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.
Games, Here is one question that points to a misunderstanding of confining the renewals to the TTA. In the 2010 MTA, under the TTA terms it reads:
"This agreement shall have a term of three (3) years from the closing date. This agreement may be renewed, at Apples sole option."
So the TTA didn't have to be renewed until August of 2013. Yet the first extension by Apple happened in February of 2012. YOURS and Watts contention that the renewal only applies to the TTA DOESNT MAKE SENSE IN LIGHT OF THE RENEWAL TERMS OF THE TTA.
Again this is just one question and one piece of evidence from the MTA that raises doubt to the credibility of this narrow interpretation of confining the renewal to the TTA. I have many other questions and evidence I don't have time to get into.
contention
Gamesc, thanks for the reply. I have some serious questions regarding Watts interpretation of the MTA. I don't have time to go into it right now, but will spell it out this weekend with information I pull from the MTA itself. And let me be clear, reading and deciphering the meaning of the MTA is a matter of interpretation.
Again, you are just twisting semantics.
The fact that the original license transaction has been renewed, extended is clearly in the MTA document. Look into it yourself.
You can figure it out yourself by looking into the MTA.
You challenged the use of my phrase "licensing agreement renewal" which non of your posts have really refuted in a convincing way. It was the need to clarify why this was needed that lead to the discussion about new IP.
So yes it's better to make tight arguments that don't waist bandwidth, if one is going to refute another.
My references have always been to the renewing of the licensing agreements. It is a given that the renewing is in reference to exclusive rights to the new IP. You just mistakingly have applied perpetuality to everything under the sun.
You are still playing with semantics. The fact is that a licensing renewal for perpetual rights to any new IP after the agreement in crucible is needed. The fact that this is spelled out in the TTA part of the MTA doesn't make a difference.
You are twisting semantics.
Maybe you should offer your garage to Steipp. Sounds like it would double their space.
For me, nothing has changed. The continued renewal of the licensing agreements, and patents being cranked out by Apple keeps me as a believer.
Ok. That's what I figured.
I think we all know what has changed.
So you know why I remain vested in lqmt. What is the rational for you staying invested?
Certainly understand the skepticism about Steipp.
But the investment community has grossly underestimated the value of Apples R&D, and current IP in relationship to liquidmetal. The patents do not point to Apple playing games with liquidmetal,
When Apple unleashes liquidmetal in their products, this will all come to light.
I own more shares than you and will continue to hold until Apple uses liquidmetal in their products. The inventor said Apple would invest 300 - 500 million and 3-5 years before this happened. The fact that Apple continues to crank out ground breaking patents on a regular bases 5 years after the licensing testifies to the R&D Apple is doing and the strong probability that they will use liquidmetal in their products just as the inventor predicted.
Those who contend that Apple only invested 20 million into liquidmetal have not factored in the hundreds of millions the inventor himself said would be invested by Apple into the R&D and patents of liquid metal. If 300 - 500 million are correct estimates of the money invested by Apple into the R&D and patents this would most likely lead to the conclusion that the Value of the IP would be worth much much more than this. I really don't think the 2-4 billion dollar estimates for the IP are as unicorn as some contend.
I also don't put much trust into those who try to minimize the relationship between Apple and Liquidmetal. Many don't realize that not everything filed with the SEC by liquidmetal was required to be made public in the last five years. Do the research yourself on this. Apples high priority on secrecy is no secret.
Bottom line is I am still invested in this stock because of Apple and the promise that it will bring to the value of liquidmetal IN APPLES TIME. I believe this true for the majority of those who have ownership into the 450 plus million shares.
Visser is only part of the equation for the cheap shares. You might also want to give thanks to CEO Steipp for his major dilution of the shares during his reign, and the lack of contracts and revenue produced under his business leadership.
Bottom line is he just sold his last 6 million shares for less (.08-.09) than what he paid for them (.010) which is a loss in my book of logic. This was my point that I stand on.
Go look at the MTA Yourself.
I believe the anti dilution applied only to the 18 million warrants that he never purchased. So show us how he is not taking a loss.
I believe he is taking a loss as he sells under 0.10 P/S.
Do you really think long investors are here because of anything other than Apple. Please get a clue!!!
I have to say, what is preposterous is any investor who thinks they understand the relationship between Apple and Liquidmetal to a degree that they can determine if revenues will come either directly or indirectly from Apple to Liquidmetal. Corning was on the verge of bankruptcy when Apple bailed them out. Who is to say they won't do the same thing for Liquidmetal. This game goes on. Don't point me back to all the posts on this board regarding revenue from Apple. I have read them all and disagree, since there are many missing pieces that we do not have answers to regarding LQMT/Apple relationship.
Maybe you are right. Any money to be made from this stock has already been made. While the day traders made a killing on this stock, the longs just got killed. Today the only ones still making money are the insiders. But this too will be short lived without any significant contracts and revenue. November-January will be telling for this company. I am still trying to decide if I pull the scraps I have left or go down with the ship.
The critique of gorgon is spot on. However, Not sure why you want to limit this medical device to the US market of 50,000 when the world wide market could potentially be over 1 million surgeries. CoNextions is aimed at a worldwide market not just US.
Exactly what I would say to those on this board who believe they know all the details regarding this relationship between Apple and Liquidmetal.
We don't really know that for sure. There are still many unanswered questions regarding this relationship between Apple and liquidmetal. We don't even know why the heck Apple feels compelled to renew the license every year if the have everything the need.
You have been talking about a R/S for over a year now. Sorry to disappoint but it's not going to happen. Steipp and his buddies have too many shares wrapped up into this company, and plan on a big pay day. Not going to happen by a R/S and then taking this private. TRY AGAIN!
Money is there. We just need to get back up to .010, which isn't far off from where we are at. One decent contract will get us there quickly.They still have millions to draw from in their equity line.
Please enlighten us all and explain the benefits of taking the company private, when the main source of income for this company has come from diluting investors.
What long time investor hasn't been burned?
1st quarter CC.
Give it up. Steipp confirmed in a CC Turin has nothing to do with our liquidmetal.
Is this really a challenge oh omniscience one. How about when you boasted about VPC being the guy who we needed as a manufacture for Liquidmetal-for starters.
RG
This is old news that was already proven on this board to have nothing to do with our Liquidmetal.
If you bought into LQMT for Turin you didn't do your homework.
No your original inquest was that a PMA was required and would take 5-10 years for approval. This was clearly proved faulty thinking by Jay!
So what you are saying is that the company doesn't know what they are doing by filing for a 501(k). I have to agree with Jay on this one--He presented the facts clearly.
I see the future getting brighter for this stock, and I am encouraged by the production contracts rolling in.
Why did Steipp ask for million dollar raise after 5 years? He doesn't see the share price going up any time soon, so he won't be making money off of his 6 million shares.
Right before he came on as consultant for Liquidmetal he had a million dollar job. His 300,000 a year isn't cutting it for him with Liquidmetal, since his shares are worth cr*p after 5 years of his management of the company. So now he wants to get paid on shareholders backs.
I have contacted management twice to confirm Steipp's pay raise, with no response. So I take their silence as affirmation that the board gave it to him despite investors advice to the contrary.
This says it all regarding managements performance:
Management Effectiveness
Return on Assets (ttm): -45.15%
Return on Equity (ttm): -71.61%
Like I have been saying, 1 out of 10 chance for success. And it looks like we are headed down full steam ahead. Bought my shares 4 years ago. Haven't and won't buy anymore.
Bloomberg miscalculated. The vote that declined the pay raise stands, as do the other issues voted upon.
Steipp never received his million dollar raise. It was voted down. From April SEC:
On April 23, 2015, the Company held its annual meeting of stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”). At the Annual Meeting, the Company’s stockholders (i) elected six directors to the Company’s board of directors, (ii) failed to adopt the Company’s 2015 Equity Incentive Plan, (iii) failed to grant advisory approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, and (iv) ratified the appointment of SingerLewak LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2015, each as more fully described below.
A hypothesis that doesn't make sense in light of the current reality!
Hello!