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. Here's a report by the accounting firm of Ernst and Young that points up the focus on transparency at all size levels of public corporations: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Governance_trends_practices_at_US_companies/$FILE/Governance_trends_practices_at_US_companies.pdf
Besides the obvious need to have a Board that puts shareholder interests first, Mark desperately needs the business expertise that a well-rounded board could bring to help grow the business in the years ahead. Currently they are heavy on the technical side and weak on the business side. It's a benefit all around to have a more balanced board.
Driftin:
Great eMail. If enough folks add their voice to this issue they can't continue to ignore you. I'll certainly add my voice when/if I get back in.
Driftin. As you know this has been a sore spot with me for a very long time. Two years ago I was one of four shareholders who attended the annual meeting in Santa Fe. When it came time for questions I raised my concerns about the lack of independent board members. The impression I got at the meeting from the Board and Technical Advisory members who were present was that SGLB was sort of a "private technology club" with some great ideas that were going to change forever how quality control was managed in the 3D printing world". Everyone associated with the company at that point in time had come from the academic or research world and did not seem to grasp that this was a real business whose goal was to make a profit for shareholders.I was assured that changes to the board were already in the works and sure enough two months later O'Mara's appointment was announced. Initially I was thrilled with his appointment. He seemed to have just the background required to instill some business savvy into the operation. Quite frankly I have been disappointed in his impact on the business. He seems to be simply a passive board member who has not gotten actively involved and rubber stamps what Mark and Thacker want. The only way this is going to change is for shareholders to be vocal both through correspondence and showing up at the annual meetring and insisting upon changes to the Board. The broader investing public is not going to put their money at risk in a venture that is controlled by insiders and does not have a Board charged with looking after shareholder interests as a first priority. This situation is going to continue to weigh on the stock price until is corrected.
The paranoia about "the shorts" conspiring to drive down the price through "misinformation" is just plain silly. Shorts have better things to do than deal in nickle stocks. As for the dissemination of misinformation your "pipeline of deals" clearly qualifies. Is there potential? Yes. Is there possibilities for signed contracts over the next several months? Yes. Is there a pipeline of deals? Not in a thousand years!!
In my opinion it's a great move but something that should have been done two years ago. Market development responsibilities include going after new markets. If successful, SGLB's products will have application in a wide range of industries, not just aerospace. The groundwork for this takes years, not months, and while it's good that they are finally addressing this it should have been initiated long ago.
Driftin you are certainly one of the more reasonable longs and I do hope that your hopes for SGLB come to a successful fruition. You are correct in that I have far less faith in Mark and Vivek's projections than you do. I was initially very impressed with Mark when I met him a couple years ago, but over time I have continuously lost faith in his abilities as a businessman. He may be a wonderful scientist but his ability to manage and grow the business, to say nothing of his inability to meet deadlines that he himself sets has caused me to stay on the sidelines. As I have mentioned repeatedly I am also not happy about his failure to bring in independent board members. It may all turn out splendidly in the end but for me the risk/reward is simply not there at this point in time.
Speaking of reminders...........for those new to this stock I would call your attention to the stock price trend over the past four months. The price is going nowhere but sideways and down until (if) there are major contract anouncements. All the puffery about how great the future is going to be is just that..."hot air" until those contracts are signed.
"Not extremely reassuring"..........Exactly. To attach significance to a $900 holding is laughable at best.
Driftin I don't think I would get overly excited over these numbers. A gross margin of 33.5% is nothing to write home about. Don't forget that gross margin does not include the cost of employee salaries and benefits, amortization for equipment depreciation (a huge number with this printer, which should realistically be amortized over five years or less), any sales commissions paid, all accounting expenses,insurance, rent, utilities and probably lots of other things I can't remember at this time. When you back these expenses out your net margin becomes a much much smaller number. They would have to generate very significant sales with their contract printing to have much of an impact on their bottom line.
"You're confusing me....are you sure there's no revenue at all? I thought I saw it in the report..." Be confused no longer SGLB earned 3/1000 of a penny per share last quarter.
"Definitely not as disappointing as in the past" Really? No revenue to speak of, no contract announcements, and Deform delayed again. You will have an opportunity to buy shares in the .03 range before the next quarterly report.
As someone who has been investing for years as a stock analyst and as a soon to become millionaire you have every right to become excited.
Joey: I don't think you have to worry about Mark regardless of what happens to SGLB. He does very well for himself regardless of how the stock performs.
Mr Cola, President and CEO of Sigma Labs, may not be acting maliciously and may truly believe in his company, but he seems to be making out quite well regardless of what returns investors may be experiencing. With a 2014 salary of $172,000 and a bonus of $175,000, Mr. Cola cleared $347,000 in 2014 along with his shares currently valued at $2.8 million.
Mr. Cola also seems to want to distribute the wealth to his family as well. As of July 25, 2014, the Company granted to Amanda Cola, the Company’s Business Operations Manager, 2,000,000 shares of common stock (valued at $258,000) and an annual salary of $90,000. So the Cola family has managed to clear just over a half a million dollars in 2014 and investors are left with nothing but more promises.
Quoted from "Nanalyse" April 2015
How exactly does GE introducing 3D printed nozzels sometime in 2016 translate into expectations for immediate significant orders for PR3D from GE? It would seem that occassionally facts get in the way of dot connecting.
May have something to do with closing prices over the past few months:
5/14 11.7
5/21 10.4
5/28 9.9
6/3 9.3
6/10 8.9
6/17 7.6
6/25 7.2
7/2 7.2
7/9 7.0
7/16 6.2
7/22 5.8
The trend would reverse in a hurry with significant revenue/sales announcements but it is not difficult to see why so many short today.
More than three times the average daily volumes on Friday and Monday and almost twice the average daily volume today.
So..... What you "believe" is that it is simply a coincidence that exactly (to the day) two years after 1.2 million shares were sold for a penny each there is heavy selling pressure in the stock? Good luck to you, but keep your finger near that sell button.
What speculations? The only thing that is in question is the sale restrictions SGLB placed on the transactions. I believe that they placed a two year restriction on the sale. The heavy sales at exactly the two year mark are a bit too much to swallow as pure coincidence. You may choose to believe what you want.
On July 18, 2013, Sigma Labs, Inc. (the “ Company ”), completed a private placement of 120,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share, for an aggregate offering price of $1,200,000. The shares were sold solely to accredited investors.
The Company issued the foregoing securities pursuant to an exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “ Act ”), and Regulation D promulgated thereunder, based upon each recipient’s status as an “accredited investor,” as that term is defined in Rule 501 promulgated under the Act.
We don't know what resale restrictions were placed on the shares because SGLB did not disclose the restrictions. By law they must be restricted for at least a year but SGLB may well have specified a two year restriction which would exactly line up with the current selling pressure. If I were the buyer, looking at the current performance of the stock, I would be in a hurry to at least recover my investment before the share price sinks further. If there is positive news soon, I imagine the selling pressure will ease, otherwise it could get very nasty.
Joey: I'm trying to understand your post. My understanding is that the private placement was not to an affiliate of the company therefore your rule five does not apply. Do you understand this differently? If so can you refer me to something that states the placement was made to an affiliate of the company? Thanks.
On July 18, 2013 SGLB issued 120 million shares in a private placement for 1.2 million dollars. If the restrictions on resale were 24 months that would coincide exactly with the recent sales. There have only been a few million sold as yet, but considering the holder has more than 100 million shares remaining and if sold at a nickel earns a 500% profit in long term capital gains I would be very worried if I were a shareholder. This could mean long term troubles for the share price. I have no way of knowing if this is where the sales are coming from but the coincidence of the dates seems too troubling to ignore.
The Albuquerque Journal has a front page article today about GE considering moving it's headquarters from Connecticut to Sandoval County New Mexico (north of Albuquerque/south of Santa Fe). They are considering three or four other locations, but apparently New Mexico is in the running.
Right behind the bow, next to Mark, front row.
Can't speak for glasses and chubby but Michael Thacker is in back row left side.
Hawk: That is just one of many unanswered questions. If it is a "joint venture" one would assume that there is some sort of revenue and expense split. Is it 50/50 or some other ratio. More importantly has anyone considered the possibility that GE/Morris insisted on having someone they knew and trusted in charge of any supplier deal with SGLB. What happens if any future GE order comes via the joint venture? How does that effect SGLB's revenue / profit? Just one more reason to have an independent board of directors at SGLB whose sole responsibility is to look after shareholder interests.
Duffy: "I believe a few weeks ago you were saying we only had 4, three of whom were 'consultants." If you will look at my post again you will find that I was quoting Mark on the web site when he named his "team". He was the sole employee, the others were part time consultants, or board members who are not active in day to day operations. Should give you a warm feeling all over.
"staffing is probably pretty low on their priority list." That's likely true. After all, who needs people unless you are going to actually do something.
Wonder who is going to staff Arete-Sigma LLC? SGLB has eight employees (some are Summner Associate staff), and Arete has an unknown number of employees, but less than 10 according to Linked In. Perhaps the association will open more doors. Time will tell.
Your post and RFB's post (35577) are the ying and yang of SGLB's future. At this point in time neither you nor RFB knows what the outcome will be. I do think it is more than a little pre-mature to be floating the idea that GE or Honeywell could be a purchaser of SGLB. To date, other than a few test systems neither has shown any commitment to the technology. They are basically test partners with SGLB, but neither they nor SGLB has announced how those tests turned out. It may be as RFB proposes that both GE and Honeywell have found other solutions that meet their needs better. We simply don't know, and may in fact never know. I think it is healthy that at least some on this board are beginning to question SGLB's lack of orders and revenue and recognize that success is far from assured. Your idea that GE or Honeywell could eventually purchase SGLB may very well come to pass. So too, could RFB's much more gloomy outlook. I'm not as pessimistic in my outlook as RFB, but from what we know today I can't fault him for what he forecasts.
I'm in 100% agreement with you on that point George and frankly that has always been a concern. When push comes to shove today whose interests come first managements or shareholders? Most here don't see that as an issue. I have always felt this was a deterrent to getting a broader base of investors on board.
Gotta disagree with you on this one George. Adding independent directors here would give SGLB a needed boost in two respects:
1. They are sorely in need of some additional business expertise (particularly high-end sales and marketing) that can help them move into broader markets beyond GE/Honeywell.
2. A board comprised of independent directors with only the stockholders interests as motivation would provide confidence to a whole new group of investors who are not quite sure at this point whether this is a real business or an extended academic R&D exercise.
I frankly don't understand their hesitation in moving forward on this front. They will have to do it anyway before they can uplist. Why not do it now and gain the benefits that an independent board would provide?
How about getting some independent directors who will represent stockholders interests?
Every investor has to balance the current staffing levels against what the revenue expectations are and determine if they are comfortable with the result.
Perhaps someone has more recent information but the last information that I saw stated that SGLB had eight employees and five or six part-time consultants. Some of the employees (I'm not sure anyone knows how many) are employed by Sumner Associates and continue to perform consulting activities. Sigma has recently advertised for an accounting clerk/office administrator but I'm unaware of whether this position has been filled or not. If you look at their web page they describe their "team". interestingly enough of all the people listed (three are Board members and not active in the day to day business and three are part-time consultants). The sole employee "team" member is Mark Cola. I think you are correct to be concerned about this. It simply may be a way of conserving funds and they have 15 folks on their waiting list ready to start the day orders are announced. We simply don't know because they don't discuss their staffing plans.
Yes, it is a positive that the agreement is still in place and being honored. Not so positive is the fact that GE has had their hands on this technology for two years now with a massive manufacturing buildup underway and has not placed a single order. As I said in a previous post if I were GE and were going to be dependent upon SGLB technology for my fuel nozzles I would have had a massive testing program underway long before now. Proof of concept with a single test unit would not seem sufficient for what they have a stake. Just my opinion.
That press release is two years old. Wake me when you get the order.
I think Silver makes an excellent point here. It is obvious that GE is under tremendous pressure to get their jet engines (and their fuel nozzels) into production as rapidly as possible. GE has had prototypes and (I assume) regular enhancements to the PrintRite3D system) for over two years now. There is obvious interest here and it seems certain that PrintRite3D is being seriously considered as an integral component of their future manufacturing plans. The general expectation of the majority of posters here is that a very large order for PrintRite3D and Deform is right around the corner from GE. That may well be the case. However, if I were GE and I was planning on utilizing PrintRite3D right off the bat in the manufacturing of my fuel nozzles I would have had 25/30 copies of the software and sensor pak on hand for the past 18 months testing it to the limits to see whether it would stand up in a high volume manufacturing environment. The fact that they have not done this suggests to me that PritRite3D and likely Deform are promising technologies for future implementation and testing at GE, but are not going to be utilized in the first wave of manufacturing of the fuel nozzles. We are all speculating at this point, but that is what I see. One other question which I have not seem addressed here is that PrintRoite 3D's has a hardware component (the SensorPak.) Is a quantity of these on hand at SGLB were they to receive an order, or would these be produced following an order? Is the SensorPak hardware independent, or must it be customized for each printer model?
This is basically an accounting clerk position. I'm assuming whomever takes it on will relieve Monica of some of the more mundane tasks she currently has to perform..
Average net margins for system and application software firms is between 17% to 20% depending upon the source you reference. To assert that SGLB would earn 50% net margins as a startup is beyond wishful thinking. I'm sure you have a thousand justifications for why SGLB is "different". Just don't bet the kids lunch money on it.
Jeff: In order for SGLB to generate even a half penny per share to the bottom line with 623 million shares outstanding they would have to generate 10 million in sales with a 30% net margin. I see that event being so far in the future (if ever) that it is impossible to predict. Were it to occur I would consider that significant sales. However, even if the market got all excited and gave SGLB a P/E ratio of 100/1 that would still only mean a stock price of .50. This just seems so far in the future that speculating about it now does not seem productive.