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.
Thanks for you response, Alan -
Regarding the timing and dilution points, I agree. But, I do also think it's possible that the climate of interest in 3D stocks may be trending higher, perhaps strongly, and that this may support Sigma. In other words, while Sigma's need for uplisting, for cash infusion purposes, probably can't be argued, it could be that other factors in support of uplisting and a healthier climate for a company in the 3D software space with value to add, strengthened, concurrent with Sigma's cash burn.
Time will tell. I don't claim to be certain, by any means, but I think there is a possibility that things are turning here.
Gary,
Will there be a step up in required filings (frequency), as a result of the uplisting? Also, would you expect some analyst coverage in the near future?
Alan,
This is a good point. Two questions please
1. Have you bought back in?
2. Do you know if there will be a step up in reporting requirements as a result of the uplisting to NASDAQ?
All - Did I miss something? Do we actually have a specific date on the RS?
Gary,
What are your thoughts regarding the uplisting? Do you figure they will receive their approvals from Nasdaq soon and that institutional investors will be game at $5 or more for purchasing the blocks of shares on offer?
All - Let's focus attention on what we know regarding the uplisting effort. Does anyone have a handle on the purpose of the amendment to the filing?
From a cursory read-through it looks like the estimated offering price, which seems to be referenced for example purposes, was reduced to $5.
Was the share number reduced?
Also, not sure if this is a change or just a provision I hadn't noticed before -- but what do you make of the separate class of shares for a large block buyer? (I think the threshold referenced is just beneath 5%). Would a large institutional buyer of the shares under the offering be purchasing shares that provide some additional rights?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Alan -
You might take a look at other deals and associated filings that Dawson James, the company that was listed in the S2 has been involved with.
Your point about obtaining a commitment to buy the shares from institutional investors, who then would be subject to holding the shares throughout the duration of a lock-up period, (I believe?), seems an important consideration.
The risk re the up-listing occurring seems to be two-fold 1. are all qualifications in place for a successful application and approval by the exchange? 2. Will institutional investors assume the risk of buying and holding the necessary blocks of shares for the lock-up period, (generally 180 days?), at a price that is worthwhile to make the deal a go. Otherwise, if things aren't coming together then management would reserve the right, as would the underwriter, Dawson James, to withdraw the offering?
I have no expertise here and am trying to work through the possibilities as you seem to be. I continue to see possible value, but also lots of question marks here with Sigma.
Appreciate everyones' thoughts.
All - Recalling that someone noted the addition of a Board Member indicated in the S-2, but I'm not finding the page in the S-2 with this information. If you could cite a page number or indicate the individual's name here, please?
Thank you
What is the "....point of distribution..." (?)
Thanks
Assuming progress IS being made I get the thought process behind these "informative" PR'S. Interesting to note that they are consistently entering a sentence into every PR that they believe they are able to produce "at or near" the point of distribution. That is what's kept me in this trade. These are not pump PR'S they increasingly look like they are trying to avoid that by talking about the industry until they feel they have enough meat on the bone to deliver company specific updates.
Kanya
Can you connect the dots to confirm...?
You're saying that GE purchased Concept Laser and that in the description of their process which is to be detailed and exhibited at a demonstration they are holding -- is very similar wording/description to that which Sigma uses for PrintRight. And you think the very strong likelihood is that Concept is using Sigma's technology. Is this your thinking?
Also, could Concept then be the European OEM?
Thanks
All - Might Additive Industries be the OEM signed for the long-term contract?
Thanks, Alan -
So, this particular market maker was associated with SGLB for a long period of time? And they aren't any longer? How to see which market makers are making a market in SGLB, currently?
Thank you
MDuffy/ All - What is ASCM?
What do you make of the second part of his response? "There is nothing specific about it with regards to the EN 9100."
PrintRite3D is a production tool which will help our customers.
There is nothing specific about it with regards to the EN 9100 certification.
Thank you
This sounds like a constructive idea. In addition to asking, generally, for more information, it would probably be a good idea to ask some specific questions such as a request for the list of current directors. Specific questions, so long as they are of a nature that shareholders are appropriately asking them, may yield faster results and be more likely to be obliged, vs a general plea for more info.
Driftin and All - If the last quarterly earnings filing and call was in mid November, shouldn't the projected date for the next release and call be a date in mid-February?
Thanks
Interesting thoughts here, Silver -
Do we know when the earnings announcement/ call will take place or only an estimated range of dates, at this point? (I recall seeing that the date of the last call in November was pushed back by a few days, though I'm not recalling the date that the call ultimately occurred).
Also wondering, do any of you folks who are regular commenters here participate in any of the earnings call Q & A's? There are a lot of good questions asked here and some insightful analysis.
Does anyone know if management plans to sell any of their shares in the planned S-1?
Jeff and Hawks, Thank you for the additional information - The S-1 includes much info of course... Is it your understanding based upon the provision below, excerpted from the S1 that the offering price will be at or around SGLB's trading price just prior to up-listing? That seems to be what was provided/ anticipated in the language below... Thank you
"If you purchase securities in this offering, you will experience immediate and substantial dilution in the net tangible book value of your shares of common stock.
The offering price of our units is substantially higher than the net tangible book value per share of our common stock. Therefore, if you purchase units in this offering, you will pay a price per unit that substantially exceeds our net tangible book value per share of common stock after this offering. Based on an assumed public offering price of $ per unit, which was the last reported price for our common stock on , 2016 as quoted by the OTCQB, you will experience immediate dilution of $ per share of common stock, representing the difference between our pro forma net tangible book value per share after giving effect to this offering and the offerin..."
For those of us who don't know the details on the "Early Adopter Program" would be great to know.
Thank you
Hawks,
If you are anyone here could explain what you know of the EAP program please... Details appreciated.
Thank you
What did Morris say?
Kanya -
Why would we expect EOS, after developing their own QA system to also purchase and embed Sigma's QA system?
I hear you re EOS competitors not waiting for EoS' system to be vetted. Do we know that GE and other manufacturers who have partnered with Sigma have not also been quietly developing their own QA systems that work differently from PrintRite just like EOS has?
Just wondering, with their billion dollar R&D budgets and growing commitments to AM if some of these huge players like GE might not have some of their own QA action, rather than tying all their good luck to Sigma's approach alone.
Thanks
Kanya - So, you're figuring Sigma's software will be added, is also to be embedded within EOS' printers. Their existing quality control provision as described in the article you posted, (excerpt below), sounds like a different approach to quality control. How do we know that they have not developed a viable alternative to Sigma's technology?
"They’ve introduced a component called “EOSTATE MeltPool”, which is a way to directly monitor literally every pixel of material being fused into a part as it happens inside the EOS machine.
It does this by taking up to ten images of the print bed every second and observing the brightness of the fused and fusing powder. From this information and their experience-based algorithms, EOS can instantly detect issues where incorrectly fused sections occurred. This enables operators to restart printing without wasting expensive material and get the job done faster."
It seems that the company ought to be able to raise some more meaningful money now that it has established the 6 million dollar contract and take things to the next level in terms of staffing and R&D and otherwise.
I was an investor in 3D Systems, briefly, a couple years ago, until I got a sense of things there and came to recognize a great deal of hype.
I know that we are not within quite the same context of market euphoria as we were a couple years ago with everything 3D on fire. Yet, there seems to be growing evidence that AM has a legitimate place, or will have, within significant areas of manufacturing.
I suppose my point is that with companies like DDD and SSYS and XONE still around and continuing to have market capitalizations far, far in excess of Sigma, (even at the $4 per share mark of earlier today, hundreds of millions and billions), if there's good reason to think that Sigma's products are beginning to take root in the market there ought to be the ability to raise multiple millions, either privately or through qualification for up-listing on NASDAQ.
Just my take -- but if any OEM is assigning a 6 million dollar value to Sigma's software in their machine -- I think I'd rather own Sigma at a higher price point than we are here, than I would 3D Systems or any of the publicly traded 3D machine manufacturers.
Does anyone with a longterm perspective on Sigma have any information in re to the directors and officers who appear to have come and gone from the company over time?
More specifically, following the example of larger companies, when officers of the company are separating from the company, (and I think board directors sometimes, as well), there is generally an announcement of the departure and some sort of brief explanation, at least, of the reasons behind the departure.
In the recent case of Thacker and O'Mara and it looks like there were others who preceded these guys if my research is accurate -- does MC issue any sort of statement or acknowledgement of people moving on from Sigma and if so is any explanation provided?
Are we to assume that these folks depart with stock shares and options?
I heard in the QA on one of the recent conference calls...I think it was the last call, (3rd Q 2016), an investor inquire about whether "Dr Dave" was still an advisor to the company and MC simply said that he is. Was he at one time an officer of the corporation, but no longer is?
Has anyone from management besides MC participated in recent conference calls?
The frequency and the reasons behind folks separating from the company could be important because it may reflect on insiders' value perceptions of the company and on MC's management approach.
What does ASCM stand for, please? And where do you see indication of their current involvement?
Thank you
Thanks for the additional response, Silver...
I did read over the listing requirements a couple of times last week. Applying the current circumstances of Sigma against the set of standards I found, frankly to be less than totally clear.
Some parts of the consideration are simple enough that it appears, if we were completing the application for Sigma we could check the appropriate box, at this time.
But what about Accounts Receivable? You say the OEM deal is contributing to AR, which sounds logical...But in terms of specifics, if we don't yet know how much of the up to 6 million dollar potential sale will be consummated, or the dates that the systems will be sold and invoiced, it seems we cannot know if Sigma qualifies tomorrow or next year. Or am I missing something?
I share with you an excitement about the OEM deal. But I don't understand how we can conclude as we stand today that the deal qualifies us now for satisfaction of the Accounts Receivable standard.
Meanwhile, from the standpoint of the reverse split and the biographical backgrounds of the new directors, etc, I can see that mgmt appears to be doing all it can to move toward up-listing the company's shares. But is it clear, currently that Sigma meets the AR standard?
Thanks
Hello Kanya and All,
I was an investor in Sigma a few years back at a far higher entry point and just last week, based upon news of the OEM order and the new board director hires, reestablished a position.
And while I do find the OEM order to be exciting or I wouldn't have reinvested at this time, here's what I don't understand and may hold me back from additional investment... Does anyone have a good explanation why none of the industrial behemoths including GE and Honeywell and others who have worked in close partnership with Sigma and thus ought to have a sense of the value of its technology, would not have made an offer to shareholders to purchase the company?
GE recently paid nearly 1.5 billion dollars for Arcam and a second company. And all this time they could have made an overture and scooped Sigma up for drastically less. So why not?
I'm not saying that the absence of a buyout offer thus far demonstrates that a buyout offer won't be forthcoming. But it does make one wonder -- with a market value of 5 million dollars last week -- why none of these industrial manufacturers with significant aeronautical divisions and with commitment to Additive Manufacturing of aeronautic parts would not make a run for Sigma, their tiny partner, if they see significant value to Sigma.
Anyway, I hope Sigma continues to appreciate in value and appreciate your thoughts.
Silver,
Silver - Thank you for your response --
Not sure that I'm following along here, completely.... 1. You're saying that the deal inked with the mystery OEM enables SGLB to qualify from the shareholder equity standpoint, because news of the deal has moved the stock and the co's market capitalization above whatever the shareholder equity minimum is?
2. "...Closing Price Alternative..." regarding the language you've excerpted below any one of the 3 conditions satisfies this other requirement? If so, which of the 3 conditions apply to SGLB?
SGLB clearly doesn't have the 6 million in average sales, over 3 years. They don't have the net tangible assets of 5 million, do they? So, is it (iii) -- the net tangible assets of 2 million plus the 3 year operating history? What about the "in addition to satisfying the other financial and liquidity requirements listed above..." ?
What are the additional financial and liquidity requirements?
Thank you
Risk,
With the recent deal win from the mystery OEM, SGLB will meet the shareholder equity requirement listed under the NASDAQ Capital Market initial listing category of 'Equity Standard'. With the exception of the current share price that is. And, as below options show, they meet the option of using the 'closing price' option once they clear and hold $3.00 per share.
All the best,
Silversmith
** To qualify under the closing price alternative, a company must have: (i) average annual revenues of $6 million for three years, or (ii) net tangible assets of $5 million, or (iii) net tangible assets of $2 million and a 3 year operating history, in addition to satisfying the other financial and liquidity requirements listed above.
As far as the "Up-listing" possibility -- there appear to be multiple tracks to be considered on an application for listing on NASDAQ, yet some of the tracks have conditions that SGLB would appear to be unable to meet.
Do any of you see a track -- a set of conditions -- per the listing requirements, upon which SGLB would appear to have a good chance of qualifying?
New to the site. Not new as a SGLB investor. I was, however, out of the stock for some time and returned today on the news of the OEM deal AND the announcement of the two new board directors.
Does anyone, per their research, know anything more than the biographical info released on the two new directors in the company's press release?
They both would appear to have reputable and backgrounds and potential skill-sets of value to Sigma. Your research and thoughts appreciated!
Thank you