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.
"anybody seen anything about all this diluting I've been reading about on here" You may see it this quarter. Driftin's numbers from post 42740 appear to be correct. At a burn rate of $900,000 a quarter unless you see significant orders this quarter you are going to have dilution.
If I were a handicapper accepting wagers on the future stock price of SGLB on June 15 I would set the odds of the price being in the very low $3. high $2 range at 80% and at the plus $6 range at 20% assuming announcement of major orders/contracts. Ladies and gentlemen place your bets.
Yawn.
Silver. There are a couple of other differences that probably should be noted. It's a commercially available system (unlike Contour) and customers are actually buying it. How unique is that?
"Alan, I do not recall EVER having said that you had your "head in the sand" so I am a bit confused as to why you say " this time" to me." You are quite right Driftin and I apologize. That remark was uncalled for. I get frustrated however reading all the justifications here that are based on little but hopes and dreams with no concrete evidence that any of it is ever going to come to pass. I'm curious Driftin from your perspective how much longer do we go before you begin to doubt the marketability of Printrite? We're at the 20 month mark. Is 24 months reasonable, 30 months? Just when does this "market isn't ready" excuse wear thin? My take is that the window is closing very rapidly for SGLB 6to prove itself as a viable profitable contender. If management is forced to issue additional shares without significant orders in hand the stock is going to sink below $2.00 and it may not be able to recover. Time is rapidly running out.
Driftin: Once again we disagree. I think it is you who has his head in the sand this time. "Share the concrete information that would justifiably cast doubt on Sigma's position in the industry. " I know that it is an insignificant point to the cheerleading squad here that just wants facts but how about the fact that a product commercially released some 20 months ago has yet to generate a single significant order despite being in testing/evaluation in two dozen locations? Now there's a fact that all can chew on and rationalize away as truly insignificant.
"I would venture to say that most of the fringe, loose, and easily scared past shareholders have been purged in the last five weeks." You are likely correct assuming a large order or contract is forthcoming within the next couple weeks. If not, you are going to see this back in the $2.00 range.
Stock price today is 1/3 less than it was a month and a half ago yet there is celebration in the streets. If it ever gets back to par I suspect we'll have a real celebration.
Jackie. As I stated in my post there are really two different ways to view the number of evaluation systems that have now been placed in a wide variety of environments. The first is your interpretation that believes this indicates a strong interest in the software and bodes well for future orders. With over 25 different sites (either with software, been provided quotes, or signed NDA's) it's hard to imagine some significant orders are not on the horizon. You are probably correct in this assumption. On the other hand I find it discouraging that after being commercially available for 20 months now SGLB has only been successful in placing one-off orders for products. I am aware of all the rhetoric about this being early in the cycle and so on, but this still makes me uncomfortable that perhaps their solution is not quite as great as most here seem to believe. It is far easier to get a corporation to accept a system for evaluation, with little, if any investment then to get them to lay their money on the line and utilize the software in an operational environment. The next six months should tell the story.
Duffy: I think you are partially correct about Mark's thinking. The very definite impression I got was that Mark visualized a set of criteria that was necessary to uplist to a major exchange. He saw getting the share price above $4.00 as the first step, an independent Board as a second step and he honestly believed that the necessary sales, share holder equity, etc. would follow before too long. I got the impression that he was totally surprised by the drop in share price and I think believed that the share price would hold up in the same relative range as it was prior to the reverse split until the necessary sales/equity requirements were achieved. In a sense I can forgive him for being naive about this but O'Mara, of all people, should have immediately realized what would happen to the share price and put a stop to it. Business decisions like this are why I think Mark would be happier, and the company far better off were he in a position that was exclusively focused on enhancing the technology.
I believe a totally new independent board is required with a mix of strong business management and engineering skills that is dedicated to enhancing shareholder value as a first priority. I believe that Mark needs to step aside as the CEO and become the Chief Technology Officer and they need to bring on a CEO with a success record in the management of technology startups to be the CEO. I think Mark should retain his Board seat and that the new CEO should obviously be a board member as well. All wishful thinking, I know, but that's what Ithink it will take to make SGLB a long term profit generating business.
Kanya: Of course I was not happy with the results of the meeting. That's why I immediately disposed of the shares I owned. I attended the meeting because it became apparent that no one else was going to be able to attend and I am local. I believe Mark and the entire Board, no matter how skilled in engineering, to be incompetent business managers. I believe that they are more focused on having others admire their engineering skills than they are in making money for their shareholders. The whole operation in my opinion is operated more as a "hobby technology club" than as a business. When asked what Ron Fischer's accomplishments were since being employed last summer Mark proudly pointed to the list of new demonstration agreements (all non-revenue). It's very clear that like a portrait painter or a skilled musician he gets his reward from others admiring his work rather than the income it produces. As a shareholder I'm simply not interested in a company that is operated in this manner.
Professor: No this is one of several additional questions I should have asked. I felt somewhat awkward being the only questioner grilling Mark and I cut it short before I should have probably. My own take is that they are up to about 12 employees plus a couple consultants by my count. Folks like Ron Fischer and Mark don't come cheap and with no orders as yet they may have felt insecure without a backup. If they do have to issue shares before receiving significant orders that will certainly be the final kiss of death.
Thacker announced the vote results but did not divulge the percentage for or against. It was obvious from the beginning that all had passed.
Thanks very much Dad. I hope that I have "sanitized it sufficiently to pass muster:
Here is the new version:
Board Meeting. I'm back, but have some other obligations so this is going to be very short. Attendance at meeting (approximately 20 people 10 of which were SGLB employees, another 8 or so who were obvious friends/business associates of Thacker/Mark) one other independent lady and myself. The Board actions were passed quickly with no discussion permitted until the question and answer session. I'm really glad that they supplied copies of the presentation on the web site. I tried to take detailled notes but wasn't sure I caught everything. The main takeaway from the presentation is lots of new evaluation systems out but no sales as yet. Also the attorneys have apparently done some major work to strengthen the patent situation.
When Mark asked for questions, I was the only one asking and I got a number of dirty looks from the audience for being so audacious. My primary concern was two-fold:
1. The timing of the reverse split and
2. Thacker being recognized as an independent board member
I asked Mark what his plan was when he implemented the reverse split and I was so dumbfounded by his answer II had to ask again to be sure I understood correctly. He said that there were a number of requirements for being listed on the Nasdaq Exchange: Share price, board composition, sales, shareholder equity, etc. He saw the reverse split as step 1. The share price was between a nickle and six cents so a 100 to one reverse split made it $5-$6. Step 2. Certify the Board as independent. Step 3 Achieve the sales and shareholder equity sufficient to qualify. I asked again "You mean that you took this action without any pending sales or contracts and he said yes. I asked didn't you think that this would have an adverse effect on the share price and he replied that the share price was unfortunate, but that he had no control over how the market viewed this action. I simply could not believe my ears.
I pushed pretty hard on Thacker being recognized as independent given his 20 year history with SGLB and it's predecessors. Their attorney basically said that Nasdaq rules allow a board member to be declared independent if the Board believes him to be so. I expressed my strong disagreement with this approach and inquired why they have not recruited some true independent members who would pay more attention to shareholder values. The answer was that it is very difficult to recruit board members for small companies but they would look into it. Bottom line the Board is not going to change. Further I got the distinct impression that the Board consists of Mark and Mark alone and that Thacker and O'Mara rubber stamp everything that is put before them. Neither said a single word during the discussion and question session.
Bottom line. This is my interpretation of the meeting results (Had some of the stocks strong proponents been present you may have gotten a very different read). They would be very enthused about all the new test sites and be predicting additional sales as a result.
Before I even wrote this report I dumped the 100 shares I bought yesterday. I believe Mark, Thatcher, and O'Mara to be totally clueless business people and I don't forsee a bright future. For those of you who are not totally smitten with the company, I can't urge you strongly enough to get involved. .........to let Mark, Thacker, and O'Mara know in no uncertain terms your concerns. You need to plan now to attend the annual meeting next year and to be extremely vocal on the conference call.
My apologies to Driftin. I don't own a suitable video camera, and given the looks I received just from my comments would have been lynched had I used one.
A final tidbit from the meeting. I asked Mark about the contributions that Ron Fischer had made to sales since being employed last summer at a very hefty salary, plus options and incentives galore. His response was that Ron's contributions were reflected in the number of new evaluation agreements that have been put in place and that are pending. I had asked earlier if any of these agreements had placed the PrintRite software (and they are all for PrintRite) at market prices with the evaluators and the answer was no that these systems were all in exchange for feedback and for further customer evaluation. I guess there are two ways to view this: 1. With so much additional interest and the placement in so many different environments the chances for new sales increase dramatically. 2. The glass half empty view might be that this is a commercially available product on the market for many months now with no one willing to pay full price except for one-off installations. Take your pick of how you personally view it.
Really?That's certainly strange. I recall one other question about hiring a CFO. Your questions must have been asked after I left at the end of the meeting.
Got it. Thank you
Hi Ted: Thanks for the heads up. I have looked on the web site and on their press releases for the annual meeting notice and for some reason can't find it. I want to be sure of the start time and would like to review what they say about shareholders. I was aware that I couldn't vote (my 100 shares wouldn't make a difference anyway). I'll be royally pissed however if they don't allow me to attend the meeting. I am a shareholder and will take my Ameritrade transaction record to prove it. Can you (or anyone ) give me a specific refence to the meeti9ng announcement? Thanks
Witty never called me back, so I called again. When I inquired whether I could attend he stammered that he really didn't know, that some companies allowed it and some did not. I told him that I was directed to him to ask permission. I still didn't get an affirmative answer. Since I don't want to drive all the way to Santa Fe only to be turned away at the door I bought 100 shares so that I am now 100% legitimate. I'm going, and I'll do my best to represent you and everyone else. I believe I know most of the issues but if you have a burning question that has not been talked about here let me know and I'll try to get an answer. I'm not going to push my luck by asking to record or film but I'll take as good notes as I can. I know where the offices are. Am I correct that the meeting begins at 10:00 AM Mountain time?
Thank you. I called SGLB to ask if I would be permitted to attend the meeting as a non-shareholder (I was interested in investing, etc......all of which is true). They told me they couldn't answer my question and referred me to Witty. I called and he was not available. When/if he calls back I'll ask again. If he says no, I'll inquire about the proxy approach. I'll let you know either way.
Driftin:
Great response and difficult to see how Witty could really be dense about "recent decisions". Your followup was excellent. I'm really tempted, since no one else appears to be going to try and sit in the meeting tomorrow. I'm not sure they will let me in, as I recall last time they asked attendees to sign in with their name and share count. Someone needs to be present to see what they have to say for themselves (in an unfiltered manner).
Great post professor, and it is no surprise that I am in total agreement.
You say that you are going to hold until they succeed or fail. If the orders roll in soon everyone can celebrate and reap their hard earned rewards. If they fail, after licking their wounds and cursing Mark Cola under their breath, investors can move on to hopefully greener investment pastures.
There is a third outcome for the stock however that in my opinion is more likely than either a grand success or simply going out of business and that is to simply bump along the bottom as a bit player in the industry. The three concerns you cite at the conclusion of your post: evidence of industry acceptance, need for better management, and an independent board may not be changing any time soon. Despite the proponents claim that SGLB is just ahead of it's time and that is all that is holding sales in check, I think it is incredibly naive to think that SGLB's major competitors with thousands of times the resources as SGLB are not working on their own solutions. When the market is ready for an IPQA solution for mass production I would expect there will be countless competitors. Mark has a good thing going with SGLB and I would not expect to see him leave any time in the near future. Despite his acclaimed technical prowess he has proven to be a very poor businessman and that is not likely to change. As to the independent board hopes, SGLB has clearly signaled that they intend to declare Thacker as an independent member and thus avoid the need to bring in any outsiders. With the current stock price, acceptance by any major exchange seems a long ways in the future. Given this scenario, should it come to pass, investors will have dead investment money on their hands for perhaps years, before throwing in the towel. Painful as it always is it's often better to exit and deploy your funds productivly elsewhere than watch them wither away in a company that is consistently struggling. If industry acceptance comes tomorrow and the orders roll in then your decision is an easy one. If industry acceptance remains a question mark it's clear to me that the management situation and the Board composition is not going to undergo much change. Your decision then becomes more difficult.
As I've stated a few times here, I am not currently a shareholder and I'm not certain that they would even admit me to the meeting. Add to that the fact that their office is an hour's drive away each way. If someone wants to contact SGLB and inquire if a non-shareholder may attend the meeting if he/she is equipped with a proxy to represent and vote on behalf of a registered shareholder I'll consider attending providing the shareholder (preferably a large shareholder) gets me a signed proxy in time to do so. I'm doing this as a courtesy, so if this is not something that a majority here is in favor of, I'll gladly stay home.
Don't think so. You may choose to interpret the wording as you please. I find it a bit unusual given all the "lockstep" claptrap we have been subjected to.
The following statement regarding potential competition to SGLB is from the recent 10K. I'm certainly aware that company's tend to list every potenial obstacle to their eventual success for fear of being sued by omitting something , no matter how remote the possibility. However I do find it interesting that the first two potential competitors listed are GE Aviation and Honeywell Aerospace (not GE and Honeywell in general, but the specific divisions they have been participating in joint ventures with). It's certainly plausable that their attorney's made them include these two entities just to cover all the bases.
Anyone else have any thoughts on the wording?
We anticipate some of our principal competitors in the United States will include AM End Users, such as GE Aviation, Honeywell Aerospace, Schlumberger, Rolls-Royce PLC, Pratt & Whitney; AM OEM equipment manufacturers, such as EOS, Concept Lasers and SLM; third party solution providers like Stratonics Inc., IMPACT Engineering, Inc, Computer Weld Technology, Inc. and Vibrant Corporation that specialize in designing and manufacturing automated welding equipment and quality control monitoring devices used in industrial applications, as well as Aerojet Ordnance, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Alliant Techsystems Inc. and Energetic Materials and Processes, Inc., both of which are businesses focused on developing materials technology solutions in the advanced munitions market; and Straumann AG, BioMet 3I, Keystone Dental, HiOssen Dental, and companies that specialize in developing dental implants that heal rapidly. Most of these competitors have significantly greater research and development capabilities than we do, as well as substantially more sales, marketing and financial and managerial resources. These entities represent significant competition for us. In addition, acquisitions of, or investments in, competing companies by large corporations could increase such competitors’ research, financial, manufacturing and other resources.
Officer's and Board Members have to file with the SEC when they purchase shares on the open market and those purchases become public information . To my knowledge neither Mark, nor any other Board member, has ever reached in their own pocket to purchase shares on the open market in the history of the company. That's pretty telling in itself.
"The volume was 22,200 shares traded that represents 1/3 of 1% of the outstanding shares............. and about three times the average daily volume.
Nope. Just some very small vindication for those very few of us on the Board who have yet to be admitted to the "SGLB Halo Club".
A month ago, on 3/15 SGLB closed at $6.60. On 3/16 after the reverse split was announced it closed at $5.21. On 3/16 I posted the following:
Wow. Today turned out even worse than I was expecting. I believe Kmey, Magnetics, and RFB are worth paying attention to. You may not like what they are saying, but I believe the next few weeks will convince you that they know what they are talking about. As RFB pointed out there really was nothing new revealed during the conference call. If I hear Mark say one more time that they are in "lockstep with GE" I'm going to strangle him. How many years (one, two, three) are you in "lockstep" before orders materialize?
SGLB made a mistake (hopefully not fatal) in implementing the split before receiving major orders. If they had waited I don't think you would have seen this nose dive, which is bound to get much worse before it gets better. I still don't own shares and won't be a buyer for some time now. If I really believed in the future of the company (which I frankly have doubts about now) and owned shares, I would sell half now with the intention of buying in later at a significantly lower price. The odds of the stock price going lower in the short to medium term rather than higher is about 10/1 in my opinion. The idea that institutional investors are going to jump in now with the pathetic financials, continuous quarter over quarter losses, no orders in sight, and an insider Board, is laughable. I'm sure most here won't agree with any of this, but let's wait a month and remember this post.
Nothing much has changed in the last month and SGLB is going to have to come up with some significant orders soon or this will be in the .03's by next week. The impact on the share price of dots, conferences, joint ventures, etc. has about run it's course. It's show me the money time.
Jeff: I'm interested in SGLB because they are local, and I would really like to see them succeed. While I wish them success I have been cautious about investing again because of what I perceive as their commitment to "telling it like it is" forthrightness in their reporting. As you well know I am also not happy with what I consider an all insider board with no commitment to stockholder value. I'll continue to watch and evaluate and if I perceive some changes I'll be an investor again.
Driftin: I like you, I really do but you base your investment decisions on dot-connecting along with a good dose of wishful thinking. I base mine on results. It seems clear to me that the vast majority of the investment community in SGLB (other than a vocal majority of this Board) is in a wait and see mode as well. Your ambitions for SGLB's future may very well come to pass. Then again, they may not.
Can't be all that hard to go from nothing to something.
Jeff:
Whether he was actually an employee or not is fuzzy (and I think that is what Mark is banking on). It's very clear that he has an uninterrupted association with the predecessors of SGLB as a paid employee since the late 90's. Exactly when that ended I don't know, nor does he disclose. What I do know for certain is that at the Board meeting two years ago he was presented as an inside director. What has changed to be able to classify him as "independent" is anybody's guess. Even if they manage to officially classify him as such, it's clear to me from his background that he anything but. Just my opinion.
Yup. That advice certainly applies in both directions!!
Gee. Some things just take longer than others to explain I guess. If the stock is trading on the open market (in your example) at $10 a share and I wanted shares (particularly in a declining market) I would just purchase them at the market price over time . If you, as the Board of SGLB, wanted to sell me a large block of shares I would demand a significant discount for doing so or I wouldn't purchase them. Why would I? Seems pretty simple to me.
"IF SIGMA LABS were to sell 100% of the 10,000,000 shares held at the market price - here $100,000,000 or $10 per share, Sigma Labs would have a value of $200,000,000 - $100,000,000 in prior value and $100,000,000 in cash from the sale of shares." Technically true but would only happen "when pigs fly" (and you certainly know better Driftin). No buyer is going to pay market price when they can purchase all they want at the market., particularly when the market price is sinking. Any offering is going to be made below market price in order to entice buyers. How much below, is anybody's guess, but definitely below. When this occurs existing shareholders WILL have the value of the shares they hold diluted.
All this talk about uplisting to the NASDAQ is simply wishful thinking. One requirement (of the least rigorous option) for joining the NASDAQ Capital marketplace is net earnings of at least $750,000 in the previous fiscal year. This means that the earliest possible that SGLB could qualify under the minimum standards for the NASDAQ would be this time next year following the conclusion of this fiscal year.
To my knowledge SGLB does not meet any of the listing requirements for the NASDAQ Exchange....perhaps later this year, but not now.
The Nasdaq has three sets of listing requirements. Each company must meet at least one of the three requirement sets, as well as the main rules for all companies.
Listing Requirements for All Companies
Each company must have a minimum of 1,250,000 publicly-traded shares upon listing, excluding those held by officers, directors or any beneficial owners of more then 10% of the company. In addition, the regular bid price at time of listing must be $4, and there must be at least three market makers for the stock. However, a company may qualify under a closing price alternative of $3 or $2 if the company meets varying reequirements. Each listing firm is also required to follow Nasdaq corporate governance rules 4350, 4351 and 4360. Companies must also have at least 450 round lot (100 shares) shareholders, 2,200 total shareholders, or 550 total shareholders with 1.1 million average trading volume over the past 12 months.
In addition to these requirements, companies must meet all of the criteria under at least one of the following standards.
Listing Standard No. 1
The company must have aggregate pre-tax earnings in the prior three years of at least $11 million, in the prior two years at least $2.2 million, and no one year in the prior three years can have a net loss.
Listing Standard No. 2
The company must have a minimum aggregate cash flow of at least $27.5 million for the past three fiscal years, with no negative cash flow in any of those three years. In addition, its average market capitalization over the prior 12 months must be at least $550 million, and revenues in the previous fiscal year must be $110 million, minimum.
Listing Standard No. 3
Companies can be removed from the cash flow requirement of Standard No. 2 if the average market capitalization over the past 12 months is at least $850 million, and revenues over the prior fiscal year are at least $90 million.
A company has three ways to get listed on the Nasdaq, depending on the underlying fundamentals of the company. If a company does not meet certain criteria, such as the operating income minimum, it has to make it up with larger minimum amounts in another area like revenue. This helps to improve the quality of companies listed on the exchange.
It doesn't end there. After a company gets listed on the market, it must maintain certain standards to continue trading. Failure to meet the specifications set out by the stock exchange will result in its delisting. Falling below the minimum required share price, or market capitalization, is one of the major factors triggering a delisting. Again, the exact details of delisting depend on the exchange.
Thacker as an independent board member is clearly a joke. O'Mara has not chosen to fullfill his responsibilities to the shareholders. It's clearly too late now to do anything about this but I'm going to predict that at some point not too far in the future shareholders are going to rue the day that they didn't seize this opportunity to clean house and install directors that were shareholder friendly AND had a modicum of business sense.
Get Rich: If you are going to be critical, just be sure you get your facts correct. To my knowledge I have never made a false statement about SGLB. "They have never had a contract outside of America makes". I never said that and your post should be deleted for being slanderous.