Alea: I suppose if one pokes around in the wreckage of Wave, one may find a few isolated examples of things that might have showed promise.
However, taken as a totality, Wave has been an unmitigated disaster since inception, despite what originally was a good idea.
If a company is in business to sell, shouldn't one judge that company by their sales? If there are few sales, would one call that company a success?
Is it fair to delve into the "moving parts" of a train wreck and find a few wheels whose bearings and brakes were still serviceable and say it was not a total train wreck, when it is?
With the succession of William Solms to the CEOship, we must reset our expectations and our standards on how to judge the new mgt and not make the mistake of judging Solms by Sprague standards.
However, it seems of particular significance Solms has yet to make a sale in a year on the job--unless one counts Friday's announcement--which may yield significant revenue sometime in the future. But as for the moment, Wave itself called the revenue from this govt deal, "modest."
Why not give a range in dollars, unless it is so modest as to be embarrassingly small--laughable even? "Don't look at the amount, look at all the potential!" Haven't we been waiting ages for the potential we have been repeatedly assured was just around the corner?
This one little sale in a year suggests to me, either the product simply is not marketable other than in some arcane ways to some companies, because nearly all companies are looking for security. Why then, if we assume Solms and his new sales team are competent, do we only have this one modest sale in a year?
It seems to me illogical to think Wave has the key to stopping much of the monkey business on the net, yet somehow it is continuously overlooked by the very companies looking to cure their insecurity. Does not compute.
And if you throw in all the years of demos, pilots, presentations, trials, etc., it becomes even more illogical to expect much will change quickly. If there was a good product available, it would be selling.
If the Wave solution was so great, given all the hacks of the past few years, this year especially, one would think they would be lining up to buy.
Instead, they stay away in droves.
26 years in business without a penny's profit is a pretty powerful statement in itself. And if we throw in all the past calls and 'sightings' of Wave's imminent success, it would be laughable, except that nearly half a billion dollars of hard-earned cash has taken us to barely a dime per share, splits adjusted.
Sure, it could change and change quickly. But where is the smart money, where are the folks who are paid handsomely to look for exactly this kind of change? Where are the bird dogs paid to find under-priced offerings before the market at large sees them? If things have truly changed at Wave under the new mgt, why is our share price continually fighting a battle to stay listed? Why is the trading so light on most days?
Companies with real products and real potential don't usually lie down around the dollar mark for months and years as Wave has done.
Results are all that count now. And thus far, in a year, we have a "modest" sale to an unnamed govt. agency, that could possibly lead to bigger things at some unknown time frame in the future.
Wave does not represent a good investment opportunity now, if one uses the usual standards to judge the company. As it has for more than a quarter of a century, Wave's chance for shareholders still lies somewhere off in the future.
Blue
