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.
Thank you, Silver. You offer good logical reasons as to why Mark decided to retire.
The provisions of his employment agreement certainly make it financially beneficial for him to become fully vested in all his options now if he expects the stock price to increase significantly in the near future.
I hope this is the case. Time will tell.
I hope John Rice will take action Monday to dispel the notion that Mark’s departure as full time CTO is simply not “damage control” to divert attention from lack of any positive developments forthcoming.
I hope it is not a scenario where John is saying “we have changed gears and shifted focus to address lack of sales and the future will be better.”
Alan, I appreciative your views. But, if (as you state) it was obvious that Mark and John did not see eye-to-eye from the very beginning, why did Mark initially agree to step down and have John replace him as CEO? The relationship must have been pretty good at that time.
I just find the timing strange. If sales are imminent and the future outlook is positive, why would Mark be fired or decide to retire on such short notice.
I hope I am wrong but it is very hard to reconcile the timing and view it as anything but negative.
On what grounds would you try to initiate a class action? Just because sales have not materialized and the stock has gone down dramatically doesn’t mean the officers or directors committed any illegal acts.
The thought also occurs that perhaps Rice and the BOD have identified a technology officer they think is better equipped to develop and implement closed loop or other product improvements.
So many questions. So much at stake.
Did any of the knowledgeable posters on the board (Jackie, JP3 Visionary, Silver et al) see this coming ?
I do find it interesting that Mark appeared to be ignored or marginalized in virtually all the conference calls once Rice became CEO. Very little reference to Mark in any of the Q and A.
John Rice needs to step up and provide some enlightenment.
How dependent do you think Sigma is on Mark for further development of its product ?
How does Mark’s resignation effect development of closed loop?
Wow ! It’s hard to imagine the founder bowing out if the future prospects were positive.
But we really know nothing about the circumstances leading up to Mark’s resignation.
There are so many possible scenarios:
1. Mark’s health
2. A buyout or merger looming that Mark does not favor.
3. Contentious relationship between Mark and John Rice and the BOD.
4. Another professional opportunity that Mark wants to pursue
5. Mark loosing faith in the product
6. A request or demand by a prospective major customer or strategic partner that Mark step aside
7. Negative reviews looming as to the product.
8. Some nefarious act that prompted the BOD to ask for Mark’s resignation.
It’s hard to initially view this as a positive. But that is generally the case when something like this develops without warning. If this retirement is something Mark had been contemplating, I think he would have provided more than 30 days notice and would not have signed up to represent the company at forthcoming seminars and conferences
John Rice owes shareholders a greater explanation !!
The term “prompt up” is certainly yours.
What is “prompt up”a stock ?
Jeff, what is your take on Sigma prominently displaying the EOS printer on their new website?
Why does Sigma showcase the EOS M290 if they have no ongoing relationship with EOS?
And I imagine you were all over Mike NcCarthy for the Packers poor showing in the 1H. The game wasn’t over for the Pack in the first 30 minutes and the game is far from over for Sigma, but you want to curb or limit the signal calling authority for Sigma’s coach. You can’t usurp management’s play calling and expect them to win just because you disagree with a couple decisions. If you lose faith in the CEO or head coach, fire them or find a new team to support.
There has only been one prior dilution. It is not as if you have been “slapped” repeatedly.
And, it is my assumption the company has progressed since the prior increase in authorized shares and is much closer to producing meaningful revenue and increasing shareholder value.
Granted, that is my assumption. The same as your assumption of no perceived benefit.
Please see post 61181 submitted yesterday.
I can envision a scenario where additional shares, if authorized, could enable Trumpf, or some other customer or strategic partner, to acquire a significant stake in Sigma. That obviously would be a huge factor in ultimately increasing Sigma’s market cap and pps.
Only from the initial offering. If someone buys shares today, Sigma does not directly benefit.
It seems to me the choices are:
1. Support management and vote for their recommendations in hopes that the company will ultimately benefit from management’s decisions and the stock price will increase
2. Sell your stock and move on
3. Engineer a hostile takeover and replace the BOD and CEO.
I personally will select the first of these choices (#1).
N
Granted. But Sigma did not compel you or Capt. Smith to buy and did not directly take your hard earned money unless you bought on the initial public offering. Your money went to others and Sigma is not to blame or responsible for your investment decision any more so than any other public company.
Unless you bought your shares directly from the company, Sigma did not “take your hard earned money.” Some retail investor or brokerage house sold you the shares and “took your money.” Don’t blame Sigma for your investment decision. They did not take your money or benefit from your purchase of shares
The shareholder meeting is October 18. The Trumpf presentation at the symposium in Plymouth, Michigan is a week earlier - October 11.
What have shareholders done for the company? I don’t see where shareholders have done anything except buy a piece of the company, and no one compelled them to do that. I don’t see how anyone other than present or former employees can claim that they have had anything to do with the development of Sigma’s products or the conduct of the company’s business in any respect.
It’s like placing a bet on a horse where the bettor has had nothing to do with the purchase, the care and the training of the horse and the selection of the jockey and development of the race strategy.
Most Sigma investors have done nothing more than place a bet. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
Wouldn’t it be good if Trumpf, or some other customer or strategic partner, wanted to acquire a 25-30% stake in Sigma?
But with only 2M or so presently authorized shares not already issued or committed (for conversion of warrants or exercise of options), where would the shares come from if a potential partner wanted to acquire a significant interest of say 5M shares? They in all likelihood would not want to do this on the public retail market.
Perhaps this is a reason for Sigma management asking for an increase in the number of authorized shares. If so, I think it would ultimately prove to be beneficial to present shareholders.
They got to 12 in order to develop the product. Now they need to staff up to support and service future sales
Sigma’s leverage will be determined by the exclusivity or superior performance of its product and the need for it.
And, again, who is going to see Sigma’s logo on a printer in some plant other than those using the machine?
The logo is a non-factor except to those who choose to make it something more.
I would think the fact that Sigma has recently added technical, support and sales personnel indicates that they clearly expect a significant increase in business in the near future. If I recall correctly, they have increased the staff from 12 to 18 this year with one of the additions being based in Germany and another in England.
I really don’t see what difference it makes whether or not Sigma’s logo is displayed on an OEM’s printer. It’s not like PR3D is a product being marketed to consumers in a retail outlet.
Are the logos displayed for the manufacturers of various components in airplane engines, automobiles, gas turbines or other industrial products?
Ted, to repeat my earlier post, do you know of any projections as to how many TruPrint5000 systems Trumpf is expected to produce in 2019?
Thank you, Ted. That is a very informative and helpful synopsis.
Do you, or others, have an idea as to how many TruPrint5000 systems Trumpf expects to produce in 2019?
The coaches just announced a contract with an aerospace firm a few days ago. Doesn’t that count as a win? And maybe a sign that the team is starting to jell and that more wins may be in store
An increase in the number of authorized and issued shares has the same effect on a shareholder’s ownership stake as a R/S.
An increase from 15 M to 22.5 M shares is tantamount to a 2/3 reverse split. In either case a shareholder’s stake in the company is reduced by 33% when and if the additional authorized shares are issued.
Since when does “2” mean “countless”?
There have been 2 reverse splits. Not “countless.”
It’s exaggerating and overstatements like this that really impair your credibility.
If you think people are buying because they expect “news to come out tomorrow morning” you then are alleging they are guilty of insider trading.
I doubt any responsible trader or investor would put themselves In position where they would have to defend such charges.
This afternoon’s volume prior to the close most likely is someone wanting to accumulate a significant number of shares, much like Carl Schwartz has done recently.
I’m confounded by your comments. Virtually every CEO or spokesman would open with a prepared statement and read off that or notes. Your problem seems to be that you and
others had an advance copy of what he was going to say. As I said in my earlier post, that was a mistake in judgment by someone - most probably the PR firm.
But the fact that the opening statement was not completely
extemporaneous does not warrant the
disdain you demonstrate. It may have upset you but it does not make the CEO an imbecile and it does not change the message that I thought was pretty well stated.
I don’t find it unusual for executives to read off a prepared script - or TelePrompTer - when delivering an opening statement or “state of the union” address.
On reflection, Sigma and John Rice may have been better served if they had issued the shareholder letter AFTER the conference call. If that was the case, I suspect you and a few others would have been less critical of what Mr. Rice said. Frankly, the PR firm should have recognized that and issued the letter a couple hours later.
John Rice obviously did not have a script for the Q and A that followed and had to answer questions “off the cuff.” I thought he handled that well. His answers to tough questions appeared candid and were informative. The after market action on the price of the stock also seems to reflect that view.
On a side note, I thought it was interesting that the shareholder letter stated that it was prepared by John Rice while he was in transmit in Germany. Subtle message ? Maybe John was in Germany to exchange pleasantries with Kanya ? Just kidding about Kanya, but I do think it was noteworthy that John was in Germany where Sigma apparently has many interests in OEMs and other entities.
The after hours trades totaled $7,404.
And just how does he control the company?
Schwartz has 1 M shares plus the warrants which have not yet been converted into common stock.
Sigma presently has over 8 M shares outstanding and 15 M authorized.
Schwartz’ stake is significant but he certainly does not control the company. He has less than 13% of the outstanding shares and less than 7 percent of the authorized.
And just what do you and others know at this point about Schwartz’ success other than in operating dental offices and a non-public family business. He may very well be an excellent CEO of a public company but, like Sigma, the success is yet to be proven. The annual revenues for AIPT so far are much like SGLB.
I understand your disappointment with Sigma but your response does not explain your contention and published comments that “Mark C. can’t deliver, never could, never will.”
Those comments smack of vindictiveness and indicate you have had some kind of professional association with Mark C. in the past.
It’s one thing to express disappointment for the stock. Quite another to launch a personal attack that suggests first hand experience with the person you are demeaning.
What do you mean when you state that Mark C. “never could” ? That infers prior first hand experience.
Are your comments about Mark Cola based on actual personal experience or on the performance of Sigma and its stock price?
You infer that you know Mark personally and have had some kind of professional association with him in the past.
I think you should clarify in the interest of full disclosure.
Thank you.
Schwartz is more than a dentist trading stocks. He is CEO of Precision Therapeutics (symbol AIPT).
The raise for the CEO amounted to $47,000 per year or slightly less than $4,000 per month.
How do you think that amount could be used to raise the price of the stock or avoid possible delisting?