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.
So, into the breach I go on this topic, Hawks.
The metal AM industry is still in the throws of determining if IPQA technology is the path they will take. Yet to come, assuming they go with IPQA, is determining the value-add price that is acceptable to both the industry and the IPQA providers. How much will the industry pay for the technology is yet to come.
An entire bank of printers can't compete cost-wise with conventional manufacturing if they have to use conventional post process quality inspection methods. From all that I have seen pretty much everyone who is anyone agrees with that statement. So unless a quality inspection process that does indeed compete in a time and cost manner is developed for metal AM, only the elite type of parts will be printed. Only those parts so specific to AM capabilities that they can command the cost, will be printed. Industry is simply not going to print parts in a manner that can't compete on cost.
So assuming that SGLB's PR3D is adopted, it will by default be an enabling technology. Therefore it will be a value-added technology; which is probably the most difficult kind of thing to put a price on. I know that myself and many others here have experience with the struggle to determine the proper value of a value-added product or service. It is an age-old problem.
Any entity considering a purchase of SGLB will certainly intend to capture all future profits from the acquisition. And we shouldn't expect those profits for ourselves if we agree to sell the company. But very simply, the price tag for SGLB should be its value-add for the current industry footprint, including that in the pipeline of demand for IPQA, plus a conventional premium for enabling those future profits.
So what is that purchase price tag? Not $40 million by a log shot. There are already an awful lot of metal AM machines in use. And with the adoption of IPQA they all become immediate opportunities. Wholers 2018 reported AM total spend of $6.1 billion in 2016, 30% of which was for metal AM. In 2017 there were 1,768 metal AM printers sold. In 2016 there were 983 metal AM printers sold. The industry expanded by $1.25 billion, most of it in metal printing, in 2017 to $7.35 billion. It is expected that just the metal AM portion of the industry will be nearly $10 billion in 5 years.
NIST themselves, along with several additional studies, state that their findings are that quality inspection cost for metal AM is 20% of the total spend. That means the current post process quality inspection spend will be $2 billion in 5 years.
So if IPQA becomes it, and the cost reduction for quality inspection due to IPQA technology is 50%, then we are looking at a metal IPQA spend of $1 billion in 5 years. If the metal AM industry adopts IPQA, and SGLB owns the patents for entry into IPQA technology, I would say SGLB at a value of $250 to 350 million immediately upon evidence of IPQA adoption is a reasonable price.
All the best,
Silversmith
Busy day today Hawks, but I'll get back to you on this.
All the best,
Silversmith
If they sell the company for $40 million, you call your lawyer. But They won't. Shareholders have to approve any sale.
All the best,
Silversmith
No. It hasn't taken off because the industry isn't choosing IPQA technology yet. But for the stock to be so completely left for dead, other beliefs and emotions are in play.
All the best,
Silversmith
Somewhere in here would be an interesting psychological study of human emotion in investing with SGLB. It is amazing to me. If you chart SGLB share price for the last five years, you can pretty much lay a ruler straight on the chart line. The chart is unbelievable straight in its downward slope. If you go by that, SGLB will be at $0.00 sometime in October this year. There is not the slightest shred of possible success baked into the cake for SGLB's share price. The current low price of $1.05 is equivalent to $0.0052, pre NASDAQ. This is in spite of the possibility that PR3D is the technology to get the metal AM through to production in a more cost effective way. This is so unbalanced that I can only guess that outright hatred and vengeance is being waged by the daily fringe selling.
But the patents will completely change the landscape. SGLB will be purchased, at some point, if the patents are granted, and the metal AM industry decides it will go with IPQA technology. All that cautionary SEC document wording saying that so-and-so company has deeper pockets, smarter and more numerous people, and more resources to compete, will go away if the patents are granted and IPQA is adopted. At that point, if you want to sell printers or print parts or develop your own IPQA tech, you will have to go through SGLB. That will be too valuable for the big boys to live without. SGLB will get bought out. About the only thing that can put a wrench in it is if the x-ray people develop a cheap, fast way to do post process inspection.
Absolutely amazing to me at this point.
All the best,
Silversmith
It occurred to me today that the initiation of IPQA in metal AM, and the relying on printed parts certification from IPQA, solely, to indicate conformance and quality, will be a gigantic and risky step for industry. I expect that whomever selects to go with IPQA on its own, will do so very quietly indeed. I don't expect fireworks and trumpets announcing the first uses of PR3D in production.
All the best,
Silversmith
The mid-month dissemination date for the short interest position is due out tomorrow. I suspect we will see our current weakness to be a result of increased shorting. At the moment it works for me. I am buying.
All the best,
Silversmith
Outstanding piece of work here. Congratulations SGLB on an exceptional body of work.
SGLB is going to establish closed loop control. They have already showed that TED is directly correlated with actual melt-pool physical parameters. They are in pursuit of nailing down the ability to determine physical, mechanical attributes of the welded metal(tensile strength, elongation etc). PR3D is becoming a powerhouse.
Good job SGLB.
All the best,
Silversmith
A dollar a share is nothing more than their basis for the shares. The underwriter fees are nothing more than the cost of the services rendered. If no other value, of any kind at all, is ascribed to SGLB, the shares should properly go down to the $1.21 range. That is the level that the deal has assigned to the market cap if based solely on that one transaction. It is the 1 million shares potential if the preferred are fully converted, the 750,000 shares potential from the warrants, and the 80,000 shares potential from the underwriter warrants. Then, on the money side, SGLB proceeds are $1 million from the preferred, $1.47 per share for the warrants, and $1.47 per share for the underwriter warrants. That sets the deal at $1.21 per share.
All the best,
Silversmith
Now what we need is for a few savvy investors to take a position that sets the bar for SGLB common pricing. Lord knows the historical sky-is-falling, fear-monger, flippers and flakes we have had so far in this endeavor will not do it.
All the best,
Silversmith
Yea Baby. Now we are starting to behave like a company that sees the way forward. I remember the nay-sayers when I posted that preferred shares paying 10% yield would be sold at a thousand bucks a pop. Lo and behold, here they are. Nice job SGLB. This is very nice for the company and the shareholders. Between this, and what I heard on the call today, I believe it is time to be bullish on SGLB. Go SGLB.
All the best,
Silversmith
The negativity on the board is beginning to sound stale.
I listened to the call. I now think pretty strongly that SGLB is going to be successful. I think SGLB is in a pretty good place for a startup, in a whole new realm of manufacturing, up against gigantic history for quality inspection. I am as convinced as ever that SGLB will turn out to be a good investment.
All the best,
Silversmith
Thanks for that Jackle. The sophistication and power of the data coming from PR3D is getting serious. I am amazed at how perfectly linked TED is to changes in the printer beam energy. It is about as finely correlated as you could get. Part layer-density is easily identified with TED. I really do see no other in-process technology putting out such refined data capabilities as PR3D. TED has definitely been a major advancement.
This is looking better and better.
All the best,
Silversmith
Sensational. No less than NIST itself is using PR3D's TED technology to provide IPQA for a vital aspect of metal AM's look into re-use of powder. Way to go SGLB.
All the best,
Silversmith
I haven't been following too closely lately, but it looks like institutionals UBS increased their position with SGLB, and United Capital established an initial position with SGLB about ten days ago.
There is a very much larger amount of new activity with the evolution of metal AM over the last quarter. One thing for sure, metal AM is going to heavily change society's manufacturing landscape and effectiveness in our lifetime. There are some things being done that are revolutionary in manufacturing, and it is just getting started.
SGLB is either going to soar, or crash and burn; maybe both. I don't see a middle ground position for the company. Wholers stated that they see 90% of AM startups failing. Will SGLB be in that 10%, or in that 90%? Who knows. It an go either way.
All the best,
Silversmith
It looks to me like we are going to get this one tal. The amendments were made to satisfy the examiner's request for specific wording changes to meet patent protocol for making a clean document, not for areas where SGLB might have breached into existing public knowledge or existing patents. It looks to me that the end results will be far and away more defensible for SGLB if a fight has to take place to defend the patent.
All the best,
Silversmith
I don't know about ya'll, but when I read through the patent rehash and amendments with the USPO and SGLB, it surely looks to me like SGLB will be getting a much better patent. The amendments seem to be very specific. It looks to me like SGLB is aiming for a lock on the patent rights for closed loop. It looks to me as though the only way around the patent is to develop a whole new way of doing IPQA. I mean how do you get around a statement that says sensors follow a path, monitor the melt-pool and provide function to make changes to the printer in such a manner as to alter the melt-pool? The sweeping amendments seem to be so encompassing that they are clearing out whole groups of USPO examiner exceptions/issues at one fell swoop. The examiner themselves even states that it looks good to go for issuance.
I think this will be a very big deal for SGLB.
All the best,
Silversmith
Hawks,
When they talk about printed part density, they are inherently talking about porosity. The higher the porosity, the lower the part density. The lower the porosity, the higher the part density. Porosity is one of the things the AM industry needs IPQA to be able to see.
All the best,
Silversmith
Hawks,
Not including the preferred shares, if all shares that could possibly be issued in any way, including those associated with or earmarked for the warrants, were issued, along with the already issued shares that we investors own, the grand total would be 15 million shares.
All the best,
Silversmith
Now I see what you were meaning Capt.
All the best,
Silversmith
It is 15 million authorized, Capt.
All the best,
Silversmith
wick,
I think you should read your own post material again, very carefully.
GE is very specifically not calling this effort 'in-process' inspection and analysis. And they specifically do not say it involves spectral and acoustic sensing. And they specifically do not claim that it monitors the melt-pool. And when they do mention melt-pool, they state that it will be a future event with no indication that it will be GE's melt-pool monitoring. And they specifically do not say they are inferring material characteristic data. They do specifically say they are monitoring powder bed behavior and the defects that result from powder bed inconsistencies. It looks to me that they are being pretty careful about not crossing the line into the patent pending ownership tech ability of SGLB. It looks to me that they have left room for SGLB's tech and its abilities, along side of the powder bed analysis.
I think SGLB's patents are broad enough and deep enough that if you want to perform IPQA you have to go through SGLB. Coming from the likes of the GE gorilla, I actually take heart from the wording in their statements.
All the best,
Silversmith
I agree with Visionary that a pretty impressive base has been laid by SGLB. The pieces are probably in place for bringing large success to SGLB, and enabling the start of production operations in metal AM. Now we just need corporations to make the decision to start production with PR3D.
I have been visiting/trolling many of the 'tech tips' type of web sites for engineers. One thing that is clear to me is that at the production-floor level of things, engineers and machine operators have no idea about PR3D. They do not know it exists. There are many, many instances of engineers stating that print runs are entirely simply load/print, then inspect. They have heard of rumors of people working on things like real-time in-process inspection. But so far, the only tools they have on the production floor is web camera based viewing of the printer chamber, and work-flow/SPC software. And they all say that CT scan costs are way more expensive than the cost of the actual part they print. And way time consuming too. It seams clear to me that those in the know about IPQA, SGLB and PR3D are only the very leading edge engineers working out of 'innovation and development' teams. The tech seems to be stuck at a level of awareness midway between the C suite and the production floor. That is confirmed by what Rice said about SGLB wanting to get PR3D into the hands of those more 'hungry' to actually use it.
The release of 3.02 looks to be a fairly significant release to me. The TED metric will be very much more effective at smoothing the transition between the need for pre-print part design and process parameter determinations for a successful print, on the front end, and establishing trust and linkage in the post print destructive test data correlating with PR3D in process data. This should help make PR3D more useful for sure in that it will seem less like a magic black box spitting out data.
If Cola and gang keep messing around, they just might get this thing to go. Move it to the board level, show a high level of correlation to the fundamental metal quality parameters that destructive testing yields, make it work in parallel for multiple lasers, and knock the socks off of cost comparisons with CT, and this thing will go big.
But another thing that is apparent in DD, is the large number of small entities and individuals that are kicking around the ideas of in-situ sensor-based in-process inspection for AM. So far it is wide open to anyone wishing to dabble in it. But the whole thing will get shut down, or go through SGLB, when the patents are awarded. The GE's and Doctor Lab Rat's of the world won't be able to play in that sandbox, without SGLB's permission, any longer when the patents get awarded.
All the best,
Silversmith
You only need go back a short time ago, to 3DSIM, to see how mistaken that thinking is.
All the best,
Silversmith
makin,
Rice, SGLB's interim CEO has talked about renewing relations with GEA. SGLB doesn't appear to have executed business efforts very well with GEA. No one here likely thinks that SGLB's PR3D is being utilized by GEA at this time.
On the other hand, Pratt in fact has purchased the latest version of PR3D for evaluation. And make no mistake about it, Pratt is jumping head first into metal AM. I expect Pratt will probably be the first USA based revenue stream for SGLB. Pratt doesn't care what anyone else is doing with metal AM. They are doing it no matter what.
But we have no firm evidence of PR3D being in production anywhere in the world at the moment. None the less, I am with you all the way that SGLB will be purchased before long if things keep going forward with IPQA for metal AM. The patents and potential patents alone will pretty much guarantee it.
All the best,
Silversmith
With patents in hand, barring all others from using the tech without paying SGLB for it, absolutely SGLB can compete with EOS and GEA, and all others.
All the best,
Silversmith
There is a Honeywell Aerospace Divisional campus not far from me. I sometimes work at the site, and have talked to two guys there recently. They are not directly team members of the main Arizona aerospace plant, but are pulled in for AM evaluation studies sometimes. They did not name SGLB specifically, in fact would not name any specific IPQA tech, but they both said that real-time in-process inspection will turn out to be a reality in production metal AM. They said it is too important and too enabling for it not to be perfected, to be fully fleshed out. There is still a fair amount of sausage making to happen first yet though. Apparently an enormous amount of effort has been spent on evaluating and enhancing printers and powders and part design, and not nearly so much for really focusing on hard-core in-process characterizations and abilities. We are likely getting close though. I predict that the USA will be the very last to incorporate IPQA. The USA will be too cautious and slow. I predict it will be Asia and Europe leading the way to the first SGLB production use revenue streams.
With probable patent awards coming, movement of PR3D to the board level, development of multi laser capabilities, actionable real-time function, the additions and continued development of Contour and Analytics, probable true closed loop down the road, and the absolute need for IPQA in the industry, I think SGLB will win a large amount of the IPQA business over time. We should be getting close to the inaugural production revenue streams.
All the best,
Silversmith
Based upon the changes instituted in GAAP, below, we might see additional discussion of SGLB's intent with capital raises for the immediate future. Or not. If they are deemed solvent enough, we likely won't hear much about it.
All the best,
Silversmith
Recall that generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, require financial statements to be prepared under the assumption that the business will remain a “going concern.” That is, remain in operation for the foreseeable future without the need or intent to liquidate. The foreseeable future has typically been taken to mean at least 12 months from the date of the financial statements.
Before the new accounting rule took effect, it was up to the auditor to decide privately after consulting with management whether or not the going concern standard had been met for a given period. The new rule, in the form of a standards update, known as FASB ASU2014-15, makes the two following important changes:
1.It places the initial evaluation and disclosure responsibility for the going concern test on management. The auditor then determines the reasonableness of management’s assumptions and the adequacy of any related disclosures; and
2.It extends the time frame of the test from one year following the date of the financial statements to one year following the date of their issuance
The going concern test that management must first undertake, and that the auditors must evaluate, involves assessing whether or not there is “substantial doubt” as to whether or not a company can remain in operation. From the new rule:
“
“Substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern exists when conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that is it probable that the entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued…”
As part of the rule, if additional capital (or another other corrective action, such as an asset sale) is required to alleviate substantial doubt and to allow the business to remain a going concern, then significant additional disclosures are required. Specifically, management must discuss the conditions and events that caused substantial doubt to arise as well as describe in detail why the corrective plan will be sufficient to alleviate the substantial doubt. Management and auditors also must consider the likelihood of successfully executing that plan and whether or not it will in fact be sufficient to alleviate substantial doubt.
The intro page is looking good so far. Nice job.
All the best,
Silversmith
Another institutional on board. And Perritt increased their position by 193.75%.
Heading in the right direction for soaking up shares. If it continues, the runs will go harder and faster.
All the best,
Silversmith
I have reviewed my own position here. I will be voting FOR on the proposal to authorize a share count increase. And I will be adding shares at these lows. With the likelihood of the current batch of patents being reviewed for granting, actually being granted, the question of who are the OEMs and end users going to go with if they want to do IPQA for printing becomes a bit of a game changer. Who would they be able to turn to for IPQA functions? Pretty much no one other than SGLB. The end users will at some point focus on wringing out the costs of metal AM printing. If PR3D works as advertised, and can continue to evolve with more and more capability, then it will be utilized. In reading between the lines of Rice's recent comments, I believe that Cola is hell bent on completing the first true closed loop feedback IPQA system. That would likely be a game changer as well. They may not be using the EOS printer for contract manufacturing work, but you can be sure they are using it for improving PR3D.
All the best,
Silversmith
LOL. I remember when there were no institutional investors, we had a bazillion shares outstanding, and we traded on the OTC. The next step in the process is getting the metal AM industry to adopt in-process technology. All will almost certainly end well at that point.
All the best,
Silversmith
I'm a hundred percent in agreement with you Capt. Most of the lead-in page needs to go away. Thanks for stepping up.
All the best,
Silversmith
Looks like Mr. Rice is presenting SGLB at more places than we knew about. NobleCon14 has created a conflicting schedule with the below investment club. They are having to reschedule.
All the best,
Silversmith
Description
Event Cancellation Notice: The South Florida Stock & Bond Club Regrets To Inform You That The Sigma Labs Event That Was To Be Held On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 Has Been Cancelled.
As happens from time to time, a number of other investor dinners are taking place on the night we were due to hold our event. Based on a lack of RSVP’s we have decided to reschedule the Sigma Labs Event for another date when club members have broader availability.
Please note you should have received a special invitation to NobleCon14 this morning and we hope to see you there. Sigma Labs In. will be presenting at NobleCon14 January 30th at 11:00 AM Eastern for those attending members who have interest.
Warm regards,
Scott Gordon, President
About Sigma Labs Inc:
Sigma Labs Inc. develops and engineers advanced, in-process, non-destructive quality inspection systems for commercial firms worldwide seeking productive solutions for metal-based additive manufacturing or 3D printing, and other advanced manufacturing technologies. Sigma has a proud Los Alamos legacy and a future rooted in bringing advanced materials and processing solutions to clients worldwide. It was founded in 2005 by high-level scientists from the world-renowned Los Alamos National Lab. The company went public in 2010 with the commercialization of the breakthrough PrintRite3D® system. Just as Los Alamos helped shape the modern world in the 20th century, Sigma Labs is bringing to market advanced manufacturing, materials and process monitoring technologies that will serve our clients in many ways. Our team of leading scientists and engineers from Los Alamos National Laboratory have over 100 years of combined industrial R&D experience. We develop manufacturing and materials technologies and R&D solutions for first-tier integrators like Boeing, GE Aviation, Honeywell Aerospace, and other commercial firms around the globe. Sigma Labs has current contracts with Federal Government and private industry clients to develop technologies from their conception through the design, building, and testing of prototype systems by integrating sensing, software, materials, and manufacturing technology risk-reduction solutions.
Recent Corporate Highlights
•Sigma Labs Awarded Contract with Laser Zentrum Nord GmbH For PrintRite 3D® to Certify its IPQA® Methodology for Serial Production
•Sigma Labs And 3DSIM Release Simulation Capability to Model Thermal Sensors for Metal Additive Manufacturing Processes
•Sigma Labs Cloud-Based PrintRite3D INSPECT Software Version 2.0 Delivered to Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB
•Sigma Labs Delivers Cloud-Based PrintRite3D INSPECT Software Version 2.0 To Woodward Inc.
•Sigma Labs Signs New Manufacturer's Representative for Sales of Contract Printing and Additive Manufacturing Services
•Sigma Labs, Inc. Announces Publication of Multi-Sensor Quality Inference and Control Patent for Additive Manufacturing Processes
•Sigma Labs, Inc. Announces Alliance with OXYS Corporation of Cambridge, MA To Bring Industrie 4.0 Solutions To Additive Manufacturing And The Broader Digital Enterprise
Continued trading, well into after market hours, at the highs of the day do not support your idea of HFTs, awareness, or even HFB runs.
So what's going on?
Beats the hell out of me.
With CAT and others (GE not included) reporting very nice numbers from the industrial sector, maybe there is a beginning rotation into the sector. But what you are guessing it is, is what it isn't.
All the best,
Silversmith
I sure wish SGLB would give me 5814 shares. Lol
All the best,
Silversmith
Nothing happens to the warrants. They will likely seek out a new steady state price level, but they will maintain their maturity date and associated option of purchasing a share at the strike price. SGLB would have to restate the strike price in a follow up prospectus if they chose to make a relief giving change to the warrant holders.
One thing that will likely happen, possibly by bolting on revenue through the right kind of acquisitions, after the upcoming increase in authorized shares is voted approved, but more certainly through winning contracts, with the appearance of more contracts coming, is that the company will be given a market cap somewhere around the 130 to 150 million dollar level by the street. Then it will sit there churning, according to the daily background noise, for a long time until it turns the 3rd corner.
The question is, given they turn the first two corners, what will the issued share count be if they use any future new authorized shares for acquisitions. This will tell you what the share price should be. This will tell you how much averaging down you must do to make good on the investment prior to the 3rd corner turn.
All the best,
Silversmith
I finally got the Sintavia document to download so I could post a section here. The format is all screwed up, but here it is. You can get it from the Sintavia site itself if you want it.
All the best,
Silversmith
?QM Meltpooldetection capability ?Toolpath pattern issues ?Gross geometric overhangs ?Overexposure / underexposure ?Thin / thick powder layer ?Support delamination ?Lack of fusion QM Meltpoolcorrelation dependent on toolpath strategy ?False positive ?Data noise ?Voids > 350µm (5 x RES) ?Reconstructed data is similar ?QM Meltpool should not be substituted for a CT scan
Benefits of QM Meltpool
?R&D, R&D, R&D….. ?Quantitative map of energy absorption ?Examination of exposed layers in-situ ?Capability to calibrate and possibly validate computational models ?Potential to reduce downstream CT scans ?Process correlation of toolpath strategy to good material properties ?Very strong diagnosis tool ?Simultaneous in-situ data collection ?Quality record
CONCLUSIONS
2017 © Sintavia, LLC
Good stuff Hawks. The FDA is drinking the AM Kool-Aid. Now SGLB has to win its share of the IPQA market.
All the best,
Silversmith
I just looked at a Sintavia paper that compared Concept Laser's QM Meltpool with CT scan. The conclusion was that QM Meltpool should not be used in place of CT scan; Sintavia's conclusion, not mine, though I agreed.
Trumpf and Sintavia have a partnership agreement for Trumpf's printer evaluations. Along with Honeywell, Sintavia surely knows about SGLB and PR3D. Sintavia is earmarking money for building out the new Hollywood, FL Additive Manufacturing site. It will likely be a bit before printers are installed in any volume. I think Sintavia could be a test for whether PR3D is being considered for IPQA. I sure would like to see an update out of Honeywell about PR3D as a tool in their suite of printing process control. A head to head test between PR3D and Meltpool would be interesting.
All the best,
Silversmith