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.
The ASM: Once again, or better stated, still--Wave's future is in the hands of the future. Nothing is here and now. The alleged pipeline is 80% larger than it was last year at this time...yada yada ya. How much is 1,000 times zero?
How long will shareholders put up with expectations of deals, without any of the deals?
Solms may be confidant of a Naz extension by July 14th, but I'm not. Why? Their putrid history--one de-listing and numerous de-listing warnings issued. Two reverse splits saved them before.
Solms may have a plan to convince the Naz to let Wave stay aboard for another 6 mos., but the best plan would be to include sales. I don't see that happening in 3 weeks or so. Will the Naz buy Solms's confident manner if Q2 closes with no announcements? Maybe, but not definitely.
I'd consider Mr. Solms's assessment of the Naz de-listing issue in the light of his assessment of Wave's chances for profitability--only missed by 6 mos--so far and no signs of a turnaround, now almost a year overdue.
Throw in all the dozens of pilots and trials that were allegedly cooking in Wave's oven, but apparently boiled away into nothingness--again.
Anyone who comes out of this ASM thinking Wave has got a good chance, might need a serious reality check. It is more of the same--"trust me, we're turning the corner...."
Solms has had enough time and he has failed. Furthermore, after saying he expected to be held accountable by shareholders and the BoD, he promptly put the blame for the lack of sales during his tenure--on the previous administration's many mistakes--rather than admitting it was his poor assessment skills to blame for raising expectations without results.
I think Solms is a big fat dud who has no more idea how to rescue an all-but-failed company than the average park bench does. And he is not bright enough to stop making optimistic assessments and goals he can not meet--even though this is about the worst thing he could do as SKS's replacement. Disappointing.
What is ahead,IMO is a lot more dilution; more failures to sell; I would guess a third reverse split; and a possible de-listing from the Naz Capital Market.
The lies being told about why insiders 'can't' buy shares on the open market is a fair warning they don't want to throw their money away on Wave--so why should you?
There may be some salvage here, but in my mind, it is all but a total loss. The ASM showed there was nothing but more promises in Wave's bag. It's going to get ugly from here out.
Blue
Oh to be a victim the way SKS was. Half a mil in pay every year, free options and warrants, and loads of shares in case Wave ever sold something. Don't forget the $1M kiss out the door, either. The poor guy!
If the guy running the show (SKS) picks the market and the strategy and they end up being epic failures--how does that make a victim of the fellow who engineered it and steered it to disaster?
Blue
Mr. S: You make it sound as if company results are completely separate from the share price.
If Wave sells nothing more than the $2.3M deal already done, what is there to lift sales? If no sales, share price declines.
We can almost pick the week Wave will need to wade back into the funding waters and dilute its shareholders yet again. Dilution and de-listing are in Wave's headlights. At 66 cents, how much downside is there?
IMO, if Wave is de-listed down to the pinkies again, it will be the end of the company as we know it, IMO
Wave is not being warmed by soft trade winds--the company is struggling for its very survival against hurricane force winds--with its own stinky and sordid history working against it.
What would drive such an upside surprise as you apparently expect, if you can share it with us?
Blue
Ronle: If Wave had actually landed just 10% of all the "big" contracts it was rumored to be in final negotiations for, we'd be out of trouble and starting to move up, not down.
As Alea has accurately pointed out, if we only count the deals actually done, and not all those in the oven, awaiting signatures or lawyering, or the ones somewhere in the vast Wave pipeline--then it is an easy count: $2.3M spread over three years--that's it for major deals in the past two years.
Not sure about you, but Solms's statements and misstatements have not filled me with hope about Wave's core business. He didn't think we'd need more funding--we've had 3 since he said that.
I don't count the "stealth" deals, in part because, in the past, those phantom 'deals' were used to sell more Wave shares, rather than making money and using that for operations. Only once in the past 19 years can I remember a "stealth" deal coming to pass--it was for Atmel and netted Wave not much at all.
Remember the PR about Diebold shipping its one million Wave product?
What was the resultant revenue? It was so small, it could not be coaxed out of the numbers Wave put forward.
I believe Alea to be exactly right about rumored deals. Wait until it is truly done, before one counts it. The birds said to be in hand often are still in the bush and in the end, they fly away before they can be gathered.
Best of luck for a turnaround, but I am in complete agreement with Alea's euphemistic statement--Wave is in a bad place right now and the only thing that can help Wave, is exactly what has been missing during the tenure of two CEOs & CFOs--real and continuing sales.
This sure has the look of a company spiraling down, unable to sell enough ever to support itself. Instead, it is carving off huge chunks of itself in lieu of real income. That seems to be a zero sum game, IMO.
Blue
It is almost like days of yore...SP under a buck, anticipated news has been postponed and postponed. We are more than half way through Q2 and silence from Wave.
No need to remind anyone of public expectations set by Solms for signs of a turnaround and profitability--neither of which seems close.
If there is potential here, the market sure doesn't see it. While we wait for the first big sale of VSC 2.0 to be announced, not much else appears to be happening, although I'm aware there is an alternative view.
The trouble is, each day passing without some grip on traction of some kind somewhere--makes it less and less likely there will be a turnaround, IMO. If, after all this time, in the age of insecurity, Wave can not sell its security wares, I see us being swept downstream by the current of the Internet and time. We are not even treading water, let alone swimming.
I'm sure as anxious as we are for positive news, inside Wave, the pressure is at least four times as intense. And then there's that old truth staring us in the face, IMO. If Wave had something either in the bag or going in the bag, there would be some kind of signal--big buy-in, NOT relating to a funding.
I think it fair to conclude the bag is still empty.
Blue
Alea: You make a good argument, but IMO, Wave's desperate situation seems to cry out for some kind of general announcement--perhaps withholding the name of the buyer and even the sector.
GM's name wasn't mentioned at first, either, if you recall.
I think you should re-read Player's post, specifically:
"Anytime this sort of conversation happens regarding stealth deals, the client's requirements for secrecy, etc, the reality has been there wasn't any deal. At least not yet."
Head fakes, teases, carrots, MOUs, misdirection, etc.--we've certainly had our fill of all those. A legit contract would be a nice change.
And is that mysterious order, IYO, for VSC 2.0, or something else?
Best--Blue
Alea: You wrote: "A large ($600k or so) but non-material transaction in the ordinary course of business which avoids the SEC-defined criteria for an announcement."
Given Wave's desperate circumstances, why would Wave not want to announce a contract? Why would they want to hide a legit transaction until later, when they need it now?
Blue
Snackman: Are you "editing" the guest list, or are all welcome, such as myself and other critics?
Blue
Yes, he did and bully for him. But has he delivered the bacon to shareholders after raising their expectations? Has he missed every one of the goals he himself set?
Has the revenue dropped off sharply from the tenure of the late, unlamented SKS?
Has there been any reported sales other than that to the insurance co. of Wave's old technology?
Solms has made the VSC 2.0 the crown jewel in Wave's rusted and broken crown. Has he sold a single large sale of the VSC 2.0?
Unless you know Mr. Solms personally, as apparently Cypher's sources did, perhaps you might want to reconsider substituting a positive word for a negative one, if the negative one was more accurate.
I have seen no signs of leadership. What have I seen? I have seen a new man come in make a bunch of brash projections for himself and Wave and then miss every one of them. Solms said he expected to be held accountable. Yet, where was he when one by one, his "goals" failed to materialize. I don't call that accountability. It feels close to cowardice--but I'm hoping it ain't.
Furthermore, Solms has done the worst possible thing in his short time at Wave--he has mimicked SKS in terms of setting goals he can't reach and then going silent on the reasons, beyond the broad, "I was perhaps a little too optimistic."
Solms said he didn't think Wave would need more fundings. We have had two since, and the smell of a third is powerful right now--hinting it is close by.
The mysterious run-up on no news? Complete manipulation prior to a funding, IMO--a familiar scene unfortunately for Wave shareholders.
So, I don't think Solms is either the leader, the man, or the business person you think he is. That could change and I hope it will, but after 2 years...I think our impression of Bill Solms is an accurate one. It may be still developing, but I think what we see now is what we will get.
Blue
New Wave: You wrote: "...Solms is obviously getting positive feedback on VSC from these large prospective customers, otherwise I don't believe he would persist so forcefully with this market."
Think about Cypher's post--his sources say Solms is a bully who will not listen and likes to criticize. Then, holding that in your mind, read what you just wrote and choose which you think is closest to the truth.
Blue
Ts & Cs? Sorry, don't know the lingo
Blue
Another sales issue consideration--Cypher, an accurate poster in the past on matters Wave--said those inside Wave consider the new CEO an overbearing bully who doesn't listen to anyone about much of anything.
If that is even close to the truth, Solms's personality may put the kibosh on the large deals when he is personally involved.
Myself, if I were sitting on the other side of that table during negotiations, I'd wonder why the CEO was there--but I bow to you folks who work in the trade. It seems desperate to me.
Blue
Early on, some thrice-burned, conspiracy-minded shareholder voiced the paranoid (at the time) suspicion that Solms was in on the job from the get-go. That he was brought in to harvest the remnants of Wave.
I thought it BS (not Bill Solms) at the time, but now, I puzzle over the congruency of Solms's tracks in the Berkshire snow. They mirror SKS's tracks exactly.
Is our long nightmare destined to re-run until perpetuity? [I like the first four letters of that!]
If shareholders do not speak up soon to voice their extreme displeasure at the shenanigans now on-going to wrest any voting controls whatsoever from shareholders so the mgt wins no matter how the vote goes--if they don't speak up, they are silently sealing the deal on their own doom, IMO.
What the new Wave mgt team is trying to do is beyond the pale, IMO. It trumps Founders Shares, or any other of the execrable schemes the Spragues came up with to drain even more out of the Wave treasury, as if half a billion bucks wasn't enough.
But I fully expect the usual suspects among the hardcore supporters to claim it will be good for shareholders. Yes, good in the same way a sugary strychnine solution tastes sweet at first, before you keel over.
IMO, this is the most outrageous greed grab and duping of the shareholders Wave has ever attempted in more than 26 years.
I say, beware the advice given by those who have been wrong for so long about Wave. The advice is no better now, than when the supporters were talking up Wave's potential multi-billion-dollar market caps, $1,000 share prices, two dozen forward splits, etc.
This mgt team is attempting to fence the shareholders completely out of any say on Wave operations, no matter how stinkily, ineptly or rottenly those operations are conducted.
IMO, this is extremely serious and signals what I believe to be the end game plan for Wave.
Blue
Alea: Yes, but hasn't it been going on for 26 years? Isn't it time to say Wave has had enough time, enough shareholder money? If you can't make a profit in 26 years, there seems to be little chance you will turn things around in the next few quarters.
Or do we keep open the timeline until time itself ends? That way, Wave can never fail, even though it has failed completely to this point.
Yes, there will be some who say, "Yes, but what about that big $2.3M order from the insurance co. Well, there's that--but it is the old Wave technology, but it is the only sale on Windbag Willie's watch.
Not an enviable record-on top of the shameful 10-year+ record of abysmal failures his predecessors left.
Sell the company or just shut it down. What?! And cut off the salaries flowing to all the new guys who left the military to run Wave? Just tell the shareholders to have more patience. Maybe we can sell something at some point.
That approach holds no charms for me.
Blue
Player: I do not equate Solms with S Sprague either. My point was only, after stating he wanted to be held accountable, he made a series of announced goals--none of which were hit.
Furthermore, explanations were not forthcoming, other than "I was a bit too optimistic..."
As you stated, results under Solms and Sprague are similar.
I also pointed out the similarities between Solms's calls and those of the late, deposed Steven. Both predicted CFBE. Both predicted a full pipeline, in Steven's case the pipeline was imaginary.
In Solms's case, evidence of such a pipeline and a line of interested companies, has not yet surfaced.
I do not think Solms lies the way Steven did. On the other hand, despite a ton of good will from shareholders for cleaning up Wave in many ways, the old problem of lack of sales still haunts and threatens. Also, the dilution continues unabated under Solms--even after he said he didn't think Wave needed additional funding.
I look at the results of Solms's 16-month tenure as CEO, and see no progress whatsoever, in fact, I detect a decline.
Like you, I watch the cash--to keep an eye on future fundings and the subsequent and resultant dip in SP.
Wave in toto, does not look like a good investment currently and IMO, looks worse as an investment than it did when Solms first took over.
To me, the big issue is the lack of announced sales for the Wave Virtual Smart Card 2.0. The longer Wave goes without a sale of the VSC 2.0, the less likely Wave is to prosper. If Wave can not sell the VSC 2.0, what can it sell?
Answer: Wave has one sale of its old technology for $2.3M spread over 3 years. No announced sales of its newest and re-jiggered product. That spells big trouble to me. New sales team, new focus, new intensity, etc.--same results.
Given all the breaches, one wonders why Wave can not sell security products. I have a theory--it's the product no one wants.
Thank you for your reply.
Blue
Player: It doesn't seem that complicated. The likelihood of Wave having two to three dozen deals brewing in the pipeline is pretty close to zero, unless Wave is truly using a real stealth strategy.
If one deal has closed in the last year and a half, it may be technically possible, but it is statistically insignificant, if one looks at the total sales history of Wave.
I am waiting for Solms to adopt one more of his predecessor's tactics. When time get even more desperate than now, I'm guessing he is going to turn to that patented Lardo Lifeboat maneuver.
That is when a company is in such despair to sell something--anything, they will spend $300,000 to land a $100,000 contract--to show the company is still viable and can sell.
Deals like that look and sound good at first blush, but under any kind of analysis, one can see the company is losing $200,000 in the example cited--but the company gets to PR a "contract," and because it looks like business is coming in, the company's share price rises.
I say, look to that tactic in Wave's near future.
Blue
Snackman: You said about Solms, "He knows more than he can say about deals that are not 100% done..."
May I point out he also says more than he knows about deals not done.
Given his record, why give him credibility when he has been wrong 100% of the time he has been with Wave.
It is the pursuit of desperate hope, IMO, rather than making a sane investment. Any stock with a record like Wave's, near total shareholder losses, facing so many negatives--Wave remains a dream.
As far as Wave "taking off," there's no basis for it in reality.
One sale in years. One sale in Solms's tenure--over a year and a half.
Every one is looking for security, no one is buying Wave.
Hope alone is holding Wave up, IMO. That's not as reassuring as a steadily increasing SP would be--or at least no losses and no reverse splits.
Blue
Who? Michael Sprague?
Blue [PS--thank you for your thoughts and info on de-listing issues.]
Player: I think Alea's question was a good one. Who would want to buy a company losing close to half a billion over its lifetime without ever making a penny's profit? It is all losses.
Perhaps you see value in Wave I have missed. I think any interested party could simply hold off a month or two and get Wave for next to nothing.
It is pretty clear after sustained effort, Wave's products are difficult to sell, to say the least. This, in the midst of the biggest, boomiest security market ever.
What is it Wave has of value to other companies?
Blue
New Wave & 24601: Did either of you see any concealed good news in the Wave quarterly report? Were either of you uplifted by what transpired--that would be the reported sales figures minus concealed, held-back good news (zero).
Once again Wave has given expectant and hopeful shareholders a mouthful of ashes.
Once again, Wave has managed to go three months without a single significant sale, to add to the previous 19 months' inability to sell any reportable VSC 2.0 product.
What does this mean? Do you mean the Wave supporter meaning, or real-world meaning? Ah, the latter.
What this means is we will have a highly dilutive funding before the end of next month.
Roughly, at about the same time, Wave will have to address its continuing Naz defiency minimum of a SP below a buck.
Wave has until July to get the SP up over a buck and keep it up over a buck for at least 10 biz days. That means a two-week period.
I don't care how confidant Mr. Solms appeared and said he was about not worrying about the de-listing issue. Solms said he is confident about enough sales in the next two months to avoid it.
Given his record on both sales and hitting goals, given Wave's long history of not selling, no reported sales of VSC 2,0--I don't see how Wave can avoid a third reverse split. Two of them were bad enough--and good enough to erase a quarter century's old myth, that Wave would deliver. Wave has never delivered.
Today's CC is typical of all of Wave's CCs--the pungent and familiar air of disappointment and the sweet smell of more lies ahead permeated the atmosphere where the CEO had to lay out a truly pathetic performance--after a lot of big talk about CFBE last quarter.
Bill Solms was unmasked today as the fraud he is, IMO. Turnaround expert? Yes, he is. He takes a going concern and sinks it pretty quickly, using the same discredited tactics as his predecessor. Either way, shareholders are hosed.
Wave's bag [the alleged pipeline) appears quite empty. Maybe there is a little hope in a remote corner of the bag--but IMO, that's all that is in there.
Wave is all done, IMO. This CC will drive the SP down, down, down. And a sinking share price is hard to get to go in the other direction when it is most needed.
So, here is my prediction: Dilution followed by a third reverse split--taking the company into total irrelevance and nearly total losses for the hopeful shareholders.
Read Cypher's post [post #241844] about Bill Solms's management style if you want to drive the last coffin nail into Wave. For example, from Cypher's post, "He (Solms) is an arrogant bully."
Another one from the same post, "He apparently has no time to listen, but plenty of time to just plain criticize, with no positive feedback whatsoever."
Cypher, whose Wave info has been accurate, reports employees are leaving Wave because of Bill Solms.
How much longer can the truth be hidden? One must close one's eyes and cover one's nose to avoid the sight and smell of rot on Wave. It's amazing the results under Solms do make SKS look like a genius.
These results today, IMO, speak louder than all the DD dots and faux rumors about big deals and contracts to come. Today's quarterly report was utterly devastating--but I fully expect to hear how it will benefit both Wave and the shareholders.
Blue
Cypher: If you can, can you describe what you have heard about Bill Solms's mgt style and how it is driving away employees?
Thank you.
Blue
Zen: Thank you for the acknowledgement, but please tell me how the past is different from now. Both periods include raised expectations from the CEO, followed by crashing and crushing disappointment.
Sales are as absent under this regime as during the bad old days of SKS.
Calls for imminent CFBE have been consistently wrong.
Explanations for the misses, are missing--as is accountability.
IMO, Zen, not much has changed. I realize the personnel are different--the focus is different, the product may have changed--but the net result is still the same--almost no sales along with regular dilution.
Gone are the plague of Spragues (yea!) but the results are almost the same. We are still facing de-listing.
Like you, I hope things will be different and better. I'd love to get back into Wave--if I thought there was a chance the co. would be successful. I don't think that chance is there, so I am happy to be on the sidelines for now.
Best of luck--Blue
New Wave: With a company in Wave's dire position, a third reverse split looming--no reported new sales during Q1, more dilution on the way, with a good possibility of a truly bad quarter--what would be the reasoning behind concealing such good news as you suggest Wave might?
It does not violate the buying company's privacy to say, for example, "Wave has signed a long-term contract with a technology company."
Instead, it seems the hope of finding some hidden goodie in Wave's bag, keeps shareholders from selling. Yet, every quarter reinforces the argument nothing good is ever hidden with Wave.
I just can't figure out how Wave would benefit at this low point, by hiding good news, even for a short while. Quarterly calls have never been a time of news for Wave, except for the revelation of bad news about missing revenue. Wave hides and delays the reporting of bad news. Good news, on the rare occasions we have had some, gets out right away.
So please explain how holding good news in reserve is a good strategy for Wave when it needs every crumb of good news it can get. The SP is in the mid-70 cent range and threatens to dip lower if the news in about 3.5 hours is as bad as I think it is going to be.
Your argument seems to be, "Wave doesn't have to disclose every little thing, so therefore there might be concealed good news coming out this afternoon at the CC to reward patience. This hope against reality seems to be part of the reason shareholders have lost so much--waiting for that draw to an inside straight to fill.
At any rate, each of our arguments can be validated or disproved by nightfall. We will be able to see if waiting for the hope bag to fill before reality sets in--was a good strategy for this particular quarter. Unless there is substantial variance from past such events, IMO, this quarter can stand in for all past Wave CC's. They pretty much have one thing in common--disappointment.
Blue
Disclosure: At this point, the news has either been bad or missing for Wave, so much so, IMO, if there was anything to disclose, there would be no value in holding it, but a great value in disclosing it sooner, rather than later.
In nearly 20 years of following Wave, I have never seen real news come out of a quarterly conference.
Also, in that same time period, I never once saw Wave withhold anything, except bad news and explanations for not hitting the "first cash-flow break-even from operations in the company's history"--SKS 2010 [CFO Feeney said almost the exact same thing one year later.] As of 2015, CFBE has not only not been achieved, but has not come close.
Wave's declining revenue, along with the falling share price on low volume like today--the day before a CC!!!?? and the looming need for more dilutive funding, not to mention the de-listing drama to take place in the next two months--maybe sooner--triggering the third reverse split--the sum of which seem to spell nothing but trouble with and for the company and not much hope for positive change real soon.
Some may call this the catbird seat, but I would call it the toilet seat--as far as performance vs goals set. Maybe they want to get all the bad news out at once and then see if they can put Wave back together again. No announced VSC 2.0 sales, though.
I would think even the hope for Wave is thinning now. Tomorrow's Q1 CC may be a shocker.
Blue
C: Like you, I admire good effort. I do not diminish the effort expended, just the results obtained.
Complicating matters, Solms publicly laid down goals he was unable to meet, calling into question his judgement, credibility and integrity. IMO, one should not set goals one can not meet. And, at the very least--a brief explanation of the miss(es) is proper conduct, IMO.
Considering the past regime, one would think Solms would steer away as far as possible from even a slight comparison--yet, that's what we have. No results, no explanations, no accountability. And worst of all--no sales of VSC 2.0. And then, all those other problems bearing down.
Good luck--Blue
Orda: Steven Levy wrote a whole book on that precise subject--titled "Crypto," if you are interested. He documents the NSA's omnipotent search for crytography the NSA can't break--and how they infiltrate, water down, and destroy any real efforts to create difficult encryption.
Regards--Blue
CkngIn: Personally I believe it is foolishness to call SKS a good man. He lied and lied to shareholders about everything. It was not he was an incurable optimist, it was he was an incurable liar when it came to Wave.
"I can hit breakeven based on orders in hand"---SKS 2006
SKS did alright financially, too. He was paid more than a half million a year and add in the combined payroll of father Peter, Bro Mikey, bro Kevin, daughters, baby-sitters and Sasha, the nag nanny and you have a huge chunk of change coming out of the Wave treasury every month--that money was just out and out wasted and squandered on nonsense like Scrambls and WXP/TVTonic, as well as Rivetz, Knowd and other silly ideas without a chance of earning a dime.
As for the present CEO, he came in, setting big goals like CFBE by the end of 2014 and then promptly missed them all--explaining only by "I was a bit too optimistic."
Well, Wave's past is sordid. Its present is murky. The future is doubtful, unless Wave begins to sell and sell big soon.
If Q1 stinks as I think it will, Wave will be beset with heavy downdrafts in the days afterward, IMO.
Q1 CC is on Thursday. The first third of Q1 will be done this week. No news announcements, yet. Could be a dreary CC with falling SP afterward.
Not to mention that sneaky old Naz de-listing issue coming up fast in late June. That most likely will trigger a third reverse split and pretty much end the company's chances of ever digging itself out.
To add to the troublesome scene, Wave has yet to announce a single sale of its most forward and promising product--the Virtual Smart Card 2.0.
We are coming up to the first anniversary of VSC 2.0 going on sale, and so far there's nothing to celebrate. That may be the most worrisome factor in Wave's whole shaky house of cards.
Also not far down the road--maybe in our laps already, is another dilutive funding. That's how Wave operates. Wave can not pay its own way with sales. Instead, it sells pieces of itself continually, insuring anyone who buys today will be punished tomorrow with more dilution on top of an ocean of it.
Solms may indeed be a good man, but if he is to be judged by results, he is no better than his predecessor, who hit a low-water mark with abysmal mismanagementskills.
Personally, I think we could be looking at Wave's darkest days--coming up--hard to believe, considering the long run of abuses and the plundering of the past.
Blue
Escrow: You wrote: "I don't think he (Solms) makes statements lightly. If he said he is not worried about going over a buck and I am making a bet based on his confidence. Time will tell if it is misplaced trust. I gave that last guy many years. This guy seems more worthy of that kind of respect."
Why is it so many are willing to trust Solms after he states a bunch of goals for Wave, including CFBE by Dec. 2014, yet fulfills none?
Explanations for missing? Why, explanations are missing too, from the CEO who said he expects to be held accountable by shareholders and the BoD. Does this look right to you? [It doesn't to me.]
You are placing a bet on Solms's "confidence." How many times did I see that phrase explaining big buys of Wave in the past. "SKS was as confident as I ever saw him!"
Nothing ever came of any of SKS's many bold predictions about deals, revenue, seats, profitability, etc., his unshakable confidence notwithstanding.
Bill Solms almost looks like a mirror image of SKS's worst behavior. Missed goals, no explanations; deals done, are not done. Predicted conclusions of deals like Bell-ID, Samsung, the many pilots, etc.
Not a single sale so far of Wave's latest and greatest--the Virtual Smart Card 2.0.
Personally, before I invested another cent, I would want to see some sales (PLURAL) OF THE VSC 2.0. After nearly a year, no sales of the VSC 2.0 is extremely worrisome.
You have Q1 CC coming up in less than a week that in all likelihood will either be similar or worse than Q4 2014.
Whether Solms can get the price over a dollar for 10 days to beat the Naz delisting in July? I personally doubt it. Wave may be forced into a third reverse split--uncharted territory as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, I think the Q1 is going to drive the price down, if in fact, another dilution and/or another reverse split doesn't do it first.
What about Wave do you find so attractive and worthy of investing more money in a company that has tried and failed for more than a quarter century to make a profit? 98%+ losses for shareholders. A new CEO who promises great things but delivers next to nothing, unless you want to call that $2.3M deal of Wave's old technology spread over 3 years.
Here are Solms's exact words on the VSC 2.0:
"We did on the positive side launch a new product for Virtual Smart Card 2.0. It better positions us to sell our TPM Management software which amongst all of the Wave product portfolios is the most highly differentiated from our competition, and gives us the highest potential for maximum margin compared to the others, so compared to the other Wave products..." [Bill Solms, Mar. 5 Q4 (2015)CC]
I can not understand buying more Wave as it appears to circle the toilet just ahead of the flush. There are so many negative forces aligned against Wave's success, and so little positive forces to counteract all those negatives--at least in my view of Wave.
As far as Wave getting a piece of the security industry's "opportunity," has Wave yet managed to get a piece of that opportunity?
If so, I missed it. Can mere confidence by the CEO change things? I doubt it. Lacking confidence was never a factor under SKS and yet, he couldn't get the job done.
Best wishes and I hope your optimism is not misplaced, but I seriously think it is, based on the facts, rather than the apparent confidence of a man who has already made a bunch of head-shaking future-favoring announcements, a la SKS, none of which has come true, a la SKS.
Revenue for Q3 2014 was $4.3M Three months later, it dropped to $2.9M. Progress, or more slippage?
Personally, I would wait for some sales to come to validate Solm's confident tone.
Blue
New Wave:
Here is what I have on the 2014 timeline call by Solms:
In the March 13, 2014 CC there was this exchange:
Solms: we're starting to see progress. And as I mentioned before based on that timing and the sales cycle it'll be, you know, the second half of this year before we begin to see that stuff bear fruit. And, you know, that remains – it was true when I said it on previous calls; it remains true now that the good news is we're closer, you know, to what the end of that should be."
Solms Aug. 7, 2014 [posted by snackman message 34585]
we are still on track with the same plan that we've been discussing for the last three quarters to turn around the company and improve its financial results.
This conversation appears to have taken place, maybe in Aug. 2014(?)
(Caller: Robert Isler): “Yeah, hi, Bill. I appreciate all the steps you've taken to undo the mess left by the former CEO. But I was hoping, over a month into the second half, we'd see some early evidence that the turnaround has - preferably a contract with revenue attached.
Just want to know, are you sticking with your statements that by the end of this year we'll clearly see the fruits of all the changes you've put into play or do you now believe it could take longer?
Bill Solms: So I'll tell you this: I'm not - I'm restricted from giving guidance on specific results that are forward-looking. But I will tell you that I have not changed my plan. The plan for when we were going to see the results is still on track and I have not modified it.”
_____
He made other references to CFBE by the end of 2014, until just before year's end when he admitted it may take a bit longer to reach it.
Rather than looking for his exact words on the subject, don't you think Solms misled many of us with his comments about coming deals, CFBE, Bell-ID, Samsung, Micron, and a major turnaround, etc.?
Do you share the concerns of many of us, Wave's newly redesigned, Virtual Smart Card 2.0--simply is not selling?
It seems it would be a simple transaction, if what Wave claims to be true, is true. That's why the 9 month inaction on any Wave VSC 2.0 purchases seems to be puzzling. Can you shed any light on this dilemma?
If Wave does indeed have a unique solution, why isn't it selling to the very same companies looking high and low for a way to protect data, customer info, and secrets (Sony)?
The breaches are embarrassing and costly enough, [Target's breach will cost an estimated $162M, according to Bank InfoSecurity and was estimated at $252M for Target's 2013 & 2014.]
One would think a good product for this widening market would sell quickly. A quarter of a billion is no small sum.]
Yet, Wave is pushing and pushing, and thus far--no takers for VSC 2.0.
I find that fact deeply concerning. Do you? Or do you have an explanation to salve our worries?
Blue
New Wave: I think being dismissive of Cypher's posts for the reasons you cited is not a great idea.
Cypher provided clarity at a tempestuous time in Wave's troubled history. I suggest you review them and perhaps compare them to some of the highly optimistic scenarios put out by supporters that were not close to reality.
Player's notation of the folly of dismissing ideas because of perceived "negativity," rather than veracity, is part of what led to such grievous losses with Wave.
As someone once in a similar position, I heard and saw my accurate information from inside Wave quickly shunted aside by respectable and intelligent people. Why? IMO, because they believed and wanted the Wave dream to be true and anything that even smelled faintly of negativity was immediately quarantined or discarded altogether--regardless of whether it was germane or not.
The truth was, Wave was rotten at the core. That was the undeniable truth, yet a whole group operated to keep this truth from being known. SKS, inept in every way, 'became' a "genius," when his deficiencies were clearly on view for all to see.
The rampant and growing nepotism was excused by this group saying, "Will any of that matter when Wave hits $100 a share?"
So, in a sense, it seems we are walking down a familiar and threatening boulevard when we criticize any piece of information on the basis of its negativity valence, rather than its actual value in the evaluation of this stock.
Blue
Player: None of my business, but you have made some pretty incisive posts about Wave's situation. Yet, you remain long the stock.
What is it you see that could possibly make you hope and hang on?
I think a lot of supporters hate to sell, even when commonsense and all investment advisors warn folks away from a company with Wave's record.
For the life of me, even if Wave starts selling, I can not imagine they could possibly sell enough to make investors whole.
Blue
Snackman: What, you were about 26 years too early? You were right? Not yet.
Is there ever an expiration date on the hopes for a monster Wave bonanza? Reading the boards, it looks like if the hopefuls have an expiration date, they keep 'em well hidden.
Is this the quarter where Wave will actually become CFBE? Or is it next quarter?
Blue
Wolfie: Don't mean to be patronizing in the least, but continued listing on the Naz Capital Market makes it far easier for Wave to drum up more financing. If Wave gets knocked off the Naz Cap Market and onto the pink sheets, funding is a real serious problem.
So...., if you are following me and you see Wave is surviving by selling pieces of itself to shareholders, rather than selling product--when funding is cut off, the company will have great difficulty staying alive.
So, at this point, any chance Wave may have to dig itself out of the hole it dug for itself, may be terminated by another Naz de-listing. To avoid this, Wave will probably rely on a third reverse split to stay listed.
I have yet to find a company surviving a third reverse split. Two are bad enough, but a third may be fatal.
So, IMO, another de-listing may be the coup de grace for Wave.
Blue
Wolfie: You asked what's the point of my point about the Naz de-listing coming up soon?
There could be sales in the future and that would change everything about Wave--its present and future. I believe, even at this late date, it would send the SP up above $1.
I also mentioned it because the hard-core supporters like to list all the potential good things coming Wave's way, if forces align, planets slip out of their regular rotation and form a gimme on the pool table of stocks--I felt a little realism slipped in, will make a better picture. The actual picture of Wave and its chance at future success could not be much worse.
Blue
So, same stilted talking around the BIG problem, eh? Q1 closes with no new announced deals and immediately a hush blanket is thrown over the crowd.
No discussion of how Wave disappointed yet again, despite new mgt, new sales team, new focus, etc.
Talk about everything except what is important--no, absolutely crucial to Wave at this point--no new sales of Wave's VSC 2.0 revised product. Yet, radio silence on that subject. Why? Isn't this a discussion board about Wave?
Yet, the biggest problem since Day One is not discussed? Right on cue, Q1 sucks like a deep, gaping chest wound--but not a word about Q1--move it right along on to Q2--that's when the good stuff will happen--next quarter!!!! Just like in each of the last 26 years of Wave's history. It's always next quarter.
Meanwhile, in the background, the de-listing calendar is counting down the days, while Wave nervously goes up a penny or two, then back down again on low volume. Interpretation? The market thinks Wave is not a good investment.
Insiders are not buying in? Why? Because they have access to the zeros on the bottom lines where the sales figures should go. They are not fools, nor were the previous administration who treated buying Wave on the open market the same as chugging hemlock and cyanide chasers with the Wave Kool-aid.
Where are the indicators that would show Wave is making progress, and not strangling on its own ineptness and blunders? Where is there one sign of optimism for Wave's future, other than the brimming cup of hope the hopeless hold out for Wave?
The only reason I can see to buy Wave at present is the limitless upside. The downside? The limitless upside, with no expiration date, blank checks accepted.
That $15M shelfie must be sagging empty at the corners from heavy usage. I expect another funding in the next month or two--maybe even sooner.
Dilution is Wave's way of surviving. Wave's survival certainly has not been due to Wave's product line being snapped up by companies looking for real security. Rather, Wave has been shunned like a cousin with a cankerous cold sore at a kissing contest.
Wave supporters say Wave has the only product companies need. Companies say, any product but Wave's.
So, can we talk about why Wave is not selling? We've had the CEO give his views about Wave--pretty much the same as the view SKS had--"we've got prosperity in hand and we'll hit CFBE last year, or next year, or the year after that. Be patient and keep buying shares, because we can't sell squat!"
Blue
TKC: You and many others have always liked the odds in favor of Wave's success. Despite the continuous down draft of the SP [losses of 98%+], the two reverse splits and a potential third one coming soon--you have always been optimistic about Wave's chances.
Nothing wrong with that, at all. Optimism is good, especially when it is based on something real. Not sure Wave's odds of success are based on reality, as much as the vain hopes of those who have put so much money into Wave, thinking it will eventually pay off big.
Wave has been "borrowing" from the future from the day I first heard of Wave, back in 1996. Since then, aside from the Internet Bubble, Wave has done nothing but disappoint.
You see potential, where I see a narrow niche space, if, and only if, Wave can start to sell--especially its newest. redesigned product, the VSC 2.0. Even if sales start to come in, Wave's revenue is going to be smallish.
The myth of great fortune from Wave has beguiled many--including myself. Once I discarded that bloated and unreal fantasy, curiously, I felt much better.
Today I see Wave in a more realistic light--a small company anxious to portray itself as a huge-potential start-up--despite the fact it started up more than 26 years ago and has yet to make a profit in one single quarter. But its supporters see millions upon millions coming back to investors.
I just don't see how that can happen, no matter how many astrological coincidences occur in a row. Wave is in a real tight spot and hope alone, IMO, will not cure its fierce, wasting disease. Only sales can--and sales are what are missing from the Wave picture.
In more than a year at the helm of Wave, with the old sales team fired and a new, re-focused team put in place--still the company could only manage to sell $2.3M of its old technology, not the new.
It is exactly the wrong thing for Wave. That sale is enough to keep the hopes up, without enough revenue to stave off another de-listing and further dilution. If no other sales occur, the death spiral can continue unabated.
A company keeping itself alive by selling off pieces of itself to the detriment of loyal shareholders because it can not sell its wares in the market, is not a model any business wants to emulate.
That is the reality of Wave--it is a company pinned against a brick wall, with a crushing future rushing at it and no resources to avoid it or to pick itself up out of the garbage bin.
Obviously, you will see things quite differently, as you have in the past. Nothing wrong with disagreement--it makes the world go round.
Best wishes--Blue
Zen: I think you must have misread my first paragraph. I can't find any inaccuracies in it. You may have some pro-Wave biases to make you see potential, when the rest of us do not see it. [Thus far, the rest of us have been accurate about 'positive developments' not being so positive for Wave investors.]
In the past, our future has been written. Our present will continue to echo the past, until real sales develop. Dots and MOU's will not suffice--only revenue.
Everything else is distraction. Standards, TPMs, what MS may and may not do, all don't matter. What matters is what sells, and precious few of Wave's wares have sold recently.
Another disappointing quarter appears to be our fate. So similar to all the other times we waited hopefully for a quarter to show better results than the previous one.
I can't see what makes you so stubbornly optimistic in the very middle of a big, self-inflicted, gaping, chest-sucking wound. You, on the other hand, can not see what seems to me to be clear evidence of an impending apocalypse. So, let us civilly decide to disagree with one another.
If I ever come around to your way of thinking, I will do so not in a quiet manner. I will admit I was wrong. I don't suppose the reverse is true.
Even though we disagree, our discussion has been civil, I think.
Best wishes--Blue
Hardware may in fact be coming. It should. It is more secure than software. However, to leap from that truism, to seeing a bright future for Wave, based on that statement is quite the leap.
When one looks backward at all the positive developments that were going to bring oodles and oodles of windfalls for Wave investors, the actual achievements are hard to find.
Perhaps that is why many of us have such fierce cynicism whenever anyone sees something that may remotely impact Wave--as the savior of our company--and then one watched and waited, until, nothing. That has been the pattern for Wave. Loads of promises, scarce or non-existent results.
What Wave truly needs now, is a passel of sales to big companies of its VSC 2.0. So far, no sales. That is hard to comprehend, given the number of companies rooting around looking for security.
Maybe you buy the long sales cycle arguments. I don't. I think Wave's product is so crappy, even the best sales team can't fool security specialists into buying.
So, if that holds true--what do you think the outcome is going to be? You have waited long and longer, and despite many positive potentials, Wave has yet to show it can subsist on sales without more dilution. After 26 years, that act is beginning to look a little thin to me.
After Q1 closed with no announcements beyond the $2.3M sale to the insurance company--we are now beginning to see and hear old familiar arguments that didn't make sense then and don't make sense now. Wave needs more time. It always needs more time and more of our money. When is it Wave's time to pay off on all that awesome potential bandied about?
Or, will the goalposts continue their backward movement, will more blank checks without dates be written and more patience called for? At this point, many, including myself, would label this experiment "failed."
But you will see something bright coming along, right? Something will materialize to calm our fears, to fatten our wallet, right? Isn't that how the last 26 years were paved? Big profits coming soon? Did big profits ever solidify out of the 'potential' mist?
I just see nothing in Wave's present situation giving hope--it all points the opposite way, unless one seems to agree, down is up. But down is down in most regions of the world. I think it means exactly what it says it means. And for longtime Wave investors to be down more than 98% of money invested, that pretty much says it all.
Blue
Zen: Thank you for the kind words, but I think my comprehension skills are at least average.
You wrote: "Doesn't guarantee anything for Wave, but too many big/new companies are now using terms that only Wave and us, used to."
So, if the usage of terms previously used exclusively by Wave and Wave investors doesn't mean anything, when it becomes "too many" using those terms, what does that signal to you?
To me, it signals you think it means something and prolly, something v positive for Wave.
Perhaps I am drawing on your long and well-known history of looking at Wave and seeing mostly positives looking back--but it feels to me as if you think "too many big/new companies are now using terms that only Wave...used..." means something will follow, as opposed to a non sequitur.
Could you kindly explain why you posted what you did, and what you think it might or could mean for Wave--especially as it doesn't guarantee anything?
Blue
Zen: What do you think is the outcome of big companies using language Wave used to use?
Are you implying, first they use Wave's language, then they start buying Wave's products?
If so, I have not seen any indicators pointing your way. Talk is plentiful most everywhere. With Wave, results are scarce, as you may have noticed.
Blue