I agree, what I am trying to do is define "genuine strength".
I think we both appreciate more-better-happy-good, but i suspect that busting out some calipers every once in a while is ok too.
It seems to me, even after culling BASF, GM and friends from Q4 to Q1, another $1m went up in smoke.
I think the smoke is ERAS has been generally over interpreted, and that Dell core revs has been under interpreted, and that the NewDellDeal was much more catastrophic than and wetness in Thailand can hope to explain.
Given that, I think the Q1 numbers have to be treated as the new baseline, not as a blip, but as the reality of shaving 25 cents off Dell royalties. It indicates that Wave is and only has been because of the Dell deal. This was not well planed for, forecast, notified, or handled. Patently botched. Tack n some SFND non-cash items and it makes for some miserable looking books (not that I do books or anything, but I don't think I need to be a professional in this instance).
So given that, given it is not just some SMB weakness, that a serious erosion of Dell royalties underpins Q1 ....
what defines "genuine strength"?
Services were about 0.3 in Q1, leaving the $6.6m as the base, and I am reading BASF as mostly/essentially recognized in 2012 as they have been saying in their various reports.
So, of the $6.6m about $0.6m is BP and maintenance.
Thy did about $6m in business in Q1. Somewhere I think that is what they claimed in new billings as well.
So, what is "genuine strength" off that?
5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30% ????
As Q1 had 324k in services (this is where the samsung numbers are getting buried) I'm expecting that to move towards say 500k (the Army Sole etc). That's peanuts.
It the past Wave has observed QtoQ results that when the rest is stripped out seems like the best they have done is around 13%. So, is 15% "genuine strength"?
20% growth to me drops out as Q2 revs of $8.3m (600k BP+other maint, 500k services, 20% growth on 6m base).
So, is a reported 8.3m revs for Q2 "genuine strength"??
| 