeney that barely snuck past the Sarbannes-Oxley passage (while he flips option shares @ $5), NON-performance guaranteed bonuses, PJS buying KWI BK estate for $600K+ while not paying back the $mil ahem, "loan," (while Wave was forced to take on loan shark financing) all b/c PJS didn't wanna sell some of his 2million-odd shares (he certainly never had any problem selling shares before).
the prevailing logic on some of this stuff has been one of necessary evils (e.g., CEO & CFO did Wave a favor by flipping option shares b/c it put $2/sh into the coffers; PJS didn't wanna harm the share price by selling shares, so the company "loaned" out a badly needed mil to him in lieu of yet another sale; etc., etc., ETC!).
i opted to spare the "club" from a series of posts that would have added to Bluefang's diatribe, etc.
that in NO WAY suggests that i "quietly recanted" anything!
the fact that the newly minted option shares might have triggered the 19.99% provision does not validate it IMO as good corporate governance... NOT EVEN CLOSE!
do ya think they'll set strike prices for future emp/exec options @ the high end of the 52 week range or the low?
will the guaranteed NON-performance bonus policy continue?
the lessons of 98-00 have proven to be invaluable at this stage for me. overall my trading has been entirely successful precisely b/c of my recovering wavaholic status.
but in the 20 or so round-trips i've made in the last month or so, i have made two terrible trades. the first was a buy @ around 3:55 going into the CC (stooopid me for thinking benefit-of-the-doubt that there might be some remotely meaningful rev guidance & overly discounting the "So" factor). the second was a dump on the gap down the day after the newest 14 was released (to some degree influenced by my sksepticism as to bad corp behavior).
i have not (nor will i ever) adopted the fawning "whatever SKS' Dad's cronies decide to pay him is A-OK w/me, heck, he deserves more!" mind-set. nor will i allow myself to be wallowed in the pessimistic mire that kept HhH in cash when the INTC news gusher was tapped.
i have come to conclude (& accept) that a certain degree of sleaze is a necessary evil to owning WAVX & will not permit it to cloud my trading strategies whatsoever in future transactions.
things are what they are. the Spragues will always be what they are in this context. the market is embracing TC. Wave has a significant 1st mover advantage (which btw & fwiw does merit some hefty rewards though not to the extent, nor in the manner, that the Sprague trough has been re-filled again & again IMO).
Wave has realized some serious value from the $260mil spent over last 10 years (though it's debatable whether it is in fact $260mil worth of value, the market cap suggests, for now at least, that it isn't).
Wave had the ability to let go of their proprietary solution & turn towards the biz oppty that was present. Softee no longer has a strangle-hold on TCPA. TCG utilizes a (seemingly) equitable RAND licensing policy.
the news has been riddled w/computing security stories. Feds are ramping spending on "Homeland Security" (which brings the proprietary EMBASSY solution into play).
WXP has demonstrated value vis-a-vis HowardDeanTV & the climate for IPOs is warming (which might mitigate Wave's pauper status in terms of IB suitors & raising new capital.)
& on & on & on...
it is decidely unprofitable to delude one's self that Wave mgmt will ever win any awards for outstanding corporate governance.
almost every sign points to wavx going higher in the near-term & IDF is on the horizon & HP continues to add "Embedded Security" docs to its site by the dozen daily.
so heretofore my mantra as to Sprague conduct is:
"Jimmy crack corn & i don't care!"
have a good day,
SPIN
PS i couldn't agree more about the Vegas chatter, except that down the road (under certain circumstances), it could provide a nice sell signal.
PPS i hereby predict that some voids'll champion yer "quiet recanting" rhetoric as if it were accurate b/c it makes 'em feel warm inside irrespective of the lumpy rug of stuff swept under by years of mgmt's self-interest. cue mantra...
weby do those guys & gals deserve it more than you?
they have a guarantee (salary) for showing up. you have no such guarantee.
if they perform well, they should certainly be rewarded commensurate to the results of that performance.
no problem there @ all.
but shouldn't the performance & the related rewards be measured & compatible?
moreover, option strikes should be set @ or near 52 week highs, NOT lows.
exercising those options was a much-needed cash infusion in a desperate time... if Wave is going to succeed @ even a tenth of the rate suggested, strikes @ 52 week highs shouldn't be a problem & set @ lows is fundamentally wrong IMO & overly dilutive.
JMO & not nearly enough to miss the larger opportunity.
anway, thanks for clarifying,
SPIN
24 - I can see the possibility too.
that 1.5 mil shares would be significant in that context. but that doesn't address the need to re-new the 1994 comp plan into 2009!
"what makes a room in Manhattan less smoky?"
considering the old man is in NY, i'd speculate that it could be smokier there than in Mass.
i don't doubt that SKS is in this for the long haul whereas his Dad seems to be in cash-out mode & has been for a few years IMO.
SPIN
PS the 99% thing is not based soley on bored games. there's lotsa pudding under the crust.
nits & that
shute - is the exec comp not a sub-part of the overall emp. comp plan? i don't know the answer, but stand by the belief that any comp plan designed in 1994 was designed for a "development stage" corp.
i mentioned Snack's $300 comment (& know full well that you were not predicting that price, just saying it was possible (& as such makes the 1994 plan even more inappropriate IMO)). but a price of $0 is equally "possible" in 5 years (i don't think it's likely, but it's nevertheless possible).
24, the smoky room metaphor assuredly had a "basis in reality" when the Founders' Shares deal was done (& not disclosed for something like six months).
i don't find it unreasonable to be cautious & skeptical based on such prior dealings. i'm willing to give the benefit of some doubt (as i posted it is possible that entirely legit bases exist for this move).
but the prior disclosure argument is brand new (i only recall mentions of the H shares) & the cost-savings contention of doing a 2d proxy in a month is nonsensical.
there may be some other reason for this maneuver & i don't know what that reason is (wish i did).
do you know?
SPIN
no option objections
when tied to performance.
but guaranteed non-performance-related bonuses?
Wave cannot be on the cusp of deployment & still be construed as a "development stage" corp. The comp plan was established in 1994. Much has changed in the decade since that plan was established and many things seem to remain the same.
a rubber stamp to renew this comp plan does not, IMO, build shareholder value.
a new comp plan should be established w/unambiguous milestones and performance benchmarks.
Snack is bantering $300/share and the 1994 comp plan is being extended to 2009
It might seem fine to a void, but the financial press would skewer it for what it is.
some here defended it on the basis that it was disclosed by SKS or Feeney (news to me). others claim it is a cost-saving measure?!? (they have to draft, review, print & circulate a second proxy - how does that save dime one?).
BTK - btw, my BofD objections were not about the members of the bored (despite the cronyism IMO the members are an asset (though i know very little about Bagalay's contributions)). my objection was to BofD terms all running concurrently. staggered terms would diminish some of the rubber stamp authority (though prolly not very much).
the series H_ell "clean-up" is likely a necessary evil & i don't have enough knowledge about the machinations to ascribe anything good or bad to its removal from the prior proxy.
but i definitely do believe that the compensation plan crafted in 1994 should not govern exec comp until 2009, especially if the success predictions here are even 10% accurate.
performance-based benchmarks & clearly delineated milestones attached to comp would build shareholder value IMO.
the "smoky room" was mere metaphor John. but you already knew that.
SPIN
24
why were these provisions pulled from the original proxy & slipped into a proxy for some meeting that will not be well attended?
the 1994 comp plan was for a "development stage" company. This rubber stamp will allow that plan to continue into 2009!
non-performance related bonuses, etc.
why would the series H_ell provision be removed from the ASM to a smoky back room on a Friday.
& shute, i didn't see any ASM reports that disclosed that this was the maneuver. in fact, i recall wondering what the "special" meeting was all about & recall reading @ least one poster's account of it stating (paraphrasing) that SKS was vague as to what business would be addressed @ this "special" meeting.
w/the millstone of credibility problems, squeaking loans under Sarbannes-Oxley, founders shares, funding SKS' private entity w/PUBLIC money, etc., why would they allow the specter of that scrutiny to revisit the company?
you know about the "appearance of impropriety" & @ minimum it seems shady & w/disregard for S/Hs. There may very well be some legitimate basis for it (though none whatsoever for the comp plan extension through 2009 IMO).
does it carry the appearance of good corp governance?
more fodder for media & shorts & sows new seeds of doubt for those that do not trust mgmt implicitly.
are you pleased w/the filing?
SPIN
PS game of chance - so how do you "know" Trance?
trusted computing base (TCB):
[The] totality of protection mechanisms within a computer system, including hardware, firmware, and software, the combination of which is responsible for enforcing a security policy. Note: The ability of a trusted computing base to enforce correctly a unified security policy depends on the correctness of the mechanisms within the trusted computing base, the protection of those mechanisms to ensure their correctness, and the correct input of parameters related to the security policy. [NIS]
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-038/_5629.htm
SPIN
PS who posts their position? even when it's claimed to be "no position"?!? defending Trance says it all buddy!
swelling# of docs re: "Embedded Security" on HP site...?
from a handful to 63 in last 3 days -- around 40 new docs today alone:
http://search.hp.com/gwuseng/query.html?col=hpcom+ccen+ccenfor+authent&qp=%2Burl%3Acompaq.com/su...
maybe so 88
but then why did he claim it was in the proxy AND his Dad just called him b/c he just rec'd the proxy.
i'm chilled & invective posts from me definitely do not lead to a logical conclusion that my blood's boiling cuz it's not!
bagging phonies is like sport.
anyway,
SPIN
PS Yes Knute! Kind thanks fer apprising the rest of us what's what re: ASM.
AJE - pot meet kettle?
this dude, Moe-Ron poses a question about how the proxy stated (paraphrasing) that Wave "lost its biggest customer" and "that's why the need to increase the shares."
not gonna do a blow-by-blow of all the reasons that i believe "Ron" posted that message to foment doubt...
been around message boreds for about 7 years & have seen many techniques from pumpers & bashers.
brand new ID.
"My Dad just called me..."
etc.
like howeird, i could be wrong, but i've seen enough stuff on boreds to spot BS in a heartbeat.
"Ron" did not post a genuine message.
i assume you've read the proxy.
my only "targets" are liars (something that cuts both ways btw), HhH fer fun & sport & Trance for obvious reasons.
have my posts deleted if you want...
SPIN
Hey Ron!
does anyone call you "Moe"?!?
they do now!
SPIN
Hey Ron!
you wrote: "wondered why he would say something like that?"
alzheimers or deception? pick 'em.
you wrote: "I really just wanted to be pointed to some posts that discussed this..."
there haven't been any "posts that discussed this" because you just made it up!
you wrote: "I kind of suspected I would get a reply like yours!"
i'm not surprised that you suspected as much.
enjoy that 12-14 hr/day thing.
lurking suits you,
SPIN
Hey Ron!
you wrote: "Question for the board, I havent been keeping up with the stock lately"
stock trades @ a buck for a year & runs to $5 this month & you claim you "haven't been keeping up..."
you wrote: "I just got a call from my dad about the proxy statement..."
No you didn't.
you wrote: "Can someone enlighten me about this.."
Sure. Your Dad either is an illiterate idiot or he has a liar for a son (or both).
nice try buddy - good thing you can't play around w/multiple aliases on iHub. see ya 'round!
ciao!
SPIN
PS it's i before e, except after c... i see it runs in the family.
PPS AND i see you just created your identity today... i'm looking forward to the Trusted Computing era!