Blue, "but before I invest them with the trust I gave early on to SKS, personally I will need some proof they deserve it."
certainly a prudent sentiment. Carving out cancer and replacing it with an unknown is simply that.
Those that invested sub-buck after the management change (or now) with evidence that change was real (not in financial performance, but that it was not the simple replacement of a figurehead) would stand to gain much more than those who wait for demonstrated financial improvement, but they do so at considerable risk.
Your remarks regarding little evidence in change in process are true (IMO). A euphoria over new management has replaced a worship of old management. Where is a critical consideration of obstacles?
They are re-writing code/interface. Companies do that all the time. It regularly involves unforeseen difficulties, missed deadlines, or lack of acceptance. Critical consideration would involve an exploration of the magnitude of the undertaking e.g., and I see none of that.
There are incumbents. VSC seeks to replace smart cards and tokens at a fraction of the cost. Is the notion that smart card and token costs are cast in stone? Will the RSAs of the world sit static on yesterdays pricing levels? What would the resultant margin be? Will customers in the end stick with the familiar? What I see on this matter from a critical consideration standpoint is something to the effect of "relax, we are under new management".
None, I mean none of the revenue replacement notions have a single entry on an income statement. Samsung royalties? Go ahead, find some darts and throw them at the wall trying to guess what they may/will/could be and what is expected/not expected. Presumably one could try to determine e.g. Samsungs target TPM market, its size, and what a TSS contribution from Wave to Samsung is worth per device. That would be a form of due diligence seeking to uncover near term revenue replacement realities. CESG really has nothing to do with it. CESG is external to Wave, Wave's agreement with Samsung is internal to Wave, it represents a stated demand for Wave's products in the near term ... with no effort to quantify the royalty amount or unit volume.
Investing at this point is based almost entirely on the notion that Wave technology is indeed valuable, broadly valuable, and that the last team was inept at capturing that value. There is something to go on there, wave is not the only company diving into the VSC space e.g., Wave has been able to sell its technology in the past with decent pricing power, those that are willing to take on considerable risk do have something to go on, but I agree that little is being done in terms of critical consideration to evaluate those risks and outline metrics for measuring success.
I read this:
Daily chart technical: Buy
Weekly chart technical: Sell
Monthly chart technical: Buy
Fundamental: Buy
Investor Psychology: Buy
and almost choked. Wave's fundamentals are almost as bad as they can be, I am completely flabbergasted that one can call them a "buy" signal. There is a glimmer of hope for early high risk investors ... runway. Given Wave's abhorant fundamentals one needs runway, and the recent placement provides some runway. Now they just need to demonstrate some financial success (sales)that you are looking for. Prior to the placement there wasn't even the runway.
Given that the Q2 numbers are likely to come in as some of the worst in a very long time for Wave there will be plenty of grist for the argument of "no change, no progress". And then there will be "the plan" folks who will pick apart the numbers to look for whether the plan is engaging, regardless what the totals say.
And it should be great fun.
Unless the VSC launch occurs on schedule AND a significant order comes through prior to the Q2 report, in which case while the numbers for Q2 will say "no change, no progress", other public information will be available to contest that.
The above content is my opinion.
