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.
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.
Don't know that I've seen that slide 8 yet (perhaps did not notice previously). Shows huge market potential for 800G...and shows limited adoption to date of even 400G. Perhaps a reach (or obvious!), but use of that specific graphic to me would suggest to me that LWLG is working with at least one of the hyperscalers listed...aka Google, META, Microsoft, Amazon.
Ah yes...thanks.
And specs...any of our experts see validation or lack thereof/invalidation of LWLG in specs?
https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/marvell/en/public-collateral/dsp/marvell-nova-1.6t-pam4-dsp-for-optical-transceiver-applications-product-brief.pdf
Just an observation...
Dr. Lebby has quite the knack for delivering lots of information in a small and defined amount of time. He also leaves time for question/answer while answering questions concisely and with respect. (when he doesn't want to disclose information he simply says we haven't done so yet). This is a skill that not every CEO has and should not be taken for granted.
Excellent question. I have posed a similar question but really did not receive much of a response. Seems "just plug it in and let it rip" may be an oversimplification and at least some validation/testing required but would love to see some guesses from those more in the know.
A perhaps naive question...
When there is a marketable transceiver (containing LWLG PIC), will this be a sort of "off the shelf" immediately salable product or will it require a certain amount of tweaking, customization etc. for each customer? Or perhaps some can use more "off the shelf" and others require more customization?
Thanks Walter! (and for your previous post with the translation as well)
Herman, thanks very much for your write-up! A question for all, if all of these results are based on Perk3, is it assumed that initial commercial ($) production will likely be based on Perk3? This sort of goes back to the question of whether there are specific use cases for the various versions of Perk vs. just "improved" versions with each subsequent release. (I would guess both improvement and different use cases could both be true). With Perk6 in the works, just wondering if additional testing, etc. will be required before partners move forward with volume production...or is Perk3 "good enough"?
Late afternoon/early evening San Diego time...
https://www.reddit.com/r/LWLG/comments/1akmbyz/lwlgs_dr_m_lebby_to_present_on_heterogenous/
Fair point...that is likely a challenge but also one that can at least still be addressed partially. I assume that is part of what Dr. Lebby is committing to when he states that they would be more forthcoming with investors.
Yes, look forward to reconnecting with you and others!
Would be interesting to crawl into the heads of these Tier 1 purchasing teams. In my experience, the true decision-makers eventually inform the procurement/purchasing teams to "get it done" if there is enough competitive pressure to do so. What's hard to know is how much first mover advantage is worth to each of these Tier 1's...or are they more motivated by simply moving with the herd. Sort of like the "no one ever gets fired for buying from IBM" in the 80's. The difference here is LWLG is the relative newcomer and does not have the track record of commercial success like IBM had. And how many of the "decision-makers" are risk averse and sort of in the pockets of the old guard suppliers. (of course, the ultimate risk would be to be left behind of a major market shift that leaves you inferior to your competitors...aka this is how LWLG gets to "ubiquity"). Lots of nuances to consider. Guessing Dr. Lebby is aware of these various nuances/forces and is steering the ship correctly but ultimately TBD. I am hoping that his suggestion that deals may happen "prior to the end of 2023" was also a calculated strategy on his part of to put pressure on prospects to move vs. naivete/surprise that the deals were likely to actually happen by the end of the year. To your point, announcing the demo at the ASM I hope is part of the same big picture strategy. Anyway, just thinking out loud here...
I've done a few "FUBAR" trades myself...typically, I call Schwab and they are able to reverse them for me. FWIW.
I plan to be on that bus for the tour. Sure hope what is being demonstrated is something they can actually sell.
Excellent post Lewrock!
Good point. I suspect as I think you (and/or others) that the "financial stability" concern is really more of a smokescreen excuse for just the time it is taking to negotiate price/deal terms. Sure, financial stability/supply is likely a factor but one in which all parties have had ample time to consider over many months (years). Suspect Lebby doing a good job of watching out for company/shareholder interests for the long term.
IBB-99, your post from earlier with the GIPHY embedded rendered me unable to scroll beyond your post to other posts. Just an FYI, forced me to temporarily put you on "ignore" in order to be able to scroll again. Not sure whether others experienced same issue.
Question about various perkinamine series? So there are various series, 1-5, with 6 being finalized. I am trying to recall whether the first 2 or 3 levels have been basically "obsoleted" by the newer versions. And I do realize that different applications may make earlier versions sufficient (perhaps even more suitable?) than newer versions? I am just wondering just how much market potential there is for the various versions and/or is it really the case that each newer version is in effect more superior overall and most likely to become the predominant level in terms of commercial application. And prospectively version 6 is the best of all?...and when will it be ready? Thanks in advance for input here.
I guess I hope LWLG sees some of the $/investment or their collaboration partners do. That said, always suspicious of how many government strings are attached. I guess you have to play the game, but would prefer to see the government stay clear and let commercial enterprises run the show. Put the $ into cleaning up the SEC and real enforcement instead.
Lewrock, you didn't ask me...but I do wonder as well if a buyout in nearer term is much more likely than I would necessarily prefer...(depending, of course, on buyout price! . It just seems a bit odd to me that Lebby would have stated they were working to close deals by end of year...and now, 60 days later still no deals done. I mean, they have been working with these potential "partners" in likelihood for years...all anticipating what the end game would be if successful. It's hard to understand why most of this would not have already been worked out. Devil's advocate may be that they (the partners) do not feel compelled to show their hand until closer to volume production/scale. You could probably put together lots of hypothetical scenarios of buyout vs. deal as well....but I am guessing that buyout price suggested to keep both LWLG shareholders happy (and Lebby) and reflective of true value might be so high that partner is scared to go out on limb with their own shareholders and look "crazy"...after all, the "general market" is not even overly aware of LWLG and the unique tech that they possess. Just thinking out loud FWIW.
Thanks F2 and same to you and your family. I do feel good about sharing a "foxhole" with many of the fine folks here.
Personally, based on Lebby's early December letter, I hope we get some decent further validation by mid February. Whether it's a formal announcement of a deal or just more industry confirmation that things are really happening. Lebby has to know that he created some more pressure with that December letter to not just let the status quo stand for too long. If not, calls for at least some more transparency are warranted and justified.
??? I read it as 7.3% of total shares outstanding.
Let's also see/hear what happened with the Perk delivered in October to the unnamed partner(s) that were part of the deal announced last May. That should be showing its face at some point "relatively near term" perhaps?
So, seems it is key to find out if Perk is being used in the Ayar Teraphy chiplet. I expect the smart/knowledgeable folks here can weigh in the likelihood of this. If it's not, I'm not wild about the notion that Perk is NOT being used in a solution that addresses "the from mm up to 2 km" distances even if it is not LWLG's stated first primary market focus.
IMO, I wouldn't have expected too much to happen in first few weeks of January, especially if there is not a date-driving force incentivizing closure more immediately. Could also have been executive vacations, bad timing for PR, almost anything. The closing of this first agreement near the last ASM though suggests to me that Lebby is not without some degree of control on timing. Hopefully, he has some chips on the table to get folks to agree sooner vs. later. Such chips could be giving more priority (technically, etc.) to others willing to act sooner, first to move "status" (depending on NDAs)...and the biggest reason of all, the need to get closure so they can actually take possession and build product. My question for Lebby would be what are prospective partners giving up by delaying coming to agreement?...time delay needs to cost them SOMETHING.
I agree with your assessment...but I would also submit that the point below is conjecture. It makes sense and IMO is most likely, but still conjecture. It may have nothing to do with "LWLG giving anything away at the table"...could be arguments among others in the foodchain, announcement (or non-announcement related) due to timing preferences, or even (less likely and hopefully not) something of a technical nature.
<
OK. Yes, I have total faith in LWLG being big in the end. That said, do I wish I had waited to convert to Roth IRA all at under $4/share?...absolutely! Ready for Lebby to reward patience and not ask for yet more.
"Fairly Soon".
https://ludwig.guru › s › fairly+soon
fairly soon | English examples in context | Ludwig
Yes "fairly soon" is a correct and usable phrase in written English. You can use it when you want to indicate that something will happen in the near future but you don't want to be more specific than that. For example: "I have to finish this project fairly soon.". exact ( 59 ) Fairly soon, friendships were formed. 1 The New York Times
Wondering when long time investors will be "fairly rich"? 🙂
Fair enough. I could also be wrong and I was not a high school English teacher. 😀
I'll play the role of the high school English teacher...
What's up with the comma after "but since" from the shareholder letter?
Why don't they proofread these more closely? Is this just poor editing on the part of MZ Group or Dr. Lebby? Anyway, just a nitpicking complaint about perhaps the most discussed line from the shareholder letter.
"We are working hard to close additional commercial agreements by year end, but since, these are long deliberate processes, we can't guarantee that we will do so."
In my career, I saw many, many deals get done at the end of the calendar year because principals (executives) had incentive to do so. Funny how the lawyers who spend weeks, months wrangling over contract language can quickly come to agreement when their superior tells them to "get it done". The issue here though is that immediate year end revenue is not really at stake to a great degree (I would assume) so what is the great incentive to "get it done" now? So LWLG's best card in the negotiation game is to have several potential partners in the works and legitimately cause some concern in the eyes of the other party that someone else gets to take their priority/mindshare if they choose to play too hard to get. Who gets to be "first" named?...and/or when things are announced, do we also find out who the partner/customer signed in May is close to simultaneously?
I think question is what is incentive for both LWLG and partner(s) to announce now. Is it mutually beneficial to both? Is it better to formally announce vs. the "cat being let out of the bag more ACCIDENTALLY due to simple logistics of actually moving forward with orders, prep to go through next steps for ultimate solution delivery....hey, it just becomes more difficult to keep everything under wraps at some point Is it better for contracting parties to control the narrative or not? Is there any incentive to get an announcement prior to year end vs. January/Feb from an accounting or marketing perspective? Etc., etc.
Seems like this company might be potentially a good acquisition target for LWLG?