edit: "being SPIN Malcovich"
that's truly clever GKS.
i don't need to go to the resort to chat w/SKS... i know what i think about wave's management & the circumstances surrounding this financing deal.
AND in light of the fact that the INTC deal was made public well prior to this placement, IMO the terms of this financing are far worse than the prior PP relative to the public knowledge about the company @ the time the placement was distributed.
If the INTC deal was everything the stalwarts suggest it is, shouldn't Wave have been able to get bank financing?
the "I agree that the financing being closed and announced after the CC is a bit strange" followed by ad hominem is a strong indication of the state of the union of the Wave Nation.
just as strong an indicator as Sully's attempts to pick apart whether Wave could have sold 4.5 mil shares of SSPX... a footnote in the overall issue, but his curious focus.
IMO some people who think wavx will be their financial salvation had better start coming to grips w/the distinct possibility that this stock will trade in the same range for years & years to come w/the shares out increasing every year.
& the "Maybe I should "pony up" and send this as a PM" is just one step from the "iggy!" or "we need a new private board!" responses.
instead of probing the realities of the issues i've posted (which are NOT about s/hs sentiment, etc, but very real problems w/the people running the company &/or the possibility that the INTC deal, etc, really is little more than a market test/trial).
how y'all gonna feel if you find out that the INTC & NSM "deals" turn out similarly as the NEC blockbuster?
wouldn't you rather consider that today instead of six months from now?
ALSO, for anyone to claim that a smart guy like SlateColt who was around dating back to the Silicon Investor days finally capitulating @ $2 post Q3 CC is a friggin positive buy sign?!?
you gotta be sooooooo drunk on Kool Aid to *really* think that!!
edit: fair enough Sully -- i should know better & not leave you ANY room to parse something down & then exaggerate it in order to discredit. & to that end, you limit the disposition of SSPX to open market transactions. tilting every inference in favor of SKS is prolly not the best way to analyze an investment IMO.
but i notice you haven't said a word about anything other than this minor issue. fine. say they could only get $1.5. that still equates w/the results for the balance sheet that 10% dilution & $53 mil market cap decline in 3.5 trading sessions (using highs & lows from last Thurs. before CC through today).
