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.
Z. Absolutely, my estmate of the price is only a guess and may be very wide of the mark. The point however is that we only know of four systems being shipped and regardless of the unit price the revenue will be miniscule in relationship to what will be needed to move the stock price.
To my knowledge Mark has never even offered a hint of what a PR3D Unit would sell for (either as a demonstration model or in volume at retail). Since the sale of the four units is already a known, that fact is baked into the share price now. Even if the units were sold at $200,000 a piece (far more than I would estimate, but we really have no idea) and they were to make 25% net margin on each unit you are looking at earnings of +/- $200,000 on this sale. That's three one hundreds of a penny per share. In fact, unless the sale price per unit is very substantial it may be a sobering wake-up call for shareholders when they start to calculate how many units actually have to be sold to make a reasonable return.
Well, it's mid November and they say they will begin production in December/January timeframe, and they have not ordered any at this point. Seems clear to me, but I'm sure the "true believers" will have their own spin to put on it. Believe whatever makes you comfortable.
Driftin:
You contimue to be one of the more realistic of the SGLB fan club. I agree with your post except for your conviction that SGLB is certain to succeed in the long run. To me the jury is clearly still out on this point. It seems clear that GE is going to start full scale production of the nozzles with minimal, if any, use of SGLB's technology. Most here said that was an impossibility just a few months ago. All of the pilots, joint ventures, etc. are basically test beds have been their products. The longer time goes on without a major player signing up to a significant order the greater the risk that the solutions are not nearly as fool-proof as Mark would have us believe. Your projections about the future may be right-on-the-money, but it is far from a sure thing.
The general investing community does seem slow in assimilating all of the great news that members of this Board heard on the conference call. Perhaps that will change (or not) over the next few days.
Mark is going to need to polish up his "dancing shoes" because the questions about revenue and contracts on the call are going to be tough and uncompromising. The days of over-promising and under-delivering are coming to an end. Unless some miracle with measurable substance is revealed in the call this is going to be trading in the .05's if not below. The report was worse than even I expected.
Great questions Windy. They either answer or they evade, which will tell us something as well. SGLB has a way of talking out of both sides of their mouth at once. A good example is the announcement on Linked In that Deform is "commercially avalable...see their web site etc." when you go to the web site it only talks about Deform in beta test mode....which is clearly not a "commercial release" of a product. They have a nasty habit of putting a positive spin on everything, which makes me question everything they tell us.
Yup.See post 37642.
I don't believe this will apply to SGLB. It is intended for very early stage transitions from DoD R&D to commercial. SGLB is well past this point with commercial products, test sites, and various partners. The DARPA programs are also targeted toward helping companies that will be selling into the military markets. Just don't believe that SGLB fits the goals of the programs offered.
Unsubstantiated statements like this do nothing to further the discussion of how sound an investment SGLB is. Consider that SGLB has to have sales of +/- 25 million dollars with a 25% net margin to earn their first penny. With a staff of +/- eight employees in a three room rented office just for a moment soberly consider how wild a claim this is. The first significant revenue report from Honeywell/GE or others I believe will quickly tame these outrageous predictions.
When quarterly earnings are reported in a couple of weeks I'm sure that there will be some revenue to report, but those who are expecting a major bump in revenues will be disappointed. Any significant sale or revenue producing contract is a significant event and must be reported within three days of it's occurrence. No report means no major revenue announcement.
We are rapidly approaching the time when GE expects to initiate commercial production of the fuel nozzles with no confirmation of SGLB's participation. I think folks are getting nervous about the lack of confirmation and unless Mark can give shareholders something very specific (beyond simply his expectations) in the conference call we are going to see more deterioration in the share price.
Guy and Jeff: This is not me making this statement. This is the Mgr. of GE's Additive Mfg. Lab. And, yes the article is a year old, but if this quote does not put some doubt in the minds of the dot connectors who have assured us all along that there is absolutely no doubt that GE will be utilizing SGLB technology when mass production of the fuel nozzles then I'm not sure what could. I don't know how he could have been any clearer, and yes things can change over the course of a year, but this certainly throws up a very big red flag for me:
"The early adopters will likely begin their production ramps in the next 12–18 months without process monitoring or closed-loop laser power control on their production equipment, relying instead on their deep knowledge base to keep the machines producing good parts."
The following is from an article in "Industrial Lasers" on the status of in-process monitoring development in Additive Manufacturing. It would seem to cast some doubt as to whether GE will initiate the production of the fuel nozzles with SGLB's products or anyone elses for that matter.
In late 2011, Prabhjot Singh, manager of GE's Additive Manufacturing Lab, observed: "[An AM] part is made out of thousands of layers, and each layer is a potential failure mode. We still don't understand why a part comes out slightly differently on one machine than it does on another, or even on the same machine on a different day." [9]
In large part, that assessment is still accurate today. In the meantime, early adopters like GE Aviation have spent years learning the nuances of their AM tools, characterizing the process windows and sensitivities, creating process databases, and qualifying each machine. The early adopters will likely begin their production ramps in the next 12–18 months without process monitoring or closed-loop laser power control on their production equipment, relying instead on their deep knowledge base to keep the machines producing good parts.
The sensors and sensed quantities being pursued today for AM process monitoring are mostly derived from experience with established processes such as laser welding. As such, they may or may not turn out to be the best means of identifying AM process anomalies in situ. It is still the early days for metal AM, and the equipment and powder materials are evolving rapidly. So, too, will sensing and data analysis technologies. Parallel efforts are currently underway to carry out physics-based simulations of the laser-powder bed interactions, and to establish detailed databases tying material properties to process parameters and powder characteristics. In the next several years, these may help illuminate the optimal quantities to monitor, point by point, in or near the melt pool, as well as the best sensors to use. Meanwhile, rapid innovation will continue, though the advent of truly robust process monitoring and control is probably still a few years away. As major manufacturers plan for volume production of metal AM parts, we should expect to see more emphasis being placed in this area and much continued development activity. The AM process monitoring race is on, and the winning technologies and competitors have yet to be identified, much less declared.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.industrial-lasers.com/articles/print/volume-29/issue-5/features/process-monitoring-in-laser-additive-manufacturing.html
From Conceptlaser's web site a description of their quality control systems for additive manufacturing:
QM modules for continuous monitoring of the LaserCUSING® process
When it comes to manufacturing components for the medical industry, a quality-controlled fabrication process is an absolute requirement
for the series production and use of components. For this reason, our development team has focussed intensively on expanding the process
monitoring systems which have been used to date. The expansion and bundling into individual quality management (QM) modules makes it
possible to ensure and document optimum component quality.
QM meltpool
The melt pool module provides monitoring of the melt pool in real time. The construction process is ?monitored
here directly as events actually happen at the microscopic level with several thousand scans a second. The data
is documented and evaluated by the machine software.
QM laser
Laser energy is the central tool used in the metal laser melting process. The prerequisite for ensuring a good
component quality is therefore to maintain the specified laser power. The QM laser module continuously
documents the power which is emitted by the laser system during the construction process.
QM powder
The metal powder is the raw material for all LaserCUSING® components. This is why the quality control and
maintenance of powder quality is particularly important. The first step in the quality assurance chain is analysis
of the powder material in house at our company after it is delivered.
The second continuous stage which can be used in the quality assurance chain is the QM powder module
powder screening station, which is separate from the process. The automatic screening station is a prerequisite
for ensuring a constant powder quality across subsequent screening processes.
QM atmosphere
In the process gas module redundant monitoring and regulation of the oxygen concentration in the process
chamber takes place.
QM documentation
The documentation module produces a clear report for all data from the quality management modules
described previously.
Driftin, very well said. Our only difference of opinion is the degree of "pull" that easy money has on those in the know. You are more generous regarding their morals than I am. I do take your point about being in the quiet period. If there is no news on this front in the Conference Call (I would not expect it, as it will be announced the moment it is known) volume over the days and weeks following the conference call will telegraph whether the order will be taking place or not.
You all know that I consider much of the dot-connecting that takes place on this board as not much more than wishful thinking by the various posters. However there is one thing that I am in total agreement with and that is if/when SGLB announces that Printrite3D orders have been received from GE for fuel nozzle production the stock price will likely double, or more, overnight. I do believe that it is possible (although unlikely) that SGLB/GE is waiting until the very last minute to announce such an order. What I don't believe, for even a nanosecond, is that the decision whether or not to utilize Printrite3D in the production of the nozzles has already been made (likely several months if not more than a year ago). Now there has to be a significant number of folks at GE, and likely at SGLB as well, that know whether Printrite3D will play an integral role. All of these folks also know the effect such an announcement will have on the stock price as well. They all have friends,cousins, etc. in the stock market and I find it almost impossible to believe that the news would not leak. I know all about insider trading being illegal, etc. but in my experience when there is going to be a profound impact on the price of a stock you almost always see the news telegraphed by buyers or sellers in advance. The fact that volume has virtually dried up is not good news. That may change abruptly in the days ahead, but until it does it does not bode well for the price of the stock.
Everyone is working overtime to reassure us that all is on-track with GE's plans for Printrite3D. We will know very soon whether this is the case.
Duffy I can certainly see GE not considering Printrite3D important enough to single out but surely you don't think SGLB would let this kind of event slide by and simply report it a couple of quarters later in their earnings report? If there ever was a material event (unlike most events they PR) for SGLB this is certainly one. If you don't hear about a major order from GE this quarter their wasn't one.
Driftin. I would not expect the Arete joint venture revenue to have much impact on the stock price one way or another. The real kicker is going to come when/if GE announces that Printrite is being utilized in a production mode and places an order in significant quantity. With full production supposedly beginning this quarter I would certainly expect to hear something on this soon. The stock price will move dramatically in one direction or the other (and rightly so) depending upon this announcement.
Nope, not yet.
Dadx4 Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and integrity.
Since everyone here feels free to offer their optimistic outlook for the stock price I'd like to offer my contrarian view. While not as pessimistic as RFB I do see the stock slowly sinking back into the 7's over the next few weeks as serious investors come to the realization that any significant revenue from Deform is months in the future (and even then is dependent upon no hiccups in the beta testing). The future sales of Printrite3D is very difficult to predict. I think any honest analysis has to consider the fact that the product has languished for over a year now with negligiible sales. Obviously a public announcement by GE that Printrite3D will play an integral part in their fuel nozzle production will cause the stock price to soar (and with good reason). On the other hand if GE announces full scale production of fuel nozzles and Printrite is not a key component we are going to quiclkly see the .04's, or lower, in a very big hurry. The next six months will be extremely important ones for SGLB. It's show time now and joint ventures, pilot site announcements, or conference presentations will not carry the ball. It's put up or shut up time. I sincerely hope that they come through, but I've been continuously disappointed in their ability to prodiuce measureable results.
Wake me when they write a check.
Thanks. I had missed that.
I undoubtably missed it but can you point me to something that says the early adopters and other test sites are "paying" for the Deform software. I was not aware that was the case.
No, not at all. That's why I was so surprised to see that SGLB made the decison that the software was not ready for release and would require further beta testing. I had assumed when Mark talked about releaseable software that all the beta testing had been accomplished with the GE's, Honeywells and other early sites. They would not be doing further testing if they did not believe it to be essential.
Jeff, perhaps I did not make myself clear. I fully understand software market development, that was my career focus. My point is not that SGLB will not evolve and improve, but that the current (today's version) has not been tested in a live user's environment that will undoubtably turn up software issues that simply could not be adequately tested by SGLB. Until those issues are fully resolved to both the end users and SGLB's satisfaction SGLB will not attempt to offer the product for sale. The purpose of beta testing is to come out the end of the test period with a robust product that can be fully depended upon in a commercial environment. Only then will it be offered for sale.
No. You don't really understand the meaning of beta. Would you buy a car with unknown defects that is likely to leave you stranded by the side of the road. Deform is absolutely not ready for sale, nor would SGLB attempt to sell it until beta testing is completed.
They are "early adopters" because they are test sites for the software in a live environment. While all software beta tests are different I'd be amazed if testing did not go on for sometime to come.
Yes, there is no question that it is an important milestone toward a final product. What irritates me is the terminology that SGLB used leading up to today. They talked about the "release" of Deform. Release means release to the general market, i.e. a finished saleable product. Based on todays announcement that is far in the future. As of today they remain a "one-horse-pony" with Printrite their only marketable product and sales to-date have been disappointing.
Jackie. "Picking holes". Really. How about a software release announcement that isn't a release at all but the announcement of the transition to a final test phase that could take months before they have a marketable product. You can tout continued progress , but revenue generation from Deform is dead in the water for many months in the future. If that floats your boat I'm truly happy for you.
Z. I'm truly disappointed in the integrity of SGLB this morning. To those who are not intimately familiar with the life-cycle of software development their announcement appears to imply that Deform is finished and marketable at this point. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the announcement actually says is that Deform has entered into the final (or beta) test stage in a live user's environment. Software can be tested extensively by the developer but somehow never encounters the problems that occur when it is installed off-site in a user installation. Beta software, by it's very definition will contain errors, will cause system failures, and definitely is not marketable in it's current form. Beta testing across multiple users is a lengthy process and the more complex the software the longer that process can take. My assumption, and I believe the assumption of many others here was that the Beta testing of Deform had been on-going for several months with SGLB's pilot installations. This was apparently not the case and the fact that they are just initiating the beta test stage now leads me to believe that they are many months away from being able to generate revenue with Deform
One has to take into account that the press release from GE is 2 1/2 years old now and there has been a lot of water under the bridge. In the same release they talk about the "mutually developed inspection technology" which (if one were connecting dots) could lead to a belief that GE has rights to the technology with limited (if any) compensation to Sigma.
Driftin: I can certainly understand the conclusions you have drawn based upon the references you provided. It's clear that GE considers in-process monitoring to be critical. It's clear that they have been in a development venture with SGLB. It's abundantly clear that Mark expects a large order from GE any day now. What is still foggy, to me at least, is whether GE is confident enough in Printrite/Deform's capabilities to begin full scale production with these components as an integral part of the process. The fact that no announcement (let alone order) has been forthcoming, with full scale production just days away speaks volumes to me. I guess we will all know whether the dots really do connect in very short order here
Thank you. Who is that first quote from "By conducting....etc" GE or SGLB? Your quotes refer to Printrite and not Deform. There may be three Printrite systems in place at GE but they are initiating full production in the next 90 days starting with ten printers. The three printers sound (to me at least) like they were evaluation systems for GE to test. I don't think there is any question but that Mark expects a significant order here. I'm just pointing out that the train is just about to leave the station and it is not at all clear that DGLB is on board.
Z. Can you please point me to something specific that states GE will be using SGLB technology in the 3D printing of their fuel nozzles? Per the quote from GE (below) they will have at least 10 3D printers up and running in Q-4 and will be initiating full scale production of the fuel nozzles. If they were dependent upon SGLB technology to do this it would certainly seem that we would have seen a significant order by this time. If Deform was not ready in final form how could they do the production testing leading up to full production? This must have been accomplished with a less than robust Deform (if they used it at all). Would GE run through all of their pre-production tests without SGLB products, then implement them in the full production process? I wouldn't think so, but others seem so certain.What am I missing here?
"{Joe Markiewicz, plant manager in Auburn, says the project is moving ahead on schedule, with quality and engineering requirements being met as a prelude to full-scale production. The company plans to have 10 printing machines installed at the 300,000-square-foot facility by year’s end, a figure that could eventually climb to as many as 50.
“Our plan is still to begin production late in 2015 for LEAP fuel nozzles,” Markiewicz said."
Certainly agree that SGLB does a great job in getting it's name and products in front of prospective customers. Unfortunately none of them buy.
Just to Strir the Pot. I've got to chuckle about the non-stop stream of optimistic posts about how great it's going to be after Deform is declared operational on October 1. Not surprisingly I see things a bit differently. If Deform does become operational on October 1 (and that is a very big "if" in my opinion) I would not expect that to affect the stock price very much as it is an expected event that has been known for some time. The downside is that if SGLB misses the due date, yet again, It's going to have a negative effect on the share price. Let's not forget, as well. that announcing availability, and actually accruing revenues for the product are two very different things. Printrite 3D has been commercially avialable for over a year now with almost no revenue generating sales at all. There are no assurances that Deform will behave any differently. I think that SGLB is pulling out all the stops with their barrage of early adopters, OEM partners, demonstration systems, and never-ending stream of "event presentations". To date, none of this has resulted in any significant revenue. Will this all change, as most here predict, in the immediate future? I don't know, and neither do they, so for all of you who are grabbing up these low cost shares, just be aware that the jury remains out and things could easily go either way.
The closer we get to October 1 without hearing about Deform being ready, the less chance of that happening. No one really thinks that Mark is waiting to announce Deform availability until October 1, do they? It's a major milestone and we will hear about it the moment it ships. SGLB is terrible about meeting due dates and I believe the chances are pretty good we are going to see some more slippage here.
Jeff: I believe that they will initiate a repeatable revenue stream much quicker with some solid business expertise on board. Albuquerque is becoming something of a high tech center and there is lots of local high tech business talent available that would balance out their strengths on the technical side. Intel for example has a major operation locally. The Board currently receives minimum compensation (a few thousand shares of stock and expenses). Having a majority of local mambers would cut down on most travel related expenses. All around a great investment for what it would cost them.