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.
Dreamer: It's not that I won't answer your PMs, it is that I can not.
Maybe at some point Wave may be a good investment, but it sure has not been for the entire history of the company. 98+% loss of shareholder value?
You saw the Q3, same as me. The difference is, I wait for confirmation and evidence of my hopes--while you lean a bit forward.
So let me ask you a question: Do you think Wave is in a good place right now? The entire time we were allegedly in the "Catbird Seat," we were losing value steadily. Personally, I have seen nothing to change that powerful downward force.
Two reverse splits is not generally a good sign, but perhaps you disagree?
I like what Solms has done so far, but the lack of significant sales is not a good bellwether, IMO.
Maybe it will change. When it does, I will believe it. More promises? Not so much.
All those partnerships with tech giants like Samsung--did you see any revenue stemming from them in the most recent quarterly report? Me either.
Perhaps Solms can push Wave to B/E by year's end. But I wouldn't bet my lunch money on it. At some point, we have to have sales to move us forward.
I'm not one for banking on dots. I prefer revenue--but feel free to to do it your way. Have you been successful so far?
Blue
Zen: I understand your animus towards me, but you are mistaken about some of the things you have said. I don't just have one point and keep hitting it.
All along, when you and the rest of the supporters were denying the truth about SKS's mgt, the nepotism, deliberate misstatements, etc. I was pointing out all the reasons why he was not the right fellow for the job. Yes, I mocked and made fun of your side plenty--I thought you deserved it for cheering SKS while he picked your pockets and filled his.
Maybe you didn't read the rest of my post to Barge about Solms doing the best he can with what little SKS left him. It is not a monochrome negative rant at all.
I thank you for acknowledging I was right about SKS. I think anger and maybe group-think may cloud your judgement about me. That's fine, you have the right to disagree and to find me disagreeable.
But the last few posts to me have been so angry, I feel we can not have a civil conversation about where Wave is, and its likely future. I'm willing, but doubt you are.
We are both here because we care about Wave. I was not just slamming Steven, I was asking for professional mgt, because it was obvious that was not happening under Steven/Feeney.
My last post to Barge was in response to his repeated defense of Steven, which you disagree with, too.
Please understand this, if nothing else. My view of Wave has been negative because of how shareholders, including yourself, were treated--even if you didn't realize it at the time.
You might just want to entertain the thought, why was I so right about Steven and you were so wrong? Not trying in any way to rub it in, but trying to help you going forward.
Yes, Solms said he could hit break-even in Q4--and I am sure he meant it. But saying it and doing it are completely different.
You saw the Q3 report--what was there in that, that gave you encouragement? Nothing was improving. Didn't you take stupendous losses by believing Steven? I do not think Solms is anywhere near what Steven was, but after losing so much, I would be doubly cautious about giving my trust blindly to someone else--even someone who seems to be as upright at Bill Solms.
However, he does not have much to work with. In more than a year with Wave, first as VP Sales and then as CEO--there is not one significant sale. Not his fault, IMO.
His goal may be to reach B/E, but how is he going to accomplish that without selling product?
Let's drop the anger and the name-calling and try to figure out if shareholders have any chance at all. I know you are heavily invested and I am sure my posts calling attention to the missteps and lack of sales are irritating in the extreme. But, like it or not,it is true and I have not made things up.
Please don't confuse the message with the messenger--which is what I think you are doing. I did not cause Wave's predicament, I merely predicted it, based on what I saw. You were swallowing a load of lies from the former CEO and you based your investment decisions on that. I understand that.
Speaking of lies, there have been many told about me, in an effort to discredit me--yet, my record I believe, shows a pretty high rate of accuracy--not claiming infallibility, but still, had you listened to what the critics were saying, you may have saved yourself some money.
I truly wish you the best and that Wave will somehow pull this stinking carcass out of the fire and return money to shareholders who have loyally supported the company for more than a decade.
Best wishes--Blue P.S. I could not answer your PM.
Barge: The great majority of Steven's lies were not misinterpretations of his statements, i.e., "I can hit break-even by Q1 (2007) based on orders in hand."[SKS---2006].
There was plenty of misinterpretation, too--but all based on Steven's fabrications about huge deals that only needed lawyering or signatures, tens of thousand of seats, why he was not "allowed" to buy on the open market, because of all the big deals in the pipeline.
That last one was so transparent and so obviously untrue, it's hard to understand how anyone believed it--but they did.
Once a CEO lies to the shareholders, public and media the way Steven did so profusely, it makes every statement thereafter subject to suspicion of untruth. The CEO does not always have to tell the whole truth, but outright lying again and again is not acceptable in American business and is part of the reason Wave's share price is once again flirting with the de-listing minimum of $1.
Steven made Wave a laughingstock company on two fronts: his arrogant mendacity, coupled with his failure to ever produce the results he claimed were coming in the following quarter or two. These lies were repeated in one form or another over the entire time he was CEO.
Don't forget Feeney lied about break-even too in almost the exact words Steven did.
There were many who said his untruths didn't matter and many who said it was acceptable for him to lie to keep the company going.
Steven's Fibber McGee impersonation cost shareholders tens of millions in losses, because they simply couldn't believe the CEO of a publicly traded company would be able to outright lie his head off with impunity.
The shareholders who excused it or rationalized it were part of the institutionalizing of his constant whoppers. They argued against penalizing the CEO for misleading them--and we all see how that ended up.
The lies got bigger and bigger as time passed with no execution and more inept missteps, with the rabid crowd outright excusing it, ["will any of that matter when Wave hits $100 a share?"]
Likewise the supporters excused the loading of the payroll with relatives, the many rounds of dilution, the failure of a single one of SKS's predictions to come true--any one of which would result in immediate firing at most companies.
We now have a new CEO who has done his best as quick as he could, to chop the gaggle of blood-suckers from the payroll, to close down unproductive subsidiaries having no connection with Wave's core business and to attempt to bring Wave back from the dead.
Maybe he can do it or maybe the pit was simply too deep for Solms to crawl out of with Wave on his back.
Our reality, because of what you think is Steven's "great vision," is a bleak future with more dilution in it--products so crappy they are hard or impossible to sell and I would guess another reverse split not far down the road.
26 years without a single penny of profit is a long time to hold on, without any reinforcing validation--while at the same time, those same rabid supporters were claiming the gusher would flow at any minute.
Steven brought devastation to shareholders, 'vision' notwithstanding. His legacy is abject and complete failure and losses on top of losses. That's the reality.
I believe you have a good heart and are trying to find some way to soften the blows--but the truth is Steven was a miserable manager, arrogant and headstrong, as well as a person who simply could not tell the truth if his life depended on it.
As a result, Wave hangs by the slenderest of threads, dangling above the precipice with no salvation in immediate sight. If Wave does succeed, it will be despite Steven, not because of him.
Why not let the chips fall where they should fall--squarely on Steven's shoulders? Why search far and wide for faux causes of Wave's many failures elsewhere, when it is clear to most of us, exactly who is responsible for Wave's current dire predicament?
Best, Blue
Barge: To me,the worst part of Steven's mgt and stewardship of Wave--was the continual lies about profitability and about deals done that weren't. Both were complete fiction.
Steven may have had a grand vision, but the deception he practiced, the mismanagement, the ineptness of his and Feeney's multiple screw-ups--were more than enough to justify calling Steven not fit to run the company--long ago.
Then there was the enormous salary and guaranteed "performance" bonus he took when shareholders were dying--not to mention his and Feeney's golden parachutes from a company almost DOA when he was fired.
Putting his whole family of inept do-nothings on the Wave payroll was equally unforgivable. Likewise, employing do-nothing friends, like Dave Nadig--the basement blogger in the footed pajamas.
Vision is one thing and execution another.
What you see as senseless "bashing" of Steven, IMO, is well-earned and well-deserved condemnation for unforgivable acts of deceit and selfish greed visited upon the shareholders, always holding out an impossible specter of success just ahead. That went on for many years.
Steven's vision--which I do not share with you at all, does not excuse his deliberate misleading of the shareholders about Wave's true condition and IMO, crosses the border into criminality.
He owns that condemnation based on the facts and IMO, your misguided attempts at defending a liar, a cheat and a profligate squanderer, fall on deaf ears for a very good reason.
Steven deserved to be fired and the fact his own father, who gave him the job he was so miserably and spectacularly unsuited for--tell the Wave tale about as well as anything. He was an unmitigated failure as CEO and the ax should have fallen years ago, IMO.
I believe the ax would have fallen sooner, except for a certain group of rabid supporters who kept the empty Wave balloon aloft as long as they did, by insisting Steven's lies were true. In the end, it was reality, not vision that felled Steven. It was the result of his own actions, not the failures of the TCG.
There is no mitigation and no justification for what he did to shareholders again and again.
Blue
Player: Did you find any interesting tidbits in the 10Q--beyond the obvious lack of progress? I find your comments about business in general fascinating.
So far it looks as if the-under-new-mgt Wave is making progress about the same as the old mgt Wave--with some exceptions--professionalism, lack of BS (not Solms), removal of the impediments to success--the Spragues, etc, expulsion of money losing subsidiaries that provided employment to various members of the First Family, etc.
But on the new sales progress front, not much to speak of.
Best, Blue--following from afar
Root: Once again, Wave's future...lies somewhere in the future. After more than a year at Wave as VP Sales and later CEO, there is not one single significant sale--disappointing, to say the least.
I wish Solms had addressed what is so hard about selling security in a global market looking for it.
I saw the series of ads for Wave and think they are a step forward--even if they are long and somewhat redundant. Won't hurt and possibly it could help. At least he is trying his best to sell.
It is worrisome Wave is not making headway in this market. Something is disconnective--something real strong. Yes, I can see the health of the company is troubling to some big companies, but most just want to protect their data and customers.
So, why the heck isn't Wave selling hand over fist? Why is a market so desperate for security, shunning Wave? Hardly makes sense at all.
Perhaps Solms will find a way to make inroads, but the fact he hasn't to date, is concerning--deeply concerning.
After 26 years in business, Wave is still trying to find its way. What was once touted as a disruptive technology, has not disrupted at all--except for dreams of shareholders expecting sudden wealth.
If Q4 closes with no significant sales, I would say Wave is cooked.
Blue
Why should any Wave investor have confidence in Solms, as you do?
He laid down a timeline for Q3 and Q4 saying we would begin to see signs of a turnaround. What turnaround? He had numerous opportunities to back off that timeline, but instead of being quiet, he re-stated Wave is on schedule.
If we are on schedule for a turnaround, why are sales lower than before?
What about the waffling on the dozens of VSC "pilots." Turns out it wasn't about VSC after all, when that is exactly what he led us all to believe. Sound familiar?
Feel free to have confidence in Solms. Let me remind you in the darkest days of SKS's reign, you were always full of confidence he was doing the right thing by investors. Is this a different kind of confidence? What is it based on--the same kind of grand expectations for Wave's ginormous success that will be coming down the pike any day now?
How often has your 'confidence' in Wave led you to make the correct predictions about imminent success? Did you make any right guesses? None that I can recall. But I recall plenty of wrong ones. Is my memory inaccurate?
Maybe this "guy" can manage, but he sure as hell can't sell Wave. I see all the hopefuls trying to put a happy face on what is a mini-disaster--yet another blow for a company that is supposed to be rising, but instead is sinking lower into the mire.
Spin it for all it is worth, but the numbers are just plain bad. That's the reality and all the dots in China, Europe and the US don't soften that one bit or change the numbers.
Where are the signs of the turnaround? We are more than 1/3 through the last6 quarter already and where are the big presents for Wave shareholders? In fact, where are just the stocking stuffers?
Where is Snackman's "upside surprise?"
If anyone thinks this is good for Wave investors, load up the trucks with more shares. The one year + with no significant sales is pretty discouraging. I don't know what other see in this, but I see a lot more of the same old, same old. Different day; different manager--same results.
Blue
Here's the Blue pre-game snap count on Wave
I suspect tomorrow night at this time, we will have heard a lot of comments about Wave's Q3 CC, along the lines of:
"Next quarter, Wave is truly going to rock and roll."
"I believe the govt is going to sign a contract very early next year."
"This may not have been a great quarter, but wait until first or second quarter of 2015--then you'll see, then you'll believe."
"Bill Solms seemed far more confident than Steven ever did."
"Solms seemed as if he knows where he is going and how to get there."
"Solms did not once mention another placement, so I have to assume Wave is doing just fine, financially."
"Privately, one of the board members told me after the CC, we are on the cusp of exciting times."
"We're picking up speed."
"I think this time it's really different, for real."
[Blue] Let's see if there are any new ones.
_________________
No matter what is said by anyone, I would advise you to keep your eye on revenue and all the numbers in the report. Forget words, concentrate on the numbers. Results are all that matter, IMO.
Blue
I can wait. You said you expected an upside surprise soon and I asked you to define "soon." I believe you said by year's end, or maybe it was tomorrow.
But if there is no good news, what do you do? Do you examine the premises that led you to believe the news was going to be good? Do you search for reasons why the info was so faulty again?
Or do you reset your timeline, again moving Wave's goal posts backward for the umpteenth time.
If it is me who is wrong and I have to eat, crow, believe me, I will do it like a man--not make excuses. I take responsibility for my own actions and words and am accountable for them. So, bear with me for a bit of hypothetical, please.
If we lined up on one side, all the hopeful posts you and your supporters have put up on various boards over the past 15 years, and on the other side, we lined up all the critical and pessimistic posts for the same time period--which side do you think would have come closer, most often to reality?
Why are lapsed and failed timeline predictions acceptable? Why do Wave shareholders consistently have to push their expectations backward? Is there ever a time when a top Wave manager says something that doesn't come true, that we should expect an explanation instead of being ignored like it wasn't said?
If you are in a mgt position high enough to know exactly what the situation is, why is it OK for you not to be held accountable for those missed timelines?
Why is it we shareholders have to twist around to find some plausible (or often, implausible) reason for the failure? Thai floods? Why shouldn't the person making the statement have to explain the failure to adhere to company-set deadlines?
You have cut off debate on those missed timelines and have said repeatedly they don't matter. I disagree. I think they do matter. They go to credibility. SKS had no credibility at all as a result of making up timelines he knew couldn't possibly come true.
We'll see tomorrow if Gen. Solms is marching down that same path.
I will be surprised if you are right. But if I am right, yet again--what then?
Blue
TKC--at least you labeled your hopes correctly. Maybe you are right. Tomorrow we will find out and I suspect you and all the other Wave hopefuls are going to be disappointed again.
If there were new sales to replace the Dell losses, wouldn't someone at Wave hint at that? Solms is kept up to date, I'm sure, on shareholder discontent and it is growing pretty fast. If Solms knew there was reason for hope, I believe he would not allow shareholders to feel as disappointed as they now do, without providing at least a hint that relief is on the way.
But, let's wait until tomorrow to continue the conversation. I suspect the reaction to the numbers is going to be in the category of, "Well, it could have been a lot worse." My question is, when is it going to get better?
How long does one hold the torch for a long-shot dream, when every single quarter there is disappointment and no basis whatsoever for hope?
Feel free to cling to the thin wisps of evaporating hopes, but for me, I prefer reality and hard numbers, not some pie-in-the-sky, one in a billion possibility if all the planets, stars, comets and moons in the universe align.
What is so hard about accepting there have been no significant sales in more than a year? If Wave's product had the wow factor you think it does, wouldn't we have seen deals by now? I doubt it is because of lack of trying. I think Solms is out there pushing his people hard, but how do you sell a product that has been almost universally shunned after a hundred or more trials and demos?
Look at the list of Wave partners--impressive isn't it? Now look at revenue from all those impressive partners over a long period of time. Not impressive at all, is it? We all thought it was bad mgt with SKS, coupled with his arrogant, know-it-all attitude--but, Solms hasn't been able to sell much either--even with capable people on it.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Wave is a dream and will remain so, until significant and sustained sales prove it is solid and more than just vapor. IMO, we are a long, long ways from that.
Best--Blue
Isn't it interesting how little interest Wave is generating the day before an important Q3 earnings report?
In days gone by, the number of posts just before and after a CC were numerous on all boards.
Does anyone think the lack of posts the day before the report indicates confidence in Wave as an investment?
Our new CEO has said he can not give guidance. Personally, I would rather hear silence than hear a sack full of lies about big progress, the way it used to be.
On the other hand if the numbers are as bad as most of us think they will be, a long silence following a bad report will not do much for the share price, IMO. That scenario will allow the numbers to speak for themselves in the absence of some sort of statement of hope for the near future.
The SP is already perilously close to the de-listing minimum of a buck.
A handful are expecting an upside surprise. That would be nice, but hardly realistic, IMO. In my 19th year following Wave, there has never been news of substance from the CC that I can recall.
I can wait until tomorrow afternoon to see what the numbers are, but if I was holding a huge block of shares, I'd be nervous. We are more than a third of the way through the last quarter of the year--and nothing out of Wave HQ. I think even us pessimists were expecting something by now. But, nothing.
I would hope the new team can give shareholders something other than a hat full of disappointing numbers followed by no guidance. I would think Friday will be a most interesting trading day to watch.
Most of us agree only sales will lift Wave out of his penny stock category and that is exactly what we have not been seeing.
Here's what we know: One modest sale (no numbers included), "dozens" of pilots having potential down the road--but nothing imminent on which to base hope for the near future. After the long dry desert we have been traversing, this is hardly welcome news. It's more of the same, without the lies.
Each day slipping by with no news is another razor cut to CEO Solms's credibility--based on his statement we would begin to see signs of a turnaround in the third and fourth quarters of this year. This year has but a month and three weeks left in it with no visible signs of anything different under the new regime.
Solms has been on the job now for more than a year and Wave has yet to announce a significant sale--not one. Doesn't hope need at least a tiny toe-hold to support it?
IMO, it does not only not look good, it looks decidedly bad.
Blue
New Wave: You think because a radicalized few want to hurt us, to protect us, our government needs to monitor every American's email, phone, text and letters?
When the govt had the info before 9/11--they did not correctly interpret it to prevent the attacks. And 13 years after that attack, not much has changed, except for the extent and scope of the snooping--overriding our basic rights to privacy, which used to insure no snooping unless a judge somewhere approved a specific wire for a specific purpose for a specified amount of time.
Forcing tech companies to build back doors into every device, software and hardware is simply crazy. International buyers will shun American products if they know they contain "back doors" for snoops.
There is already a growing suspicion American made tech products have avenues for monitoring by the government and as a result, secret info on American competitors overseas is being used for US advantages. That is the kiss of death.
As far as proper oversight by elected officials--that is the biggest joke of all. The simple fact is, if someone has access to private info, it will be misused--i.e., NSA employees monitoring wives, girlfriends and neighbors to see if they are cheating. That is on the low end of the scale. The high end is still classified.
The NSA, CIA and many other intelligence agencies have repeatedly lied to Congress and the President. We have now surpassed East Germany for the title of the most surveilled citizenry in history.
IMO, Wave does not and should not join in the compliant company of corporations bowing to govt snoop pressure to install easily outwitted software and hardware. Would anyone buy a set of door locks from a company, if they knew their local or state govt would be given a set of keys?
Wave should, IMO, concentrate on its core mission of providing security with no back doors, no secret code unlocks, etc. Just the fact Wave is currently being led by two former generals creates suspicion about Wave's independence from govt. snooping efforts.
Already, with GPS, weather apps, etc.--our phone companies can monitor where we are at any given moment. Unfortunately, that data is being stored somewhere and is available to govt agencies with little or no oversight.
Snooping by our government under the guise of protecting us is eroding our personal liberties and IMO, is unnecessary. Real intelligence work uses humans to detect who the dangerous ones are.
The flow of data is now so huge, clues to coming attacks will only be detected after the fact--no matter how powerful the super computers used to sift this data are.
If Wave is to claim an international market, it must lay to rest the suspicions it acts as a US govt agent and allows snoops to sift the data being protected by Wave.
The ridiculousness factor is high when the govt make it illegal for companies to tell its clientele the govt is seeking info. This is the path to totalitarianism, IMO. Wave should want no part in it, or whatever small chance the company has to be prosperous, will be further and possibly fatally compromised, IMO.
Blue
Barge: SKS was a notorious non-listener. He always valued his own opinions highest and that kind of arrogance in the face of consistent failure branded his entire approach. He did not listen to good advice, wasn't interested in what shareholders thought, unless they were getting ready to sell.
The product itself was a masterpiece of "We'll tell you what you need" manufacturing, rather than a product fashioned from customer needs, based on customer input. He thought he knew their needs better than they did.
When folks told him he needed a COO and a sales supervisor, he continued to do the same crappy job of holding all the reins and failing and flailing miserably, driving the company to the edge of bankruptcy, while not making any inroads at all in advancing Wave in the marketplace.
When he was told he needed help with all Wave communications, he continued to put out misspelled, grammatically-challenged gibberish.
Your adulation of SKS and your defense of him, diverges from the known facts considerably. HE WOULD NOT LISTEN!
Blue
Alea: I think what you said is true. Does it matter how sterling Wave's technology is, if buyers shun it?
Many have touted the advantage of Wave's 'superior' technology, but Wave has failed repeatedly the only real test--in the marketplace.
No doubt Solms & Co. are working 24/7 to fix that, but given a late start, insufficient finances and a horrible company reputation--I wonder if he and his new team can pull off a worst to first finish--or even drag Wave to profitability anytime soon--let alone in the time frame the new CEO has set for himself. Thus far, it does not look promising, IMO.
In fact, I'd bet against it, precisely because of the big obstacles lined up against Wave.
The biggest obstacle may be the lynch-pin of Wave's basic strategy--using the TPM to harden defenses against the wholesale attacks going on now. TPM usage may be going up, may be static or even declining. It's hard to say, because the usage is not yet at a measurable level. Of all the obstacles Wave is facing, this may be the biggest.
The best technology does not always win, although the worst technology almost never wins. Where does Wave sit on that spectrum? A: We don't know. We do know Wave, despite efforts, has never been able to sell its product in a sustainable way.
These are the reasons I am so pessimistic about Wave's chances at a future better than the past 26 years. The short run looks horrible, the longer run not much better and complicating the long run's issues, is the lack of financial stability at Wave.
All of the wild squandering of resources under the past CEO has endangered Wave's future, IMO, to the point it will take a long-shot miracle to reverse things and an even longer-shot miracle to bring those long and faithful shareholders back to profitability.
Blue
The first third of the last quarter of this year closed today and no new sales announcement--not a presaging silence from Wave HQ.
I'm getting tinnitus from the great, enveloping silence surrounding the turnaround--could be the stealth thingy--companies don't want the world to know Wave is protecting their data--might invite hackers.
Or maybe General Solms and General Patton are busy practicing their synchronized dance moves for next Thursday's CC. I see so many stars and am getting dizzy.
Blue
Alea: I think a better question would be to change the tense--How many angels are currently dancing on the head of the trusted pin?
Potential is one thing, execution is quite another.
TPMs are in almost every computer made these days--somewhere over a billion. Usage has yet to hit a minimum measurable threshold.
I think if TC was going to come roaring in, it would have already. I don't see any momentum towards TC.
I can't shake the feeling TC's window opened and closed a long time ago. Wave continues to pursue this path--to its detriment, IMO.
Blue
M: Couldn't agree more.
Blue
I keep looking for positive signs of engagement. The mysterious govt contractor for such a "modest" sum it wasn't even mentioned, does not belong in the engagement column, IMO.
Neither do the pilots--dozens or none. They collectively mean nothing, until one of the triers makes an order of substance.
In Wave's past, there have been at least two or three other pilots with the US Govt. --always for modest sums. There have never been any follow-on sales--they would have been announced if there were any.
Going this late into Q3 and a third of the way through the last quarter of the year--all without news of sales of significance is troubling.
The missing launch partner is but one piece of the puzzle--but a valuable piece, when combined with all the other signs of nothing and no evidence of anything.
Let's wait a week and see if the Q3 is going to be as bad as I expect. We'll also be able to see whether there has been new business or not. I can't believe if there was new business, it didn't leak out somehow.
Why would mgt allow its shareholders to feel the hopelessness of more of the same old, same old, if it had the outright counter to it? Doesn't make sense to keep it a secret.
Let's chat again when we have the numbers.
Blue
Alea: Do you see any evidence there have been any takers of either the old VSC 1.0 or the new one, VSC 2.0?
I am concerned there are no sales. You have already speculated and I somewhat agree, Solms said the products had to be tweaked.
We both know there is a whole ocean of difference of meaning in the word 'tweak'. Normally, it means slight adjustments--but I suspect with the Wave products, it is considerably more than that.
They announced the VSC 2.0 not that long ago, so maybe the lack of sales is not that troubling to some.
I know Solms is sharp enough to know what the perception is and smart enough to know if he could avoid it, he would have. Still, there have been no sales announced of either the old or the new.
One would think when the VSC 2.0 was announced, they would have a big user company to accompany that announcement. They didn't. Again, I suspect they don't have one. If they did, they would have trotted them out.
It is starting to feel like the new part and the old part run virtually parallel tracks heading to a place not so good at all.
It is still the lean-to-the-future stuff that dominates the Wave discussion. The here and now is simply awful. No results.
Too impatient? Maybe. On Saturday, I begin my 19th year following Wave. Thus far, personally, it has been 72 consecutive quarters of disappointment, always listening to how tomorrow would be better. It never has been, for 6,570 consecutive tomorrows.
So like you, I'll believe it when it happens. I won't be buying into this familiar future stuff where unbelievably good things are sure to happen real soon, if....
I believe on Thursday, we may have all the future we need to see where this is heading.
Blue
I'm with Alea on this one. All those certifications and standards don't mean a spindle of spider eggs, unless sales begin. Standards have not held Wave back. Wave has held Wave back.
The simple truth is, if Wave had a marketable product, we would not be waiting for our first real sale under the new regime.
Solms said a turnaround wouldn't happen in a single quarter, but we were supposed to have been seeing signs of it by now. Not many folks are expecting anything next Thursday other than more disappointment. The silence on that front from mgt is more deafening than ever before.
If Wave actually performed the job, why is it such a hard sell? Could the environment possibly be any better with private companies, huge multi-nationals and governments themselves being plundered by hackers left and right?
You look at the nature of insecurity on the Net and wonder why Wave isn't selling? If a bike lock prevents thefts, it sells. There is no discussion about "selling cycles" (no pun intended) or lock standards. Yes, Wave is a little different and more complex, but basically it is the same principle--if a product has value and is reasonably priced, it sells. Wave doesn't.
The big companies who tried Wave, West Point, European banks and others who gave Wave a trial did not come back to buy this wonderful 'solution.'
Investors have been strung along long enough on hope, promises and outright lies from top mgt along with excuses and rationalizations from supporters about the long time between sales of consequence.
There's not much patience or tolerance for any more equivocating, yet that appears to be exactly what we are getting. Tomorrow marks the end of the first third of the last quarter. Where are the announcements or the signs of the notorious turnaround our CEO has promised is "still on schedule?"
It is way past time for excuses--time now for execution, IMO.
Blue
Bravo, Dig. Well stated and concise.
Blue
Dig: It is not a question of whether generals can be leaders in a civilian organization. It is a question of whether this particular general has baggage that will detract, rather than add to Wave's operations and image.
He may work out just fine, but for many of us would have preferred to see an able leader chosen without the kind of issues surrounding Gen. Patton.
The speculation on his ability to transform from military to civilian life is a non-issue, IMO.
Blue
Titlewave: That Solms is a better leader of Wave than SKS was, is certainly true. On the other hand, he does not exactly have big shoes to fill. He has picked his chief of staff and we can debate whether the baggage Patton carries is favorable or unfavorable to Wave. I just don't see how the hiring of Patton helps Wave at this point--but I will certainly give him a chance.
About your comments on journalists--I believe you are mistaken. I was a journalist for 40 years in print and in broadcast and not once, in working for four newspapers and two TV stations and numerous free lance assignments for the networks, did anyone ever tell me "what the slant was" on any story. If they did, I would have quit.
Some journalists do make errors--some accidentally and some perhaps on purpose. But that does not mean all reporting is so fatally biased it can not be believed.
Journalists are held in wide disdain; some of that is legitimate and some is mistaking the messenger for the message. But believe it or not, the vast majority try to get it right. Still, there are mistakes and there are corrections.
Perfection is the ideal--seldom reached--but it is a goal most journalists strive for.
Wave is the prototypical case. Many supporters of Wave refused to believe the hard evidence accumulating indicating mismanagement of Wave under SKS and Feeney. Some still don't believe it, despite the evidence.
Just as we have differing opinions about the status of Wave, some based on evidence, and some based on other things, so too, do people like or dislike the coverage of an event or an incident. Mistakes may be made, bad ones, sometimes, but usually they are uncovered. Reporters who cause more than a few corrections, usually do not last long in the job.
Perhaps we can take this debate elsewhere, since it too, ranges far afield of what this board is for.
Best wishes--Blue
I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken about courts-martials. I reviewed all transcripts of all general courts-martials. The transcript is a record of the trial, not appellate review as you stated.
When one considers the obstacles one faces to one's career when given what appears to be an illegal order, the best advice superiors can give is "do it" and then challenge it later. The reasoning is, because the military is based on hierarchical rank, when one refuses an order--that in itself is illegal.
Whether the order was illegal is determined at a later date.
So, sir, I believe you to be badly mistaken about the practical aspects of being a subordinate in the unenviable position of disobeying a superior officer's order, especially if the subordinate is a career military person.
If you have experience in the field, beyond civilian supervisory roles, perhaps it was so long ago, you may have forgotten exactly what it means to disobey an order. The consequences are swift and the entire rank of officers are brought to bear on the disobeying soldier--even if the complaint is justified and is certified illegal long after the act of disobeying.
But this argument brings us far afield from where we started--a discussion about the aptness of CEO Solms picking someone as his Number Two and Chief of Staff, who carries the baggage Gen. Patton does.
He may work out fine or he may cause needless distraction at a time when it is not wanted, nor needed. He was fired from his job for a real offense--several, it appears. And when thousands sign the request he be fired, one might consider where there is smoke, there is fire.
My argument is based on Wave's precarious position. The last thing Wave shareholders need is a fellow put in a position of power who has a reputation for intimidation and cover-up.
I'm not sure what your argument is based on. Mine is on experience in and out of the military.
Well I worked in the field as a battalion Courts & Boards clerk. I believe I do know what I'm talking about. I read the transcript of every general courts martial in that division--not one acquittal in the history of the division's records.
At my level, there were no acquittals in the battalion as far back as I could research the records.
Those are my bona fides.
Who gets to determine if it is unlawful? Doesn't that happen after the fact? Yes, you are taught to obey orders of superiors and there are some caveats--but what do you suppose happens to those who do not obey?
I believe we have it in this case. Patton apparently told an investigator to stay in his lane, when the investigator asked a soldier about his treatment--which is why the investigator was there.
What generally happens to those in the military who do not follow orders? Or for that matter, one who tells a superior office the subordinate thinks his order is illegal and therefore he won't comply?
Refusing to follow an order is serious business in the military. I convened courts-martials over exactly that issue. Know what the courts-martial conviction rate is?
It is higher than the percentage of what long term Wave shareholders have lost. It is close to 99.9 per cent.
Blue
I liked Alea's concise, "hammer people with portable skills into submission" line.
In the military, no matter what your skills are (or their portability), you must follow rules and orders, even if they are wrong, illegal or unreasonable. Not the case in civilian-run companies.
His follow-up sentence defines the problem even better, "after a while, you are just going to find yourself managing submissive people who have nowhere else to go."
Blue
Patton's hiring is almost "joke status within Wave"--does that need interpretation?
I have my own criticisms of Patton, but let them drop for the moment. His job as chief of staff at Wave, is NOT to go after military contracts, but to oversee the running of the company--it's an inside job, Minister of the Interior, if you will.
Why Solms would pick someone for his second in command who carries so much baggage puzzles me.
Yes, it helps to know the exact process by which a company applies and wins a govt contract. But in the end, it is about the value of the product. That is where I suspect the problem with Wave lies and where the energy of the company is focused right now.
If true, execution will lie a bit further down the road, when it is needed pretty soon, or even the loyalists are likely to drop away.
Most of us don't care if the leaders' backgrounds are civilian, military or even animal trainers--as long as they get results. Wave shareholders have seen precious few results in more than two decades of effort.
Bad leadership, arrogance, ineptness, dishonesty, deception and failure to delegate all got us where we are now. The question is whether Solms can overcome substantial obstacles to bring in sales of significance. Thus far, there are no results. His time frame for seeing results is slipping away and with it, his credibility and that of Wave.
Player said it right. It is time for execution, not excuses.
Blue
Cypher: Do you have any supporting evidence this guy was hired by Wave's Solms? You are sure to be challenged on the veracity of it.
If true, it is going to be yet another unbelievable hard knock against Wave and the new leadership at a most inopportune time--just before the Q3 CC and during a particularly dry stretch following the firing of Wave's previous, inept CEO.
A controversy over mistreatment of women, a cover-up, intimidation of witnesses, dismissal from the Army, wow! Patton was fired by the Sec. of Defense for betraying his main mission--to stop sexual harassment in the Army.
That's pretty powerful stuff and it will certainly take the discussion and maybe some of the action away from Wave's core mission. Could it come at a worse time?
Blue
Wavey T: I think you have a quite realistic view of where we are.
Some people see that modest govt deal and the more than a dozen pilots and think "Wow! It's here."
Other people have spoken about the nature of pilots and how they rarely result in immediate revenue. Pilots tend to be more long range, when we need something pretty quickly.
In the past Wave did pilots that never led to anything beyond the initial payment--usually less than $100K.
The share price is hovering near the de-listing trigger and a de-listing notification is absolutely the last thing Wave needs or wants at this precarious time. My guess is Solms is using the Cat o' Nine tails on the sales team to try to bag something up before the Q3 CC in early Nov.
My reasoning is same as yours, if he had something, we'd have heard about it by now. There are some other explanations, but those are unlikely, IMO.
Who knows if it is the nasty reputation Wave earned under Steven, or if it is more the products were out of date and needed fixing and modernization? For some reason, there has not been a significant sale in more than a year, IMO.
There's a problem somewhere. Maybe we will receive enlightenment at the Q3 CC. It's time for some straight shooting, after the last regime, IMO.
Blue
1260--that post was addressed to Snackman.
I think what you said about reportable contracts is not quite right. A company may say it signed a major company to a contract for several million dollars a year--if it is a material event (please read definition).
The buyer can not squelch that kind of event impacting share price and Wave would not want a sale like that to be kept under wraps, IMO. You can have disclosure without revealing identities and actual dollar amounts.
Wave has done exactly that in the past. Check out the GM deal if you want verification.
Blue
WaveyT--thanks for helping out. Do you recall when and where each turnaround statement was made?
Blue
Snackman: Thank you for answering my question about your time frame for good things happening with Wave.
I certainly can wait for Q3 and I will wait as you will.
Left unanswered though, was my question about what, if anything, do you do if the Q3 report includes nothing good and some bad things? In the past, the supporters simply hit the 're-set' button and gave it more time.
I don't think I made up anything about what Solms said. He named Q3 and Q4 as when we would begin to see the turnaround. He did not say in 3-5 quarters, as you think--that's my memory.
But, say my memory is correct and good things do not happen, do you mind stating what, if anything, you would do?
If the CEO says something publicly, it seems only fair comment to ask for an explanation of why his time frame was off, instead of just granting more time, unasked.
I will do some research and see if I can't locate exactly what was said about the time frame. If my memory is inaccurate, I owe you an apology and you will get one. I'm not "making things up" as you suggest, presumably to torpedo Wave. Like you, I want Wave to succeed, why would I try do damage to Wave, especially by making things up that are so easily and quickly proven not true?
I guess my question is, if the old methods not only did not work, but led to disaster, why not try a different tack? I can't see giving a CEO unlimited time and opportunities. If he sets a date or a time frame, shouldn't he be held accountable?
In the past, the supporters never even asked for an explanation for unmet time frames and deadlines. We all know where that led.
If the CEO says a Bell deal will be done by August, and more than a month and a half go by and there's no deal and no explanation for the delay--I don't think it is so horrible to ask him what happened. It's called accountability and that is not a bad word, IMO.
Snackman: I would like the facts to be different, just like you. But they are not and I accept reality.
Yes, I can wait for the Q3 CC and have campaigned for waiting to see the results.
You, on the other hand, have predicted an upside surprise for Wave shareholders "very soon."
Could you kindly explain what your time frame means? To most of us, it means imminent--as in about to happen.
I am just guessing and wondering if your upside surprise was yesterday's sale of loss-leader e-Sign?
You feel my message about no new sales of significance is repetitive and perhaps you are right. However, let's not forget why this is brought up. The new CEO said we would start to see signs of a turnaround in Q3.
Isn't it fair comment to note what appears to be slippage on the new CEO's time frame?
And haven't you made repetitive posts about all the good things about to happen for Wave shareholders? And have many or any of those predictions come true?
I don't think repetition is the problem, because an easy solution is to simply skip over posts that contain nothing new. Confusing message with the messenger is part of how we came so far down the road to nothingness, IMO.
My messages about Wave have been pretty consistent and pretty accurate, IMO.
Others can judge the accuracy of what other posters say and whether they ring true or not.
Could we have this conversation after the Q3 CC? If it turns out there actually have been no new sales of significance, what would be your response to that fact?
Obviously continually extending the runway for Wave, giving a hopelessly inept and lying CEO more time was apparently not the answer. Do you feel we may be going down that same path again? Do you think we are even close to that? [Note: I do not think the new CEO is either a liar or inept.]
You also said Wave's share price is not "reality." Doesn't a free market reflect some sort of reality in terms of what that market thinks of an equity's chances in the near future? To me, it does.
Wave's share price reflects performance, or rather the lack of it. That is exactly what I criticize. We have the words from the new CEO, but the deeds have yet to catch up. Is it not fair to hold the head guy accountable for what he says will happen in a specified time frame and doesn't?
Blue
Dig: Perhaps the problem is my inexact way of expressing "my central thesis" which you said was "false." I don't believe it is false, I think it is accurate and true.
I do not believe the Q3 report will show any new sales of any significance and the filings will reveal that statement to be either true or false.
Dig Space: I certainly looked at the Wave filings, but I did not see any new sales, because there were none listed.
Yes, the company does have ongoing maintenance contracts, licensing fees and the like. I am talking about new sales of significance. I see none listed, beyond that "modest" sale to the govt.
Let's hold off further debate, jeering and sneering until we have some numbers--should be in 3-4 weeks time. Then we will both examine the filings and you can tell me where all the new sales are and prove I was repeating "a false statement."
As for the e-sign sale, I think it is a good idea. We were supporting a subsidiary away from the central mission of Wave, distracting and expensive (especially if there was a lawsuit and there was one in the initial stages).
I agree with Player, the sale was part of a negotiated agreement. IMO, that Wave got any cash at all, is a sign of encouragement about the new CEO's abilities. Solms's statement on the sale of esign--it leaves Wave free to focus on its core mission--rings true to me.
I just wish Wave's core mission of selling security was making more progress. Perhaps we haven't given it enough time--still possible it will happen. But given the multiplying number of hacks on businesses, banks and investment houses, one wonders why the world is not beating a path to Wave's door.
Maybe some would qualify the sell off of an 'asset' as a 'new' sale. Not me. I think it is a terrific idea, it brings in some cash, gets rid of drag on the company, but it is not repeatable and is not a sale of the kind we are all looking for.
Despite Dig's digs, I believe my prediction of no new sales will be borne out by the Q3 CC numbers and filings.
Blue
Dig, You make an excellent point. First, a confession--my assessment is not based on any documents at all, but rather the lack of any announcements. I think a fair amount of the time I said "no sales," I added, "of any significance." There may be some minor ones in there.
It is my own definition of significance, none other. Here it is: We are so desperate for news of any sales at all, it seems logical the company would find a way to let us know, if there were sales. The no news is definitely not good news, IMO. If there were significant sales, I believe we'd know by now--by back channels and all the other ways a company leaks info.
Shareholders have Mr. Solms on a tight leash, IMO, largely in part to the mistakes of his predecessor. Nevertheless, he knows he is being held to a far higher standard than Steven ever was and his timeline will to be a short one if there is no progress. Think of the pressure he's under to produce.
I certainly could be wrong--it is my opinion only, there have been no sales of any consequence. When the Q3 numbers come out, I'll leave it to you guys to sort out what was previously sold and billed, maintenance fees, etc. But, bottom line, I think any sales at all will be extremely minor. Wave minor.
I believe in 3 weeks, unless there is a real tsunami of the kind we used to dream about--we are not going to get good news. Yes, it is a short time--about 4 mos. the Wave VSC has been available [talking Q3 CC in Nov.]. If there are sales, why keep it a secret when your stock is banging around the de-listing threshold--again?
If there are sales, would a shareholder have to root around to find it, or is it more likely the company would let us know, instead of risking the ill effects of delay for no gain--after the length of the slog we've been on?
Opinion only
Blue
Wavey Train: You wrote: "People need to stop saying they have not sold anything in a year."
I will stop saying it if you can show me it is not true. The only announcement having to do with sales I can recall in the past year, is the "modest" pilot to the unnamed govt agency.
Why don't we all just wait for about three weeks or so, until the Q3 report comes out. Q2 was pretty bad and I am expecting Q3 to be even worse.
I am not purposely underestimating Wave for some imagined malicious slam of the company, I too, am looking for hope--vainly, thus far. If you can point me in the right direction, based on provable sales, I will be glad to correct myself.
Like you, I expected a rapid change in direction, going north instead of south, once Solms took the reins. Thus far, unless my sense of direction is completely haywire, the Wave gyro-compass is still pointing south.
I am not talking about being provided with bountiful sales once the TPM market engages, or once the govt sees the beauty in Wave's solution, or in any other forward-looking, hopeful indicators that might happen. I am talking about real results, with revenue, right now--signed, sealed and delivered. I don't think there have been any of significance in more than a year.
I say a year, because that is when Solms became VP of sales--last Oct. In Dec. he was promoted to CEO. Yes, I get the Wave product line needed 'tweaking' (not my word). With Wave, it is one excuse after another for failure to sell. Thai floods, non-disclosure agreements, stealth, etc.
I want to be fair, but I just don't see any results under the new guy--other than scraping the Spraguian barnacles off the Wave hull and bringing reality to spending and budgeting. What am I missing? If you know of sales, let me and the rest of us in on it, would you?
The Wave VSC was tweaked and put on the market a few months back (July 22). We're almost three months beyond that and I see hints, but no hard results. I don't count hints. We've all gone broke betting on Wave hints.
Blue