Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Really love the SIZE of these companies and CEO level representation...and their focus in areas of high PRODUCTION SCALABILITY...apparently COMPLEMENTARY vs. in competition with LWLG initiatives.
QTY 191,505 share trade to begin trading today?
Always too much wasteful government spending of taxpayer money. (CHIPs Act included). Fed chasing its tail constantly as if it controls things in the long run.
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
Confused. If you are sure he has "reassurances to share", isn't it likely Dr. Lebby wants him to share? I mean, why tell a select person or small group of investors things at this juncture otherwise? (yes, I know there are concerns about how information can be manipulated by nefarious sources, shorts, etc. but begs the question as to why Dr. Lebby would have provided this "reassurance to share" now?). If it is shared, perhaps on Reddit with its better monitoring and control.
I would hope an American based company would consider doing that instead. Really would prefer to not have LWLG (and its considerable appreciation potential) subjected to the more global implications of the politics involved with a Taiwanese-based company...no matter how dominant they are. Of course, the price of LWLG would rise greatly regardless IMO.
Understood...and to a large extent agree. On the one hand, it is very nice to see the further industry-wide validation and acceptance of the key role of photonics. On the other hand, the timeframe of "breakthrough by 2029" is a bit sobering. I would only hope that this timeframe is aimed more at the photonics computing holy grail...otherwise it is hard to reconcile that the announcements and scaling that LWLG has suggested can be real. Obviously, I hope they ARE REAL. Question is, can LWLG and its partners really be this far ahead of the rest of the market and world?
This was sort of the basis for my previous elementary question that was looking for confirmation that GFS' Fotonix initiatives were really more CPO-oriented vs. "pluggable".
Please forgive this very elementary question!...but wanted to confirm. The approach that GFS' Yu has touted with their Fotonix pursuits would incorporate LWLG in a co-packaged optics implementation, correct? (vs. pluggable optics).
15 minute speaking segments are short. Makes me hope/wonder that there may be other formal PRs/announcements of significance immediately before, during, or after the conference that perhaps make the "market" more fully understand LWLG potential. I DO like the longer roundtables hosted by Dr. Lebby that are potentially so synergistic with his presentation. Alas, of course everyone is looking for nuggets that more directly confirm what we all believe is happening. I don't discount the importance of new testing data and numbers...just hope it is at least confirmed that this is the nice little wrapper that makes the certainty of their future success more broadly understood.
well...sure...but price may be based on lots of factors. Aka, how much supply (and what do contracts look like for existing product) is there?...both "new and improved product" vs. "old product". How much supply is "guaranteed"? Is the existing product "good enough"? What's the impact on other components already committed to? Yes, in general, the better product should command more in terms of price...but lots of factors to consider. Hopefully, the benefits of LWLG tech dictate more aggressive adoption. My reason for asking what I did was to get other opinions on how much pressure do others think there will be on clients/foundries, aggregators, etc. to adopt LWLG tech more quickly once it is out in the wild...and especially its likelihood of supplanting existing 8X100G with LWLG-based 4x200G for the 800G market.
So assuming the "Aristas" and "Coherents" of the world may be sampling polymers for 1.6TB...would they also transition from using 8x100G to instead polymer-based 4x200G over time as well? I would think so...but also a function of customer willingness to accept the new based on price, efficiency, reliability confidence, etc. and whatever existing volume/supply of 8x100G has to be worked through based on demand.
The million $ question is...if what they have already is "commercial ready", how much more improvement is required until a company is willing/able to sell what's available today in the market? There will continually be improvements, as with just about all products, but what is the opportunity cost of not getting something that is already superior to market now?
Anyone panicking in this stock and selling should not have been in it in the first place. Perhaps obvious, but it's hard for me to have much sympathy for that kind of ignorance.
Granted...just a shelf offering...and some may just see as business as usual...
$100M filing...sounds like a company with big things in the near term offing...
8K out announcing new BOD member.
http://archive.fast-edgar.com/20240722/AAZZ522CZ22F62Z2222H22Z7BNIFZZ2SC362/
For near term announcements and revenue, how close and how much testing/focus is there on a 800GB transceiver being driven by LWLG material? And since others are providing 800GB transceivers (granted, with less efficiency, larger size, and greater cost than a prospective 800GB LWLG-driven transceiver), how much "easier/smoother" path to 1.6GB/3.2G transceivers does it make for clients/foundries/transceiver makers to go with LWLG NOW (or very close to NOW)?
I have been invested in 3 other companies that were previously with MZ Group…all have moved on to other IR companies in the last few years. Personally, I would like to see a change.
I believe in one of the informal conversations that happened at the ASM Atikem said to an individual we "are on the runway and ready to take off". Please someone correct me if I am wrong. Hopefully, "taking off" is triggered by simply an announcement of a Tier 1 deal (at least a few feet off the ground).
I believe people who looked closely at the wafer at ASM said that they could identify the 4X200G PIC chips. Doesn't that suggest that they are far along with the manufacturing process? Wonder about testing and nuances vs. the single...to me seems this may be the biggest thing left?
frobinso, I read your post about other venues for discussion (before I suppose it was deleted by moderator) and agree that other forums are useful and preferable in some cases. I use any/all where I can learn and gain insight. That said, it's fairly easy to block the inane, obviously manipulative posters here...and I do find that some of the responses from trusted posters to the inane often contains valuable information, at least to me.
Not necessarily commenting about how good/bad that type of deal would be for LWLG, but hopefully they continually explore different financing sources vs. simply continuing to raise $ at the current share price as "business as usual". Or at the least, give it a rest on $ raises for now while share price is down at this level. Assuming they are dealing with significant Tier 1s, there should be a number of financial levers they can consider and pull. Does Marcelli have the chops to understand/negotiate how to consider/pull such levers?
I guess it's semantics. They use the terms "collaboration" and "partnership" in the press release. They also say they have been "collaborating" for a year...so if that's what is considered "commercialization" it started with AMF back in 2023, not 2024. Yes, I am optimistic about the AMF partnership and excited that AMF/LWLG have found it mutually beneficial to announce the collaboration at this time. Hopefully, as others have pointed out, this changes the landscape spurs others to agreements/action sooner vs. later. (and/or more than fine if AMF ends up being primary foundry source for substantial first revenues).
Perhaps interesting that no formal agreement with AMF was actually mentioned...only the word "partnership". Not sure whether a formal agreement is necessary with foundries that LWLG is working with necessarily as it may be a multi-party agreement with foundry/end user/other suppliers required to provide finished product? Pure speculation, and likely without merit, but perhaps lack of formal agreement with AMF might also imply that LWLG wants to keep its options open with respect to maintaining their negotiating leverage with other foundries/customers?
Wish I had dry powder. 🙂 I used mine up already. I haven't lost confidence in Dr. Lebby and the end game, but I always get nervous when I start seeing evidence of CEO weakness in properly managing expectations. The current share price should open new ideas/thinking of how the company can best take advantage of the current greatly undervalued share price on behalf of long term investors. May not be Dr. Lebby's strength, but SOMEONE (perhaps a more competent COO?) should be seeing a 25% share price haircut as reason for new thinking.
Not sure about "marketing" failures. At some point you simply have to produce "results"..."results" meaning tangible commercial evidence that validates the story. The AMF announcement is at least something...but because they have been so tight lipped over so many months and set expectations that were missed (the December letter), folks are losing patience. Two years in a row of announcing "something" within 24 hours of ASM gives the appearance of contrived news. The pity is that technical progress appears to be very substantial and consistently good. I hope that Dr. Lebby is not so stubborn that he realizes that he needs to share "tangible commercial evidence" by end of 2024...and preferably early vs. later. Yes, I'm guessing he is conflicted about letting "cats out of the bag" sooner than prudent in terms of the big reward to be realized in the end, but the pain for at least some shareholders as evidenced in the current share price is very real. Part of his job is to convey why the stock is greatly undervalued currently...and based on results to date he is not getting the job done.
Killing time on airplane on way home so thought I would at least advise that this question was raised in my group during the tour/demonstrations. I am less technical so a better authority will surely respond! What I did pick up was that LWLG was demonstrating the more difficult band to accomplish…but the impression was that there was great confidence in being able accomplish both. Beware I am only reporting what I understood and somewhat out of my lane! 😊
I attended today’s presentation and chatted with the good Dr. afterward. I asked about the dynamic of a privately owned, very credible foundry based in Singapore being co-announced in yesterday’s PR…specifically about its potential to help “motivate” other partners, Tier 1s, potential partners to hastened “action”. He commented, to paraphrase, that some corporate envy is never a bad thing. And remember, this was a foundry (non USA/Europe) that was not even on the list of active foundry partners (based on geography) as outlined in presentations over the past year. And yet, LWLG has been working with them over the past year. IMO, although much cannot be disclosed for a variety of reasons, the good Dr. is looking out for investor interest in ways that we can only guess about. Doesn’t mean the inevitable success is not being pushed forward faster than we may think.
Flip side is I wonder why company felt need to shore up cash position at this juncture...unless they think this price is "reasonable" for the next several months. That said, seems like they have been fairly consistent about raising $ regardless of share price.
Best wishes to you and your family. Will miss seeing you out in Denver.
Good post. IMO, I might soften your last paragraph a bit. He doesn't need to only placate investors but may also need to hold back some information to protect negotiations, leverage, etc.
F2, thanks for giving me a new perspective on why I should be happy (rather than frustrated) about the buffering interruptions on my TV! Really, that's a great and simple reminder. Glass is definitely at least "half full" here and closer to spilling over the top.
Thanks Walter! Excellent questions by the group and answers provide some additional insight. IMO, definitely should be mandatory viewing for those attending the shareholder meeting next week. It certainly left me with a sense that a surprise agreement could come at virtually any time. That said, it will be interesting to see if we get further insight next week into what actual hurdles remain...and how much bigger they are willing to project the realizable (with timing) opportunity is.
Jeunke, if you could add me to list of your notes from Conference would also much appreciate. Hope to meet you in Denver at ASM next month!
LTiggs23@gmail.com
I know it's been opined on here before by others, but I wonder how much "group think" (the exaggerated word might be 'collusion') goes on among the many players behind the scenes as well. Tier 1s/foundries are in competition with one another but also cooperating with one another and certainly this underscores the "complexity" of coming to terms that ML keeps referring to. Sure, big companies want to beat each other out, but they also don't want to upset or put at risk the gravy train that has led to the meteoric rise some of these hyperscalers have seen in their businesses. New tech means there will also be some losers. My guess is that if we had a 100% pure competitive environment in the classic sense we'd see perk-based transceivers out in the market already.
Great post X. eom
I understand all of these points. I am very long the stock and will continue to be so. That said, I attended the shareholder meeting last year and following that day I would have have been at least mildly surprised if someone told me that 11 months later there had been no follow-up deal. I believe honestly that many who attended that meeting would have expressed similar mild surprise. That doesn't mean I am not impressed with all of the progress I have seen achieved over they past 11 months. My expectations were raised again with ML's comments back in December about working hard to close deals by end of 2023 while admitting that they might not happen because large deals/companies are complex. All fair enough. I do trust that ML is working in the best interest of shareholders in the long run. And that might mean having to wait longer...but I will be looking for additional insight at the annual meeting from ML as to explanations/rationale to feel more comfortable about when we can expect the beginnings of success (deals/revenue, etc.). And as I stated previously, I hope the fact that they have pursued multiple Tier 1s and foundries means there is competition to get the job done with at least one sooner vs. later and that no single potential partner can unilaterally hold them over the proverbial barrel.
I understand the desire to not over promise, but I also wonder why the potential is not there for scale to happen at a faster pace than predicted this year. (I believe the past estimates have been 8,000 or so modulators and/or a several thousand for sampling in 2024). With the ability to scale at foundries already confirmed...and all of this further testing...wouldn't whoever the big Tier 1(s) and foundries are want to scale this as quickly as possible once testing eliminates further questions? If indeed LWLG is not dependent on a single Tier1/foundry, I would think the longer this is delayed in terms of signing a significant deal with the first (I guess technical/potentially second if last year's first deal was significant in scale) the likelihood of another player becoming the lead first becomes greater. I would hope there is some pressure building on the Tier 1s/foundries to take the lead or get beaten to the line from competition.