Watts -
You were right ....... about everything. I wanted to give the CEO the benefit of the doubt, all the way up to the point at which he experienced selective amnesia regarding the 4 prototypes that would "absolutely matriculate into revenue in the next twelve months". Fool me once? Apparently I was fooled many times.
I believe that someday Apple will still use the tech and it will benefit our stock price, but whether that had happened with the iWatch or were to happen five years from now, it would still not lend any credit to our present management team.
In so many ways, I am simply at a loss for words when attempting to label or categorize what we have experienced here. I am unable to independently conclude how we can fail, consistently, with dozens of prototypes of a phenomenal product. The Garrison spring clamp, for instance. The initial testing revealed by Glenton indicated something like a 5X better fatigue life (IIRC) than the next best product on the market. This was fully a year ago that we first noticed the patent filing and correlated it to the spring clamp blog entry. Yet, for some unrevealed reason(s), Garrison has not yet and perhaps never will, commit to using our product. The purchase price for Garrison is irrelevant, at a 5X performance advantage and bragging rights to the best product in existence, there should be no reason for them to balk. But they have. So it must be some other reason, and the only one that makes any sense to me is that Garrison, along with other prospective clients, has concerns regarding the integrity, stability, or technical expertise of our company. The product is solid, it has to be something else. Same with Lockheed. Same with everyone else.
I certainly agree with you now regarding your assessment of Johnson and our business prospects without him at our side. As you are well aware, his small business team comprised of mostly just a few colleagues from CalTech has already booked over 8M in revenue as of a year ago I think. It is clear now that Apple has all but terminated their collaboration with our engineers and commissioned Glassimetal to move their technology forward. Johnson has the brilliant and unique mind that is capable of advancing the technology and adapting it to stated requirements. It appears as though RSM can do nothing of the sort. Although LQMT states that it is focused on production and not so much laboratory theory, I think that Glassimetal is going to eat our lunch someday. Johnson has demonstrated with apparent ease that he can create all manner of BMG formulations and processes, so I would ask the rhetorical question: "How hard will it be for his group to partner with an IM machine manufacturer other than Engel, and alloy supplier other than Materion, to design and produce a production system for his BMG tech?" IMO, the answer is "not long". And all he needs is one machine sitting in a storage facility and he now has the same production capability as all of LQMT at the moment. And when he tells prospective clients that his team was directly commissioned by Apple to create 10 new BMG formulas and production patents, do you think that any of those clients will opt for LQMT instead? Heck no.
You know Johnson well, I've never met him. It has taken me these past few years to fully appreciate what RSM is (not) capable of without hiring / retaining the creative minds that once worked there.
The part that I really don't get is the old school history of the LQMT insiders that you have spoken of. I would have expected personal greed to rule the day, or in other words, I would have expected the true ownership of LQMT to be so bloodthirsty and greedy that they would have done anything to make the product viable and get it sold. Up to and including stabbing each other in the throat to make it happen. But apparently selling shares over and over again until the well runs dry is "good enough" for these cats.
Anyhoo, enough of my ranting. I still think there is money to be made here, but obviously the potential gains diminish with every dilution event and every day that passes without signing another new customer. No doubt our technology will someday be used by major retailers, but little of that revenue may find its way onto our balance sheet. So it may be a long(er) wait and its up to us to manage our investments accordingly. It will be quite some time before LQMT can (possibly) generate self sustaining revenue, and no doubt we will see future dilution events. Sad to say, but its reality. Like the loss of a loved one and the grieving process that follows, I think we can all recognize that achieving a multi-dollar stock price with LQMT is not likely any time soon, or perhaps ever. So I have pared my dreams of early retirement and financial independence, and reset my aspirations to a more realistic level.
I would love for all of my comments to be proven wrong, and so I still maintain a position in LQMT, although a much smaller one than before this year began. Best wishes to All, perhaps this year will be "the" year for LQMT.
Keith
