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.
Money: You wrote:
"That flow of information has ceased under Solms."
Allow me to disagree. Solms has let forth a flow of false news and unmet 'goals' such as profitability, the turnaround, the bulging pipeline, and a slew of small deals--none of which has come true.
It would actually be better if he kept his pie-hole shut, exactly what he is doing right now, much to the pain of the shareholders.
From Solms there have been no corrections, no apologies, no accountability, no acceptance of responsibility other than the mild, "I was perhaps too optimistic..."
When Wave is in the most desperate position of its 27-year history, he is keeping radio silence. The only answer I see for explanation is there is nothing to announce. The bag is truly empty.
Most of us knew SKS was a pathological liar who couldn't be trusted if he told you the time. But Solms came in with a clean slate, did many of the right things initially, but then he started floating SKS-type promises and goals, all unmet--just like his predecessor.
But you are right about the lack of outrage when Dell exited, R/S #2, and many of the other things normal shareholders would have required accountability for.
As predicted, Wave is imploding. IMO, Wave will soon become coprolite.
Blue
If Wave closes where it is currently, the market cap is less than $15M.
How soon does the Naz shut down a company like this, after falling below the $15M min. market cap?
TIA--Blue
The arc of Wave has been fairly consistent with a few irregular anomalies like GM, etc. That arc has dipped steadily to the south ever since the tech bubble popped.
In some ways, it is a tribute to the triumph of hope over history and experience. Supporters (and there are still some buying hand over fist)--a great strategy, if Wave was to rise to profitability from this point--an almost impossible task.
But the history of the company has a parallel arc, too. SKS just plain lied and knew he was lying when he kept saying profitability was a quarter or a year away--since 2003. In 2003, when he first said it, Wave did not actually have a real product--Wave had a design.
Unfortunately, Bill Solms has done a fine impression of SKS--making baseless promises of profitability, big sales to come, a pipeline engorged with huge deals, lots of little deals coming, too. None of it true, so far.
Like SKS, Solms has hit not a single one of his goals, targets, estimates, etc.--not a one--which prompted me to label him Windbag Willie early in the game--an outrageous and offensive moniker at the time. But time has proven Solms has no more clue about Wave's success than SKS did.
SKS knew he was lying when he told those whoppers. When Solms made those aggressive and optimistic statements, I think he did not know he would be unable to meet his goals.
However, as time passes and the single small sale of Wave's older technology rattles around inside Solms's otherwise empty bag, the 'Windbag' appellation looks more and more fitting.
Now, with Wave near a quarter a share and with former supporters running for the crowded, bunched-up exits, the consequences of all those lies and false hope, believed by so many for way too long, are costing those most faithful and most loyal to Wave, dearly.
It's nice to be optimistic, but there should be more base for the optimism other than the steady price erosion and long, long sales dearth Wave has experienced and is still experiencing. The facts were reported every quarter--but many chose to believe it was the calm before the storm of taking Wave's to alleged ubiquity.
When one starts talking about selling Safend, the only decently performing subsidiary Wave has,it seems to me it is akin to selling one's organs in order to buy food. It works in the v short term, but when you are down to one kidney, etc., life gets hard.
That's where Wave is now--surrounded on all sides with huge issues, Naz (multiple threats) Market Cap, min. SP and the $15M cap deficiencies. Shareholders are now selling in a panic after they were promised by the CEO a turnaround would happen, profitability would come more than two quarters ago, big sales, etc.
Now the rent check for all those lies and misstatements has come due and Wave is broke again, with little chance of raising enough money to stay in operation for long.
The immediate future is perhaps another reverse split, placement back on the pink sheets, or the end. Perhaps it may be all three.
The months and years of pouring tens of millions into non-revenue "ideas" like WXP, Scrambls, Rivetz, Knowd, etc., along with paying outsized and undeserved big salaries and bonuses to family members--have depleted Wave's treasury--in addition to the buying and investing in useless properties like ishophere.com.
Wave is on a respirator with life signs slowly failing, IMO. Standby for the Death Watch. The pulse of the company is slowing.
Blue
Player: I am grasping for reasons for such apparent ineptness. Is it possible, The Naz told Wave unofficially they would not approve an extension, so go another route, i.e. R/S or the Pinkies?
My speculation is Solms thought a big sale might come in before the Naz deadline and he may have thought that would put them back in compliance. But it hasn't happened, and may not happen.
If it is simple ineptness, I would put pressure on the BoD to ask them how many more quarters of overpromise/underdelivery can they stand.
I am completely out and glad of it.
This co. has been mismanaged from the day Steven was given the reins by his father. Steven set new lows with his incompetence, coupled with a fatal case of arrogance and stupidity and damn near sunk the Wave boat. It was already low in the water with many big leaks when Solms came aboard.
Big talks from Solms, but performance may even be less than under SKS.
Sad...Wave going down.
Blue
Don't know how China fits into this conversation, in terms of relevance, so let's don't go there, OK?
We are supposed to be here discussing Wave, infinitely more pleasant and enlightening, IMO.
Let's return to the subject matter and let me ask you how you view this company's arc?
Are we critics too hard on a business that can't keep from both failing and making false promises about prosperity, turnarounds, big deals, heaven on earth, etc.--all just "one or two quarter away."?
I think the criticism may sting a bit, but it is deserved, IMO. You disagree? Factually, I mean.
Do you feel the Wave shareholders feel they have been treated fairly by the company in terms of its optimistic projections and pathetic results?
Do you have a theory for Wave's curious lack of sales, especially of Wave's VSC 2.0--it has been an even year now. Wave's Smart Card made its debut, you may remember, without a coming-out partner.
The sales department has been reshuffled, some hired, some fired--but same result--no sales.
Do you have a theory for it, or do you agree with those who talk 'long sales cycles,' we're not big enough, we don't have enough fiscal stability, etc.?
Blue
24601: Please read this and see the bold text:
from TechTimes: WikiLeaks Posts over 1M hacking team emails and it's a can of worms, for Governments:
WikiLeaks Posts Over 1 Million Hacking Team Emails
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/68082/20150711/wikileaks-posts-over-1-million-hacking-team-emails-and-its-a-can-of-worms-for-governments.htm
WikiLeaks has created a searchable database of more than 400 GB of private emails and source codes dumped on the Internet after unknown hackers breached into Hacking Team's systems and leaked their files online.
The database is proving to be one huge virtual can of worms for foreign governments spanning the globe from Australia to Mexico.
Earlier reports have mentioned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spent $800,000 to pay for software updates and improvements to Galileo Remote Control System (RCS), Hacking Team's proprietary intrusion software that allows its user to breach private computer systems in stealth.
article continues: http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/wavx-0/wikileaks-posts-over-1-million-hacking-team-emails-and-its-can-worms-governments
__________
This was posted elsewhere--thanks to Big Wave.
This may change your mind about what constitutes surveillance. Especially that last sentence: "...proprietary intrusion software that allows its user to breach private computer systems in stealth."
Does a stealth breach leading to examination of stored private files constitute "surveillance" in your opinion? In mine, it does.
Best wishes--Blue
24601: First of all, it is not a black helicopter (parnoia) sort of thing. Secondly, they (hackers, be they govt or indiv.) don't need to look at your hard drive, because they have intercepted everything coming or going in your computer.
What would you call it if say, a private piece of confidential correspondence was hacked on its way to you and then put out on the Net for anyone to read.
Naturally, we usually think of govt's when we talk 'surveillance' but there are plenty of private actors too, PI's, Mafia hit men, and the like.
The Watergate burglars surveilled the place before they hit it--and they were operating on orders from the President (Nixon) himself.
Do you think if Flash Drives had been invented then, would the Watergate intruders have copied every drive they found? IMO, that definitely constitutes surveillance.
But, if you think surveillance of everything digital and electronic by the US govt is constrained by legal and Constitutional guidelines, let me sell you 51% of Disneyland for a truly great price--100 shares of Wave.
If you have read anything about the Snowden leaks, we (the US) were surveilling friends, enemies, and everyone else--me & you included. Emails, pages, text, faxes, phones, etc.
Why am I so paranoid about this? Because when I was working as a journalist, the govt always wanted access to my sources so they could punish them--not to correct any problems the sources revealed. That's why the whistle-blower statute was written.
Take apart the word 'surveillance.' Sur means 'over' in 19th century French, from 'veiller' means 'watch' from the Latin (vigilare "keep watch.") If you are being watched at all, for any reason by people you don't want to have your info, you are being surveilled.
You can still amend your original position.
Blue
I agree, let's move on and away from the definition of surveillance. 24601 can put whatever label he wants to on how data-at-rest is examined. But if it is mine and I don't want anyone to know it and the gov't sticks its snoopy nose in and reads my private stuff, looking for signs of terrorism, disloyalty, whatever--that is surveillance in my definition.
So, let's agree to disagree on the definition. I don't believe gov't snooping or avenues to it are involved in Wave's strange lack of sales. I think there are other issues explaining that.
Blue
I believe your original point was you did not consider examination of data at rest surveillance. I disagreed and gave some examples. Would you like to amend your view?
I think we both understand word definitions. It is not a matter of being for or against, but rather, what is legal and what is not.
Alea, an excellent answer, but hardly one on the point in question.
24601 said: I don't think of an examination of data-at-rest as "surveillance."
_________
that was the focus of the discussion--his definition.
Anyway, IMO, Wave is not being held back because of lack of meeting standards real or imaginary; lack of fiscal stability; lack of suitable financing to service a big contract; or any of the other explanations.
Wave fails because it never had a clear strategy that it stuck to, the technology is old and one assumes assembled in the same haphazard way Wave put out press releases with misspellings and terrible grammar.
Whatever the reason, Wave has tried a number of ways to enter the market with its product and despite a few nibbles, its product has not sold.
Is there a market for Wave-type security, if it were modernized and innovative with no bugs? You betcha and expanding by the second.
It is this desperation in the security, enterprise, and government markets that vividly brings out the contrast between Wave's claims and the lack of sales--not to mention the far-fetchedness of the excuses for not selling.
IMO, either rescue will come quickly or the NAZ, or creditors, or lawyers will put a bullet into the head of this fatally wounded critter writhing in pain. I think we are talking fairly soon, as before summer's end.
Blue
John: Doesn't that definition bump up against the Constitution in a bad way?
The government's argument seems to be, "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to be concerned about." How does that important concept "privacy" enter into this argument?
Did the mere threat of more terror allow this country to secretly become more of a surveillance state than the previous World Champions--E. Germany's Stasi (secret police) who tapped all phones; read all mail; broke into living quarters to steal underwear, to store at HQ, in case the 'suspect' ran--the SS dogs could track them down.
A lot of people may agree with that sentiment, but let me remind you of Ben Franklin's wise words:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor Safety."
Along the same lines, Sam Adams wrote:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity* of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
* in this context, it means security/safety
______
IMO, the govt's viewpoint is an extremely short-sighted one and does not consider the far-reaching consequences of requiring all US tech companies to build in a back door for various agencies to check on us and make sure we are all 'safe,' and that we are not involved in anything nefarious.
In a short time under such provisions, all tech involving communication or communication devices will be made elsewhere in the world and we will be no safer, in fact less safe than we were before. And we will have forfeited much of our technological edge for what is IMO, a most stupid reason.
It is crazy to give govt or anyone open access to all devices. Make it a hard line to cross, getting warrants.
The fear of terrorism has already cost us much freedom already and those responsible for the terrorism want to rob us of the rest of it and transform this free country into a tightly-controlled dictatorship where its citizens have no rights at all--the state has them. Think China, N Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Russia and virtually all of the X-stans just to cite a few.
It looks as if our Congress and govt intelligence and law enforcement agencies are unwitting and unwilling co-conspirators on this matter, despite the fact our freedom is the most attractive quality of America, even while our government is secretly burrowing beneath, hollowing out our democracy and laying the foundation for a fear-based government who can read everything except your thoughts and they are working on that.
I do hope Wave does not go along with the govt., but know it will, if it means the difference between selling or not selling product.
Blue
Would you consider it surveillance, if you came home and found all of your files had been opened and read?
I would. That is part of Wave's problem also. "Conditional" sercurity is what the govt seeks and as human history has made clear, sensitive info will, without a doubt, be mishandled, mis-shared and misused by unauthorized employees.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. Why isn't any intrusion into computers electronic surveillance, whether those computers are on, off, or the info is stored "at rest" in "the cloud,"
or on paper, PDF, CD, flash drives, etc.?
My sources say all cloud data is checked regularly by various governments, not all of them ours and not all of them known.
What if you had left a CD containing truly sensitive info on your desk. You come home to find the disk is now in your computer and someone has turned your computer on and copied your disk. Would that not be surveillance of data at rest? In my definition, it definitely would be.
I would not be pleased to learn if I had stored nude pictures of say, my wife or girlfriend, that they had been copied and were posted all over the keyboards and screens of NSA employees. "Hey, she's real hot. When is he going to take more fotos like this?"
Already there are many reports in the media and a few narrative cases showing the NSA is illegally sharing their illegally-gotten gains with the DEA, FBI, DIA, etc. and state and local law enforcement agencies.
IMO, it amounts to illegal spying on American citizens who may be doing nothing more secret than having an affair or trying to keep their cigarette smoking hidden from their families.
Is that the business of government? Does that keep us safer, or is it merely intrusion, to be accepted by we, the citizens of the United States of Surveillance?
What would you consider a government agency's unauthorized examination of "data at rest?" I can think of no other word than 'surveillance.'
Can you set me on the right path to understanding your statement?
Blue
Alea: The simple fact is, any backdoor whatsoever, no matter how complicated the key--will be an entrance point for every hacker worth his salt to find the backdoor in--and they will.
IMO, you either have absolute privacy, or none. Let the bad guys know there is a way in and they will hunt until they find it.
But, IMO, the Feds & Intelligence minions will always browbeat, intimidate, or bribe Congress to do their will. Always. Like Law of Gravity. You drop an egg on hard surface, it breaks...always, no exceptions (without tricks like boiled eggs, hyper-energy absorbing surfaces, etc.)
Wave's problem, IMO, is far more simple than an argument over security. Wave can not sell its products, despite sales folks traipsing all over the Globe, milking Peter's old contacts and regularly whipping the sales guys unmercifully.
Back door/front door--not the issue with Wave, IMO. Wave has to prove a. it has a useful product that b. solves a problem in an economical and efficient way. Wave has done neither over a truly extended time.
Furthermore, Wave's exhausted sales corps are ordered by clueless executive superiors to pursue the fleeing enterprises just as they head away from smart cards and tokens. It is the wrong strategy at the wrongest possible time for the company and its beleaguered shareholders...
And we can all see the results of such a strategy if it can be called that.
Otherwise, I agree with your argument about secrecy/privacy.
Blue
Player: Again, thank you. How does one pry the public shares away from all those held by the employees, with perhaps warrants and future obligations?
Is there one place to find this info on companies?
How close are we to hitting that $15M min.?
IYO and experience, how much of a strike against you is Wave's current position--in violation of the $1 SP min.; close to triggering the market cap deficiency; reverse split #3 lurking nearby, and a possible violation of the $15M min. public share market cap?
You have previously posted the Naz almost always grants extensions, except in egregious cases. Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me Wave's arc is egregious--one de-listing warning after another, plus the other stuff--balance sheet, quarterly failings, etc.
Is this enough (collectively) for the Naz to snuff out Wave's wavering pilot light?
Sorry for peppering you with so many questions, but that is the first time I've ever heard of that public share requirement--or prolly, with Wave, the first and last time we'll need that info.
But really good info, nevertheless. Thanks
Blue
Thanks for the clarification--but I am still confused about your item #2--min. listing standard of all public shares of $15M.
You said Wave is not in violation, but close.
If you have the time and inclination, what is the rule about this, and what are the penalties and the timeline for imposing penalties for not meeting the $15M--a requirement I first heard about from you in your last post?
Many thanks for your comments and research--v helpful.
Blue
Player: I was under the impression from your posts, market cap deficiency is not eligible for extensions. Or did you mean the 180-day extension for SP deficiency?
Blue
IYO, how long before market cap deficiency presses hard on Wave's jugular?
I agree with the shopping-of-Wave theory. Realistically, can't see there would be much market for a company with Wave's record. Plus, Wave's Number One Product--the VSC 2.0 hasn't sold squat in a year.
IMO, if there was a buyer for Wave, it would be at fire sale prices.
Again, the shareholders end up with either nothing, or next to nothing--after pouring half a billion into this company. This one will be a case study for Harvard Business School.
Blue
What about 3 reverse splits? [if there's a third].
Besides, the market cap deficiency may put the lights out on Wave before anything else does.
Does anyone know when the market cap deficiency clock started to run?
Alea, Player, anyone: in your opinion, what would be the effect of another funding at the present price? It sure looks as if the end is real near.
Blue
Cypher: Are you still connected with Wave's innards? In that previously you commented on Solms's tendency to not listen--I wondered if you have any further info on how Solms is doing--what the employees think?
IMO, this is going to get ugly real soon. It would be good to know what is going on inside.
Best--Blue
Given the sequential nature of the CEOs' awful performance, the long, long leash the board gave Steven and now, we are getting the same kind of big expectations/no execution crap from Lt. Col. Solms.
If I was a lawyer, I'd smell a good case there. Look at all the egregious errors, misspending, claimed profitability, phantom deals, invisible pipeline full of imaginary deals, disappearing seats by the tens of thousands--then they hire Solms who so far has done a great imitation of his predecessor.
Are the Board of Directors in charge? If so, looks like many grounds for a lawsuit against them.
Blue
What Solms's rather short reign has told us is vital to understanding Wave from an investor's point.
Solms hired a brand new sales team, set their focus to True North (or what he believed it to be) and sent them out amidst many whippings to do better as quarter after quarter rolled by with virtually no significant sales.
So....here we are right in the midst of worst-than-wild-West insecurity of everything on computers, the thieves able to disable or by-pass weak security and gain access to the most valuable data, including bank info ripe for counterfeit withdrawals.
The world is under assault from a global network and un-networked army of hackers who steal what they wish from all over the Globe.
Into this chaotic and sad state of affairs, Wave comes in claiming to have a solution solving and preventing many or even some of the hacks. Wave does many pilots. No one bites. Is this a clue?
Yet, even with that small cadre of hungry new sales people banging on doors, with Bill Solms cracking the bull whip over their heads, they still can't sell Wave's Virtual Smart Card 2.0 in substance.
The enterprise market is leaving smart cards and tokens for more secure and more manageable solutions--but Wave chases them, trying to sell them what they clearly don't want.
Market conditions for Wave could not be much worse off. The market cap deficiency is threatening de-listing within a few weeks. The separate Naz de-listing warning for being under a buck will require either a Naz extension for six months, or a reverse split to cure. Either one prolly coming this week or next.
The share price is at a historical low of split adjusted 3 cents and mills in change. Another quarter has gone by on tip-toes, quietly slipping by without an announcement beyond the one they were better off not announcing [$150K].
To add to Wave's woes, steadily declining revenue during the once-promising Solms Regime has discouraged many longtime supporters. Bear in mind, investors put up with ineptness, greed and dishonesty under 10 years of Steven Sprague as CEO of Wave.
Anyway, here is the actual record of the quarter before Solms took over, to Q-1--the latest period in which Wave has released info (Q2 CC will come in early Aug.):
$2.5M (Q1-2015)
$2.9M (Q4-2014)
$4.3M (Q3 2014)
$4.4M (Q2 2014)
$5.3M (Q1 2014)
$5.6M (Q4-2013)*
$6.2M (Q3-2013)
*Nov. 19, 2013 Wm Solms is named Wave CEO & Director
_________________
That's the record under Solms. Some may look at his many unmet goals and expectations as well as the actual record of Wave's revenue decline to less than 50% of what it was when he became CEO, and see promise for the future.
Not me. I see a Death Spiral in the making. All we need is a little rotation of all the dark storm clouds over Wave and I fully expect that to come before the Ides of July.
Blue
But then we come back to the question of who picked the particular doomed TC strategy for Wave? There were other paths.
Blue
Who was right about Wave? Answer: Those who saw Wave's future as bleakest.
Of course the resounding answer from die-hard supporters will be the Wave drama is not over yet. Yes, it is. With the passing of Q2 2015 into the record books with no more than the $150K sale announced--Wave all but raised the white flag, IMO.
The new CEO went out on a limb with his stated "goal" of a turnaround in the last half of 2014, with another publicly-announced goal of profitability by the end of 2014, Then he supplemented those statements with comments about deals near closing--and none of these came close to his expectations. Deja vu.
After Q1 2015 resulted in $2.5M in revenue, Q2 was pushed out there as the change agent, when Wave would stop failing and start selling. Sorry to disappoint you yet again, Wave did not start selling--still failing as big as ever.
Those surprised by Wave's current share price in the mid-40-cent range should not be. Wave's record of lousy or missing sales goes back to inception and provides compelling data about the arc of this company--it bends down, down and down--never up--except for the Internet bubble.
Those depending on large-scale govt purchases of Wave's products were just as frustrated as those waiting for large-scale enterprise purchases of Wave's products--neither is happening. The Wave sales holiday continues.
The notorious European trip? All for show and to prevent desperation--despite sparking exactly that when Wave decided to PR that tiny little maintenance renewal sale of $150K for 1 year--just 7 days before the end of the quarter.
Common sense says if that's all Wave had in its bag at a critical time in the company's history, the rest of that bag must be empty.
So now, we just wait for the end. It could come as either the Naz refusing an 180-day extension in the next week; de-listing because of market cap deficiency in the next few weeks; from the third reverse split on the sidelines, or from a last-gasp funding.
Any of those four crises may be enough to pop the thin air bubble keeping Wave above the surface during these trying times with little or no sales. Any of them could well be the coup de grâce for Wave.
So, in retrospect, it appears as if those with the darkest, most pessimistic view of Wave were the ones with the most accurate take on the company.
By contrast, those hoping and so sure Wave would catch fire and take off--have been those most consistently wrong about Wave's future and not coincidentally, those burned worst by the declining share price, lack of sales and reverse splits.
The facts, the balance sheets, the sales dearth, the two reverse splits, repeated de-listing warnings, the continued, but unfulfilled promises of imminent profitability were all proof enough of something seriously wrong inside Wave.
Those who elevated hope over substance and fact, did so at their own peril.
And even at this late moment with Wave in almost total eclipse, there are still a few voices claiming, "it's coming!" and "I still believe in Bill Solms and Wave."
One wonders when reality will finally penetrate? Do the lights have to dim and the curtains close before they realize the show is over?
Blue
Wave may be doomed to both dilute and then die. I would expect a last gasp funding which will drive the SP down further, spooking all the horses left in the corral.
Does anyone know if today's closing is the historical low of all time?
There was a bit of bunching up around the exits today. It has the feel of an exodus. Orderly, so far.
Blue
I "imagine" only Wave results, which we both agree have been shamefully short of the mark we were led to expect from Wave.
Yes, like you, I believe the unsafe harbor is worthless and consequently disregard (except to mock).
In the end and this appears close to it, [$0.455/share] Wave's failure is exactly what you said--they (SKS) tried to make the customers dance to his tune, rather than vice versa.
The resulting product born of this arrogance seems doomed and it has sold like doom itself--largely resistant to two or three sales teams being whipped like dogs to sell and still they couldn"t.
Do you feel Wave is on Life Support with a short term negative prognosis, or are you more optimistic?
Blue
Alea: You wrote: "What matters isn't so much why as the simple fact that the income isn't there."
I think it is more important to note the income is not there, but I think the why of it is also important. Why? Because then there is a chance to correct the problem and start selling. Not knowing why it doesn't sell? Hard to fix, IMO.
[b"]You might note, however, that it may be there is simply no market to enter. If so, management isn't a key variable. Wave's whole corporate purpose in pursuing the TC "opportunity" is a dead duck."
If mgt didn't pick the TC "opportunity," who did? Mgt did, IMO. So it is a key variable--a terrific failure on choosing the wrong strategy and arena.
"As I wrote several months ago, I think it is a rebuttable presumption that there is no material interest in Wave's VSC 2.0. It's up to Solms to perform the rebuttal. So far, he isn't doing well."
Solms, instead of providing the rebuttal, is giving the proof there is no material interest in Wave, after scouring the globe, trying to sell it hither and yon without success or significance for a year now.
IMO, there is no rebuttal to a newly-constituted sales team with a well-defined focus on selling--yet can't seem to sell no matter what they do.
And putting out a PR on that $150K sale, proves the desperation to sell and the pressure mounting is so great Wave had to put that $150K sale announcement out, or have nothing to announce. In retrospect, nothing might have been better.
We are now a year behind in seeing any of Solm's declared 'signs of the turnaround.' Instead Wave seems to be sinking deeper into the muck, almost to the point of cutting off oxygen.
At this point, if a large sale did come in, it would lift the share price for a bit, but one is not enough and most of the shareholders know it.
Blue
Alea: Your argument about back-doors required by the NSA is a good one, but I disagree that is what is holding Wave back, if that is what you meant.
Wave is where it is because of poor and unqualified leadership; squanderment of precious resources; arrogance and failure to listen to customers; and lots of promises and expectations of profitability--but none of those promises were kept--not a one.
IMO, Wave's weakness and poor reputation is behind some of the troubles, but I conclude the technology Wave is trying to sell all over the globe without success--is either faulty, difficult to use or too expensive--or all three.
It is lack of sales, after creating raised expectations of a Wave rising from the ashes of its former mismanagement team. The new team has had no more success than SKS's 'team.'
If anything has been proven, it is the genius label given to SKS by the supporters was an unwitting, ironic, mocking joke. SKS mismanaged us into the dust, paying himself, his family, friends and baby-sitters and horse nannies quite well from the Wave treasury and collecting his $1M golden parachute as he walked out the door on Wave's deep financial woes.
DD seining in irrelevant bits from the Net were strategically [and fictitiously] arranged to indicate monumental progress, with the only proviso, a little stretching of the timeline. (27 years?!?)
The true picture of this company is one hollowed out from within by folks who knew not how to run a company, but were experts in how to loot it dry while promising better days for shareholders.
Wave appears to be in its final death spiral--but note the word 'appears' because Wave has been near death before, but sprang back to life after a few futile promises pumped up the supporters into thinking they had a chance to recover some of the wealth decimated by the 'genius's' mgt team--and they bought and bought.
IMO, the big hammer is coming down on Wave. The storm fronts are well-delineated and the eyes of numerous bad weather systems are heading directly at Wave. De-listing because of a sub-$1 share price; de-listing because of market cap deficiency; potentially another reverse split; more dilution at reduced price and increased discounts; and a continuing failure to sell Wave's crown jewel--the Smart Card 2.0 in any appreciable amounts.
Mgt has either lied to us again, or once again been so far off on its forecasting as to be almost indictable.
All the changes may have simply been too late, or there is yet another reason coalescing from the storm clouds--Bill Solms, Wave's new CEO, apparently does not understand while he thumps and pumps VSC 2.0--the electronic industry is moving away from smart cards and tokens, etc.--larger enterprises are moving away the fastest.
This is a critical failure on Solms's part, IMO. My conclusion? In his own way, Bill Solms is just as incompetent as his predecessor--even though Solms must be credited with getting rid of all but one Sprague--Peter--who is quite charismatic when he's sober. No one has seen that lately.
Solms should also be credited with shutting down money-losing 'projects' created to give a Sprague family member a job.
But as to core mission, sales, Solms has failed and failed badly. His publicly declared goals have all been missed. Bizarrely, by repeatedly making and failing to hit projections, goals and expectations, Solms has unwittingly created a resemblance to the failed team of yesteryear--a toxic resemblance.
Nothing could be more poisonous to Wave's chances and shows Solms either doesn't know when to shut his pie-hole, or he is as myopic and blind as Steven at forecasting, or--he is lying his butt off as Steven did repeatedly--hoping against hope a big sale would come in to save him and the company. Again, hope is not a great investing tool.
Blue
Wave sure knows how to close a quarter--the stock is near all-time low, no reportable sales beyond that nano one of $150K. [Split adjusted, Wave is worth less than a nickle.]
The stock is nearing the end of the de-listing warning period and Wave would have to either reverse split again to cure that one, if the Naz says no to another extension.
But there's a worse headache rising for the company--the market cap deficiency--$35M is the min. allowed and Wave is just below that. Reverse splt does not cure market cap deficiency.
Then, it appears on top of everything else, Wave will need to do another funding before the summer ends.
To me, it looks like wave after wave of Wave bad news.
We won't get the numbers until August, but I'm guessing revenue is about what it was the last quarter, or perhaps a little less. Yet another dry-gulching of the "greatest stock the world has ever known or will know."
Personally, I believe if Wave had anything to announce, they would have.
Blue
Alea: What about the March Wave 2000 placement of $122M?
Wave squandered every cent of that large funding rather quickly. Nothing to show for more than a tenth of a billion raised.
I disagree with New Wave's (and Solms's) assertion the company's shaky financial footing is behind the failure to sell VSC 2.0. I believe and there is some evidence, the real reason is the crappy Wave product.
No one wants it. It has been a year since its debut, with just one large partner using it that we know of.
Your post and that of New Wave's you quoted seems to rest on the unlikely assumption Wave has a great product and sales will soon start as soon as Wave can demonstrate it will be around for a while.
I look at the nearly two years since Solms came aboard and the expectations he raised with his unrealistic "goals" and targets of profitability which remain as far off target as during the worst days of the previous regime.
If a product is good, it will be bought, assuming price and other points are reasonable. If Wave was going to be able to sell its wares, wouldn't it have begun by now?
Geez, the whole world is crying for security and looking high and low for answers. If Wave solved the issues we have been led to believe it solves, IMO, it seems it would have been selling like hotcakes on a cold morn by now.
It seems the entire argument is completely skewed. There is no evidence of any take-up of Wave's products, beyond the paltry results announced so far. Those results merely mock what is truly needed in the revenue department: strong and repeated sales to significant enterprises.
And that is exactly what we do not have, and IMO, are not likely to have before Wave sinks into the muck it created by the repeated lies of imminent traction and profitability--dating to 2003.
Until Wave achieves some kind of sustained revenue flow, IMO, it is foolish to speculate on when such a flow will begin. The question is not when, but if.
Continuing to pretend Wave is temporarily in some little current marketing eddy it will soon get out of, and then take its rightful place among the giants of technology--is nothing more than a fantasy that has sold millions of shares without a single piece of evidence indicating any of those wild dreams will come true.
IMO, Wave's desperate straits are caused internally and not externally.
Excuses like "our shaky financial ground," "the trusted computing group failed to evangelize the TPM," "the market doesn't get it," and other rationalizations invented to cover up the brutal truth: Wave simply does not have a product anyone wants in quantity enough to save the company.
Wave is pushing its smart card, while the experts say the market is moving away from such technology. If Solms doesn't grasp this basic fact, he will preside over Wave's funeral, IMO.
Put me down as highly skeptical of the view Wave just needs to make some little adjustments and they will be home free. The only reason Wave is still in business is because it uses the massive sale of shares to support itself. This is not a sustainable business model.
And I doubt whether Wave could float another large funding--given the little success following all the other placements, discounts, etc. that brought in half a billion bucks--a half a billion bucks to get Wave to 60 cents when they need to be over a buck within the next week or so. And that after two reverse splits and a de-listing and another current threatened de-listing.
Doesn't the arc of this company's 'accomplishments' over nearly 27 years define it? Or does the magical dead dream of massive wealth for every shareholder define the company?
I say results and reputation are what count in evaluating Wave--and it has failed on every single objective count for at least two decades.
Blue
Alea: Doesn't your statement assume there is a pipeline? Steven's was completely imaginary. And I'm beginning to think Solms's can carry text only, and not deals.
Blue
IMO, 60 cents is a real dangerous price per share. Take off a penny and you have a huge psychological number.
Not a good sign with the de-listing issue coming up in the next two weeks.
Wave didn't get a bump for that $150K renewal it PR'd. I guess folks saw it for what it was--it was pretty obvious, IMO. If that's all they have to announce, well...they are not in a good place at a critical time for the company.
Wave is now in range of cannon fire and must run the gauntlet swiftly and smartly to survive, IMO. Given the missteps by this new admin. of Wave--I am not confident they will make smart decisions.
Blue
Wow, Alea, you nailed it concisely. Well done.
Blue
Player: IMO, it was a technical thing--not a real world thingy.
TKC and others seemed to think Wave had actually reached CFBE, but my question is, if they did, why did Wave not publicize it--especially when the share price had been hard hit by all the head fakes, MOUs, bad consecutive quarters and partnerships without revenue, etc.?
Perhaps in the arcane world of accounting, perhaps some jiggling of the accounts and numbers may have made it look like Wave was either close or at CFBE. But only through manipulative trickery, IMO.
Bear in mind, before they were both fired, both SKS and Feeney each declared (a year apart) the current quarter at the time would be the first CFBE quarter in the company's history. Needless to say, both the Wave CEO & CFO were badly mistaken, quite far off the mark.
To make matters worse, both Wave officers made those statements about CFBE with just a few weeks left in quarter--3 weeks is my memory for SKS's rash statement. So both had most of the quarterly data at the time they made their bold statements so far from CFBE.
IMO, Wave has never come close to CFBE in any real sense.
Best--Blue
Brant Point: You don't know those companies are "unhacked," do you? What you prolly meant to say was these companies have not reported being hacked.
Many companies hide the hacks--because some of them are caused by such reckless carelessness the mgt of those companies are embarrassed by the ease with which they were duped and their data swiped.
Besides, Wave's technology would not prevent most hacks--done by phishing, spoofing and other well-known social manipulation of employees.
There is this myth Wave protects against most hacks--when in fact, Wave's technology could not stop most of the attacks, if any. Read this excerpt from Fortune mag in March:
“Confidence is falling...” “with the majority of respondents expecting to be breached in the next 12 months, despite all of their efforts.”
71% of the respondents to the Fortune survey admitted they fell victim for a cyber attack in the previous year.
Given that state of affairs, does it make any sense, Wave can not sell, if indeed Wave did what many think (wrongly) that Wave's technology could protect all these companies? No, it wouldn't, according to the experts. Maybe that's why sales are MIA.
Blue
Escrow: You wrote: [Solms] "...hopes to have it closed very soon..."
Doesn't that sentence capture the essence of the frustration of the shareholders--it is never here and now, but somewhere 'close' down the road, around the bend where we can't see and it almost never arrives and on the few occasions where there are sales--they are tiny and far from what is needed--a cascade of deals with real revenue.
If you think a $150K deal is something good, when it is only the second announced sale Wave has made in Solms's tenure, you may expect profitability real soon. I don't. I expect Wave to end its days not too long from now. Death by implosion.
The fantasy of vast riches for Wave shareholders has always been nothing more than a fantasy. Perhaps at one point it may have been possible, but IMO, doubtful.
For most of its years, Wave was led by a greedy pack of parasites who said they cared about shareholders, but they only fattened their own wallets, not ours. Ever. Same is true today, despite the appearances of Wave's sales folks working hard to "make it come true."
Can't happen, IMO. Wave is stuck in a narrow niche with lots of competition from companies making millions from security--while Wave scratches around in the chicken yard, finding only the $150K crumb.
As for the present and the future of Wave, I have the opposing view and completely agree with Cypher--if Wave had anything else in the bag, they would pull it out before the quarter closes--now down to just six biz days.
I think the mgt personnel of Wave are exasperated despite all their efforts, sales are few and far between and what little there is, is small--this latest "renewal" is tiny. Whack the entire $150K into quarters and you get $37,500 per quarter--a mere drop in Wave's giant bucket of needed revenue.
But somehow, you see this as a sign of change and also the beginning of something good. I see it as a continuation of the bad and the same lack of sales dogging Wave for more than a decade.
I suppose it is viewpoint that explains the dire differences in the way we perceive this minor sale, but for the life of me, I can't see how this moves the needle at all.
Wave seems stuck in the small or no-sale zone, despite the replacement of sales personnel and a renewed focus on revenue. Same results, unfortunately.
Meanwhile, as if there were not bad enough, a whole host of other problems are bearing down on Wave. Not the least of which is the need for more funding (dilution) and a possible third reverse split to keep Wave on the Nasdaq Capital Market where it is far easier to raise money selling shares than it would be if Wave were back on the pinkies.
If Q2 closes with only this $150K reported sale, it is likely to cause a severe downdraft.
Shareholders are getting tired of excuses for Wave's consistent failures to bring in significant revenue and instead are given 'goals,' 'targets,' and more promises of traction just ahead. But the timeline keeps stretching out like rubber bands. More promises after almost 27 years without a profit?!
IMO, Wave is releasing this small sale news because there is no other news to announce. If that be true, Wave is in deeper doo-doo, than even we critics thought.
Best wishes--Blue
Cypher: That is a most incisive comment. Might you elaborate a little more. I love the summary and it may be exactly what is holding Wave back under new leadership.
One further request: Any more data on how Bill is handling the staff and their reactions to him?
Best wishes--Blue
Lugan: You wrote: "As the [ASM] meeting progressed it became very clear that he [Bill Solms] was in control of a well-organized operation focused on delivering results... and that WAVX has a product that can meet current enterprise security needs.
_________________________
Lugan, thank you for your thoughts after attending the meeting. Unlike you, I felt it was so sparse and thin in terms of solid things to put your hands on, as to be will o'wispy.
If Solms is focused on delivering results, one might reasonably ask why are there no Wave VSC 2.0 results a year after its debut (without a partner)?
And, if as you say, Wave has a product meeting current enterprise security needs, why are they not signing up by the dozens in this atmosphere of unlimited hacks? Where is one sign-up?
On another board, a poster put up comparisons of others in the security sector and their gross revenues....Fire Eye $425m last year, etc.
Do you have a good explanation for why Wave has been unable to sell security in the best market for it, ever? I do and I don't.
The easy explanation is potential customers do not like Wave's product for some reason and are shunning it in droves. It may be hard to install and use; clunky in usage; defective or undependable.
There are many possibilities, but the only real item to focus on is sales.
In Solms's entire tenure at Wave--in the significant sales sector, he has landed exactly one $2.3M contract spread over 3 years--and it was for Wave's older technology.
In my view, that neither constitutes 'delivery of results', or proof Wave has a viable product. In fact, it presents a strong argument against both.
Many of us see the trend as down. More dilution, a possible third reverse split, potential de-listing, and the apparent ending of Q2 without a single announcement of a significant sale. The dearth continues, it seems.
If you have the time and inclination, could you make a case for continued support of Wave? Knowing the timelines have just been pushed back yet again under the new leadership? Knowing one sale in a year and a half is tiny and little when much more is needed?
Best of luck to you, whither and whether--Blue
Cartoon: Nothing would make me happier than to see Wave succeed. However, I just do not see the path to success for Wave. If the products were selling--totally different story--but they are not selling in an unprecedented market for security. That alone should be a red flag.
Wave claims to be selling what everyone wants, yet no one wants Wave's products. That's the heart of the problem right there and has been for all of Wave's existence, once the company actually had a product.
Thank you for acknowledging I have mostly called it right for the past decade or so. I have hope too, but usually, it is based on something real--not on a company in biz for 26 years + without a profit, that is going to do "it" next quarter.
Where are the factors you think will change Wave's fortunes for the better? I just can't see them. If Wave can't sell in this market, where can they sell? The ASM looked like more of the same--"deferred expectations" for sometime in the future.
Either way, I wish you the best.
Blue
Cartoon: Just look at the record--all of it. It is pretty darn ugly so far. How and why might this trainwreck jump back on the rails?
Sales are the key and that's precisely what Wave can't come up with--in a market with companies and governments screaming for security.
Blue