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.
Jim Schramm's companies are worth just under $1B. Here is a clip of him on Bravo TV showing off his cars, wealth, etc.
That literally took me 5 minutes of Googling.
I post sources. You don't.
Feel free to post sources of 3M's investments and sales of printed light and nanotechnology lights. I'd be absolutely shocked if you knew more about 3M than I do.
Here is 60 seconds of googling for James Schramm:
IMDB bio of Jim Schramm: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1682990/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
Online bio of Jim Schramm: http://jimschramm.com/
I have. Sources included. The specs are not even in the same ballpark. Lightsheets literally use a fraction of the electricity as its competitors.
I'm an investor in 3M by the way, quite a big one. They are an applied material science company, not lighting.
3M produces reflective road signs. Not printed light. Not even close to the same category. Here is their road products page:
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/NA_roadway/safety/
And here is their lighting products page, which focuses on fixtures and accessories, not actual lights:
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/architectural-markets/home/lighting-solutions/
First is Better Fallacy
If you think the first company to market is the best company to buy, then you would have NEVER bought Apple stock (IBM was first). You would have NEVER bought Facebook (MySpace was first). You certainly wouldn't have bought Tesla (Anderson Electric instead).
Being "first" doesn't always mean you have the best product.
This is the most well balanced post I have read in a long while, even brings up concerns that bulls should be aware of.
This forum really appreciates your contribution and we hope to see more of you here!
I have featured your post as a "sticky post" as it deserves to be seen.
Yes, I misunderstood your post. Suppose some stocks would trade on leaked information... unavoidable reality. I did want to point out that some of us make some good bets based on speculation or educated guessing upcoming events. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. Just try to be more right than wrong
Addressing the "control" myth:
Because some people can't be bothered to read historical posts before re-posting the same questions, here is the post below that addresses concerns of "control".
1. There are many successful controlled companies.
Most companies are in control of the hands of one person. Facebook (FB) has Zuckerberg in control of 57% of the voting. Same with Blackstone (BX). Both DISH and SATS are controlled by the SAME person. GOOG is controlled by the Founders. TSN is controlled by Heirs. Same with New York Times.
Look at ibox. All facts from filing and news.
Including this post that explains why your concerns about Schramm controlling the company is old news. This has already been addressed in this forum.
Read these posts:
Controlled Companies: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119744919
Par Value: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118472886
Funnily enough, the last time I utterly devastated these arguments from a bear they were removed by iHub Administrators. The posts did not breach the terms of service. They were censored. I filed a complaint to their parent holding company and strangely enough, no more censorship. Funny how that works.
Speculation. Ever buy something before an FDA approval? It's an educated bet.
As mentioned before, this type of analysis makes me question how you evaluate every company you look at.
Schramm took over a worthless company and built it into something valuable. You can too. Plenty of companies out there trading for next to nothing.
Except for one thing: you don't have a past history of running multi-million dollar epic successful companies. Schramm does. That's the difference.
He also secured exclusive rights to LightSheets and if you read about what that is you will quickly see it is far from "Nothing".
Nice try...
...you won't scare anyone into selling here.
We rely on facts.
Like today's news?
Well that would be insider information... so Village Man is right about that, it is problematic (meaning illegal). Theories and analyst projections or opinion are much different than leaked info...
Once you have a history of starting two multi-million dollar successful companies and selling them to make yourself a self-made millionaire... maybe you can rally investor confidence behind you also.
If you don't understand the concept of future value = current value at opportunity cost discount, you should really look into it.
XLIT is valuable due to its CEO's history of building epic companies and its product it has exclusive rights to. No one can take that exclusive away. It is theirs. and it is being run by a guy who has built 2 super successful $100M+ companies before in the past.
So... it is a bit more than "Nothing".
The 8K/A is no surprise to serious investors. Only people selling are those who a) can't read, b) panic for no reason.
If you invested in a company that just licensed a product to sell, would you expect revenue BEFORE they acquired the license?
Makes no sense.
The panic you are trying to induce will only work on the weak hands who don't know how to reason or read things for themselves. Those who actually know this financial period is BEFORE XLIT even went public, restructured and announced its plans to license LightSheets... aren't even concerned.
It's a buying opportunity for people like me.
Same with the last 2 times it had a panic sell-off. Guess what happened once all the panic was over? LOL traded right back up every time.
Strange that you expected revenue BEFORE the company announced revenue.
Everyone I know is expecting revenue to be reflected in the financial report that shows the period they actually started making revenue.
They just licensed the technology and started selling it. Why would they have revenue from a license they didn't own yet?
People that read this, panic and sell must not do very good on their other investments either.
I'm watching for a $1.50 break
Looks like someone is expecting good results, look at all that buying coming in.
It certainly is an interesting read: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1362718/000112178108000039/exhibit4two.htm
That is also how most contracts default, at least in my neck of the woods.
No. Usually tends to not have cash repayment clauses.
But I guess that's the difference between someone who scans for a single quote, then jumps to a negative conclusion in spite of all other facts and goes with a short position... and someone who actually reads all the filings and makes an informed trade.
Not saying being a bear is wrong. I'm saying not considering all the information, especially when short (unlimited downside), is reckless.
May* be paid off in cash, so yes, orders of magnitude better than your standard death spiral convertible financing.
Most bears seem to see "convertible at a discount to market" and see red, their vision is blurred and they stop reading. I imagine there are going to be a lot of shorters who will be squeezed on this one.
It is good to see there are others out there who reserve judgement until they read the entire filing.
...or it could be paid off in cash. Aren't facts fun?
And usually they don't have pay-down provisions. I would be agreeing with you if it didn't have that clause. But the existence of a cash pay-down clause makes this no different than a short-term bridge financing if paid before the conversion period.
The red flag is missing a lot of red.
If you were running a company, and convertible was that detrimental to your stock price and shareholder's confidence, would you continue with the conversion?
Or, as we saw with the conversion, would you make every effort to prevent unnecessary dilution of your shareholders?
I suppose we have different views of what competent management would do.
Facts that have been censored.
The following facts posted below directly related to XLIT and address the concerns of bears. They were removed by iHub Administrators for being "Off-Topic". This destroyed a considerable amount of good-faith investorshub.com had with me as a content contributor and moderator. When relevant facts are removed for being Off-Topic, how can it be a forum of discussion?
Re-post of censored facts:
1. There are many successful controlled companies.
Most companies are in control of the hands of one person. Facebook (FB) has Zuckerberg in control of 57% of the voting. Same with Blackstone (BX). Both DISH and SATS are controlled by the SAME person. GOOG is controlled by the Founders. TSN is controlled by Heirs. Same with New York Times.
Notice how we are now discussing facts? See how much more reasonable they are?
I certainly agree. Time will tell. It could dilute shareholders. It could also be paid off early.
We are now in agreement on a reasonable conclusion of the whole factual picture.
Indeed. Stock has nearly doubled last 2 days. Seems some people are on the wrong side of that movement. Causes desperation it would seem, even so far as to be borderline delusional regarding the facts.
Sigh. Some people never learn.
How many times has the fact that this financing has a pay-off clause been addressed? It is hardly toxic if there is the ability to pay it down.
What kind of jail allows the prisoner to walk free?
Answer: not a jail at all.
What kind of toxic financing allows the subject to pay off the financing?
Answer: not a toxic financing.
The facts get even better.
That's before the takeover and new acquired company. Nice try.
Thanks for your post Mr. Zavarella, it helps us investors confirm the relationship we thought existed between XLIT and your company.
Do you sell any other products, or is LightSheets(TM) your primary focus in Canada?
You conveniently left out the "Pre-Payment of Principal" clause, which allows XLIT to repay the entire note without the holder's consent before conversion.
Hardly a terrible conversion deal when a company can prepay the entire principal before any conversion takes place.
Go fear monger somewhere else.
You realize the entire convertible note is less than the dollar volume of today, right? A single trading day eats through a short-sighted converting note holder.
Authorized was increased, yes, but not in response to the note. Read the note. It is clear there is no obligation to increase authorized at current prices. It helps if you actually read the filings and agreements you are commenting on.
Much more likely is increased authorized for potential acquisitions when you have a liquid stock trading this kind of dollar volume at these prices.
or maybe ABCD, GIG, AMCN, NYMX, DSKX, NCTY...
...oh whoops. No wait, those stocks went up.
Sorry to go against the narrative that all penny stocks go down. Facts get in the way of that sometimes. My apologies.
CEO gives up dividend rights for voting rights, gives shareholders a bigger cut of the pie. That's the way it should be, CEO working FOR the shareholders. I like it.
Most interesting thing to me though is the way it is setup, looks like they reducing common but increasing authorized, ahead of some acquisitions with common stock? That could be interesting. Instant value add depending on what they acquire.
$250k convertible is one day of liquidity in this stock. Take your fear elsewhere.
Latest 10Q is pre-merger of basically every significant asset and new business the company has done since its takeover, name and symbol change. If that's a sign of your ability to perform due diligence, I'll pass on your analysis.
...only black holes don't project light. All other objects project light, especially actual lights. That's literally what a light is. It's the entire point of a lumen rating.
What you are talking about is directional lighting and concentration of the output lumen. Again, all depends on how you set it up. You can focus output lumens to achieve higher lux (light on a specific area) using lenses, mirrors or simply overlapping, pointing and in the case of lightsheets... arranging in a concave manner.
Yes. All it does it block some lower wavelengths that equate to the blue/violet end of the spectrum, which "warms" up the light. It comes in sheets just like Light Sheets. This is literally the first result in Google when you look it up: http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/colour-details.html#443&filter=ld
It comes in rolls or sheets.
Yes. If you have a light source that gives you more light for less overall cost, you're going to want to use it in every possible application.
If you are serious about investing, you should probably learn to read the official SEC filings for yourself instead of trusting someone on an internet forum.
Here is a link to all of the filings: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=xli+technologies&owner=exclude&action=getcompany
You can see the 8-K from the 23rd of October showing the license agreement with CRU Global. Some further digging reveals CRU's manufacturer is Triton. And sure enough, if you look at XLI's website... it verifies all those facts right at the top next to the logo.
Well that couldn't be more wrong. Blanket statements about entirely plausible scenarios are irresponsible.
By the nature of buying out a company, you would most certainly acquire all of their IP. If XLIT leverages its capitalization and investment banking relationship with Carter, it could do an offering that would allow it to acquire the licensor for an all cash or cash and stock deal.
James is not involved in the automotive industry and yet he secured those rights. Your argument that their market is limited to entertainment is already unfounded.