Rachel - re: 10 paragraphs of "balanced response"
¶ 1 -- hardly hysterical dear, unless you meant in the laughing sense. yes, you did have the benefit of reading the posts in reverse order & after the fact. math & accounting are definitely not strong suits for me, but the filing is a maze & i still wonder about the 42,042 warrants discrepancy.
(btw, "write to incite" quite clever)
¶ 2 -- you wrote, "we all knew that Wave would run very low on funds." do you find it appropriate mgmt to allow the tank to get to fumes 3 or 4 times per year & be vulnerable to the vagaries of the market?
¶ 3 -- "Big mistake or good idea to manage dilution." when has this company ever been concerned w/the dilution of your shares? they can (& do) always issue more for themselves whenever they want, performance is irrelevant. so as for "manage dilution" i don't think there is anything you can cite in this company's history that supports that contention.
¶ 4 -- you assert that a claim that "3 or 4 or 5 million drowning us" is overdone & in support you cite an "unknown" amount has already been shorted (isn't there a UPC restriction?) & another "unknown" amount in long hands. nevertheless, the filing clearly indicates that just under 4 million shares will not be beneficially owned after the offering. IMO citing such "unknowns" is underdone.
¶ 5 -- if the warrants are exercised. for all that is known, Wave may well not even be an entity three years from now.
¶ 6 -- can't argue w/selling the SSPX, but as for covering the "nut" for the next year, that's a stretch based on the avg. price they have rec'd so far & the piece-meal doling eliminates the potential "control premium." IMO, "assuming no revenue" is a sound practice after roughly $250M in accumulated losses over 1.5 decades.
¶ 7 -- "just shipping" -- well, today 24 impugned my post about the Intel site's "coming soon" status & cited the possibility that "1022" in the HTML code reflected the date when Wave announced they were shipping. okay, let's assume that is accurate. if so, that is the equivalent of a full Q that they have been available & yet Wave has cautioned in this filing that revs are now another 2 Qs away when most here were espousing revs now. as for, NSM, that's a joke... there has been zero to support that NSM has sold anything that benefits Wave, except for wavoid anecdotal stuff & overly generous interpretations of e-mails.
¶ 8 -- yep. it suggests to me that the company won't be unwound by the SEC, but nobody here knows. every time i posted the question, the hecklers' voice was loud & staunch, spouting that one had no relation to the other. now, conveniently, others are coming out of their foxholes to write that they weren't sure whether the registration could be permitted during the SEC investigation or not.
¶ 9 -- ummmm, you think i overlooked this fact. i submit to you Rachel that not only was i well aware of this issue as it relates to the adoption of a new technology, but IMO SKS was well aware of it too, as was Feeney. My understanding of the "breakeven in 2004" slogan fully incorporated that into the meaning of the slogan.
SKS pushed the benchmark date back a year (or two) @ the mini-SHM & i contend that it was doubletalk & a function of the slow deployment (& resultant adoption) rates, not of some epiphany where mgmt realized they had forgotten to include increased SGA costs w/initial deployment. seriously, c'mon Rachel, this guy talks all the time about "planting flags" all over the universe, they knew about increased variable costs when he first represented breakeven in 2004. given that it went from 2004 to 2005 (& maybe 2006), IMO it is entirely reasonable when considering the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome of this company, that, yes, 2007 may well be uttered @ some future CC.
¶ 10 -- i'd say it's not only not a "dream" filing, it's approaching Freddy Kreuger territory. many here posted for months in the late summer & fall that the revs would be here now. well, now it's now & the company just revised their forecasts to reflect another six +/- month delay in any meaningful revs. what that also says is that over the last 3 months, not too many widgets flew off the shelves of the hobbyist PC stores & presumably even fewer were assembled into OEM PCs. So, the thneed has been on the market for a full Q & there has been no word of anything meaningful, let alone even an announcement from the likes of NSM, etc.
as for the "hysterical commentary" one might consider that the wild-eyed rev predictions that came from the most zealous of the zealots.
but you didn't mean "hysterical" as in funny did you? SO, why would i be "hysterical" in the way in which i think you meant?
i won't be holding wavx @ the open tomorrow...
nighty-night!
