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.
Alea: I'm not one to claim to see the future, but from where I sit, Wave's future looks pretty much like its past--only not for as long.
The key to Wave is in big sales that come in regularly. We have had one sale of Wave's old technology in way more than a year and no announcements of any sales of Wave's newest, the VSC 2.0. The $2.3M will be spread over 3 years? Not a whole lot of money, in terms of what is needed.
That spells disaster to me. An already leaky boat up to the gunwales in water, a reverse split coming at us fast, Q1 goes by without a peep of any sales or announcements, another quarter closes with more silence from Lee--SP stays low, no insider buying.
Low volume indicating low interest in Wave. We're looking at another dilutive funding by summer--what effect might that have on the current SP? Will it raise it?
Against all these negatives, what balances it towards the other side? The answer is what Wave will do "soon." When TPMS go from unheard of, never noticed, to ubiquity, Wave will be in the catbird seat--just like they said 5 and 10 years ago. All that forward hope, with so little substantiation for it. No results, hardly any progress in more than a year as the new CEO.
Well, some will look at the balance sheet and say, "Wave is in the perfect spot." Wrong! Wave is in a perilous spot, IMO. When does all this hope get traded for results? Weren't we supposed to have had our Big Dance in Vegas by now?
New CEO, same lackluster, pathetic results. Nothing is happening, or the SP would not be hard-scraping the edge of 70 cents so persistently.
The new CEO said he expected to be held accountable by both shareholders and the BoD. When does that accountability start? Hasn't enough time passed between his stated "goals" and the absolute failure of any of them, especially CFBE, to come true?
Is William Solms just stringing us along in the vain hope something soon will fall off the truck into Wave's bin? Or is he just feeding us a lot of malarkey, banking his paycheck and waiting for the last Wave Golden Parachute to poof open and let him slowly and softly drift down to earth? I think it is the latter.
I think BS is full of BS. Show us some results, Lt. Col. Then you and Gen. Patton can goose-step around the room all you like. You talked the talk, now walk the walk. And not one from the Ministry of Silly Walks, like in the past.
Tell us the truth. You can't sell Wave, because the products stink almost as bad as the company's odious reputation for integrity and honesty.
We've been sold a wagon load of improbable dreams. Hard cash money from our side--almost half a billion bucks--and a load of fancy talk from the other, full of post-dated checks on non-existent bank accounts, written in disappearing ink for unbelievable sums. For 26 years, this has been the exchange rate.
Blue
2015 Q1's quiet end was soulful, but not productive in terms of announceable sales. In early May we will learn how quiet Q1 was. I think it is going to be not too far off the mark hit by Wave's Q4 2015.
One would hope at that May CC someone will ask the dreaded question--does Wave's product stink so badly it can not be sold?
What is amazing as the quarters pass without any upside surprises, hope has an inverse relationship with reality--the more improbable it seems, the more likely it will come to pass--at least that seems to be the belief these days among those who shun share price, insider buys, profits, good mgt, meeting goals--as ways of measuring a company.
Given the expectations we were led by top mgt to think things were improving. Now it seems Wave is in a deeper hole than ever before. Let's hope someone can get some straight talk--though I doubt it. Straight talk would kill this company.
Blue
Not unlike the battle of the frogs and mice--if one side or the other ignored horrendous casualties and proclaimed victory without a single skirmish engaged and won.
There are two realities for Wave investors--the real Wave--70 cent range after two reverse splits--no profit in more than a quarter of a century. There's that one and the other one.
In this pure air of the other, Wave is not shackled to revenue or bound by financial restrictions--the usual rules do not apply and if one doesn't understand this, he/she don't 'get it.'
How can investors be told to disregard information directly bearing on profit and loss--and they obey, over and over again?
There truly are two states of Wave investor. Well said!
Blue
Root: I gave credit for the $2.3M sale and IMO, it was not trivializing to point out the extenuating circumstances--they were just facts.
After this sale, though, your argument again turns on what has always been elusive--more sales. Maybe VSC 2.0 is not crucial to Wave's success. OK, what is and where will it come from?
Root, many times we were were told things were coming to justify our faith in Wave and it rarely, if ever, arrived--hence my reliance on not what is about to be done--but what is booked as revenue.
I am not now, nor have I ever rooted for Wave's end. I was highly critical of a former mgt team allowed to go so far into perilous territory and stay there so long at such a cost. History now agrees. But to the present...
In six biz days Q1 closes and in early May we will see official results. If the next PO comes down, I will cheer it. Otherwise I remain watchful with a critical eye--especially if Wave disappoints again.
Best--Blue
New products in development are good, but yet, not quite the same thing as new products selling well--or at all.
Same thing for Wave's many memoranda of understanding. Not quite the same as contracts with revenue.
Unhatched chickens, eggs yet to be laid, hens not bought yet--these all fill Wave's basket to the brim. And not a one of them has brought in a penny of revenue.
After more than a quarter of a century's worth of trying to make a profit, one might reasonably conclude--with Wave, future hopes are for dopes.
Wave's VSC 2.0 is currently the entire future of Wave. It was announced last July, strangely, without an accompanying partner. In nine months, not a single sale of the product forming the foundation pillar for Wave.
Wave, always leaning far into a future that never seems to arrive, despite many predictions from two CEO's, one CFO and an army of loyal supporters all singing the same song, "it is coming and it is going to be huge."
But where is there any validation? Why, despite so many promises, Wave's future always remains in the future, never in the present? Wave's future automatically recedes into the future like a highway mirage does. It never seems to get any closer.
Look at all the companies cited to give Wave oodles of revenue: IBM, HP, INTEL, DIEBOLD, HAUPPAUGE DIGITAL, ATMEL, SEAGATE, DOCOMO, PHOENIX TECH, SAMSUNG, MICRON, BELL ID--so sorry for this partial listing--my fingers got tired of typing all the names--but you get the picture. Potential up the Wazoo, but results non-existent.
When Wave has landed a big contract, like Dell, GM, PwC, etc., they either drop Wave like a hot potato, or let the contract expire. Those who bought into Wave with contracts don't tend to stick around or renew.
So Wave's future is continually kicked down Timeline Road, like a beat-up old tomato can gathering more and more dents.
Not a great argument for a bright future--is Wave's history. Thus far, the past has been the best predictor of Wave's future.
As far as the market goes, the market sees not much ahead in the next six months for Wave--that's why the share price floats just above the 60 cent level and is why Wave is looking at its 3rd Reverse Split by summer.
So if we only count the beans dropping into Wave's bucket, and don't count those beans yet to be planted, not to mention, harvested--it doesn't look so bright from that perspective.
Dots, deals with no dough, MOUs, big tech 'partners' and all the other hopeful signs supporters cite in lieu of actual results--keep that Wavx future alive and bright.
For those of us who only count revenue when it drops into the bucket--the perspective is quite different. To us, the future of Wave looks uncompromisingly grim and bleak--just like Wave's long past. We don't think you can bank all those promising signs and so far, history has proven us right.
Wave still has until a week from Tuesday to announce something in Q1--unlikely, IMO--which, if correct, means once again, after BIG TALK by Wave's new CEO, the results will again resemble the deadest and baddest days of SKS.
Blue
Root: No one is trivializing the $2.3M sale. We are just pointing out (a) the sale was for Wave's old technology (b) it is the first and only sale during the Solms reign.
I think we both agree, Wave's future is entwined with that of VSC 2.0 sales. In about almost a year, Wave's newest product has not sold at all. You say it is the normal sales cycle timeline. We should know something soon on that score.
The worry is it resembles other disturbing Wave patterns of a few sales and long periods of nothing. Never enough revenue to sustain the company. More dilution and so on. When it is different, it will be different. Until then, I can't see much deviation from Wave's old arc.
Blue
Root: You may have the Wave bug. First thing striking me in your post, was the reference to Dell's revenue declining to nothingness. Any ideas how that came about? In short, Dell went in a different direction and Wave lost its biggest revenue-producer. Not a great feeling.
I am not not knocking the $2.3M sale, just noting it is not for what is touted as Wave's shiny new product--the VSC 2.0. It continues to be shown, without sales being made. If that is indeed the future, I would not be too hopeful.
We agreed to continue our discussion after Q4 CC. It was bad, real bad. Yet somehow, you see a silver lining of hope, when all I see is a train full of bad news and worse news headed full speed to Wave Station.
I have yet to see a single piece of real evidence showing Wave is progressing. Since I already outlined the bad news lining up and loading up to hit Wave soon, no need to go there again.
Lastly, it is not "wishful thinking" on my part to see Wave stuck in its self-created morass. It may seem that way, but all the things I argued for, better mgt, veracity, etc. and against--the nepotistic plundering and the jaw-gaping ineptness--have resulted in this bitter harvest of questionable survival.
Realistic investors can see the long wreckage plume and to us, there is virtually nothing to incite or excite any optimism, upticks aside. If the VSC 2.0 doesn't start selling soon, there is a straight path to more dilution, falling share price, de-listing, reverse splits and more.
One can cite the little kibbles and bits, dots and hopes, but sales are all that matter and with just seven biz days remaining in this quarter, it sure looks to me like May will be a sob fest for believers. True, it may not match Q4, but it will be close, IMO.
If you think raising expectations while failing to come through on stated goals is an Rx for progress, I disagree violently. Tell me how all the signs I point to show up, instead of down? Don't facts trump hope? Doesn't reality beat hope?
Blue
Wolfie: You may not like the message, but it is factual. Wave is not staring at a kindly face, nor is it likely to reverse course in what appears to be the short time it has left.
I've followed this stock for almost 20 years and want to see it to its end. I got out fairly recently and every thing since, confirmed it was a smart move best made a lot sooner.
The more you look into Wave's sordid history and abysmal performance, the plundering, the ineptness--the worse it looks, if you are an investor.
Match statements against results. 26 years without a profit is a stunner in its own right.
See what has kept Wave afloat all these years--years where they once raised $122 million in one funding--and spent it all on foolish, drunken sailor buying gaining the company nothing--they just went through $100M!!!!. Plus, an extra 22% for good measure.
Wave, IMO, can not stand up to the most casual of examinations.
The power of myth and the strength of greed are awesome to watch in action.
Blue
I'm guessing Solms figured on an increase in revenue, not a decrease, what happed. That and the savings from no longer having to pay the previous golden parachutes and the further savings from removing no-revenue-cash-draining adventures along with the adventurers who spawned them on Wave shareholders.
I think he truly thought his crack team could bring some sales home--but all Wave came up with is the sale of old technology--none of the highly vaunted VSC 2.0--which is deeply troubling.
Wave seems precarious, with a third reverse split looming by summer, declining sub-dollar SP, and beyond that one sale, not much at all, especially since Solms elevated expectations he couldn't back up--deja vu.
I'm guessing Solms thought if he came close, shareholders would grant him a little more time. Solms is in his second year at Wave's helm and the results thus far are not impressive--in fact, just the opposite--dastardly results---that, after the BIG talk--strangely and repulsively reminiscent of SKS.
More dilution is happening via the shelf and when that's exhausted, I fully expect more fundings before summer--if Wave does not collapse first from accumulated layers of non-performance, dilution up the wazoo, low volume, no insider buys, another reverse split may be in the works and on top of that, maybe yet another de-listing warning notice from the Naz, if Wave slips below the $35M cap requirement. We're sitting at a little more than a million and a half over the minimum today.
In short, no news, bad news, a video replay of the worst days and worst ways of his predecessor.
If there's a silver lining in all this, I'm too blind to see it. It looks like bad news stacked atop worse news. It has been so long since any really good news where you thought, "Maybe Wave does have a chance." But not lately.
And with just 7 biz days left in the Q1 quarter to be reported in early May--the lack of any real news nearly insures the Q1 may actually be worse than Q4 '14. The accumulated hammering and concussive power of all those bad quarters in a row, coupled with the new CEO's optimistic statements--may bring an end to the madness known as Wave before the year is out.
I am happy to be on the sidelines.
Blue
Player: First, thanks for straight shooting about listing requirements and other valuable info about filings and releases.
My question: Is it possible to determine how many markets Wave has stepped down to, in order to remain listed?
In your opinion, do you see a third reverse split as almost certain? [I know it is a leading question.]
Have you ever heard of a company surviving three reverse splits?
Thank you in advance--Blue
Where do you get $5M in Q1 billings from?
Root: We postponed our conversation until after the Q4 CC. It was even worse than I thought it was. Q1 has but 11 days left in it and no VSC 2.0 announcements thus far.
If Q1 '15 is as bad as Q4 '14 was, will that put a dent in your impressive optimism about Wave's future?
At some point, it seems to me, Wave has to sell something and show all is not for naught. Thus far, the record is pretty bad.
Again, I'd like to pose the question to you--what do you see in Wave's "performance" to give you such unquenchable hope?
It is true, the past is not an infallible predictor of the future, but it is a pretty good one. The hope for Wave's future seems to involve infinite timelines, and blank checks, rather than progress, execution and tangible results.
When I look ahead I see another reverse split coming. Somewhere, some time, there may be a company surviving three R/S, but I can't find one. We have already had two R/S--why? Because the company could not sell enough to run itself.
It is generally acknowledged a R/S is the start of a desperate death spiral for the company involved. We are looking at a third one, unless things change.
If, in the next 11 biz days, no reportable deals close, would you still have such unshakable faith in Wave's future? Yet another bad quarter [CC in early May] is liable to drop the SP even lower than it is now--less than a dime, split adjusted.
Unlike you, I find Bill Solms's leadership thus far questionable. That is, acknowledging he started in a terrible place. Yet, after examining all the variables, taking into account his predecessor's horrible reputation, Solms has been unable to give us any solid reasons for further hope.
A CEO is supposed to be optimistic and I give him credit for not lying about Wave's prospects as SKS did. Yet, in the end, sales are all that matter. Thus far, his record on that score is no better than SKS.
Am I misreading the signs? If you can, I'd like to hear what inspires your continued faith in Wave, given the disappointing results under Solms thus far.
Best wishes--Blue
The Q4 '14 results were illustrative, but the Q1 '15 may be definitive.
If the drought of VSC 2.0 sales continues, Wave IMO, isn't long for this world.
Those who argue lack of significant sales, declining revenue and falling share price are the harbingers of good things to come, are dancing a strange shadow dance, un-tethered to reality, IMO.
In the face of recent optimism, but dwindling results, the Q1 results, if as bad as the Q4 results, could be the death knell for Wave.
Looking ahead, if there is no change, the immediate future shows a de-listing threat, coupled with more dilution and a potential, looming third reverse split. IMO, that is not an Rx for progress and in fact could end any hope for Wave.
How some find solace and optimism in Wave's current predicament is unfathomable to me and many others who rely on results.
At some point we must agree with Bill Parcells who said, "You are what your record says you are." Wave's record is simply atrocious. There are no mitigations or ameliorations I can see to dispel or soften that record.
I believe we are coming to the end of the line and I suspect even the most optimistic supporters know the end is near, without massive changes and an influx of sustainable revenue.
IMO, the $2.3M deal of Wave's older tech provided a slender straw of hope in an otherwise dark sea. Maybe Wave can pull it out, but as the last days of Q1 play out without a significant sale, the obstacles to success get higher as the time gets shorter.
Blue
Root: We have just two weeks left in Q1. No significant sales, other than the legacy products of $2.3M to be distributed over a number of quarters.
Maybe you can put your money on what the CEO believes, but I think most prudent investors would rather see some results.
Q4 pretty much passed as expected, with the one deal. If Q1 2015 closes without any announcements, would that dampen your enthusiasm?
I think most Wave investors want to see deals coming in, not happy talk about the potential of them from the CEO.
After 26 years, I think Wave needs more than optimism and happy talk.
Personally, I find the optimism hard to grasp, considering our past. It sure looks and smells like more of the same--without the deals in hand bologna.
Blue
Escrow: I think you fairly acknowledge the problem. My question is when does the lack of engagement put to rest the question of Wave's potential?
Solms has hired what I believe to be qualified sales people, yet so many have taken a look at Wave's wares and walked away.
This morning I read five separate stories about the search for security. Personally, I think if Wave had the goods, we would have seen sales coming in by now.
Many optimistic shareholders seem to grant an infinite timeline for proving Wave's worth in the market. I am not one of them. If the product was good, I believe we would have seen significant sales of the VSC 2.0 by now.
It launched last July--but no reportable sales so far.
Isn't that troubling in itself? If your company was being pillaged by hackers, threatening your existence, wouldn't you flock to a real solution? Would it take months and months of testing and trials?
The need is desperate. Right now, virtually no companies' most valuable data is safe. To what do you attribute Wave's lack of sales? Do you find it as puzzling as I do?
Best wishes--Blue
Under the Solms regime, $2.3M will come in, distributed over an array of quarters. It was also for Wave's old tech and represents the entire significant sales under Solms--after expectations were raised yet again that things would turn around.
In roughly 2 weeks Q1 will close. Thus far, no announced deals involving the VSC 2.0.
Yet the optimism continues. Those of us who look for results can not see what is fueling the optimism.
One paltry deal of old tech, no new deals with the new tech, missed goals, declining revenue, yet more dilution. It hardly seems a cause for optimism. Yet it abounds where it always has--in the vacuum where sales should be.
Validation of some of the hope with real revenue would answer a lot of questions, but I see no validation whatsoever for the proposal Wave has valuable security products for sale. In fact, it appears the exact opposite is true. Wave is having and continues to have extreme difficulty in selling its product in a market desperate for security.
Can anyone explain on what is the continued hope based on? To me it seems, it is based on no more than hope itself. Results are almost completely missing--results backing up such fervent hope.
As most of you know,we have been strung along for decades waiting for the rocket launch. I can't see any signs of a rocket, a launch pad, a control tower, fueling harness--or any of the other outward signs of an impending launch. The counter-indicators are out in force, however.
Hardly any sales of significance, more dilution our CEO didn't think would be necessary, a sub $1.00 share price, missed goals and more promises in lieu of results. It sure seems like the same old thing.
Is there anything solid backing up this apparent endless hope things will turn for the better at some indefinable distant point?
We are not that far away from hitting the de-listing deadline and with no new reportable results for Q1 2015, it appears to me and others, Wave's picture is darkening by the day. How am I misinterpreting the nothingness that is where the promised and expected sales should be?
Blue
Root: Not from me, it won't. Wave selling VSC 2.0 for real money would be a validation of Wave's recent change in strategy.
We'll have to wait to see. The deal announced with the insurance company, if you read Dig's post and agree with it, was Wave's old technology. It was a good post, IMO.
On the other hand if Wave does begin to sell its virtual smart card, that would be validation of new technology sales and proof of Wave's viability in the market.
It is a terrific first step, but needs follow-on sales and some VSC 2.0 sales.
Best--Blue
Dig: That is the most insightful post yet about this deal. It certainly puts it in a lesser light than when news first broke.
Thank you for your analysis--on target!
Blue
Taxi V: The reason it is so hard to please your crowd is because Wave has yet to make good on any of the big promises made by this CEO or the one before him.
You are out scouring the Net for signs of traction. True signs are missing, IMO, so you are put in the position of looking for secondary signs--which are easy to misinterpret and are even easier to shape into what appears to be actual traction.
To me, actual traction is when sales are made and booked as revenue. Trying to tie together the wispy evidence into a convincing case of Wave traction is hard because the convincing case, while tantalizing, always seems to dance just out of reach of Wave.
But kudos to you for making the effort. I agree with Alea, if anyone spots any dots on the distant horizon having real potential--it will be you. I am sure you are well aware of all the false sightings of the past. They give hope to true believers, but incite ridicule in those of us who only count the beans when they go into Wave's jar.
In a day and a half's time, Wave will be 2/3 of the way through Q1--and the real indicators of progress are still elusive, IMO. Not yet has Wave managed to wrangle a significant sale into its corral in the entirety of Bill Solms's reign of about a year and a half.
One wonders if the signs you see out there are akin to the blurred photos of the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman and UFO's? The intensity of the wonderment is stirred by the realization Wave claims to have what everyone wants, yet somehow, nobody buys.
Taxi, do you buy the long sales arguments, Wave needs a partner, Wave is too small, too fragile financially, etc.? I don't. I think the problem is Wave's product is completely underwhelming.
Otherwise, why would so many companies do trials and pilots with Wave and then walk away and begin looking elsewhere?
Any light you can shed on this apparent huge gap in the logic?
Best wishes for good spottings of the dottings--Blue
New Wave: I agree with you about not waiting another six months for Wave to turn things around.
What do you make of the message allegedly coming from Solms, via David Collins to the effect, not much will happen for at least another six months?
Blue
24601: What is stunning is to see you misinterpreting what I said. I said zero significant sales not zero sales.
No, you are right, that is not hair-splitting, it is wholesale misleading, misinterpretation on purpose, IMO. But that is all irrelevant, IMO.
You failed to answer my questions. Are revenues for Wave up, down, or static? Because those numbers answer the real question: Is Wave advancing, retreating or treading water?
There is absolutely nothing in the numbers I see to give anyone any hope whatsoever about Wave's future. It is disappointment after disappointment, all served up on a golden platter of a future of unlimited riches.
It is a steady refrain. Big promises, high goals set by the CEO. When the end of the timeline is reached, why just set new ones a little farther down the road. Deferment after deferment of promises, goals, targets, etc. That is the way it is now and has always been with Wave.
I understand shareholders can see the results and come to different conclusions about Wave, but to me, the loudest and clearest message of all is 26 years without a single profitable quarter.
Where do you think the hope for Wave lies? [no pun intended]
Blue
New Wave: What was the result of that statement? Did it lead shareholders to believe a deal would be inked in August? Or because they used the qualifier, "anticipate," that lets the CEO off the hook?
Do you think an explanation should be forthcoming?
I noticed whenever SKS was making similar statements, you never voiced any concern about elapsed timelines, or for deals announced, but unconsummated.
Are you content to give Solms another six months? Do the ever-moving goal posts raise any red flags with you--especially, since we just went through a decade of that under the former CEO?
In this environment of desperate searches for security protection, does it bother you no new significant sales have been made? Do you find that part a logical disconnect as I do? If the market needs it, and Wave has it, why have there not been any sales?
Blue
24601: I think that part of the discussion has been debated to death. Yes, Wave does have some licensing revenue and some small companies and institutions Wave services, but in terms of new deals of significance--nada.
When you check the 10 Q & 10 K, do you see Wave's revenue rising, falling or staying static? I believe that is the issue. No sales of significance under Solms's reign.
Do you disagree Solms led shareholders to believe signs of the alleged turnaround were to have surfaced by now? Were there not expectations created by Solms's comments about CFBE in 2014? Is Wave advancing toward that goal, or is it retreating?
Do you find a marked similarity between the statements of profitability and deals under Solms and statements from the former CEO? Both hyped big changes of a positive nature for Wave and both have fallen way short.
You can continue to split hairs into the irrelevance zone, but hair splitting is not quite the same as revenue. That is the problem here.
You can define and redefine, parse and re-parse any of the many statements of the last two CEOs, but what remains is a huge gap between created expectations for Wave--coming from the very top--and the actual results.
Big returns for Wave have always been imminent. But somehow, when it comes to bringing in significant revenue, Wave disappoints again and again.
One would think if Wave really had a great product as claimed, sales would not be such an uphill battle and the deals would have been coming in by now for real--not just "anticipated" deals. To what do you attribute this?
In just five days, we will be at the 2/3 mark of Q1 2015. No announcements of deals, no new big revenue desperately needed to stop more dilution.
I don't think this is what shareholders expected after listening to Solms--especially his big "stand by" for announcements, followed by an eerie and commanding silence.
This has been Wave's history since 1996 when I first bought into Wave. That is a long time to continue to hold out hope for expected results or to find validation of that hope where it counts--on the bottom line.
And what of Solms's message via David Collins not much will happen for another six months? Not much discussion on either the method of communication or the message--which, IMO, is disastrous to real hopes for Wave. Accountability from Solms? Have you seen it? I haven't.
Blue
Root: Thank you for taking the time to make such a detailed paragraph by paragraph rebuttal.
I guess what I see is the biggest flaw in your logic is you forgive Solms for making all those timelines--which to me seem crystal clear, but you see them as fuzzy or meaning something other than the actual words. You explained it fine, I just disagree.
IMO, the flaw comes when you ignore the fact Solms said things like the Bell-ID will close by August, stand by for announcements, etc. And you jump right into the argument, "What is he supposed to do in this position?" You seem to skip over the fact Solms put himself in that position.
Anyway, let's delay further discussion for a week or two and then we'll have the Q4 results to pore over.
Again, thank you for going to that much trouble with your rebuttal.
Best wishes--Blue
Maybe you saw announcements of Wave deals within the past year or so that I may have missed.
Root: Thank you for that. In a few short weeks we will be able to dissect Wave's Q4 2014 results and I am sure it will give pro and con plenty of ammo to continue the Wave debate.
And then, roughly six weeks later on, we will get the Q1 2015 results and CC. Again, I'm guessing each side will have plenty to discuss. Let's hope it is something positive for a change.
Best wishes--Blue
Root: I think the head-banging is OK between two people with wildly divergent views of the same company. But mudslinging? Don't think I am guilty of that with you. And you, for your part, have certainly been polite and civil in our discussions.
If you can spare the time for a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal, I would sure like to read it.
If you feel I have engaged in mudslinging with you, please let me know how, because it was not intentional at all. I thought our discussion was spirited, but completely civil and respectful on both sides.
Best wishes--Blue
Root: You got me wrong on this one. My message to Solms would be, don't say anything, unless you have it locked down, dead away and in the bag.
If a CEO says something outside the official CCs about something that is allegedly going to happen, then he should explain it, outside the official CCs if it doesn't happen. Pretty simple.
You state the $3.6M PP is what caused the SP to decline. I partially agree with you. But why did we need a PP? Because Solms was unable to deliver on the sales he thought he could bring in.
No I don't want Solms to use his mouth to fix anything. I want him to either quit making public goals with timelines, or if he does, either hit the goals, or explain why they were missed. Isn't that the fair thing to do?
I think, unconsciously, you may be making excuses for the failures on all of Solms's publicly stated goals. He was the one who set the goals--shouldn't he also be the one to explain if Wave falls short?
Do you think what he did--sending out a cowardly message via David Collins that Wave will need another six months to gain traction is acceptable? That came outside the official CCs and if true, is a pretty big change in expectations for Wave. That, after all the big statements he made about seeing signs of a 2014 turnaround, Bell-ID (August), standby for big announcements? Does any of that strike you as being accountable?
I'm guessing you do. Let me be clear. I do not.
Setting unrealistic goals and missing them was the hallmark of the SKS-led Wave. No explanations were provided under SKS, either. So, why is Solms following this broken and disgraced model?
Lastly, you ask if I think it is a good idea for the CEO to make public statements...to rationalize delays? No, a better way is to either keep quiet, or hit your targets. If you miss, be a man and tell us why.
And please check out the definition of rationalize: "attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate."
Wiki says rationalization is also known as making excuses. I don't think that was what you meant to say.
I have already speculated on what I think are the reasons for Wave missing every single one of Solms's stated "goals." I think the truth is Wave's products are the crapware they have been labeled and if he told the truth, it would kill Wave.
That's why I think he's in hiding. He had all these lines in the water and not a single bite. I think he was stunned by the nothingness his new sales team gathered after re-focusing, and re-jiggering the product.
You, on the other hand seem to be OK with constantly expanding timelines (sound familiar?) and no results. It appears you are OK with missing goals with no explanations. I'm not. And not that you need reminding, that is how we got here in the first place--tolerating missed timelines and no results. That is exactly what got SKS fired.
I was hoping for both a different approach and better results under Solms.
Best wishes--Blue
Root: One further note. You asked if I would defer to Player's opinion as to whether OEM partners coming into the equation would lengthen the timeline for deals.
I would say yes it would. But if I were CEO of Wave and the previous CEO had made baseless statements about profitability and deals, I would go so far the other way, I might not say anything.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say that is what is happening. Some real big boys have decided to partner up with Wave and they are taking their time.
That is good news simply delayed.
So, if that were the case, given the CEO's previous rash and optimistic statements, none of which have come to pass, wouldn't you find some way to let the shareholders know good things are coming?
You see I read the silence as a big negative. Bill has watched his timelines come and go with absolutely nothing like a turnaround, CFBE, Bell-ID., stand by for announcements, etc. and he, himself said he expected to be held accountable. But he says nothing. He is not accountable.
Instead, the only word from him has been through David Collins saying we will have to wait 6 more months for anything to happen. Does that sound acceptable to you? Either the message itself, or the way it was delivered?
Root, I would urge you, based on this company's truly bad history--to not let anything go on beyond a stated time. If the CEO says CFBE by end of 2014, he should either hit the mark, or, if not--then explain why he didn't hit the mark.
SKS did exactly the same thing. Told BIG lies and when they never came true, supporters supplied the "explanations" for the delays. SKS never explained unless cornered and asked about it.
That is neither leadership nor showing integrity. IMO, Solms fails both.
Blue
Root: No clue as to what the buying is. In Wave history, it is quite common to see large numbers of shares change hands without any discernible reason.
Could be anything. If I had to guess, it would be supporters who believe there is a big wad of deals set to explode. Same old, same old, IMO.
It could also be Wave's partnership with a big company and those who know about the deal are buying into Wave.
Could be a lot of things.
________
Back to our discussion about Wave. We can certainly table our talk until early March when we will both have the year end figures. But even without the numbers, there are issues to be noted.
You may have noticed, we are past the half way mark on Q1, without a reportable sale. To me, that is extremely bad news.
I can not get past the non-logic of Wave claiming to have a great security product and companies are being looted everyday, costing real money and making them look like rubes and boobs for not securing their data. All are looking for a way to protect themselves, but somehow Wave never gets the nod.
Many of the companies who did trials with Wave never became customers. Why? That, to me, is a critical sign. Haven't you tried a new product and really liked it? Sure, and you shared it with all your friends.
So why can't Wave sell? It works the other way, too. If a movie or a book is highly reviewed and you go see it, or read it and it stinks, what do you tell your friends?
That's my take on where we are now. If Wave can't sell in this market, I don't think they can sell at all. And the longer it goes without a significant sale, the more it looks like Wave's product is not a great one.
The market is the final arbiter and Wave's falling revenue and the silence from Lee tell the story as well as anything, IMO.
Blue
Root: Bill Solms from Nov. 6, 2014, "...I encourage you to stand by for those announcements."
We are just a couple weeks away from 4 months elapsed since he said that--without any announcements. I agree with Player, you don't say "standby for those announcements" if it is going to be months--more than a whole quarter, and we are still waiting. Standby does imply immediacy and imminence.
In an earlier post on Monday, I asked you a few questions about Wave to which you did not respond:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110910695
To save you some time, here are an instant replay of questions and comments you might want to respond to:
From Bluefang
"You seem not to be troubled as much as some of us by the slippage between what Solms said, and what he has done (nothing) in the past 3 months--business wise."
"If the CEO announces timelines for his goals, at the very least, when those timelines pass with nothing even close to what he said would be happening, shouldn't he be accountable and tell us why?"
"I understand your strong belief in Wave's future, but missing goals and not explaining is part of what led to the disaster under Steven. Are we repeating history here with a new chap sitting in the driver's seat?
Shouldn't missing any signs of traction at all, be worrisome? Let alone missing them all? One can't begin to win, until one stops losing."
"I just wondered why you seem to shrug off the missing of every single goal Solms set for himself, including asking to be held accountable--but he has been anything but accountable."
Don't you feel these are relevant question best answered if you want to preserve your faith in Wave? To me, they seem a damning indictment--more proof Wave can not sell security in a market dying for it.
It appears your argument seems to be, 'so what if the timelines slip out a bit? Doesn't matter.' You have a lot of faith in Solms and Wave, but I can not figure what it is based on. Every faith needs a bit of validation from time to time, but Wave and Solms seem to have failed at everything they have touched.
Love to hear your response.
Best wishes--Blue
Root: You quoted Bill Solms from Nov. 6, 2014, "...I encourage you to stand by for those announcements."
You seem not to be troubled as much as some of us by the slippage between what Solms said and what he has done (nothing) in the past 3 months--business wise.
You seem to focus on the bright future spots, but then when that future arrives carrying nothing, you seem to focus up ahead on another bright spot.
Many of us long-timers have seen that over and over in the past. The lack of traction not only was hardly mentioned, but in some cases, it was a forbidden subject. But it was perfectly acceptable to comment on non-existent deals like so many of Wave's "deals" were--without revenue.
Ultimately, though, a company has to either put up or shut up. If the CEO announces timelines for his goals, at the very least, when those timelines pass with nothing even close to what he said would be happening, shouldn't he be accountable and tell us why?
I understand your strong belief in Wave's future, but missing goals and not explaining is part of what led to the disaster under Steven. Are we repeating history here with a new chap sitting in the driver's seat?
Shouldn't missing any signs of traction at all, be worrisome? Let alone missing them all? One can't begin to win, until one stops losing.
I just wondered why you seem to shrug off the missing of every single goal Solms set for himself, including asking to be held accountable--but he has been anything but accountable.
To me, these are important indicators of whether Wave is actually making progress, or is simply another re-alignment of the dots to show a semblance of progress that really doesn't exist.
Furthermore, the longer Wave goes without traction, the more dilution it will be compelled to institute to stay in business. In this market, it seems ridiculous a security company has so far failed to make a single reportable deal under Solms.
These look like pretty big obstacles to me--along with the company's history of never making a profit since 1988 through today.
Best wishes--Blue
I have spent the past week trying to figure out which categories to put all the different Wave sales in.
I'm sure that is why the numbers are so small--no one can figure out which box they belong in, so they are treading water in the MISC in-box, until the proper category reveals itself.
I think if the MISC in-box is fully excavated, SKS's missing pipeline may be found, along with orders in hand and breakeven for the years 2003-2013. And tucked way in the back corner, we might find Solms's missing goals and the signs of a turnaround, the stalled Bell-ID--wow, it's so exciting.
I have quit trying to puzzle out the numbers, because all those new sales coming in are just too much for one guy with a calculator to handle. I was swamped, so I did the right thing--I quit.
I'll leave it to the experts from here on out.
Blue
It is not enough to simply review Wave's failures. IMO, those failures should be viewed alongside the lofty promises and predictions made for the rain of riches soon to be washing over investors.
Those baseless promises and predictions were made by the former CEO & CFO, as well as many of the leading supporters of Wave.
The reality has been quite different--near total devastation of investment.
Wave has never produced enough revenue to run the company. Those punished most financially were the most loyal buy-and-hold Wave investors.
The record of this company is awesome in terms of rich promises contrasted by constant failure to achieve goals set by the company itself, including our present CEO, who, like his predecessor, has never explained the wide, wide misses of his "goals" like CFBE by year's end 2014--or on any of the big deals we were standing by for, or the failure of Bell-ID to close in August--six months overdue.
Wave, without reservation has been a terrible investment--especially judged by the expectations created for it by both the company and its supporters.
Blue
24: You wrote: "Many seem to presume that anybody who sees any possibility of success for Wave must have all eggs in that basket. Their anger and their proclivity to paint particular plights in common for all "wavoids" --- second mortgages and paupers' burials, to name a couple --- seem to reflect a great deal of projection."
Your post was in response to a post I made elsewhere. For someone accusing others of presumption, you manage a lot of it in that one passage.
I have many friends who were Wavoids. All, without exception, lost a lot of money (for them) by investing in Wave.
A really close friend, who used to post under the name, Pipeline, died in Nov. He used to have the New Hampshire WAVX license plate. He wisely divested all his Wave shares and laughed at the pretensions of the company and its many supporters who still believed. Fortunately for his widow, he had other, better investments.
Remember Fatboy? He's another friend who was a tireless booster of Wave and he had the Mass. license plate, WAVX. Now, he is totally disgusted with Wave and may be completely out.
Yet another friend had the Maine WAVX license plate and lost a lot of money on Wave and is completely out and glad of it. He now laughs at his falling for the ruse of quick and easy money.
Yet another Wavoid I worked with bet his retirement on Wave, telling me he hoped to use Wave earnings to retire prior to his actual retirement date in 2016. At the time it seemed so far away. Now, he still works, bitterly--and will retire with no nest egg next year.
Another respected poster, Pure Folder, a real Wavoid, is completely out of the stock and now laughs at how he fell for a ten-cent scam that promised unlimited riches.
I know of more than a dozen real sad cases of those who bet big on Wave and lost almost every penny they invested. I could be wrong, but I think these are the typical Wave investors.
_____
I agree with your opinion of Player. He has remained objective and civil to all and his posts are always on the money--none more so than the pinned post we have been discussing. Wave investors have lost 98% of their investment since SKS was appointed CEO by his father up to the date he was replaced by William Solms.
Blue
More Factual Wave History.
Wave was de-listed from the Naz in Aug. 1997 for failing to meet the tangible assets minimum. It regained listing in Oct. 1997 on the Nasdaq Small Cap Market after pleading its case at a hearing.
Since then Wave has had a series of de-listing warnings, two of which led to reverse splits and/or retreats to smaller Naz markets.
Wave is currently on yet another de-listing countdown from the Naz Capital Market.
Wave's financials have long carried a warning about Wave's jeopardy as a going concern. In addition, Wave has had to restate their financials at least twice because of errors and miscalculations.
Dilution has been fairly steady throughout Wave's history, the latest coming via a $15M Shelf Registration in Nov. and a $3.8M placement [5,513,044 shares of Class A stock*] on Jan. 27 of this year. The news release said, the money raised would be used "to fund Wave's ongoing operations."
Blue
*this placement came with 2.2M five-year warrants to buy Wave Class A shares at $.70/share.
What about this metric?
Since inception in the late 1980's, Wave*, in 26 years, has never had a single profitable quarter, despite many promises & predictions of prosperity and profitability.
Blue
*Wave was incorporated under another name, Indata Corp and in time other names for the company were used, such as Cryptologics International. The Wave Systems name came in Jan. 1993.
But folks, does it make any sense that Wave is tied in with the best security there is, but somehow, in this breacherama, they can't sell a thing?! Defies credulity, IMO.
If Wave did what it claimed to do, Wave would not be knocking on doors, giving out free samples, trials, discounts, etc. and yet, still not selling in this atmosphere.
There is a gap in the logic no one has explained. We've heard about long sales cycles and a bunch of other weak-kneed, implausible excuses for lack of traction.
Why, in the name of Holy Batman, can't Wave sell in this market? Where is the CEO to calm fears? Maybe he can't calm them, because all the bad is very real. It's beginning to look that way, IMO.
A week from today, we reach the halfway mark on Q1 2015. Funny how the time slips away. De-listing clock still running down. Mgt. still silent in the bunker. Must be real bad inside that bunker.
Blue
Top: I haven't seen any evidence of Wave achieving traction either.
But you wrote: "When any company or government agency wants the ultimate in computer system security, they will be compelled to use hardware with TPM chips and security software that utilizes them. Being that Wave security software has been bundled with millions of business computers from companies like Samsung, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, Panasonic, etc., I would think Wave Systems would have a good chance getting the contract.
Correct me, if you believe me to be wrong, but I believe companies are desperate to thwart hacks like the one that embarrassed Sony and Anthem.
If Wave actually does what its supporters claim for it, it seems particularly curious Wave has not landed any contracts yet.
Not to be negative, but all of the pilots and trial thus far, to my knowledge, have yielded zero contracts. That speaks to something. I don't know exactly what, but if you were among those in the Sahara dying of thirst and someone came by selling cold, purified water, would you take a pass? Of course not.
All of those companies walking away from Wave after trying it out--to me, does not speak well of the quality of product. Neither does the complete lack of significant sales in the best market ever for security. Particularly under a brand new sales team with renewed focus under the supervision of a new CEO concentrating on sales.
What's your theory why there is no traction? Either under SKS or under Bill Solms?
Best--Blue
Top: You wrote: "Wave software most likely is bundled with the tablet."
If Wave came bundled with the tablet, isn't it likely we would have seen either an announcement or a perk-up in terms of revenue? Personally, I doubt it.
Yes, both Wave and MS are members of the trusted computing group, but beyond that, I don't think you can chart connections. Wave is desperate to announce something, anything and if the tablet began shipping with Wave's product, I believe Wave would have announced it.
Do you disagree?
Blue