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
