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.
Top: Is there any indication or evidence Wave is involved in this in a revenue-bearing way?
Blue
Is there any evidence anywhere Wave is catching on, or TPM usage has come up to at least a measurable threshold?
I see no evidence at all. And unless there is some break in either the silence from Lee, or in the dearth of sales, Wave does not have much of a shelf life from here out.
The problems ahead for Wave are worse than the problems behind it--and they were terrible.
Irrelevant dots and hopes melded into a semblance of a chance, can not save this company. Only sales can. And sales are what are so mysteriously missing.
The market is convulsing with the wholesale plundering of secrets, customer info and data--yet, Wave, the alleged first mover in this arena--can't sell anything big enough to PR.
How does one make sense of this paradox? The market needs security. Wave claims to provide it. So, the market looks elsewhere. Does that seem logical at all?
And where is our fearless leader who wants to be held accountable during all of this? He sends out a cowardly tweet through his paid shill, that we will have to wait another six months. That's leadership in my book--the kind that made the French and Italian armies infamous.
Where is our CEO when every goal he set for himself was missed and missed badly, none more so than the unrealistic claim Wave would be CFBE by New Year's Eve. Where is Mr. Accountability when the Bell-ID deal, set to close in August, is six months past due?
Where is Mr. Accountability on why we haven't seen signs of turnaround, instead we see signs of Wave sinking deeper and deeper into the morass of its own making?
Why have we heard nothing but silence from Lee? Want my theory? We hear nothing because there is nothing to report--no movement, no sales, no deals, only more of the same from a company supposedly on its way to great riches.
If there was an explanation, we'd have heard it by now. There is only nothingness in the vacuum that is Wave, IMO.
Blue
Title: I agree with everything you say, except, "...the jury is still out as to whether Solms can get the job done."
The case is far from closed, but IMO, the jury's verdict is already in. I base that on Solm's statements of goals set, but unmet on his timetable. Not a single goal he set has been reached within Solms's timeline. That constitute's failure, IMO.
No signs of a turnaround in Q3 or Q4, no Bell-ID deal done in August, CFBE was supposed to have happened in Q4 and was reiterated right up until Nov. when Solms, under questioning, said it might take a bit longer. And his famous (or infamous) statement to "Standby" [for big announcements] has left us standing by for nothing for half a year.
There are zero signs of any improvement in Wave's position--in my view, that of a tiring arm holding on to a twig sticking out of the steep cliffside with rocks far below.
Tomorrow's close will mark a full month and a week of the the new quarter passing without any announcements from Wave. In fact, the silence from Wave continues, even as pressure mounts, deadlines pass and progress is MIA.
I do credit Solms, as you do, with cleaning up much of the mess the Spragues left behind, but as to Wave's actual business--no significant sales and no explanations from Wave about the expanding delays in reaching goals the CEO himself set publicly.
If there was a reasonable explanation for missing the goals, I believe we would have heard it by now. It is hard to escape the inevitable conclusion Wave's products are not attractive to a market looking for exactly what Wave claims to supply.
I think shareholders are entitled to an explanation of what went wrong and why, but I suspect we will have to wait until March to get any sort of definitive statement from Wave--and my guess is, in March, we will not be given any real explanations, but instead, we will be given more vague statements along the line of, "We're making real progress."
At this point, only results count and the results we were told were coming, have not come. It seems only fair, the man who said he wants to be held accountable to shareholders and the Wave BoD, should be held accountable for incredible misses on goals.
IMO, Solms owes shareholders not only an explanation, but an apology for raising expectations and then failing to achieve them. Personally, I think he also owes an apology for saying he wants to be held accountable, but then, after he called for accountability, he ducked down behind the ramparts and hid from it.
My jury has come back with a clear verdict. Guilty on all charges.
Blue
Player's highlighted post is valuable info, IMO. For more than a decade, supporters have argued big returns were coming, if only shareholders would have patience. Patience has not favored the Wave investor.
Player's post counters the nonsense based on nothing more than the waning hope shareholders will soon enjoy big returns. The actual record is devastating--98%+ losses is informative, factual and necessary for anyone considering investing in Wave at this point.
Our change in mgt led to more expectations of deals, contracts, signings and the like--but the reality is, in 16 months of the new mgt, Wave has yet to close a single deal, or book a significant sale.
In a climate like the current one, when each day seems to bring a new hack or breach, Wave seemingly can not convince customers its products can help solve the insecurity. Supporters have made big claims for Wave's products, but sales continue to elude in the best market ever for security products.
Player's post, IMO, is a beacon of truth cutting through the fog of unreal expectations and outright lies surrounding Wave's immediate future. These supporters continue to herald Wave and maintain it is only a matter of time before Wave begins to pay off. It is a refrain I heard often back in 1996 when I first invested in Wave.
The fantasy posts like Wave at "$2,000 per share in the year 2000," or similar messages about coming greatness after 26 straight years of failure to engage in a hungry market--provide cover for outlandish predictions of outrageous success. Player's post concisely reveals the actual truth, based only on factual numbers.
IMO, it should remain as helpful information to investors and as a counter to those who say Wave will soon be a fountain of riches.
Wave has an extremely bleak record, despite attempts to keep that info secret, out of sight, and off the message boards. Player's post remains a big, blinking cautionary sign to those who might be misled about Wave's future. IMO, that post should be made permanent, until such time Wave actually brings in real revenue and achieves profitability.
IMO, the future of Wave is extremely questionable. It is in a de-listing countdown; will probably have to issue a third reverse split; and is increasing dilution previously thought unnecessary because of anticipated sales. Furthermore, despite repeated assurances Wave is on track to profitability, not a single relevant fact supports that optimistic view.
Wave is living on the last ghost of fumes and is not about to break any records that I can see--or that the market can see--if you believe all events at least six months out are priced in. At 65 cents currently, after two reverse splits--it sure doesn't look like there is anything of significance in Wave's bag.
Player's post underlines and highlights Wave's real record and IMO, should stay.
Blue
Kis: Doesn't it have to stop going down before it can start going up? What do you see to reverse the current trend?
Do you think Bill Solms's deals went where so many Wave deals went to die--or do you think they are simply delayed?
How do you read the silence from Lee in the wake of the badly-missed goals Solms set for himself? Accountability? You seeing it? Solms asked for it, but he seems to be hiding in his foxhole instead of answering shareholder concerns.
To me, there are only three logical scenarios for his silence at so critical a time.
1. He's about to close a big deal and doesn't want to queer it with a premature blab--or maybe the alleged deal wants no publicity on it. [least likely of the 3, IMO]
2. Deals he thought were in hand, evaporated. [likely]
3. No solid deals in sight--he dare not alert anyone to this, so he keeps quiet less he kills Wave with a little candor--[likely]
Given that Solms well knows the SKS way of doing things, one would think he would set a far different path--yet, from all appearances, it is a re-run of the classic SKS themes--set targets or goals, miss them and then clam up.
In the meantime, no significant sales of what is reputed to be the best solution out there, in the market's greatest hour of need. Does not compute, to me.
It is hard to guess what hand Solms is holding, except that if it were a strong one, IMO we'd be given hints. Wait patiently for two more quarters, Solms reportedly said via David Coilins. Are you prepared to give Wave another six months?
If he said it, it is a strange way to communicate and to me--is the least hopeful sign we could possibly get, after waiting patiently for more than a year to see Solms make the impact for shareholders he said he wanted to.
What if, in six months, he asks for more time? Sound familiar?
Do you have any opinions on any of this?
Blue
Barge: Did anything come of it?
Blue
According to my count, we are almost halfway to a second de-listing notification from the Naz for being below the $35M market cap listing requirement.
A reverse split can not cure the market cap deficiency.
By my calculation, on or around Feb. 25th, if Wave's market cap continually stays under $35M, they will get another de-listing warning from the Naz.
In lieu of new sales, another de-listing notification will not help Wave's battle to stay listed on the Naz Capital market.
A week or so after the new de-listing notification goes out, Wave will report its Q4 2014 results. If sales are still flat, I would standby for a serious down draft.
If things are no better in the sales dept. by May's Q1 2015 CC, I would expect that to be the death blow to Wave as we know it. Time is short; pressure is rising; and the final line in the sand will come in early May, if there is no change to report--IMO.
I don't believe the silence from Wave is helping, either. My guess is there is some huge obstacle to selling any of Wave's products and Solms and his team are working desperately to fix it. How else does one explain way more than a year without a single sale of significance? The market is there--but apparently not for Wave.
Things from my viewpoint look pretty dark. Real dark.
Blue
Money: I believe it will hit the 50 cent range before it goes to .80. Not sure if it will actually hit 50 cents, but it sure has a good chance if things remain as quiet as they have been the past few months.
Today's close marks the 1/3 milepost on Q1 2015--reporting in early May.
Q4 2014 CC will be in March--about five weeks or so away. If results from Q4 '14 continue to be as flat as Q2 & Q3 '14--Wave's SP could easily hit 50 cents.
If the May CC does not have any good news, I think Wave will be finished.
Blue
We are already paying the price for this latest dilution--which is more than it seems at first glance, IMO.
Given the widespread optimism greeting SKS's firing, and Solms's hiring, this use of the shelfie seems to confirm the extreme difficulty of selling Wave's products. I don't doubt the efforts, only the results--not much of anything.
Furthermore, IMO, this placement comes at a delicate time. What it signifies, IMO, is Wave's future, immediate and long term--is in peril.
The SP has already touched 60 cents.
This may be the last straw for some who held on despite the constant flow of bad news--the hollowness and emptiness of the alleged pipeline. All those pilots, not much uptake, if any.
Using the shelfie to fund ordinary expenses is simply more of the same and its use at this time validates the concerns expressed by some of us about Wave's inability to sell much of anything. The funding is a clear reminder, the only way forward for Wave is by taking even more from the shareholders.
And where is the Lt. Co. embracing the accountability he said he wanted? By hiding inside his bunker, quietly hoping this mess will go away? Is this the kind of leadership we expected? Silence is not an option, IMO. It will only deepen and worsen the crisis.
Another de-listing is in the works--that or a third reverse split--a slo-mo death spiral. Another market cap deficiency warning is not that far away--not that Wave needs any more problems. That one, I suspect, will be the coup de grace.
Here's Windbag Willie bloviating about leadership:
"Managing is effectively making sure things are going through the right processes, being done correctly, goals are being achieved, metrics are being watched. Leading is about inspiring and creating the vision and telling people why you’re doing it, making them motivated to do what you’re managing them to do."
From the Washington Post Nov. 10, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/behind-the-career-william-solms/2013/11/08/0fecaf32-4700-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html
Blue
This new funding is but one more compelling piece of evidence, Wave, for whatever reason, simply can not sell its wares.
This funding and further dilution of already diluted shareholders will drive the share price down into the 60-cent range and possibly into the 50 cent range, depending on how large shareholders react.
It also shows beyond a doubt, despite a new sales team, fresh mgt. and renewed focus--there is simply no demand for Wave, despite the rampant breaches and hacks affecting almost every business using the Internet.
And where is the leadership? Where is our CEO to help shareholders understand what is going on, after the CEO set high goals for himself and failed to reach a single one? Has anyone seen any accountability from the top?
Real leadership would come out, face the lions and tell us what went wrong and that perhaps there is a way out of this rapidly deteriorating mess. We get silence--yet another red flag, IMO. If there was a silver lining to this new dark cloud, we'd have been told about it.
I wonder what those involved in the funding were told? Perhaps only, that shorting against the box would make them money--if they move fast.
I am glad to be out of Wave currently and I fear for those still in.
It sure seems now another reverse split is in the future--but even that won't cure the market cap deficiency.
To me, the silence from Wave speaks eloquently, even if it is a message most do not want to hear.
Blue
Player1234: Quick question. Wave is currently under the $1 listing minimum and has received a de-listing notification warning from the Nasdaq.
My question: If, say in a couple of weeks or more, if Wave has been below the market cap requirement of $35M for 30 days, does Wave get a second de-listing notification?
Best wishes--Blue
Wouldn't you think GM's non-renewable would qualify as a material event, worthy of notice?
Alea: If it were only the year-end goals that had slipped out. I'm not sure I agree with you about him really wanting to be held accountable, nor with his silence in lieu of why his goals were off--what did he mean about Bell-ID closing by Aug.? And so on. That's enough--you get the gist.
I just have not seen him rallying the troops, or leading in any form. Certainly he has yet to publicly accept the blame for missing all of his "goals" or to offer explanations of what is happening.
Yes, it all relates back to the acute lack of significant sales and the time passing without sales is slowly bleeding a weakened company.
I'd love for Solms to stand up on his hind legs and tell us why, what he saw in Wave's future, is so very like Wave's past.
I'd love some accountability. I don't see it. I believe shareholders would grant him more time, if he simply came out and said, "I was a bit overconfident in what was to be done. I am going to need X more time to get it done."
Silence is hurting Solms far worse than it's hurting the company and it's hurting the company pretty badly.
I guess I got a belly full of broken promises and unmet dreams under the previous regime. To see it replayed by a new team is tortuous.
If Wave's products had merit, in this unsurpassed time of insecurity, I believe there would be a line from NYC to Lee trying to get some, before they were sold out. Instead, we can't sell security to folks starving for it.
Something smells and I think I know exactly what it is.
Blue
Root: Your confidence in Bill Solms is admirable, given the extreme slippage on his watch--especially slippery when it comes to holding him accountable to the BoD and Wave shareholders as he said he expected to be and that he welcomed it.
OK. Where is Bill Solms when it counts? Heard any explanations from the horse's mouth? Have you seen any accountability? No, he is ducking behind the barricades instead of leading.
You kissed off my criticisms of Bill's missed "goals," lack of sales, failure to achieve CFBE by end of last year, failure to close the Bell ID thingy that was supposed to have been wrapped up by last August, failure to show signs of a turnaround--you kissed all that off as "accusations, unfairness and hyperbole."
No, I am sorry Mr. Root of Trust, those were all facts, culled from the CEO's own statements and deeds left undone. I don't see unfairness, hyperbole or even accusations in any of that.
But, in fairness, I'd agree a few large Wave VSC 2.0 sales would change things drastically. But, Root, in fairness to shareholders, if we can not count on the top guy's word about sales and CFBE, why would you continue to think there is merit in anything he says? Sound familiar?
By leaving open the timeline for an unlimited expanse, rather than holding Bill Solms feet to the fire for the comments he made about timelines and goals--seems fair to me. He is the CEO, right--not some roadside observer.
IMO, many Wave shareholders suffered greatly financially, by continuing to believe the last CEO after he lied repeatedly about the most crucial issues for investors--sales, revenue and profitability. IMO, we seem to be back on familiar ground here. Declining SP, de-listing notices, silence from Wave HQ, missed timelines, no significant sales--IMO, it is Wave-ja vu, all over again.
Do you think my concerns are overblown? They seem to be shared by many supportive investors who thought Solms would shine when he took the throne. Yes, I know he faced many problems, not of his own making--but he was the one who opened his big, fat yap, saying he intended to do all the things he hasn't done by timelines long since passed.
In light of his record, why would you still have confidence in Solms's version of the future. Thus far, it is whiff after whiff after whiff.
Blue
Do what all the time? Play possum in the foxhole when he should be leading and explaining his misses? Buy worthless companies who leave a 26-year debris field with a de-listing and another pending, two reverse splits and another pending?
No sure what you were referring to, when you wrote "they do it aaaaalllll the time."
Blue
TKC: When is 70 cents a share not better than zero? Why would any entity buy a company [Wave] in business for 26 years without ever making a profit?
Wouldn't a purchaser want to see something significant coming in on the bottom line from time to time?
I know you stand in deference to senior military men, but my experience was few of them deserve such praise. Many of them gained rank by sheer seniority, playing politics and sucking up to superiors.
There were many however, who made their rank on the basis of their own leadership abilities. But I believe this type to be in a small minority.
That said, I have not seen where Lt. Col. Bill has demonstrated any of the skills you associate with successful military men. He set goals and didn't meet any of them. He told us to stand by for something big, and whiff! Nothing.
Bell ID--done by August? What the hell, five months late isn't the worst sin, except none of the other bright, happy scenarios Solms laid out have come to pass. Sorry, TKC, I don't know how else you would quantify and qualify his CEO-ship, other than calling it a failure.
Where is his leadership when it comes to doing exactly what he called for? To be held accountable by the BoD and the shareholders? Has he held himself accountable? NO! He's playing dead in his foxhole.
I do give him credit for the good things he did, but by setting big goals, failing them and then hiding instead of taking the blame for premature blabbing--sounds like the kind of leadership that lost the Vietnam War to a much poorer, but scrappier country.
I'm happy to give Bill his due, if he comes through. But here we are in the closing days of the first month of the first quarter and still nothing-- and Bill is peeping through the blinds at Wave HQ, knees shaking and with a bad case of lockjaw.
If you can not make accurate predictions about Wave's success, shut the hell up. If you miss your targets or goals, be a man and explain it. Don't hide and hope it blows over, or cross your fingers like the supporters and optimists do, and pray someone will sell something for Wave before the house of cards comes tumbling down from within.
Even the supporters are grumbling. Are we better off today than two years ago, with His Porkulence at the helm? SP is a lot lower today. Two years ago on this Wednesday, Porky was still steering the boat with the SP at $3.96. Today we are at either 69 or 70 cents, depending on which account one depends for stock info.
I know it can all change with a single good sale. But that will not undo the damage to Solms's credibility, nor shore up our confidence in his visions of the future. So, feel free to stand at attention and salute when Lt. Col. (retired) and Gen. Patton march by, lockstep in a lonely parade.
My salutes will come when something positive happens, if ever. But I will not forget the cowardly way Solms hid and clammed up when we needed his leadership most. Especially after telling one and all he wanted to be held accountable. That bell will never come unrung.
Blue
Root: You wrote: "...there have been number of indications, all discussed here, that Wave's solution is resonating in the marketplace to the point that potential large accounts are advancing and have advanced to the procurement phase..."
I have seen no signs of Wave's solution either resonating in the market place or advancing to the procurement phase. Neither has the market seen any signs of it, if one looks at the share price stuck in the low 70 cent range.
If Wave's SP suddenly jumped up, there might be some evidence to back up your statement, but in lieu of an unexpected rise in SP, deals announced, revenue booked, etc., I think you may be drastically over-stating Wave's sales status, based more on your hope than evidence.
If a large player was seriously interested and its employees knew it was about to get married to Wave, I would expect those employees to begin buying Wave shares with both hands. Again, not happening.
Yes, I agree the small sales and licensing are occurring at the same low level they have been for awhile, but reportable sales? Not happening apparently.
I think at some point, your optimism might need to give way to the reality of what is here and now--not much.
How much more time do you think is reasonable to see your hypothesis come true? Isn't a year enough to make a prelim judgement? It is enough time for me, given the environment out there.
Blue
Root: You wrote: "...are Wave's [products] good enough to compete and take market share from incumbents?"
After more than a year of trying, the answer thus far seems to be a resounding "no" from the market. Incidentally, the market is desperate to find a way to stop the breaches. Wave has not been selected by any large company in a long while to deal with security.
Not only is Wave not in a position to compete,IMO, apparently, but it is ridiculous to think at this point, Wave can take market share from competitors who are currently selling their wares.
We are still waiting for the first "reportable sale."
Blue
Cartoon, et al: It may be a matter of a few cents, but IMO, the de-listing notice is going to hit hard--ICBW.
I'm not beating the drum for anything positive or negative. But if I have missed something positive about Wave recently, please inform of the oversight.
Wave has performed poorly despite a pretty comprehensive overhaul of mgt and sales. The CEO publicly set goals which were missed pretty badly.
The share price is declining and the Naz de-listing warning notification was triggered today.
Wave just did a shelf registration and it looks as if that $15M dilution will be used to pay operating expenses in lieu of significant sales that continue to be predicted and just as continually elude actuality.
Where is the positive in that picture? Those are the brutal facts and yes, they are quite negative, but (1) they are true and (2) they are relevant to investors. They accurately reflect what a bad place Wave is in for investors currently.
Sales could completely change the picture. Unfortunately we have been waiting for the new team to bring home a significant sale for a year.
In the meantime, Wave's share price will continue to drift downward in lieu of sales.
Blue
Has anyone noticed the discrepancies between the Wave share price displayed on this board's header and what is reported elsewhere?
i-Hub lists Wave as closing at 75 cents, up slightly a fraction of a cent, while Yahoo Finance says it closed at 72 cents, down two pennies. Fidelity also reports it same as Yahoo--down two cents and a fraction.
All 3 sites report the same volume.
Confusing.
Anyone?
TIA--Blue
Surprisingly, no one is addressing the important issue (IMO) of another Naz Share Price Deficiency Warning notice which should have been triggered today for the SP being 30 days under one dollar.
I would expect the notice to go out tomorrow or early next week.
Any discussion on what the possible impact of that notice will be?
IMO, it will not be positive.
If the share price stays in the low 70 cent range for 30 biz days from yesterday, it will trigger the Naz Market Cap deficiency warning notice.
I can't imagine it will help if Wave is indeed in talks with big companies concerned about Wave's fiscal stability and continued existence as a going concern. Each penny's drop in SP takes $460K off the market cap which now stands at $33.05M--nearly $2 million below the required market cap of $35M for continued listing on the Naz Capital Market.
Being bounced from the capital market would make it much harder for Wave to raise money, other than sales or licensing revenue.
Blue
ROT: Yours is a plausible scenario, but unfortunately, it all depends on one factor Wave has always had trouble with--sales.
Yes, with sustainable sales, Wave might be a good investment, but as it stands now, after 26 years of effort, the company is not in a good position, in fact, it is in a terrible position.
You laid out one option, which again depends of when and if VSC 2.0 sales begin to flow. Yes, it may be a bit too early, but in this environment, one would think a decent security solution would sell itself. Hasn't happened.
You imply there are many other options but chose not to name them. IMO, the only option left for Wave is to sell and sell hard before the roof falls down on the company.
Let's talk again, say after the March Q4 CC and see if anything has changed.
As for the here and now, Wave seems up against it. I hope your scenario comes about, but with great reason and long experience, I doubt it.
Talk in March.
Best--Blue
Snackman: Why are the critics "fear polluters"? Aren't the real issues lack of sales, failed timelines and goals from the CEO, almost certain de-listing notification from the Naz and using the new shelf registration for ordinary operating expenses?
IMO, those are real issues facing Wave and keeping the SP from rising. Those are all problems Wave created by not selling and were not created by the critics.
In all of its 26-year history, Wave has never had a single profitable quarter. That is not a record the critics created.
And during most of that time, optimistic supporters were making big claims about going to Las Vegas en masse for a victory celebration, seeing $100 SP and above and becoming a world-beating success. The actual record, however, remains so far below those expectations as to be farcical, IMO.
IMO, it is not the critics who are to blame for Wave's troubles, Wave is. And by supporters creating unrealistic expectations of unrivaled success for shareholders, the gap between expectations and actual execution seems even wider by comparison.
Blue
ROT: You wrote: "Wave has a number of options to accomodate a potential customer's concerns over finances "
In your opinion, what are the number of options to salve potential customers' concerns over finances?
The cupboard is almost bare. The SP is down and likely to go lower in the days ahead, particularly if the Naz de-listing warning notification goes out.
The rock has been squeezed dry in terms of funding by all the previous placements, ATM, discounting sales for cash and other practices Wave used to survive.
Wave would have to offer some deep discounts to entice future PP participants to give the company more money. When the disclosure of those discounts become public, it almost invariably means the share price will fall to at or below the level of discounts--at least that has been the history of this stock.
I don't know what options you see that would calm nervous buyers about Wave's fiscal stability, but I don't see much, in lieu of new and significant sales.
I doubt if telling potential buyers, "Yes, we are on shaky ground, but if you buy from us, that alone will shore up our finances." If I were a potential buyer, I couldn't run away fast enough from that sort of 'proposal.'
Can you enlighten us what those options are? I see them as limited, if any.
Best--Blue
With Wave's share price currently sitting at 75 cents and the deadline for getting it over a buck by tomorrow's close, it sure looks inevitable another Naz de-listing warning notification is going out on Friday or early next week.
One can speculate on what effect such a notification will have on the SP, but I don't think anyone expects it to increase confidence in Wave.
Yesterday's close at 80 cents puts off the market cap deficiency notice for at least 30 days, but one wonders what the SP deficiency warning might do to the SP if it goes out as expected.
Wave can dodge the SP deficiency by another reverse split, but again, it will not help shareholder confidence. But if the SP deficiency notice drives the price down and keeps it down, Wave could be hit with the market cap deficiency, from which a R/S would not help.
As more time goes by without a significant sale, the new-found confidence in the new CEO drops, too.
CFBE remains elusive as ever. The much-vaunted turnaround which was supposed to begin in Q3 and Q4 2014 has been either invisible or non-existent.
The new shelfie is sitting there like a big, ripe peach, just waiting for plucking and savoring--which in turn will create more dilution and in all probability lower the share price even more.
Personally, I never bought the story about Wave needing to have a few million in reserve for big companies to consider Wave's product. I think if it worked and prevented some of the disastrous breaches we've seen, it would sell--but it hasn't.
At any rate, with Wave's reserves from the last funding draining away, it sure looks like the new shelfie will have to be used to fund ordinary expenses and operations--the opposite of what the optimists said the shelfie was for.
IMO, Wave is in an extremely vulnerable position and getting weaker every day that goes by without an announcement of some kind.
The way I see it, the immediate future holds some powerful bads coming up real soon, if there isn't at least one significant sale.
If one goes by the old standard that the market prices in everything that will happen to a company for the next six months, Wave is in a heap of trouble. Six months out will take us into summer. Personally, I don't think Wave can survive another six months in its present form without a sale.
By summer, we will have had the end of Q1 and Q2. If Wave continues to drift down, say at just a penny a week, by June's end, we would be below 50 cents--and that doesn't account for the flop-over effect.
What is the flop-over effect? It comes when many shareholders reach a point where they think there is no use in holding on any longer and they start to sell. The result is a sudden and drastic downdraft in the SP.
That's the course and arc of the company I see, if there are no significant sales by summer. It could happen much sooner, though. Bill Solms is likely to be grilled hard about what exactly is the problem--both in March at the Q4 '14 CC and a few weeks later at the Q1 '15 CC.
Problems seem to be stacking up even higher for Wave as its significant sales vacuum expands into this new year.
People who invested tens of thousands of dollars in Wave are going to be pressing for answers. The CEO's timelines have long since been blown past and explanations for those, too, will be on the agenda at the next two CCs.
IMO, Wave appears to be losing its race with the devil.
Player: First, thank you for the research.
My comment? It is a pretty negative picture, IMO, when viewing the totality of the recent dilution and its effect on the share price. That has pretty much been my experience, going back 10 years or more.
Using the info on fundings you supplied, I would expect the SP to begin going down even more, in concert with the use of the new shelfie--unless significant sales happen.
IMO, the pressure is amping up day by day. Thursday's close, if below $1 as I expect it to be, the Nasdaq will issue a warning of non-compliance on the SP below $1 for 30 days. What that Naz warning will trigger is anyone's guess, but I doubt if anyone thinks it will help Wave.
Blue
Alea: You wrote: "for me, the question is, will solms dilute on the scale he says wave's customers require it to in order to sell its product. that means he needs to convert wave into a going concern via an equity sale. if so, the scale of the dilution of existing holders will be extensive. but for myself, i'd rather that than a limited dilution and no sales."
What if you had both, extensive dilution and no sales?
I think it is a realistic question to ask because the continuing dearth of new and significant, reportable sales in this particular environment--may mean that is exactly what is going to happen.
How long can Wave continue without big sales? IMO, not long at all.
Given the long history of Wave's big promises and little or no execution, one wonders how many shareholders will continue to hold in the face of more nothingness?
I think the Q1 2015 quarterly report may make an ending of sorts for Wave as we now know it.
Yesterday there was a huge uptick in volume and corresponding price rise of about a dime. That volume is subject to interpretation. The optimists see it as a sign of progress about to be announced.
I have a different opinion. I think it was concerted effort to avoid another reverse split, by buying a large number of shares in an attempt to get the SP up over a buck and stop the de-listing countdown.
It apparently failed and the SP now is dropping back from the low 80-cent range to the high 70-cent range.
I have no clue as to who or what may have been behind it. It is just my speculative guess as to what went on yesterday.
For such a tactic to be successful, it appears there needs to be some substantive reason for the rise. If not, it seems destined to descend again.
By my count, Wave is down to two days in which to avoid what, IMO, may be a deadly Naz de-listing warning. Surely, Wave's share price remaining below a buck for this long does not appear to hold much promise for the near future and IMO, the near future is all Wave has--unless sales can be announced real soon. It seems to be coming to a head by the early Spring--unless sales intervene.
Blue
Checkinin': It was precisely that fear of missing the huge upswing that led many shareholders to stay at the dance much longer than was prudent. That fear has been exploited, magnified and made to look much closer than it ever was.
But if you analyze it today, the landscape for Wave's success has changed in major fashion, IMO.
Where would such a huge upswing come from? That is one question I'd be asking myself. IMO, there is no potential huge upswing on the reasonable horizon that would lead to a $50 share price. And even it did, with the two reverse splits, that $50 share price adjusted for those splits would only be $4.16. Great for newbies, but hardly anything for people who bought and held, and held and held.
But back to the question of where Wave would get the wings to take it to $50, I just don't see the potential there.
Wave is playing in a small, shallow lot in a security niche alley. There might be some solid sales coming, but IMO, there is nothing in a realistic view that would jack up the share price to $50/share. That is, short of the old much-touted and much-predicted Wave goal of ubiquity.
Personally, I think ubiquity is off the table. Completely.
Wave is now in the security business and in the current age of hacks, breaches, leaks and everything else, everywhere, if Wave has not been able to sell in this environment, I wonder if it can, at all.
Personally, I think the odds are against it--really lopsided odds--almost impossible odds against it, IMO.
But if I were holding a huge bunch of shares, it probably might be worth waiting to see the hand played out, rather than selling for pennies on the dollar.
Best wishes for your dreams to come true--even though I'm sure you realize it is not likely unless there is some dramatic change.
Blue
Player: But what else has Wave got going without new and significant sales? Do you see any other way to keep the doors open, aside from tapping the shelfie?
Blue
Player: Then it would appear the company plans to tap the shelfie pretty soon, right?
There was some question about whether the company just wanted the shelfie to be in place in case big contracts came in that required funds to handle.
To me, this appears as if the company plans to begin using the shelfie real soon to pay ordinary operating expenses.
Do you agree?
Blue
Root: No, I don't think it redundant because a reverse split can cure the SP below-a-buck deficiency, but not the market cap min. requirement.
Best, Blue
It is nice to see all the positive signs for the future the posters mention. It would be even nicer to see those positive signs turned into revenue for a change.
If Wave is exciting interest from buyers, it would be a welcome change from the past, where we had all these indicators of success, without ever having the success.
If Wave is gaining momentum, the first place it would show up is in revenue--as in sales. Without new sales, those positive signs become more dots on the road to Wave's ultimate destination.
Without sales, that destination is not a good one and we will be reaching it sooner than later, IMO.
The pressure of the de-listing notification is heating things up too, because whatever progress is being made, another de-listing notification going out will signal prospective buyers Wave continues to have fiscal stability problems.
If Wave doesn't have any news to report by Thursday's close, by my count, we will have reached the threshold for a Naz de-listing warning--that could come as early as Friday or early the next week.
The SP's slow decline over the last few weeks and months on low volume underlines, highlights and complicates Wave's future going forward.
As if the SP de-listing warning notification wasn't bad enough, Wave must also contend with a looming market cap deficiency warning. If prospective buyers are sold on Wave's tech, but then look at Wave's financial stability, one can see why nervous buyers might go in another direction.
Wave will soon have to confront the tough issue of raising more money. Of course Wave can use the shelf registration, but more dilution on top of a ton of it is liable to lower the share price even more, requiring even more dilution.
Obviously, sales are the cure for all of these ills facing Wave. All Solms has to do is sell. It appears that is most difficult to do, judging from the long period of time between now and the last big sale. New mgt and new sales people have not helped, yet.
Solms's goals have blown through the timelines he set for them and now there is nothing but silence from Lee. It is unnerving for those watching their holdings shrink and shrink.
It may be even more disconcerting to those in mgt watching the market cap decline rather rapidly below the listing min. of about $35M and seeing the shaky financial footings with all the threats and failed goals out front in the showroom for all to see.
No signs of the turnaround are obvious, in opposition to what our new CEO said would happen as early as last July. No signs yet of the turnaround, instead, the signs for investors look worse and worse, IMO.
In March we get the full report on Q4 and a few week later we get the Q1 2015 report. If either of these quarters end without new and significant sales, I wonder how many will stick around? And how long might Wave exist if both these quarters go by with no news?
Blue
The problem with cost cutting at Wave, IMO, is when there is no more fat or expenses to cut, the company then must live or die on sales revenue--or, more dilution (the shelfie).
Sales seem to be the hardest for Wave to achieve thus far. One could conclude, if the dearth continues, we will see much more dilution.
IMO, it looks as if Wave is headed for a no-win position, if no significant sales are landed. If the share price decline continues, the yield from more dilution is less and less. This leads to more dilution (more shares sold) which in turn feeds the SP decline. It becomes a vicious, self-feeding cycle.
Without significant sales soon, Wave's future looks both dark and short.
Blue
What I find stunning is Wave closed at $2.26 last June 9. We have lost $1.53 a share (67% !!!!) in a relatively short time since.
It has been a steady march downward since that high point--every day of which was on CEO Bill Solms's watch.
It's only about two month's time until the next and perhaps defining CC in Wave's history.
Blue
Cypher: You wrote about Thibadeau, "Having your chief scientist leave (Wave) cannot be good..."
Ordinarily I might agree, but wouldn't the reason(s) for his leaving make a difference? If he was deemed ineffective, for example, would Wave want to keep him? If his science was out of date with current technology and he couldn't seem to catch up? Not saying that was the case, just speculating.
Whatever Thibadeau's star power in tech circles once was, it has largely dimmed, IMO. He may have been a good catch a few years ago, but now?
In summary, it may have been a good thing for him to leave. Not saying it was, but it is certainly possible it was a good decision on Wave's part.
In general, personnel termination decisions are rarely made public, especially if the person in question was viewed in a negative light--fear of lawsuits. Usually, in a company, the disciplining, firing or forcing someone out is best conducted in private.
Best wishes--Blue
NW: You wrote: " One has to have the right personality and succinct communication skills to be successful in sales."
I agree completely. But one wonders if the folks (Spragues) who hired Dr. T, could tell before they hired him, that he was not the man for the job?
At the time, I wondered why they were paying Dr. T $1M for his encryption patents. What value, if any did those patents have to Wave--if you know?
Blue
Player: What happens if Wave falls below it? Do you know the timetable for notifications, correcting deficiencies?
Blue
Dig: What are my 'observably false statements' in your mind? If I have wronged you, I apologize and will correct the record.
You seem to think I invent things to make Wave look even worse than it does. In no way is that my intention--you or anyone else.
Let's get that out of the way, so I can move on to a more proper 'form.'
Dig: I don't outright reject the notion financial stability is one of the factors potential buyers look at when vetting a vendor. The part I reject is pinning the lack of sales primarily on that factor. It is a factor to be taken into account, for sure. But quality of the product seems more important, IMO.
You also wrote: "There is a considerable difference in those two circumstances, more than adequate to allow for the notion that in the first case Wave passed a "fiscal stability standard" and in the second case they failed same."
Dig, when any potential buyer looks at Wave as a company and sees in more than a quarter of a century, the company has never made so much as a penny in profit--that to me pretty much answers the question of financial stability.
However, I am not a bean counter but I do respect them. Earlier we had a disagreement whether Wave was a failing company. I think it is, and you think not.
Here's my reasoning. If a company is unable to sell enough to sustain itself and constantly has to sell shares to stay alive, that does not seem to fit the definition of a fiscally stable company--but then I don't know what the metrics are.
Getting the GM deal, or the Dell deal for that matter were good strategies. And as we both agree, the proceeds were pretty much wasted, rather than used for improving the products, increasing market share and sales.
Perhaps I am totally wrong, but I believe your inherent belief in Wave has over-ridden your normally accurate analysis. Right or wrong, it seems you are pretty optimistic, when the facts seem to argue the other way. That's fine. But when the disappointment stretches out as long as Wave has disappointed, one has to wonder what the attraction is and how it continues to hold in the face of nearly constant failure over the years.
How pathetic is it we look to the extremely low bar of CFBE as some sort of high water mark for a company that has long struggled to achieve it--and failed?
Either your inner hopes for Wave success are driving, or perhaps you are just being stubborn about the facts. Yes, there have been a relatively few bright spots along the way, but the journey as a whole has been a total failure, IMO.
When I said Wave has never had a successful strategy, I meant to stake out a market and then go after it. Wave's products are complex, as are the solutions to the problems. For one reason or another, Wave has been unable to achieve any success at all in the market in a sustainable way. I don't make excuses for those failures as some do.
If one qualifies success as reaching goals, Wave has failed there utterly.
A share price of 80 cents or below, after 26 years, two reverse splits and perhaps as many as 25 or so dilutive fundings--does not strike me as either the pinnacle of success, or even a company with much hope for it in a realistic world.
The fact is Wave has lived off the fumes of the original dream and the hopes it stirred for investors had it only managed to execute on any of its plans.
One looks back at the various strategies Wave has tried to employ and few can be called even close to a success.--the dongle, Haup card, rent-to-own, etc.
In the early days, it may have been logical to tie Wave's future to the idea of vast TPM implementation. As the number of TPMs grew geometrically, but the rate of usage remained below the threshold of measurement, wouldn't wiser businessmen have adjusted their strategies?
Wave has stayed alive all these years by selling parts of itself until there wasn't much left to sell. It was all promise and extremely little execution.
So now we come to the Solms regime. He did most of the right things, IMO, removing family from the picture, removing non-contributing subsidiaries, etc. But, IMO, he made a fatal mistake.
In the foaming wake of a lying scamster like Steven was, with a long history of promising results he knew couldn't come true, Solms should never have made those two goals of his public--unless he was absolutely sure he could achieve both. Both goals were missed widely and with it went some of Solms's credibility.
Now we are in the position equivalent to a death watch. If no significant sales come in the next 3 months--many of us think Wave could finally sink. Even the Number One cheerleader said as much yesterday.
Wave is in a vulnerable and weak position--almost entirely of its own making. It will take a herculean effort to right the ship, plug the leaks, pump the bilges and set her on a successful course--if it can be done at all. I have my doubts.
Blue
Player: Mid-Jan. is two weeks away. It would be welcome news, if it comes.
If it does not come and we go into March without some kind of good news, not sure how long this baby can stay afloat. Nothing big thru March means, just as you said, more dilution.
The stock now is at an extremely weak point, IMO, not much good is happening and the SP seems to drift down a penny or two every day.
Coinciding with your timeline for good news if it is coming soon, is also the Naz 30-day de-listing warning notice. So good news would cancel that, but if good news is not to be, the Naz de-listing notice will not help at all.
IMO, Wave's hole is getting deeper and steeper.
Blue