hi rwk,
that's a bold statement about the 10k.
it's purpose is actually to disclose a true and fair view of the company and its performance - that's the archaic phrasing anyway. it is meant to offer a prudent view, rather than a negative or a positive one.
but it is easy to get bogged down in the language. and indeed, that is boilerplate. but nuanced boilerplate, if such an analogy is useful. every word counts.
the cash requirement reflects a figure in wave's actual forecast for 2013. it's the cfo's best estimate of wave's cash needs. he knows the most likely timeline of events.
the ceo affirms that view in signing off on the financial statements. so it is his view also. in a courtroom, he is responsible for what the 10k states. so he must be careful that the 10k says what he thinks it should.
the auditor is there to assure investors that we are seeing not just random figures, but the company's actual ones.
i'd say $6m sounds reasonable, assuming the dell deal continues. although i might have thought $8-10m was slightly more likely.
re the cc: as i understand it, when the time came the company's defence in law was that what you hear in the cc is puff. it is intended not as fact but plausible exaggeration.
so that source is intrinsically unsafe for listeners precisely because it is a safe harbour for wave. anyone who relies upon it should know they are floating on a turbulent sea.
it has not got the standing of the 10k.
my view is that the only statements wave makes upon which one should rely are those for which they are liable in the event that they are false or misleading.
| 