edit: credibility off the cliff:
show me where i posted that Wave would get screwed by RAND licensing buddy!
i posted that it did not add to strategic value in a takeout when Mig was speculating that Wave would be bought out.
i posted that the RAND licensing made it unnecessary to buy the company to get access to the pertinent TC IP.
have held my tongue all weekend until i read that outright LIE.
used to think you were one who was beyond reproach, now yer just beyond the pale!
SKS responded to some of his devotees that he thought it was assumed, obvious, etc., that Wave would increase its cost structure to grab market share in 2004... uhhhh, yeah, i assumed that too & it was OBVIOUS!
then he qualifies his rev guidance w/the 2003 burn rate... does that make sense to anyone? if the cost ramp was "obvious" then the orginal guidance was:
SKS: "And on a short term basis we think we can reach the point where the company gets to cash flow breakeven sometime in 2004."
that language necessary implies the "obvious" cost increases of gaining market share (& i suspect that many, many, MANY bought on that comment). it does NOT mean based on today's burn, it means based on 2004's burn!
he got you ALL again & most of you have spent the weekend sweeping more crud under the rug... the lump in the middle of the room is bigger than the furniture, yet to most of you, it isn't even there!
24, you always try to needle about context, yet you just blatantly took my RAND comments & twisted them into a new meaning that has no semblance to what i posted.
similarly, all the apologists have circled the wagons to defend the statement bolded above...
news flash... SKS *did* suggest that Wave Systems Corp would be CASH-FLOW BREAKEVEN "SOMETIME" IN 2004.
you've all been had again by steven's mysteriously shifting milestones.
maybe it rallies tomorrow, maybe even rallies for the week.
but the fact remains that breakeven was just pushed out AT LEAST another year.
but of course NSM is shipping, it's probably even on a boat somewhere.
LOFL!
SKS: "So, the company now has access to the resources that we need in order to operate. The recent exercise of options has brought in additional cash was something that really helped to strengthen our balance sheet. We continue to work towards strengthening the overall company, and the ultimate way to do that is to drive the revenue base so this company reaches a cash flow break even position. And we think that's very achievable in 2004."
i notice that no voids bothered to post any quotes from the Q2 CC & i already know the reason why... it's much more fun to post "true DD" about pie-in-the-sky Euro launches.
John Lewis, [??] Capital: "Hi guys. I was just trying to get,I jumped on the call a little late here, I was just trying to figure somethings out. What was the guidance for revenue to get you to that break evennumber in 2004?"
SKS: "I haven't been really specific on the numbers for that.What I can say is that the market begins to engage in fourth quarter in volumeon a number of different platforms. We expect to realize revenue from shipmentsin fourth quarter/first quarter. Because it will some time to realize, for theprocess to flow through as to how many units shipped, etc., and get the royaltycheck actually mailed to you."
Steven Sprague has made countless statements that are not even close to reality. i've read the posts since last night & a large portion of them substantiate what the financial press called a "Wave of Delusion."
SKS: "So, I think I can help provide clarity to the … So, aswe said before we think sort of the driving revenue of the company starts infourth quarter. That you'll see the actually recognition of the beginnings ofthat revenue in first quarter of next year. It's our hope that in calendar 2004we reach a point of cash flow breakeven for the corporation."
these quotes are all available from the Q2 CC.
it was "obvious" from a business perspective that SKS' statements related to a breakeven milestone in 2004 necessarily included increasing fixed & variable costs to meet market demand.
now he is saying that he omitted what was supposedly "obvious"...
it's almost comical to see so many smart people lap up what is served & ask for seconds! & btw, nothing that i've posted here means the stock goes to $0, blah, blah, blah... for all i know it rallies into December. but i do know that threadbare credibility earned by the INTC announcement has been worn away.
i also know that the multiple statements made by this company's CEO just 3 months ago were completely off the mark & he moved the target yet again. meanwhile, many of you here are in such a kool aid stupor that you have actually rationalized away the meaning of the words stated & morphed "designing" into "shipping" etc., etc., etc.
SKS put the FU back in "fun" when he said that wavx wouldn't be half the fun w/out all of its risk!
whatever...
edit: yeah & named yerself after a car, who woulda ever thought you'd post something as meaningless as what follows this post. thing is, namedafteracar, i just posted 4 or more quotes from the sacred cow that clearly demonstrate w/his own words everything that needs to be said about this entire debate... he said "breakeven in 2004" he did little or nothing to qualify it in any way. it was interpeted by many to mean what most thought it meant, "breakeven in 2004."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
