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.
I don't honestly know. I guess I have become more questioning due to the their lack of results. I also think they are a little too slick for their own good i.e. putting Witty, Monica and Vivek on their message response for telephone inquiries. These is a lot of water under the bridge with no significant sales results. It may all be coming to fruition tomorrow. There is just enough doubt in my mind to make me hang back. I guess we'll all know soon.
Listen again. At least three of the extensions are not employees but contractors.
Sorry, but that response doesn't wash with me. Either there is widespread acceptance of the technology given the national recognition that you cite, or there is not. It is very difficult for me to imagine such widespread recognition of the technology's potential and the pathetic volume in the stock's trading activity. The situation may change overnight, but it's not there yet!!
Jacki says "If two major adopters of industrial scale AM are using it and forcing it on their suppliers then there is a good chance it could be. Especially when there is no competition. Honeywell and GE have spent years testing, and building WITH Sigma, PrintRite3D™ modules." Does anyone but me wonder with all the testing that has been performed by GE and Honeywell on PrintRite3D why there is not more interest in the stock. If the potential is really as great as some of the pundits here claim, I would have thought that there would have been widespread recognition of that fact within the engineering communities of the national testers of the product. Who better than this group would be aware of plans to integrate PrintRite into their manufacturing processes and would be buying SGLB in anticipation of that occurring. Yet the stock has traded in the range of only $40,000 daily volume in the past month. A large part of that $40,000 is likely accounted for by participants in this Board's discussion activities. The projections for PrintRite3D becoming a national or international standard seem to exceptionally premature based upon verifiable market acceptance to date.
"I still don't see how this affects operations." Gee, this is fun JJ:
1. Both of these individuals are CEO's of their own company's....... that is their primary focus (and rightly so)......not the interests of SGLB.
2. Both of these individuals have multiple consultancy agreements and therefore their time and expertise availability to SGLB is limited.
In summary we have 50% of the SGLB "team" whose primary focus is not SGLB, but their own business interests, and who serve on a part time basis. Their consultancy agreements are an unknown, but their first interest is in growing their business which may or may not allign with SGLB's interests. In my humble opinion, this has "an effect on SGLB's operations".
Let me say it very slowwwwwwly. Monica Yaples is a CONSULTANT she is not an employee and therefore (to my knowledge) cannot be an officer in the company (neither Treasurer, nor CFO). I also find it disheartening that both Monica and Vivek, being part time consultants, are featured as 50% of SGLB's "team" on the SGLB web site. Hey, if this is unimportant to you that's just fine with me.
Let me give you an admittedly extreme example of my concern. Let's assume that I decided to open my own investment management consultancy and I hired Warren Buffet and George Soros as consultants. On my web site I stated that my "team" consisted of myself Warren Buffet, George Soros, and another Board member. I also stated that Warren Buffet was my CFO. As a potential investor, how well would that sit with you?
JJ Your reference didn't help much. When SGLB's web site refers to "their team" and two of the members of the "team" are actually consultants I think that is a somewhat confusing. Note, as well, that Monica is referred to as the "treasurer" of the company. In my mind at least that is a corporate officer, which she is not.
I'm a little bit confused by the terminology used by SGLB. Monica is referred to in some places as the "Treasurer" in others as the "CFO", yet she is a consultant and not an employee. She has her own CPA firm here in Albuquerque. Can you be a consultant and an "officer" in the company at the same time? I was not aware that this was possible. The same blurry lines seem to be present when the company refers to it's relationship with Vivek Dave.
New Mexico is a low-wage state with high unemployment. Our governor has been encouraging both Los Alamos Labs and Sandia National Labs to help her build a technology infrastucture in the state that would create a base of higher paying jobs. The Technology Incubator where SGLB is currently housed is a part of that effort. Virtually every product currently offered or under development by SGLB has it's research roots in Los Alamos. If you truly believe that the same "professional courtesies" extended to the former employees, and current neighbors, of the Lab would be extended in equal measure to the corporate wonks from either Minneapolis or Fairfield I have bridge I would like to sell you.
All of the talk about SGLB being a target for acquisition is just nonsense. SGLB's greatest asset is not any of the products they have brought to market it is their relationship with Los Alamos Labs and the access to their R & D pipeline. Los Alamos is simply not going to grant the same kind of access to a Honeywell or GE that they do to a local five person R & D facility staffed by former employees. SGLB needs to sustain that relationship if they are to succeed long term. Forget the acquisition pipe dream.
Wow. You are citing a sigle example and because it doesn't result in stock price appreciation you believe that discounts the overwhelming mountain of research that has been done on the subject. Believe what you wish. I'm done discussing the subject.
JJ What I think doesn't really matter. Take a couple of minutes and scan the Internet for some of the considerable research that has been done on the significance of insider buying on future stock prices. If I saw evidence of heavy insider buying on SGLB I would reenter the stock in large volume. What does the absence of insider purchases (ever, to my knowledge) mean to me? Only, that assured success is not just around the corner, or perhaps ever. Very few of us will leave money on the table if we have reasonable certainty of short term success. With your investment in SGLB you are betting that you are better able to predict future events than the collective insiders. You may be correct, but it's not a bet I'm willing to make.
Chef:
Your data is from 2012. The current numbers below are from the 2014 10K. I'm curious what happened to the shares held by the folks shown in 2012 that don't show up in 2014. Did they sell? Are they somehow accounted for differently?
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1) Shares
Beneficially
Owned (2) Percent
of Class
Directors/Named Executive Officer:
Mark J. Cola 34,016,000 (3) 5.46 %
Michael Thacker 5,612,500 *
Thomas P. O’Mara 2,000,000 (4) *
All Executive Officers and Directors as a group (4 persons) 42,378,500 6.79 %
Owners of More Than 5% of Common Stock:
Mark J. Cola 34,016,000 (3) 5.46 %
Rockville Asset Management Ltd.(5) 58,009,259 (6) 9.31 %
"Is stock owning a marker of success in a company, alanthill?" Excuse me, but your point escapes me. If you are asking if "insider buying" is a precursor to the share price usually rising then my answer is "most definitely". Who knows better than the employees and the Board what the future may hold for SGLB. The fact that apparently none of them have purchased a single share at prices that everyone here thinks are rock bottom gives me pause for thought. Just my two cents.
Because he is a consultant now.........a "scientific advisor to the company".
Silversmith. Mark's total compensation last year was $348,000 (which I'm sure included stock-based compensation). Never the less he is not exactly a pauper and if he was convinced that the SGLB share price was going to sky rocket it's hard for me to believe he would not be buying at current rates. Thacker owns 5.6 million shares and O'Mara owns 2 million shares. I could be wrong but I don't believe any of the three ever bought a single share on the open market. Dave is no longer an emplyee so his shareholdings are not listed. The "technical advisory board" (Mason, Farrar, Giovanielli, and Williams) are not shown as owning any shares. Insiders only own 6.8% of the shares outstanding. I think Driftin is correct to be concerned about this. It's not a fatal red flag by any means but it is cause for some caution.
The real question of course is not how many "sold" after the runup on Monday, but how many investors "bought" and the answer is a very disappointing zip-zero. I have lost track now of the number of times this board has gotten excited about a "non-event" and run the price up 10-20% only to have reality set in over the next couple of days and watch the stock price retreat to earlier or lower levels. The truth is the general investing public is not going to buy in with any enthusiasm until sales are in the millions. With less than a half dozen employees, a huge number of outstanding shares (and the real potential for further dilution), and no real confirmation of market acceptance for their offerings, SGLB is going to continue to struggle. Sadly, RFB has been pretty consistently accurate with his call on the PPS. There is going to have to be a "real" major event for all that to change.
Of course it's not bad news. Neither is it any reason to get giddy over the sale of a single unit of software nine months after it first became available. Give me a break!!
Just Amazing. One would think that this was an order in the millions of dollars instead of the very first order for a single unit of software (for test purposes only) that has been commercially available for almost nine months now without a single sale. Truly astounding
Yes, that is entirely possible. The Albuquerque Journal has a small staff (four or five people) that they keep stationed in Santa Fe mostly to report state government news. They do occassionally print what they consider to be "local news" of interest to Santa Fe residents that does not appear in the much more widely read Albuquerque version. It would appear that since this was considered a "local event" it only appeared in the Santa Fe version of the Journal this morning.
Hard to have any impact if it's not even there.
Well, that certainly is strange because I am currently holding a copy of this mornings Albuquerque Journal in my hands and looking at page B2 there is no mention of SGLB. In searching the online version of the Journal (which I also subscribe to) there is also no mention of SGLB or of the author of the article you quote. Strange indeed!!
The "Journal Transcript" has no relationship to the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. There was not a single mention of SGLB in this mornings Albuquerque Journal.
Not a single mention in this mornings Albuquerque Journal.
If I'd had a bit more notice I probably could have arranged it but I'm 50 miles away in Albuquerque and I've got a full schedule this afternoon. I haven't owned SGLB for well over a year now. I was considering getting back in a couple months ago but never pulled the trigger. The gas and oil debacle hit my portfoloio pretty hard and I have been spending the majority of my time rehabbing older adobe homes in the region. There is enormous charm in some of the really old ones and I get a big kick out of bringing them back to their former glory. I haven't even looked at SGLB in more than two months now so I'm not sure I would have been much help to you anyway.
Hi Monkey:
Congratulations to all the longs. I haven't looked at SGLB in quite awhile and it appears that it has come back strong. Have there been significant orders or is there another catalyst?
Hawks: I don't think many people have an appreciation of what it is really like to be a founder of a small technology startup. Your description of the environment fits my recollections as well. I was a founding partner in both a high end software startup and a small hardware startup. Both had extremely promising products and both eventually failed. When you are dealing with major corporations they have exacting expectations in terms of support, maintenance, training, etc. If they don't believe you you possess the infrastructure to supply those minimum functions in a reliable manner you are not even considered.
In my opinion the chances of SGLB being acquired are extremely slim. Their biggest asset is not their software it's their relationship to Sandia Labs and their pipeline of commercializable research. Sandia would never consider giving GE, Honeywell, or any other major corporation the kind of access that they currently grant to SGLB. For that reason alone I don't belive any sort of acquisition or merger is in the cards.
Magnetics:
Your voice could very well be that of the hundreds of shareholders in SGLB that don't post and read the Investors Hub board religiously. Most are in a similar situation and wondering, as you are, what the correct course of action is. SGLB has disappointed many in it's performance to date and we only seem to have two views expressed on the Board. Utter confidence that the market for their products will explode over time and patience will be well rewarded. On the other hand some here believe that the management is inept, if not corrupt, and that even if modestly successful share price dilution will severely limit gains. The truth is likely somewhere between the two extreme points of view. SGLB is a highly speculative investment with unproven products in a new market. While they exhibited brilliance on the technical side their business practices have left much to be desired. As the PPS sinks below .05 cents the risk/reward becomes more attractive. My own view is that they are not going out of business any time soon as some here would have you believe, on the other hand I don't think the elaborate forecasts of the other camp will come to fruition either. You just might lose all of your investment by hanging around, or over the course of the next couple of years see a four or five times increase in share value. This is a penny stock and you have to determine your own odds for success. That said, it's clearly not a good choice for the widows and orphans crowd.
May not be all that impressive to the attendees when they find that Sigma has two offices in a 27 office complex of early start-ups and that the shared conference room might accomodate 50 people if everyone stood up.
Way too much energy spent on this discussion...back to talking about SGLB. I'm not going, end of story.
George:
O'Mara was my first choice however he resides in Venice CA. I thought a face to face meeting was important for this.
Up until the last few days the drag on the stock price had been solely related to the lack of substantive contract or sales numbers. Now there has been some doubt cast on the company's integrity and shareholders are reacting by dumping their shares in record numbers. We are at more than double the daily volume already and the day is but half over. Unless the company makes some statements that will clear up the integrity questions or comes through with record contract/sales numbers soon the PPS may very well be in the .02's and below.
I have always believed in the technology but have been impressed with managements ability to conduct the business end of things. I have never believed them to be dishonest (and still don't) just poor business people. They need to understand the crisis they are facing and make some sort of statement that will reassure shareholders that the business end is on the up and up and sales are just around the corner.
If this Board has any interest I am willing to take a stab at motivating them to action. I am not currently a shareholder but will purchase 10,000 shares today, just to keep them honest. I live less than an hour from their offices in Santa Fe and am willing to pay them a visit (I think I would approach Thacker who invited me to lunch with him at the 2013 Shareholders Meeting) and lay out a series of shareholder concerns that this Board would contribute. The more specific we can be in the pursuit of their past business dealings the better answers we can expect to receive. My fervent hope and belief is that it will boil down to a few poor business choices but nothing that could be construed as illegal. That's the deal, if the Board is interested, let me know, otherwise I plan to stay on the sidelines and think about reentering a couple of cents lower.
Driftin. It's a little scary, but I find myself agreeing 100% with your post. The one suggestion I would make to you is not to address Chris Witty with your concerns about the business aspects of the company and the need for more independent board members, but rather address those to Tom O'Mara. He is your independent member on the current Board and is charged with looking out for shareholder interests. He was brought on to the board specifically due to his strong business background. He needs to make his voice heard on how the business side of the company will be operated and the urgent need fror additional independent directors as they move closer to signiicant sales opportunities.
Chef. This one got my attention. These guys are sleezy from the word go. Is SGLB still associated with them?
I don't personally think it is too significant. If Witty does work from home and he chooses not to divulge his home address I can understand that. In all fairness, SGLB's offices are less than impressive as well. They occupy a couple of rented offices along with seven or eight other startups in a business incubator facility in Santa Fe. SGLB is after all a startup and they utilize contractors, part-timers, etc. to manage costs. If Witty does the job for them, and he is a lower cost alternative to a high priced IR firm, more power to them.
The address is definitely a UPS store. Usually (I admit, not always) these boxes are used by folks who do not want to be found. On the surface Darrow Associates seems to be perfectly legitimate, as does Witty. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.
Simply not true and you know it.
Chef:
You are, of course, correct. If one were to look up Sigma Labs on Morningstar, Bloomberg, Business Week, etc. each site will have a different list of Company Directors and Officers. This is pretty basic stuff and if Witty does nothing else this should be corrected immediately. To my knowledge there are three directors, Cola, Thacker and OMara. Omara is the only independent director and was brought on board because of his management consulting and start-up experience. Monica Yaple is listed on some sites as the Treasurer and CFO even though she is an independent CPA who only spends a couple days a month at Sigma Labs. Her Linked In Account does not even mention Sigma Labs as a client. Vivek is still listed as the Executive VP on some of these sites rather than as an advisor. This is pretty basic information. If they can't manage to keep this straight, what else is not as it seems? To me, this is just one more bit of evidence that as brilliant scientists as these guys turn out to be they need some basic lessons in business management 101.
Driftin I agree with your assessment of the technology's potential.That is only half the story however. The number of shares outstanding and the number of additional shares that will be required to be issued to launch any kind of sustainable business will weigh heavily on share appreciation ( let's not forget this is a company with less than a dozen employees). I continue to be bothered by the BOD being controlled by insiders and by Vivek's departure. Perhaps news will be released when Q-4 is formally announced but I am not yet aware of a single order for PR3D nor for a customized part order on the new printer. Given the above, I guess my outlook is for longer term success but nothing like the sudden explosion in share appreciation that is expected by many here.