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.
First, GM, PwC, BP managed to do biz with Wave without it meeting any kind of fiscal stability standard at all. So either these are exceptions that prove the rule, or the whole risk assessment construct is not that important in netting sales.
Secondly, you wrote: "capable managment could have parleyed Dell followed by the year of GM-BASF-BP into something of a company." I agree with you completely and in fact made that exact point a few days ago. There were so many missed opportunities along the way.
I think now the argument should be focused on what is the bar to Wave selling--what is hampering Wave in this target-rich mega opportunity? I'm not sure we are likely to get a straight answer from mgt because a straight answer might destroy Wave at this weak point if my suspicions about the product are correct.
There is the give-them-more-time option--only it hasn't worked out so well in the past. A reasonable time to execute is one thing, but a blank check is quite another.
Why should Wave be such a hard sell? Either it works as advertised, or not. I suspect not. I try to come up with a scenario where there is another solution to the Wave mystery and can't. Frustrating.
Blue
Root: Maybe I misread your post, but it seems to me, if you build a product with a certain market in mind and that market simply isn't there, one can lay the blame at the feet of the mftrs of that product for choosing that strategy in the first place. In a nutshell, isn't that Wave's issue? Only we now blame the market for "not getting it?" They get it. Wave doesn't, IMO.
Wave predicated much of their future on exactly what you said, the proliferation of TPM-equipped PCs--and we were told all we had to do was wait until the TPM equipped machines reached the tipping point, which was estimated at starting at about 50M machines.
Well, here we are with over a billion and counting, and Wave is still unable to sell or make headway. Yes, one can place some of the blame on the trusted computing group, but hardly all of it.
Wave has never had a successful strategy--rent to own; Haup card; the dongle; FinRead; data-casting (WXP); TV Tonic; or Embassy (V.x). I may have left some of them out, but you get the picture.
It seems to me, Wave is now chasing its tail, trying to push the VSC 2.0 into a paradox--a stubborn and resistant market, absolutely starved for solutions to the insecurity.
Perhaps Wave just needs a bit more time. I doubt it. I think if the Wave solution had merit, we would see some take-up from desperate companies sitting like big, fat geese waiting for the hacker foxes to come along and grab 'em for dinner.
The longer we go without a significant sale, the less likely we are to get them, IMO. Maybe I don't understand the sales process well enough, but I think I do. You have a need. I have a product that satisfies that need. I sell you the product. End of a happy story.
I believe the excuses about long sales cycles, the standards enigma, the govt. hoop-jump, the lack of Wave's financial stability--and all the rest of it are just that--excuses. If Wave had the goods that satisfied the customers, they'd be selling, IMO.
Throughout this long slog, the supporters have always had legions of excuses why Wave was not selling product with any vigor. IMO, the excuses had not much merit. The problem lay with the products, IMO and not with the customers or the market.
Let's revisit this same argument in the Spring when we will have the Q1 numbers to digest. If there are no significant sales by then, would you agree then, there are some underlying problems with the product?
Best wishes for a great 2015--Blue
Root: Here is exactly what Mr. Solms said:
Bill Solms May 12, 2014:
"So we're starting to see progress. And as I mentioned before based on that timing and the sales cycle it'll be, you know, the second half of this year before we begin to see that stuff bear fruit. And, you know, that remains – it was true when I said it on previous calls; it remains true now that the good news is we're closer, you know, to what the end of that should be.
Solms August 7, 2014
"But I will tell you that I have not changed my plan. The plan for when we were going to see the results is still on track and I have not modified it.”
_______
That is pretty clear to me what he is saying--doesn't sound in any way ambivalent or loosey-goosey.
Best--Blue
Dreamer: I won't confuse you with R.O.T. You think standards count. They may, but I don't think standards are particularly relevant at this juncture in the Wave discussion.
If a company has a product that can stop the wholesale thievery of secrets, customer data, property, etc.--I don't think those companies are going to check it against what standards are in place.
If it is your company that has been breached, I would think you want an effective product and you prolly could care less if it conforms to the latest standards or not.
I know we disagree on many things, but standards to me are helpful in some cases, but not in Wave's case, IMO.
If Wave begins to sell seriously, I doubt the reasons will have anything to do with standards, but rather effectiveness, efficiency and cost.
The standards argument is simply not relevant, IMO.
Best wishes for a happy New Year--Blue
Root: I do not blame the Solms team for what went on before he got there. I have criticized him for setting goals with timelines, standing by them when it was clear they were not going to materialize--as a little too similar to what the past administration did. I have wondered why he would have even gotten himself into that position, knowing the history.
I appreciate and have noted the positives of the Solms regime--the pruning of diseased deadwood, the shuttering of family adventures that sucked out resources without the potential to contribute revenue and his firing of the old sales team and replacing them with eager beavers.
You seem to think the "transition" from SMB to large enterprise is simply a matter of time. I think the lack of sales is something far deeper and darker--reflective of a problem with the product itself--as evidenced by the many companies who have tried and rejected Wave, or simply shunned them in the first place.
If my tirades are tiresome, please skip them. I could say the same thing about your dot collecting the endless discussions about standards, etc. But as for results, I have yet to see one sign of progress under the Solms administration--other than words.
Yes, if Wave's VSC 2 sells to large customers, it will be answered prayers. So far, they have not sold and I think the arguments about sales cycles, various standards, Wave's funding and financial stability are more excuses for the lack of sales, when the real problem is the product itself, IMO.
There probably is some truth in all of those arguments, but in the aggregate, they do not hold water, IMO. The market for security could not be better than it is and is getting better every day. Yet, Wave seems trapped in some bad trough it can not get out of.
I think you are a sincere person with a good heart. However, for those of us who have been hearing variations on the "imminent Wave success" for way more than a decade--that too, is truly tiresome.
Perhaps we should chat again when there are positive signs, or yet another quarter ending with no news. I think the latter is probably more likely.
Altogether, I wish you well and hope your hope in Wave is not misplaced as has been the case for me for 19 years. If Wave ever turns the corner, I will have a totally different perspective and would probably be among the first to re-invest.
You might find Tony McFadden's story has resonance with you. Tony lives on the other side of the world and constructed a web Wave Matrix he maintained at great expense of time. He was an active poster and he believed all the BS about great things coming for shareholders.
When he moved to another country, he was required to sell all his holdings and he stated flatly, he was fed up with the endless slog, the lies about profitability and that he would not buy back in until Wave began to sell in a sustainable manner. That was about 5 years ago--is my memory. Thus far, he has not gotten back in.
Such persistent resistance to Wave in the face of the current environment of insecurity must be examined for the underlying truths behind it. Many excuses have been made, but Wave continues to fail to either sell to new companies, despite a remarkable collection of tech 'partners,' or to hang on to the ones they had (Dell).
I do not merge the past and present regimes in my mind. They are separate and should be judged separately. However, the record thus far for the new regime is not impressive--but it is a little early to call the game.
With the share price dipping into the 70 cent range, the immediate future does not appear to hold much chance for change--if you go along with the thought the market prices in everything at least six months out. The market, of course, could be wrong--but over a long period of time, it has reflected more or less--Wave's actual position.
With Wave, many of us have learned from experience to deal with what is, not what is allegedly coming down the pike in a short while. The hope for what might be, has never been supported by results.
Happy New Year--Blue
Let's get it all out. I said weeks ago, rather carelessly, Wave had no new sales. I was wrong. I meant no significant sales, sales with substance, sales one could use to show Wave was not drowning in its own sludge. I was not talking about the renewal of licenses or whatever else Wave does to bring in its declining, minimalist revenue.
Now the supporters are nibbling away, taking up the "zero" remark banner again as if I had repeated it over and over without correction or modification.
Here is the one true fact: Wave has not sold anything significant, reportable, material or sustainable in more than a year--despite a complete change in personnel and focus.
We are all familiar with Wave's penchant for marvelous-sounding releases about great partnerships--only problem is they either have no revenue, or a pittance attached. Sometimes those 'partnerships' cost more to administer than they brought in.
We have had the past CEO spend nearly $50M to give his brother and father a job--then gave them a second avenue for wasting scarce resources--Scrambls--a free service that the former CEO said would hit break-even--same as he said about WXP.
So, please--quit trying to bend words to mean down is up. Wave is a failure thus far--26 years--an unmitigated, abysmal failure on all fronts except for fleecing shareholders by pretending to be a real company.
I believe the current mgt team is trying as hard as it can to reverse the tide--not successful so far. In fairness, when the new mgt was finally installed, the treasury was bare and a host of other ills were eating away from the inside out.
It is a company drained by corruption, nepotism and greed; a company badly tarnished by lies about false profitability and huge deals signed or about to be signed that never were, ineptness on a grand scale involving the wasting of hundreds of millions of shareholder dollars.
We had the biggest revenue company of all--Dell--turn its back on Wave and go elsewhere. That too, was denied and called inaccurate. It was right on the money. Dell bought Credant--goodbye Wave. It is a great example of what present day defenders are still doing in trying to present Wave as prosperous or about to be.
Against this steady march of failure after failure, quarter after quarter, there has been a significant push-back by supporters trying to soften or even reverse what is--an utter mess for shareholders--especially those who bought and held through all the bad times.
These loyal shareholders who should have been most rewarded for their faith in Wave, are the ones most punished.
We have endured round after round of dilution, two reverse splits and are flirting with a third. After spending (wasting) nearly half a billion dollars, our shares bought at a dollar apiece back in the day, are now worth a fraction more than six and a half cents.
Yet the supporters and defenders of this massive sinkhole are doing what they always do--pretending the reality is misleading, that there is a real good chance Wave will rise up out of its self-dug hole and conquer the world--soon, mind you.
OK, well, why hasn't it happened before now, instead of the company sliding farther and deeper into the hole? Because in its entire history, Wave has failed to sell anything to anyone in a sustainable manner.
It's equivalent to a mother saying of her addicted, 45-year old slacker son who has never held a job, "He's about to turn his life around"--even as he lays drugged, drunk and unconscious in his own slobber. She can hope, but it does not change the reality.
It is easier to attack someone telling the truth, than to attack the unpleasant truth itself and that is what is being done here.
One looks back at the Maginot Line supporters erected to shield egregious and blatant acts of incompetence, stupidity and mendacity of the past regime from the truth about these acts--and one sees the same tactics employed yet again--all in a vain attempt to project Wave as an entity holding great promise.
As far as "flopping around seeking to spin false statements into true ones" there is no better flopper in Wave's history than the author of that whopper. But he goes further out onto the ever-thinner ice with this one--typical of all the defenders of the pretenders.
"What I find absurd is the basic thesis (that Wave is a failing company)..."
What is truly absurd, is this statement, implying Wave is a success, or if not a success, then NOT failing. What is it about 26 straight years of not achieving a single profitable quarter that smells like success?
If those 26 years are not a good working definition of failure, what is?
All the words in the world can not hide, mask or reverse the reality of the bleakness of Wave and the precariousness of its present position. Yet, all Wave needs to do to save itself, is sell its products for profit. Oddly, that is the one thing Wave has been unable to do with any success--ever.
If Wave is not a failure and a failing company, I am an azalea bush.
And trying by divisive and reductive argument to turn very modest sales into something resembling hope for Wave's future is just as disingenuous, if not more so.
Wave is not advancing, it is falling farther behind, stagnating, as technology races ahead.
I predict Wave will take its first bite out of the new $15M shelfie early in the New Year. I think Q4 of this year and Q1 of next year are likely to be remarkably similar--both quarters featuring more red ink and no notable sales.
Do you think stealth will win the day?
Blue
Root: I will applaud if Wave actually gets some contracts. What you mentioned about GM, PwC, BASF and BP is true enough and would otherwise be encouraging.
What is particularly discouraging is the failure to transform the orders from these large companies into a growing stream of revenue. Each became sort of a one-off with no follow-on.
The lack of sales in the current environment is just unbelievable. One would think desperation would land some sales--but no.
My critical tone about Wave is based on nearly two decades of experience with being a shareholder--when we were all primed, every day to expect the Wave rocket ship to launch.
It was only later some of us found out there was no rocket, no fuel or even a launch platform. It was all bologna spooned out by a shameless liar to keep those of us invested, to stay invested and to encourage newbies to join in the cornucopia of endless wealth soon to come.
The critical tone and tenor of my posts come from the many disappointments Wave has delivered--not a single expectation ever filled.
Perhaps if you stay invested for a few more years, assuming Wave lasts that long, you may find yourself quite simpatico with me--as far-fetched as that seems now.
I would encourage you to look at the history of this company and rather than examining obscure and arcane signposts in the standards jungle, instead examine the facts. Read the statements from each CC telling how Wave is perfectly aligned for the future. But the future never comes for shareholders.
You might also ask yourself why a company selling to the likes of GM, BP, BASF and PwC can not sell enough to support itself. Or why, after 26 years, there has never been a penny's profit, despite the expenditure of nearly half a billion dollars.
Or why Bill Solms thought he could hit CFBE by the end of this year--and has yet to sell to a significant customer. If there was a dram of hope to be had for Wave, I don't believe the share price would be dropping into the 70 cent range after two reverse splits.
I do hope you and the other supporters of Wave are right and this critic is wrong.
Best wishes for a better 2015--Blue
Thank you for an extremely well-detailed instruction booklet for understanding the requirement for disclosure of material sales.
Your thicket of verbiage obscured the point I was making--namely the Q3 report disclosed there had been hardly any sales at all, besides the insignificant ones.
Likewise, this year's Q2 and the Q1 showed the same thing. And I am guessing I will be right in saying the Q4 of this year will also show the same thing--even though we still have two entire days to turn things around.
It almost sounds as if you are describing some kind of stealth sales may be occurring that can be concealed from public documents. I don't think so, but you certainly are more aware of the peculiarities of law than myself.
Likewise, the nitty gritty of securities laws--especially the nitty part.
Is there any reason you can think of, in Wave's particularly dire straits, where if they had a decent contract, they would keep it a secret? Wave might not name the company, but if they had a major contract, I believe the mgt would love to let the shareholders know.
Especially with the de-listing warning from the Naz countdown past the half-way mark? With the share price right on the precipice of the 70 cent range and moving down? Bill Solms's "goals" are rapid receding and along with it, the renewed confidence in die-hard supporters who thought the new mgt would get it done.
I believe, as the company did with the GM deal, they'd find a way to let shareholders know there was progress. Do you disagree? Or are you maintaining there are stealth sales?
Blue
You are certainly in a position to judge what is a reportable sale or not--irrespective of my 'misinterpretations' of any reg.
I believe it would be one that is "material" and thus, requires publication, hence, 'reportable.' But please, correct me, if I got it wrong, yet again.
But let me ask you a question--have you seen signs of any significant sales since Solms came aboard? How about the 'minor' ones. I can define minor for you, as well as sales, if you need it.
You wrote: "is a dollar of revenue from one kind of sale worth more than a dollar of revenue from another kind of sale?"
The answer is yes. A real dollar in sales is worth far more than a dollar in Wave sales.
Blue
Snackman: I suggest you check with Micron, Bell ID and Widepoint. And then tell us how much aggregate revenue those three 'marvelous' deals netted for Wave.
Likewise, all those dozens of pilots--especially the US Gov one that was too modest to put a number to.
At some point, one must realize the reality of what is. What is now, IMO, is absolutely nothing.
We have a whole new sales team, a whole new mgt team, new members and chair of the BoD--but what we don't have is the one thing that would save Wave--sales of a size and sustainability, PPs and Shelfies are not needed.
We have had our new CEO draw two lines in the sand as his goals--signs of a turnaround and CFBE by Dec. 31. Neither one came anywhere near. For someone as optimistic about Wave as yourself, doesn't the lack of sales despite renewed focus, new faces and tactics--dim your optimism for Wave's success?
I haven't seen any signs of success whatsoever. I suspect our future is going to closely resemble our past. More than a year without sales is a daunting obstacle.
Must one close one's eyes and simply hope for better times on the slim chance something good could happen after all this time? Or would it be wiser to accept the reality Wave simply can not sell and if it can't sell something big soon--Wave's goose is cooked?
I just don't see a way out of where we are--in a bad place with all the options even worse.
Blue
Alea: You wrote: "if wave is progressing it will show up in accelerated income.
there's no sign of that happening yet, but at least the decline stopped last quarter."
__________
You are among the bean counters I respect, because you simply count the beans that are there, not the ones "that will soon be coming in."
However, I am not so sure the decline stopped last quarter. I think the sale of e-sign helped the cash position, but that was a one-off.
It is important to stop the decline, but far more important to start sales. Sales have been frozen (reportable sales) for what? About 3-4 years?
I simply don't see the big deals and contracts needed to save Wave. I think Wave is essentially living off the last $10M PP and the future $15M shelfie. That is not a recipe for any kind of success.
Once the fat is absorbed, Wave begins to eat into muscle and bone.
I don't doubt the effort; I doubt the results--zero thus far.
I think Wave could be in the final stages as a company (as we have known it). The inability to sell is crippling. The present and the future is tied to it. Without sales, there is neither.
Assume for a moment, if Wave is unable to sell anything reportable before the end of Q1 2015--how long do you think the company has to survive?
The passing of two of Solms's goals without coming close to either is disturbing in the utmost and could cause a crisis just on its own, if after the Q4 results are broadcast in March, with the follow-up Q1 2015 a few weeks later--if no new reportable sales happen. The de-listing warning countdown is now more than half way to yet another de-listing notice from the Naz.
It is an evil confluence of bad things that may swamp the SS Wave--unless things change--and as time passes, change seems more and more unlikely.
Happy New Year--Blue
NW: I agree totally on Solms's reduction of expenses--that is a gold star for him. But in terms of saving the company, sales are what will do it, and as you so delicately put it, his record on that score is "incomplete."
You didn't mention the goals he set for himself and will apparently miss completely. When you set a goal and match a timeline to it and fail absolutely to come anywhere close to that timeline, I would not call it an 'incomplete.'
Like you, I am willing to be patient for a v short while, but the lack of any sales in more than a year under Solms is disquieting. So too, is the happy talk elsewhere, prematurely cheering results that have yet to arrive, or dots yet to prove themselves more than just dots.
The most serious issue I have with the new CEO is him setting goals and timelines that were apparently out of his grasp. Knowing the history here, it seems a serious breach of confidence and a sad reminder of all that went before.
I would hope in the future, Mr. Solms will carefully consider what is achievable before getting so far out in front of himself as he has done so far--damaging his new and fragile credibility before even getting a chance to prove himself.
There is obviously something seriously wrong. Either Wave's products are complete junk; the previous CEO damaged the company reputation irreparably; or the products need major revision to make them marketable. My guess is Wave's products are not marketable--junk.
Giving the past CEO as much rope as we all did was a serious mistake, IMO. I believe if shareholders had realized what was going on [next to nothing], it is possible their call for action may have been heeded in time to save Wave from where it is now.
If there ever was a market for security solutions, it is here now. Where's Wave?
I also take issue with the labeling of critics as 'bashers.' There were some serious issues with the past management and those of us who called attention to the ineptness and the blatant greed grabs were, and still are made out to be mindless bashers whose only aim is to harm the company.
Those of us who cried out for more professional mgt were called other names, too--not as pleasant as 'basher.' That ethic is still at work. Why can't both sides have a role in the discussion?
The one-sided, favorable view of Wave has proved to be a totally false one, yet the same tactics, the same people are still doing the same things. Isn't it time for reflection on what might work better for Wave investors?
Blue
NW: You wrote: "Nevertheless one can see from Solms' background that he is good at logistical analysis and planning, quick on his feet and knows how to pivot when necessary."
Does his record thus far support such praise? Maybe the pivoting part, because he has pivoted on two of his first important goals he set for Wave--either a turn around, or the first signs of it are both missing. CFBE was his goal for year's end. He has hit neither, nor has he sold anything in more than a year.
About Solms's his timeline, he was given many opportunities to adjust them, but as recently as last month, he was reaffirming he expected to hit his goals.
How does this not sound like his predecessor, whom you also praised, even as he was driving the company down the road to ruin.
What do you see that entitles Bill Solms to anything, other than condemnation for making reckless statements he can't back up? Didn't we have a belly full of that stuff under SKS? Why would Solms go down that same path, knowing the history and knowing he's on a short leash?
What is there in Wave's 26-year history that gives you any hope at all about its future for shareholders? Where are the successes, or any success at all to give you such confidence?
We are perhaps 2-3 weeks away from another Nasdaq de-listing warning--and unless sales come along soon, the only cure will be a third reverse split.
The new shelfie is just sitting there like a ripe cherry waiting to be plucked and eaten at shareholder expense (more dilution on top of a ton of it).
I find your continued confidence in this abysmal failure of a company baffling. Can you tell us what you see that wipes away all the misery of the past two decades for shareholders and bodes promise of ROI for investors treated shabbily, lied to, and pumped by the company with expectations that never came close to coming true. What is different now?
Yes, we have a new CEO. Where is his performance, or any single thing that would bolster your confidence in him to write such a praising post?
Blue
Down to 3 biz days before the second "goal" of Bill Solms goes the way of SKS.
The first goal was, according to Bill, we'd see signs of a turnaround in the last two quarters of this year. The second goal was for Wave to be CFBE by Dec. 31.
The failure to reach either goal does not bode well for the immediate future. Not a single reportable sale has been nailed down in the year since Bill became CEO--and none for the previous several years--if memory serves.
Wave is at a crisis point, IMO. It is cash poor, unable to sell anything major, and riding hard to a third reverse split which could come as soon as next month. I would guess, just getting the standard de-listing warning from the Naz would be enough to trigger selling.
Most of the helium has gone out of the pumper balloons, as month after month passes with no news with revenue.
Most of us recognize a rare opportunity for companies selling security--but Wave has been unable to sell other than routine small stuff.
Wave is not looking like a good bet at all.
Blue
It's my 19th Christmas, sitting beside the fire in the Blue Cave, waiting for Wave to disappoint--I'm sure there will be no disappointment this year--the annual disappointment will arrive on New Year's Eve--our champagne toasts will be accompanied by nothingness--the quiet popping of bubbles in our glasses.
Only 5 biz days left in Q4 and the year and out of the northern, snow-filled skies comes the whoosh of silence from Lee.
The expected signs of a turnaround have yet to be sighted; The break-even "goal" by year's end has been shunted to Break-even Steven's salvage yard.
If by now, all you folks waiting patiently, watching the chimney for an Xmas surprise, haven't gotten the message--Wave can not sell squat!--then keep waiting. What's another year in the more than a quarter century interlude for results?
Let me sum up:
The promises and goals were laid out with care, reiterated and reinforced with Bill so debonair. But the results we find, are like your own behind, bare with nothing to spare.
The turn around has sunk up to the axles in the Bogus Bog-Down. Much to our surprise, the vaunted upside was just more lies. So, to you, I must confess, our White Knight is just more BS.
Happy, Merry everyone.
Having a Blue Xmas in the Blue Cave with plenty of Blue Ribbons, iced and at the ready.
I agree with Alea, "mitigate" is not only a weak word, but is associated with crime, as in "mitigating circumstances."
I would have chosen "Wave strengthens and reinforces your security."
By choosing "mitigate," the sellers are admitting its weakness against breaches.
Blue
Bill Solms May 12, 2014 from Snackman message 32127
"So we're starting to see progress. And as I mentioned before based on that timing and the sales cycle it'll be, you know, the second half of this year before we begin to see that stuff bear fruit. And, you know, that remains – it was true when I said it on previous calls; it remains true now that the good news is we're closer, you know, to what the end of that should be.
Bill Solms Aug. 7, 2014 [posted by snackman message 34585]
"we are still on track with the same plan that we've been discussing for the last three quarters to turn around the company and improve its financial results."
(Robert Isler): “Yeah, hi, Bill. I appreciate all the steps you've taken to undo the mess left by the former CEO. But I was hoping, over a month into the second half, we'd see some early evidence that the turnaround has - preferably a contract with revenue attached. Just want to know, are you sticking with your statements that by the end of this year we'll clearly see the fruits of all the changes you've put into play or do you now believe it could take longer?
Bill Solms: So I'll tell you this: I'm not - I'm restricted from giving guidance on specific results that are forward-looking. But I will tell you that I have not changed my plan. The plan for when we were going to see the results is still on track and I have not modified it.”
______
He said it on other occasions too. The Q3 CC last month was a little more ambiguous than your summary post. He actually said Wave would have to work hard to make that "goal," but that the company was working towards meeting it.
Best--Blue
Alea: You have a good point, two actually. If and when Wave begins to make sales, we will have a valid basis for optimism. In the absence of sales, over a longer period of time--well, he doesn't have that much time, IMO.
The fact no reportable sales have been recorded, is most troubling, especially when one reads about the newest and latest and biggest breach.
It is a big if--CFBE--and long before we reach it, we start to see Wave's arc starting to point upward as you said. I see nothing either, and I would bet Bill Solms would chop an arm off right now for a decent sale.
There's nothing particularly special about Bill's timetable--except his statements are really all we have to judge Wave's progress or lack of it--besides the lack of sales. He kept reiterating that he felt he was right on schedule.
I just wonder why he would go out on a limb and say those things, when if they don't come true on time, he looks like the idiot who preceded him. I would think that is the last comparison Solms wants made.
I truly think Wave is pushing hard to sell, but something is pushing back even harder. I have my suspicions, but we'll see how it plays out. The Naz delisting countdown now has to be a worry. Even a spurt of buying might not get it all the way back up to a buck and what is there to trigger buying? Certainly not the silence from Wave.
Blue
Barge: You linked me to an ad?! What has that got to do with performance, sales, execution, or lack of any?
My claims? What, that Solms has not made good on two goals he set for himself? How does that deviate from known facts and become a claim? A claim that can be refuted by a commercial?
How does a commercial do anything in terms of bringing in revenue? That's the real issue here. Wave can't sell squatzkie--embarrassing, IMO.
Good commercial, though, Barge
Best--Blue
Yes, down another 3 cents, down another day below the Naz de-listing notice clock. The end of the quarter and year is passing into history, much the same way 2013 went--with all of us waiting to see if the new CEO could do better than the old one.
Thus far, he has not reached either of the first of two goals he set with timelines, and reiterated numerous times, as late as last month publicly.
Given the history and the outrageous predictions from his predecessors, why on earth would Bill Solms publicly set a couple of timeline, unless he had them in the bag?
Perhaps, lurking like the Big Bad Bogeyman, is the nagging fear Wave products are just not marketable. All new sales people. New and fewer executives replacing ineffective and numerous old execs. New sales plans and tighter focus. After a year, we regret to inform you, not a single reportable sale has been made.
Bill Solms asked to be held accountable by the shareholders. On New Year's Day, if there are no sales announced, there'll be some questions. Among the questions will be Bill's judgement. Did the little general take command?
Already, I see arguments that we should just accept the delay of a quarter or more of the delivery we were promised in summer and reaffirmed in fall and winter by the company's CEO.
This is what accountability looks like, Bill. Like you having to admit you are full of barnyard dressing for setting goals you couldn't keep--not one, but two. Especially after the last rodeo clown we had for more than a decade did the same thing.
If you can't guarantee something, as much as the little general urges, you have to keep your pie-hole shut. It's delivery we are starved for, not more promises. Maybe, unlike your predecessor, you might try honesty for a change.
Blue
Wally: In the immediate future, I don't think there will be another PP--instead, in lieu of sales, I fully expect Wave to tap the $15M shelfie.
Stand by for dilution and the possibility of another reverse split. If no reportable sales come in and the shelfie is pushing out shares for less than a buck, the only obvious recourse to stop the Naz de-listing process is yet another reverse split.
At some point, after 26 years without a single profitable quarter, after two reverse splits and the possibility of a third, after nearly half a billion has been raised and spent--most of it foolishly--one has to finally admit defeat.
We are not quite at raise-the-white-flag time, but it is approaching rapidly, with giant steps.
Unless something or someone intervenes, it appears Wave in Q1 2015 will have an extremely disappointing quarter, the fifth consecutive quarter with Solms aboard.
The shelf registration will be tapped for the lost Dell income and to make payroll and expenses.
Another de-listing notice will go out in Q1, IMO--for which the only 'decent' solution will be yet another reverse split.
IMO, if these events occur, Wave will slowly sink beneath the waves, drowning a more than a quarter century old powerful dream. Unless Solms is able to sell something soon, Wave will not live in its present form to see 2016, IMO. Wave long has been hanging by a slender thread and the moths of time are nibbling away at that delicate filament.
Time, in the not-too-distant future, IMO will prove gravity rules.
Blue
Interesting piece on cyber breaches on 60 min. last night. FireEye was cited as an authority. The main talking head said 97% of all businesses have been breached.
If even half of what he said is true, it makes it all the more unfathomable why Wave can not sell in an atmosphere of almost complete insecurity.
Worth watching.
Blue
TKC: Maybe I am guilty again of imprecise writing. Here's what I said about Safend--which I believe you misinterpreted.
"I wonder how long Safend sales will take to just reach break-even on the Safend purchase? My guess is, a long, long time, if ever."
I know Safend has been profitable within its own small category. One should take into acct, IMO, what was paid for it--almost every cent paid was written off by Wave, wasn't it?
I just look at the gross numbers and don't analyze the subcategories--but let's just say for argument's sake, Safend returns $1M in revenue per year to Wave above any expenses.
If Wave paid $12M for it, without interest, seems like it would take 12 years to pay off that sum at that rate. That is what I meant. My apologies if I stated my point poorly.
As for numbers, I believe generally I have been much closer than most at predicting Wave's revenue.
But generally speaking, you are right.
Just for the record, I have not been a journalist in many a moon, but some continue to post as if I am still active. Even though that profession is in my past, I do try to be accurate, and when wrong, I quickly try to acknowledge my errors and am always appreciative of those who correct the record.
Best wishes--Blue
ROT & Alea: When I say no new sales, I should have said significant sales large enough to warrant reporting.
I never said Wave never sold any of its products in a sustainable way--only that the cumulative total of sales always fell far below a sustainable minimum.
I am sorry for my imprecise language. You mention Safend as one of the bright spots in the sales picture. Don't forget Wave wrote off almost the entire sum it paid for Safend, after botching the due diligence prior to the actual sale.
I wonder how long Safend sales will take to just reach break-even on the Safend purchase? My guess is, a long, long time, if ever.
Overall, the picture does not look bright to me. You correctly pointed out Solms's goal for break-even was not a prediction--yet, one wonders why he would even toss that out there, considering the careless predictions made by the former CEO and CFO.
If I were to speculate, I would guess Solms said it to inject a bit of hope in an otherwise pretty bleak future--and to keep shareholders from selling the stakes in the company, until he can turn things around.
But as Alea pointed out, the total lack of new sales of significance in the more than a year Solms has been aboard should be of concern to all of us who are pulling for Wave's success. The VSC 2.0 was launched with some fanfare, without a partner and thus far, unless the next four weeks show some surprising strength, Solms's goal is likely to miss almost as bad as Steven's constant predictions of break-even did.
Maybe there is something in the works that would brighten an otherwise desolate future, but it sure seems unlikely in the short run. The last four weeks of the year are typically not strong for this kind of product.
Even if sales do begin to come in, I just don't see how Wave's future will ever look like the one the dreamers and futurists predicted for it. I fail to see how, without some real creative thinking, excellent design and manufacturing, plus marketing, Wave can ever be more than a niche player, fighting in a narrow alley for a tiny piece of market share.
Maybe now is a good time to readjust expectations, more in line with what the reality for Wave is.
Blue
Dreamer: I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Wave has a product right now that meets some standards, but can't seem to sell it. So, it would appear standards are not the hold-up.
Why go way down the pike trying to read the road signs 100 miles up ahead, when the car won't start, is out of gas and has no wheels and perhaps the engine is missing?
You keep looking for standards to support the case Wave is soon to be a success. Standards, IMO, have never even been a relevant issue now, before and unlikely in the future. What is relevant, is having a product people want and are willing to buy.
Standards and patents have been two of the longtime, big arguments for Wave's success. Neither has much to do with sale of product, IMO.
I'm guessing we both agree Solms is a true leader and has hired first class sales people. But as far as Wave's sales go, Steven and Feeney might as well be back at the helm with their old team of bumblers.
If you think meeting certain standards is the key to success with the various govt depts, I would guess you have never seen defense procurement up close in the real world.
IMO, reading and trying to interpret gibberish like that is wasted time. Specs are rigged all the time to favor the company the dept wants to get the bid. You and I would never sniff it out without some help from someone who knows exactly what goes on in these matters. I think you are focusing on the wrong end of things and in the wrong order of things. But that is just my opinion. However, it is hard to argue with the results thus far.
If and when the sales begin to flow to Wave, let's revisit your question. It may have some relevance then--but now? IMO, not a bit of relevance in this world to whether Wave will ever be able to sell in a significant and sustainable way.
If no sales soon, that means more dilution until the money sources have been squeezed dry. I think we are close to that now. Promises need to be nourished with a result or two to maintain any hope. Wave is, and has been starved for meaningful results, even small ones.
Best wishes--Blue
The lack of traction stretches back almost to the beginning. No Wave product has ever sold consistently and sustainably. I understand the many opinions on this and the faith held in Solms's ability to get it started.
The threat to governments and enterprises is now. IMO, those in charge whose secrets and customer data are flowing out like rivers, there is not likely to be a time of pipe-smoking, consideration and endless debate. They want the breaches stopped now.
This is not to say potential customers are not evaluating the alleged "cures" to the many evils lurking on the Net. I'm sure they are. But I also suspect those in charge of finding the cure are being pressured to double-time it and get some safeguards in place immediately.
This is what I find most puzzling about Wave's failure to engage with the very organizations needing safeguards the most. My conclusion is the products fall short in some way, or perhaps in several ways.
Blue
Root: My mistake. I do know there is some revenue. I was speaking about new significant sales of the reportable variety. Am I wrong in saying there have been none in way more than a year?
There have always been good reasons for why Wave could not consistently sell enough to run the company. The latest dilutive funding was always billed as the last one we'd ever need.
Do you have a theory about why in this environment, Wave is finding it hard to sell its "solution?"
Best--Blue
Dreamer: Thanks for the kind words. All those things you mention as portents of Wave success to come, are the same kinds of hope that fed many of us in the early days amidst of what we thought was a slog to success.
The problem always was, and still is, nothing concrete ever materialized.
I remember the usual suspects touting the creation of the Trusted Computing Platform and then, the Trusted Computing Group. Steven fibbed his fat butt off saying he "practically created it" and he said, he basically was running it.
Later, I met a member who actually attended a TCG meeting and he gave a completely different account. He described Steven as a lap dog, the TCG tolerated as long as he lay quietly at the feet of the real members and didn't bark.
But, off the track again...the much heralded trusted computing group members never used any parts of the TPM in any of their companies--but somehow, it was supposed to be the path to Wave's success. It was complete bologna then as it is now.
All those connections you mentioned mean nothing at all, unless Wave begins to sell. That is precisely what has NOT been happening. IMO, those connections are completely irrelevant except to nerd and geek historians--if Wave continues its abject failure to sell its VSC 2.0 and the ERAS.
I liken studying those kind of connections you mentioned, to dissecting a long-dead language for clues to the future. There's no connection at all between Wave and the TPM, unless TPMs begin to be used. The TPM usage rate is so far below the measurable threshold, it is irrelevant unless there is a very rapid change.
We were sold a bill of goods--that if and when TPMs ever hit about 200-300 million, Wave would be in the catbird seat. There are well over a billion TPM equipped machines out there now, but the only catbirds I see are in the marshes, eating worms and bugs.
I think it is possible you make a common error--in assuming TPMs equal Wave. Not so at all. Even if the over 1 billion TPMS out there were all turned on [the default is off], it would not necessarily mean success for Wave. Wave is neither a necessary nor an essential part for TPM usage.
Go back 10-15 years and you will see many of the same kind of hopeful posts you make, citing various standards, links to this company or that one, all of which were supposed to make us all rich. Not only did not a single one of those things come about, but in the meantime, Wave slipped backward as other companies shot ahead.
Look no further than Dell. Dell embraced Wave, as a speculative security play--in case the TPM proved critical. But in the end, after a long relationship, Dell bought Credant instead and is in the act of ditching Wave, while Wave reels, trying unsuccessfully thus far, to replace Dell's lost revenue.
Look back at the European banks trial--FinRead. They took a long, long look at Wave and when the time was up, they went elsewhere. That is a pattern with Wave. Seemingly incredibly promising leads, lead nowhere--again and again.
Intel, IBM, HP, Atmel, Diebold and many other tech giants were "partnered" with Wave, yet not a single one of them ever brought in enough revenue to Wave to qualify for the 10% reporting threshold.
I think you are chasing an elusive ghost you have been told will pay off "sometime in the future." The problem with Wave is, its future never arrives. It is always in the category of the sign in the bar, "Free Beer Tomorrow."
We elder Wave shareholders chased those ghosts for years, never grasping a single solid clue, only a new mirage further down the road better than the old ones. If you only knew how many of us inhaled the vapors and thought them to be real, only to find like Wave's auditors, success constantly remained in the distance.
You will have to see for yourself, I guess. The road of Wave's past is littered with the bleached bones of once true believers. Once they finally understand Wave can't possibly pay off for investors, they don't come and shout it out.
Instead, they slink away silently like BigTim, one of the most intelligent and influential supporters of all time--a lawyer and decent man. He sold all his shares, but said after the fact, he still "believed in the dream."
I notice he has not come back aboard in the several years since he left.
Where are the holders of the WAVX licence plates in the Northeast? I knew them all. One is dead and to my knowledge, not a one still holds Wave shares and most laugh in derision when the company is mentioned.
No one likes to admit they were fooled. That's why they quietly let go of the rope and drop away, once they see the truth staring them in the face.
What is there about 26 years without a profit that gives you hope? If you read the posts from 20 years ago, you would be struck by similar themes, promising hints on the horizon, tantalizing connections that all but assured Wave's success--same as now.
It is hard to accept, but swallowing the fantasy of fast and easy money is much more appetizing than realizing "next quarter" and "next year" are not going to change much for shareholders, except for more and bigger losses.
Almost a half a billion has been spent to get us to where? Two reverse splits, a share price flirting with yet another delisting notice and the steady erosion of nearly 99% of investor money--and still no sales in more than a year.
The evidence is there. One has to be brave enough to see the overwhelming facts and evidence through the enhanced fog of fantasies created by wild dreamers [no pun intended on your handle].
I do wish you the best in your endeavors.
Sincerely, Blue
Dreamer: You are asking us to think outside the box. Good idea, since the facts inside the box refute any chance of Wave's success in the near future.
No sales, declining revenue, but comments about CFBE keeps popping up in posts and from the new CEO, without a shred of anything real to back it up thus far.
This has been the sad history of Wave. A mountain of "signs" some interpret as the beginning of Wave's success. Unfortunately, those signs rarely bear revenue.
It is positively confounding as we read one hacking exploit and breach after another--committed against some of the biggest names in governments and business--all collectively costing over a billion dollars in this country alone. Yet, the company saying it can stop it, is ignored or rejected time after time.
How on earth does that compute? These companies and governments have a serious illness and Wave claims it has the cure. Yet, somehow, the governments and enterprises would rather risk more breaches than buy Wave's products. Does that make any sense at all?
Wave continually made inept mistakes after mistakes under the old, discredited regime. Now, we have a new CEO, new sales personnel, re-jiggered products--but sadly, for a year now, we have the same old stinky results--a complete dearth of sustainable sales.
Our share price is down right at the de-listing minimum; a new shelf registration has been filed; volume is low, as neither Wave's products nor its shares seem to have much appeal to buyers.
This stands in sharp contrast to the so-called futurists, who can not seem to see as far into the future as the next quarter--or in this case, as far as a month ahead.
With no new sales of significance, it boggles the mind how these futurists think we will be able to (1) hit CFBE in the next month, or (2) keep hands off the $15M shelf registration--which at the current SP would dilute shareholders another 15M shares, but possibly even more.
You see connections you think will take us home in the near future, while many of us see only more of the same old bleakness ahead. Where are the bright spots--the brightness only new revenue can illuminate and can change the red ink into black?
Please help us to see what you see in evolving standards, what seem to be endless dots on a desolate landscape bereft of funding. At some point, won't the money run out? Haven't we wrung blood from stone until only rock remains? I am perplexed by the constant optimism and keep thinking I must be missing something big.
Could you please point out the missing pieces, please? Your timeline may be pretty flexible, but Wave's funding and future without it is not. We can not continue to live as we have lived on empty future promises that don't come true.
Give us hope, but please, base it on real things. How is Wave nearing success, when no new money is coming in and expenses are eating up all that is in the cupboard from the last funding? Why is Wave not selling in this perfect environment for security sales?
Best wishes--Blue
Dig: I couldn't disagree with you more about most of the things you wrote. You are talking about two different things, IMO. Yes, there certainly are the smart money folks who conservatively recommend placements, rather than investing on the open market. But there are also the second kind, who don't bother about dilution, but who target new ideas with a chance of gaining real traction.
Naturally, neither one of the above groups would be looking at Wave--particularly after they saw the record, read the coverage in the NYT, Smart Money and Barron's. Wave is an extremely distressed company, with nearly all of the damage self-inflicted.
I was talking about the so-called Tech Bird Dogs (for lack of a better name) who scour the web looking for companies they think will have an imminent hit.
In those rare cases, waiting for a placement to come to pass, may be a bit late to the party as word seeps out about a company, say like GoPro--a disruptive force that burst upon the scene. GoPro was slow to make an IPO and had considerable front-running PR, i.e., a 60 minutes piece, along with other media stories long before the IPO. But you get my drift.
As far as pseudologic and the rest of your 'rejection' of my post, I would like to match my record for clear-headed predictions about Wave against some of yours, most of which missed the mark (overshot) by a wide margin. Some of it, for your part, was based on outright lies by the former CEO.
Here's what you said: "Yours is basically a colorful piece of rhetoric far removed from reality, based on false assumptions, and steeped in pseudo-logic all packaged up as a compelling bit of spin."
As far as being far removed from reality, I believe your hopefulness is what is unreal--about Wave's actual chances at this late point. Where are the false assumptions and the spin?
Then you do it up again, taking one unrealistic speculative bit of arithmetic and multiplying by a factor even more fanciful and coming up with Wave's path to CFBE--despite the total lack of new and significant sales in a really long time.
Doesn't happen in the world I live in. You need revenue--real, not imagined or hoped for. Your post seems to epitomize false assumptions, as you have done all along--that's why you were rarely right at predicting revenue and CFBE, when I was saying accurately, back in 2006, break-even would be doubtful before 2009-10 and questionable much beyond that. Eight years later, still no break-even or any real hope for it, IMO.
Example of yours cited: "For example, were Wave to record a significant deal this year (>$350k) with some follow on activity in Q1 of say $2m above normal billings and then achieve cfbe in Q2 on the backs of some $3.5m in billings above norms the equity would likely reach multiples of 4-5x sales (that would be SP around $2-3)."
Don't you think that is stacking the intangibles, the highly imaginatives and the uncounted, unhatched chickens a bit high, considering the history here?
As far as the last bit, I completely agree. The supporters have spun gossamer filaments into solid objects, all of which evaporated in the morning sun.
My record on Wave, with the exception of my inaccurately predicted Death Spiral years ago, has pretty much matched what actually happened. I visited Wave HQ, met with the principals and developed reliable sources who informed me about the issues I posted about.
You, I suspect, attempted to philosophise from afar the number of teeth in the horse's mouth without bothering to look inside the equine jaws.
Your rhetoric is colorful, too, most of it in support of a Wave success story that IMO, is unlikely and damn near impossible, barring some miracle of luck. I doubt either of us will live long enough to see Wave even gain back the hundreds of millions of investment dollars squandered on silly stuff--much less make money for investors like yourself who have been in and waiting for years upon years.
Blue
W Dreamer: Does it not amaze you that with all those standards and changes lining up to Wave's benefit, not even 50K shares of Wave traded today--when they well could be marked "Bargain!!!! Fire Sale?"
Wouldn't you think others would put together what you have put together and see the advantages of investing in Wave's truly low price? You make it sound so inevitable Wave is going to succeed, just a matter of time, yet the smart money boys and girls are nowhere on the scent, even though they are paid big bucks to ferret out just such opportunities. Does that strike you as odd?
Pardon some of us for yawning, but we have been hearing similar calls from the hopefuls for many years, while success continually and regularly fades like the evening sun.
I'm afraid I'm so dense, I can't see how, if Wave was THE solution, why isn't there frenzied buying? Why isn't THE SOLUTION selling, particularly in the current market chasing security of any kind?
If you go along with the old maxim the market has already priced into account everything that will happen to a company for the next six months--where are the buyers for the stock and for Wave's product? How can we go more than a year without a single big reportable sale?
Most of us want to make money on Wave--in our lifetimes--but thus far, despite frequent sightings and signs of success only a few can see--success remains an extremely long shot--unless you possess some special talent the rest of us don't have.
If Wave was on the cusp of success and it was just a matter of a reasonable timeline, I suspect it would be hard to get your bid in on some shares. Instead, just the opposite is happening. The price is real low, but still few are buying. Does not seem to match the classic model for success, IMO.
Can you explain what you see, that the market misses? Many of us have been following Wave for years and years--myself, I'm in my 19th year. In all that time, there has never been anything that came close to looking like sustainable sales of significance.
Instead, we got "news" without revenue; news with tremendous partners like Intel, IBM & HP, etc.; memos of understanding as with DoCoMo--followed by the kind of eerie sales silence and lack of revenue we are enduring now. Success was always coming, real soon, but never arrived. Kinda like waiting for Godot.
Don't know about you, but whenever I am that far out in front of everyone else, I worry maybe I have misread things; am completely out of my gourd; or am being taken for a fool. That last category is how I now feel about all my time waiting for Wave to finally pay off in the least little bit for my patience and loyalty. Hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem to be happening now.
An infinitely expanding timeline means, unless Wave goes bankrupt, there can never be failure for certain--success is always somewhere done the road. Yet failure is all I see in Wave's 26 years of business. Not one Wave product has ever sold enough to carry Wave to a single quarter of as much as a penny's profit. I know of no other company like Wave in that respect.
Maybe you can tell the rest of us exactly what we are missing here. Because we have tried to tell you what we think you are missing. Are we mixed up or what?
Best wishes--Blue
Snackman: I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do question the logic. How on earth can Wave possibly be CFBE without any new and significant sales--none of which have been reported in the more than a year the new CEO has been with Wave?
Obviously, you must have a theory on this, beyond your hope and belief it will happen. My question is, what do you think the path is to CFBE?
Wave is trying hard, I believe, with an all-new sales team and a new, refocused mgt. But sales seem to continue to elude Wave consistently as they have done for way too long.
We all know the need is there for security. We know Wave has products it claims will help stiffen resistance against the many willy-nilly breaches affecting almost every sector of governments, enterprises and individuals--at a tremendous cost in terms of actual dollars, damage to trust and the brand and in funding credit monitoring services after the fact. It would seem Wave would be an easy sell.
From where I sit, it seems unlikely Wave can meet its lofty goal of achieving CFBE, after again and again losing its effort to hit the target for 26 consecutive years.
What is there different now, you see to bring CFBE about? In the past, you have made many calls for big positive changes, but most, if not all of those changes you called for, simply did not come about. I am still waiting to see the upside surprise you called for over the summer and into the fall. Has that changed too? Or are they only delayed, but still in play?
Pardon me for strongly disagreeing, but without new sales and a substantial engagement of the market with Wave's products, I can't figure out how you think Wave will achieve the goal you so positively predict. Can you set us straight on how you think CFBE will happen in the next 24 business days before year's end--a traditionally slow time for business because of the holidays?
Concurrently, re: the new shelf registration--I think you believe Wave will not need to touch the new shelf unless it is for financing the servicing of big contracts or for partnering with a large company.
In contrast, I believe Wave will be forced to use the shelf to fund day-to-day operations--if new significant sales are still absent in the days ahead. Furthermore, I believe Wave will tap the shelf sooner, rather than later.
Another scary specter also looms large in the present, IMO. That is the possibility of another Nasdaq de-listing notice if Wave's share price falls below a buck for 30 days.
We are currently sitting right at a buck, and unless good news comes soon, I can't imagine what would sustain the SP higher than what it is now. Simple logic seems to indicate in the absence of good news, the passage of time alone will cause erosion in the share price. If Wave gets yet another de-listing notice, I would expect the effects to be rather serious, in terms of share price.
Like you, I am anxious for good news, but I have no tiny nail on which to hang my hopes. I wonder if you can spell out what you see is the cure(s) for Wave's apparent bad situation?
Blue
Alea: I think your post neatly sums up the dilemma facing Wave and Solms.
Standards have not been the issue, neither is the constant excusatory refrain"they [the market] doesn't get it."
Wave's consistent failure to sell sustainably, rests on its products. Enterprise and government customers have either rejected or ignored Wave in their all-consuming quest for security. It is not out of ignorance, as witnessed by hundreds of demos, pilots and trials--not to mention many news stories about Wave.
Wave had a long test project with European banks that ended in failure. Had it been successful, Wave would have been on its way. I have no knowledge of exactly why the banks overseas decided against Wave, but I suspect the former CEO had much to do with it.
Had he been more receptive to suggestions and turned those suggestions into product improvements, we might not be making these arguments today.
Similarly, I suspect the current dearth of sales can be traced again to the products--something about them is turning people away.
As you have said so well, the expanding and infinite timeline given for Wave's success does not work so well in the real world. It seems both Wave and many of its supporters never learned from failure after failure. The smart thing would have been to honestly examine what was wrong, correct it and then begin anew. To my knowledge that never happened.
Consequently, failures were brushed off--expired deadlines were laughed at as inconsequential, bad practices were ignored and Wave continued on its merry way towards ruin.
Those in charge paid no penalty for failure. Salaries were high, bonuses guaranteed and they consistently put no skin in the game with their own money. They were constantly given free shares, just in case by some lucky accident, Wave hit it rich as was so often predicted.
Being wrong about Wave never stopped any of the futurists from making new predictions about imminent success. IMO, this encouraged mgt to continue the conduct that was causing the company to fail in the first place.
When shareholders grow uneasy, when they grumble and complain about things, mgt often tries to appease. Wave never did, because only only twice in my memory did the shareholders revolt against some of the self-dealing practiced by the old mgt.
The first time was the creation of Founders Shares--an outright greed grab, IMO--unjustified and bare naked self-dealing. The second time was the first employee options plan which exempted them from the first reverse split which hit other shareholders.
IMO, the market does get it. That is why Wave's twice, split-adjusted price currently is eight and a third cents apiece.
That is the past--sorry as it is. The present and the future, if there is one depends on accurate diagnosis and fixing of what stands between Wave and its potential customers. Sharp minds are trying desperately to mend the many and growing leaks in current security.
Despite the oft-cited claims of the futurists that Wave already has the solution, the answer can easily be seen in the sales numbers--not zero, but nothing close to what a real security answer would be in a teeming market looking desperately for a way to stem the breaches that allow government secrets, enterprise data and customer information to flow pretty freely to thieves and mischief-makers.
If Wave had the goods for real, it would be selling and no arm-twisting would be needed. Invent a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
Isn't it time now for some serious and honest appraisal of where shareholders are? Solms is trying hard, I believe, but is fighting a bloody and perhaps losing war of attrition against poor reputation, shallow funding and the quick-step march of time.
Isn't it also time for reconsideration of all the failed tactics of the past by true believers, supporters and self-anointed futurists who beat the drum so loudly proclaiming Wave would soon triumph? Wave has not triumphed in any way IMO, and is further than ever from success with time stacking the deck against it every day.
If one believes the old saying the market prices in all that will happen to a company for at least the next six months, eight and a third cents is not a predictor of success. Of course the market is occasionally wrong, but in Wave's case, it has been right on the money for a long time, despite those who have consistently denied that was the case.
We can wish it were different, but all of us must yield to the facts. Facts count; dots are irrelevant and hope has no place at all in the argument.
Blue
RootofTrust: You are exactly right. I mis-called Bill Solms's goal of Wave being CFBE as a prediction. Let me assure you, it was not willful misrepresentation, just carelessness on my part. You are right and I was wrong to call it a prediction.
I certainly hope he hits his goal of CFBE by the end of this year, but wonder how he possibly can, unless big companies start signing contracts with revenue numbers attached real soon.
Thank you for the correction.
Best wishes, Blue
Wave Duke: Yes, Bill is a completely different captain and I am not holding him responsible for Steven's many sins. I think Wave shareholders were fed a load of irresponsible lies which many, including myself believed for a while--some much longer.
Believing Steven's optimistic and completely fictitious predictions of imminent success led to huge losses.
That's the past. So, going into the present, do we grant Bill the same blank check we did for Steven, never holding him accountable for his lies and unfulfilled promises? IMO, no. We hold him on a short leash and require him to be accountable for his statements, which he said we should do.
Whether I am a shareholder at present, or at some future time, is irrelevant, IMO. If I speak truth, that is sufficient. For many years, I spoke truth to Steven's lies and was condemned as a basher with an agenda. My agenda was simple: accountability and professional mgt was what I was looking and hoping for. It did not come under Steven and he was finally fired for it.
You said a couple of things I take issue with. You said I post anonymously, as if everyone on this board, including yourself, does not. We all use aliases and are somewhat anonymous. Most of the long time shareholders know exactly who I am, where I live and what I did for a living. But all of that is completely irrelevant when it comes to the facts about Wave.
Then you said I 'use silence' and my anonymity "to my advantage." I have no agenda and those are not the tools of my trade. Facts are, and the facts about Wave are pretty horrendous. 99%+ of shareholder money has been completely wasted under the old regime--a staggering sum close to half a billion dollars. To me, that is extremely serious.
That money was wasted in part because shareholders believed and followed a man (Steven) who continually spun lies and failed to ever gain the smallest toe-hold in a world clamoring for security.
Now, we have a new captain of the ship, as you said and he is left with the legacy of products Steven and Peter had created. The new captain, despite tinkering with those products, has yet to sell a single one of significance.
In that way, Bill is like Steven. I do not believe the new sales team is inept, but rather, hampered by trying to sell products no one wants. I do not know the reason why--but that is precisely what will determine our future as a company. If the products remain unmarketable, Wave is doomed, unless Bill can re-engineer those products, or create new and better ones in a rather short time--real short time.
That is beyond the reach of you and I. So, what is left? We can judge Bill on what he says and how accurate he is. It was not me who said we'd see signs of a turnaround by the third and fourth quarter of this year.
It was Bill, again, and not me, who said we'd be cash flow break-even by the end of this year--just 5 weeks away--with no new sales yet and the window closing rapidly.
It was Bill who said on Nov. 6, "...I am not presently looking to do a capital raise..." and then just 7 business days later, we learn there is a $15M shelf offering. I addressed what I believe are the inconsistencies in what he said and what he did.
I also criticized the timing of the shelf announcement. IMO, Bill knew at the time of the Q3 CC he was going to do another shelf--but elected to keep quiet about it. Why? We can only speculate because he gave no reason and chose to withhold the shelf news and any discussion about it until after the CC.
I don't think Bill is a liar. Still, after following Steven and knowing his reputation for mendacity, one would think he would be extra careful not to say something unless he had a lead-pipe guarantee it would be accurate.
Already there is slippage on that front and I believe there is a far more serious one coming up soon--his prediction and his reiteration on Nov. 6 that Wave will be CFBE by year's end. How will he reach that goal if there are no new sales?
On that basis, I believe shareholders are justified in requiring Bill to explain exactly why he made the prediction and missed it, if in fact Wave is not CFBE.
Is that unreasonable? It sure seems perfectly reasonable to me. It is called accountability and Mr. Solms said early on he expected to be held accountable.
You may think Wave won't use the new shelf registration. If not and the sales dearth continues, how else will he make payroll, pay bills and meet the company's obligations? He will be forced to use the shelf.
Personally, I think having a shelf available as insurance is a perfectly good business practice, but why say a few days before applying for it, you see no need for a "capital raise?"
For all of those reasons, that is what prompted my "short leash" call. I believe it is prudent for shareholders to be on guard against being taken advantage of in the present and future. I believe that is exactly what led to our current position.
Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." That is a good creed for Wave shareholders. This is the part I am looking for, the verification Solms is doing what he says he will. Thus far, there has been some slippage.
Rather than sweeping it under the rug, or disregarding it altogether, I choose to call him on it. Feel free to disagree. I'm out and you are still in. I would love to get back in, but Wave has to meet a few goals first, like selling and reaching profitability before I will ever trust another cent invested in the company.
That is not bashing, it is only requiring the barest minimum before committing to a company which has disappointed since its origin 26 years ago.
I wish you the best with your investment.
Blue
Waveduke: While I agree having a back-up plan is a good idea--your insurance analogy is a good one--my issue is Solms's consistent statements that he thought Wave would need no further funding in the foreseeable future.
Here is what he said to shareholders and investors on Nov. 6th: "I am not presently looking to do a capital raise." Then, just 11 days later, they apply for a $15M shelf registration. Did something happen in those 11 days to change things? If so, why not explain the apparent contradiction and change in plans?
You think Solms has not proven himself untrustworthy yet. Neither do I. However his statement we'd see signs of a turnaround by the last two quarters has not come true yet. We still have about 5 weeks left in the year, but no signs so far.
Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I find it hard to believe on Nov. 6th he did not see any need for raising capital, but 11 days later he did, and didn't think shareholders deserve an explanation for the apparent contradiction.
As far as not using any of the shelf registration, Wave has used every penny of every PP, ATM and at least two previous shelf registrations. How else will he keep the lights on with no sales, unless he uses the shelfie?
I am not calling Solms untrustworthy yet, but I think these two rather small points should be noted, given the history here. And unless he has a rabbit up his sleeve with a few million, I wonder how in the world he will execute on his latest promise for Wave to be cash flow break-even by New Year's Eve?
So far, not a single sale of significance since he came aboard more than a year ago. The latest quarter, Q3, was about as bad and bare as it could be.
Maybe you think these things don't matter, but I suspect those whose portfolios contain a large portion of cratered Wave shares would disagree.
Rather than giving our trust blindly to another Wave CEO, it seems prudent to keep him on a short leash and require him to be accountable for his statements. If we are not CFBE by year's end, I will have my answer.
Blue
NW: Of course I have no inkling of what goes on inside Wave as to financial planning or need.
However, if on Nov. 6th, Wave mgt did not know they might need to apply for a $15M shelf registration in less than two weeks, it suggests either incompetence in planning, or sneakiness in not disclosing it during the Q3 CC.
The third possibility is a big order came in and Wave knows it may need more money to service it. This possibility seems complete nonsense to me, because at the CC, Solms reiterated his statement he thought no further financing would be necessary.
But I suspect there is another question concealed in your query. If so, please come out and state it. Or is your theory, possibility #3?
Regardless of whether the true answer is either of the first two above scenarios, incompetence or sleaziness, it sure feels an awful lot like the previous, devious administration of Wave.
Am I seeing it wrong?
Blue
Does anyone besides me find it strange Bill Solms chose not to disclose this new shelf registration at the Q3 CC earlier this month?
Does anyone think that indicates a bit of sneakiness on Wave's part?--shades of past leadership. Rather than mention it at the Q3 CC, when there could have been explanation and discussion, shareholders were Pearl Harbored, once again.
It sure seems to me Wave is using the tactics of the past leadership. If it was known a few days ago, why not mention it? Why not explain it and justify the need for more dilution, after the new CEO said he didn't think we'd need it?
Here's my speculation: I think Solms was afraid the dreary Q3 results of $4.3M in revenue, if they'd combined it with the announcement of a new shelf registration might have been fatal to the share price and would have triggered a new de-listing warning--a barbed trident spear shot right into Wave's heart.
I am willing to bet Wave will not hit cash flow break-even by the end of the year, which is less than six weeks away and is chock full of holidays. If my prediction comes true, it will deal a serious blow to Bill Solms already somewhat tarnished reputation and push him more and more into resembling the disassembler he replaced.
My personal opinion is he is being forced into this desperate corner by the failure of Wave's products to sell at all--not counting the mysterious pilots and 'modest' defense interest raising little, if any real revenue.
After watching Solms for a year, I see no more sales results under him, than with the former CEO. I think many will have their fingers on the sell-triggers, if the year ends with no significant sales and no signs of the turnaround he said we'd see. Tempus fugit.
Wave has been on borrowed time for years. The new shelf registration is such a familiar negative of times gone by, along with more promises not kept from the new CEO. Solms stated in no uncertain terms he didn't think more financing would be needed after the $10M placement.
It looks like desperation is not only turning the screw tighter, but also may be the driving force inside Wave.
Elsewhere, I see the reaction to a new $15M shelf is being greeted as a positive, or hardly a negative. Some are speculating the shelf money will be needed to handle all the new business coming Wave's way. Sound familiar? Was any of the dilution of the past used to finance a ton of business landing in Wave's lap?
Things under Solms are beginning to smell a bit fishy to me and as time goes by with no change, that smell is getting stronger.
IMO, Wave is in serious trouble. I can come up with no plausible reasons for what is going on--and the sneakiness aspect of this surprise shelf is baffling. Again, I ask, would a rational guy with a good prior reputation go down this road if he didn't have to?
I think Solms is out of options and he has been left with little choice other than handle things in this distasteful way--knowing the history of Wave. Glad I am completely out.
Blue
Wouldn't imminent sales mean Wave wouldn't need a new shelf?
I think Player's comment is on the money. Wave has always used every placement, every shelf, the ATM, in the face of claims from "inside info" it would not be needed.
It happened again and again, despite those who consistently said variations of "this is the last dilution Wave will ever need before going cash positive," but, there were always more of them. Sales did not flow from the oft-primed pump--nor were the funds put to good use. Funding Scrambls and other foolishness is how the money was spent.
I can't see how, in the absence of sales, Wave can avoid going back to the dilution market, yet again.
Even under the new guy, things seem to be going down the same path SKS trod.
I can't believe Wave won't use the new shelf. Claiming it is insurance, or back-up for companies concerned about Wave's financial health seems more effort to keep the delusional balloon afloat in the absence of revenue.
It would be more palatable and more believable, if Wave didn't have the hideous history it does. Next month, less than two weeks away, Solms will have been CEO for a year--while we wait in vain for a single significant sale.
Is there ever a time to use the label 'failure' on a company which has done nothing but fail spectacularly for more than a quarter of a century?
Even with the rascals thrown out, the fat cut away, sales always seem to dance tantalizing in the distance like a hot highway mirage of water just ahead.
When do we realize it's a mirage and there is no water?
Blue