« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: On reflection**

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 16 May 12 4:14 PM | 104 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 07877 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 07833 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Oh and by the way, Wave had a year in which to replace the GM revenue source.

You can't blame it on Thailand. The failure to find a major purchaser was a 12 month thing, with the upfront income spread across the next 12 months.

So there's a problem with the flow of major deals.

The additional problem here is that Wave has been unable to project demand on all scales. In Q3,11 it said it was getting better at it. In Q1,12, Wave's revenues collapsed while its cost structure was maintained.

In the Q4 conference call, SS indicated that an expectation of $60m+ in revenue was not unreasonable. This new number changed to $50m+ within a few weeks. And the change was previewed for shareholder consumption via the information crack pipe.

Funny thing is, I suggested Wave was using something like $50m for its internal 2012 revenue number after the release of the Q4 earnings together with the 2011 financial statements. I changed my mind partly because the CEO said $60m+ was the bottom-up sales forecast. Alas.

These are the kinds of things which tell you that Wave's forecasting is a complete mess. How can anyone make good management decisions if it is clueless about its own marketplace? How can an investor make sensible choices if the management of the company has no idea and is inconsistent?

A revenue maximising strategy is a difficult thing to deliver if the company lacks a cash contingency fund. It is a very poor strategy if the company cannot forecast. Someone is responsible for adopting that model without having the tools or the resources to pursue it.

At some point, you lose the support of everyone except the people who will never change their minds.

One thing that is for sure. You don't need shorts to assault the company to get a share price like this. All you need is the kind of performance Wave is providing, while vastly overpaying its top level people relative to the company's growth rate and bottom line.

At this point, in spite of wishing that there was something to cling onto to make me feel that a defence of Wave's operational management and of its BoD was conceivable, I cannot bring myself to do so given the slate of facts.

Can the company find someone to speak for them? This is the tragedy. There's almost no one willing to do so anymore. Even snackman felt he was lied to.

I guess only the visionaries will persevere in their support. It's easier when you don't care so much about the local planet and can train your telescope on distant galaxies.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
On reflection
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Sun, 13 May 12 11:51 PM
Msg. 07833 of 54959

On reflection

Whilst I think Wave still has a chance to succeed as a result of its technological development, I don't think I can support the company's way of operating its business - even on the conditional basis I have adopted over the years. The combination of the expansion of the sales team and the want of demand, the lack of judgement and precaution in that decision, the dilution which follows from that, the increased salaries of the Sprague family and the directors which exacerbates the issue, the re-emergence of speculative software projects with no discernible business model which the company cannot afford sans dilution, the replacement of expired options with more at lower prices, the lack of investment by board members in their own decisions, the casual treatment of forecasting such that $50+ and $60m+ are interchangeable and the misleading commentary from the unsafe harbour and via the crack pipe - conspire to make me lose my remaining reserves of enthusiasm for the company.

The fact that the investors who support the company will live with (and indeed some of whom will support) the use of misleading statements by the company's representatives, and presumably by derivation, by themselves, makes me feel there's a divide between us that I have no interest in bridging. In fact, it makes me sick to my stomach that anyone would actually counsel putting the company's survival ahead of personal integrity. Investors have the right to make or prolong their investments on the basis of reliable information. The disregard of those rights by the company would be absolutely illegal and immoral. What kind of grotesque society does someone who promotes that kind of communication wish to inhabit? There is no moral distinction between it and justifying theft. A person has a reasonable and lawful interest in the preservation of their own capital and this should not be abused by a company to further its own ends.

Take, for example, a person who invested funds on the understanding the company's revenues were growing (per the Q4 call), and now finds the statement false and their position halved in value. How is that permissible on any worthwhile yardstick? It should not be.

Rather than counselling the company to employ 24601 (amongst other measures) in order to help restore confidence in the company's board, I think he should probably avoid an arrangement which might be toxic to him.

I intend to take a leave of absence from the Wave conversation, but will continue to use this space for other sorts of discussion.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next