24601, your use of esthetic
does a remarkably good job of diminishing the value of the next word (clarity). I've never been the sort to think of clarity as window dressing. It seems any variety of brief plausible scenario statements would have done much to clarify the circumstance.
I'm inclined to believe that the sweeping under the rug of details was deliberate as Wave was EXTREMELY vulnerable at that time. Indeed their head fake pseudo-disclosure was probably in my best interests.
Heck, if I hadn't been kicked around so many times by their pseudo-genuine content, I'd be much more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. We are not talking about an outfit that deserves anything other than scathing even cynical consideration of everything they say.
Ya know, that ol' "ya make yer own bed" thingy.
They should aim higher, kinda like Clinton after the first few babes, at some point a track record develops, and IMHO your synopsis that the poor bloke writing a PR in April couldn't be bothered to find the words is a bit overly apologetic.
Nobody at Wave is undercompensated. The disclosure folks just underperform. Get better or roll heads. I'm inclined to think that I could find few thousand DIFFERENT people in a single afternoon that could (with a 1970's calculator) roll thru 1000 different effectiveness date plausibilites and generate a table that clearly communicated the truth in something less than 30 minutes.
Again, I think the deniable deception ws deliberate and likely in my best interests. They should do these things when they have to, not every time they communicate.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
