Blue, it seems to me you and I (and Solms) agree a fair bit,
it is not just bad management, but a bad product ... but it does seem that Solms argues that the technology and capabilities of the IP are valuable, but that the product itself needs work.
So, in addition to changing the sales team, there was focus on changing the product. Sure, the basic code is the same, but it had been poorly purposed, and a significant portion of the effort has been to re-purpose the product.
Solms stated from the beginning this would take a few quarters.
You it seems argue that said few quarters have elapsed and the plan has failed. You may be correct.
In my opinion the second half of 2014 is what has been generally pointed to, by Solms, as the place to best measure performance. Solms has pointed out some growth in non-OEM sales (critical of course given that the core OEM is simply clearing out inventory in the conclusion of thier relationship w/Wave) but largely evidence of turnaround is scant.
It seem that you are timing this from a date of hire, I am working more from statements and when those statements were made. It appears to me that the first couple of months was the expected power struggles, shuffling, firings, a lawsuit threat from Berger and so on - the midst from which you seem to have expected more or less sudden sales.
It seems to me that the preponderance of the structural changes in management and product profiling occurred - publicly at least - in Feb-April.
Given that Solms has from the beginning said a few quarters, given that much of the reorganization played out mostly in Q1-early Q2 (according to press releases) and given that generally speaking the "few quarters" notion has been augmented with specific references to the second half of 2014, and given that the story has been largely consistent, it seems the measure of the plan and the statements is to be found in the words in the statements - the latter half of 2014.
Those words were not 'June 2014'.
Certainly, given the statements from the beginning one could easily decide that the plan is to/will take too long, in which case one presumably chooses not to invest.
Basically, I agree with you, except for timeline. I agree the old team was garbage, I agree product had problems (poorly purposed IMO, just plain crap in yours), and I agree that meaningful turnaround must occur in a timely fashion. Your timeline is apparently June 2014, mine is the timeline the new boss stated IMO from the beginning. He flat out said, IMO rather plainly, Do not expect what you, Blue, are now measuring by.
And yes, the continued erosion of Dell, a process set in motion long ago under old management, could easily mask otherwise measurable plan success. I am rather concerned about the Dell thingy, have been for a long time, but there is at least a plan in place, and adequate capital to see that plan through.
There is no doubt, this turnaround effort could easily fail, the product could easily not be sell-able in adequate volume and price.
So, from the beginning, based on statements, I expected Q1 to suck, Q2 to continue to suck but at least indicate whether anything was happening, and Q3 to demonstrate that things were happening. You appear to be operating from largely the same set of premises as I, but have chosen to define a different timeline. I don't know were you came up with that timeline, but not IMO from Solms. Indeed, IMO Solms specifically offered guidance against your timeline.
It would seem to me that the Q3 report would be a good time to chat next, Q3 will be public, much of Q4 will have past, a good chunk of the recent placement may well have been spent, and any novice bean counting such as mine should be able to determine how things are going.
