Yes, in isolation the point is a good one. Total consideration requires considering all the points. If one individually considers all the points and determines that individually they were correct decisions but still considers the sum to be an error, one is being inconsistent.
I think not doing the mobile thing would have been a mistake. I feel I've been consistent on that. My argument has been it is not just a good opportunity, it is necessary to maintain not only leadership, but relevance.
I think expanding the Euro sales for was the right thing to do. It may well be that what wave discovered is that (rhetorically here) 90% of their resources were US focused and three of their four largest customers were EU. They may have found that in the end, even though still difficult, EU deals were at least doable. So, does one shift the rsources 'walk away from NA' or expand the base. I go with expand.
The migration of a number of DAR vendors into SED management was perhaps cramping Wave's DAR niche. I believe the SFND acquisition was the right choice. Adding removable media and tools for other platforms was important and sensible as these things converge.
You see what I'm doing here, if all the points look like good decisions, can I fault their sum?
For me, the problem is these decisions don't seem well integrated into reality. The rate is the reality. The doughnut hole hypothesis concluded that a PIPE of $5-10m was the inevitable solution. They went with the ATM, that appears to have been a poor decision, although I don't have 'proof' for the degree of recnt use. So, fault them severely for one mistake? Yes. Its a big mistake, and one they have done repeatedly IMO.
Hence I want to see a shake-up that inserts greater rigor to their process. Somewhere between the BoD, SKS, and Feeney, they are not being prudent. Selling shares at multi-year lows to make payroll *is* failure. No bonuses. You keep your job, perhaps some reassignment, but it is not a bonus performance.
scrambls? nuff said. I see it as a crap-shoot in a circumstance of an illiquid treasury.
nepotism? If any of that stuff SKS said actually happens, then it should be officially communicated by the Chairman. I did a silly example of such a communication somewhere in some post.
compensation? It quite simply can be structured to have less of a cash burden, more tied to long terms vested interests, and should be structured for less now, more later. i.e. pay when the ship arrives, not for planning the trip.
These are simple things and the recent Collins SKS material ignores and sidesteps these truths.
Finally, is MSprague really a software engineer? Top ten. Really? I don't know, but my instincts tell me no.
| 