Replies to post #19518 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[greg s]

Snackman,

A sincere question:

Do you have any relationship of any kind with management of Wave Systems?

[cpa]

Snackman,

I personally believe they are both. Only once have a called Steven a liar, and I posted from unclevers site the discrepancy in the two CC's to prove it.

Have I used innuendos, that is for you to decide. If you reach that conclusion based on the things I say, then that must have been what have been thinking.

CPA

[HhH]

Snackman: For the record...

at least until you delete it, as you do about two out of every three of my messages, I have never accused any of management of criminal behavior. My criticisms have to do with what I assume is entirely legal behavior on their part. Essentially:

1. Gross incompetence. (Deals with the tin-foil-hatted, purchases of Ishophere.com, saying on the record the stock would go to $50, the last two financing deals, to name just a few that pop to mind), and

2. Excessive greed. (Bonuses not related to performance (a wonderful concept for the non-performing among us), stock options cashed at opportune moments, loans to shareholders that are later bonused away, etc., etc., etc.)

3. Failure to communicate honestly. Do they lie? Heck, I dunno. I know they bob and weave a lot. I know they dodge questions. I know they say things are shipping when, in fact, they aren't. But am I accusing them of lying? Nope. I'm accusing them of being something way short of straight shooters. I'm accusing them of squandering any semblance of credibility by, among other things, defending a $19 million revenue projection in the seventh month of a year that ended up missing the mark by 95%.

4. Showing favoritism to family members. Yes, nepotism in its most egregious form. Neither Steven nor Michael was anywhere near qualified for the positions granted them. A fact the market sees, while this group of investors chooses to turn a blind eye. Is nepotism illegal? No.

So, Snack, bottom line is I'm not accusing these folks of being crooks. Artful dodgers? Yes. Bumbling managers? Yes. Spoiled rich boys? Yes. But not crooks. That's somebody else's charge.

Anyway, it is clear that these folks are inept and grossly overpaid, in addition to being prone to mislead. I need to send them an e-mail so they know that I think that? I don't think so, Snackman. I think they already know it. However, I assure you, if I ever happen to meet up with any of Sprague, Sprague, and Feeney, I will not hesitate to express my opinion.

[Zeev Hed]

Snackman, I don't think management sins are "lying and thieving" (these kind of felonies must be decided by courts), but the sins are simple incompetence, burning $250 MM and so far, having nothing to show for it, is simple incompetence, not necessarily thievery. But hey, 2004 was supposed to be positive cash flow, now it is in the blue yonder future...