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.
Why do you question Silver’s post about the likelihood of Sigma being able to get shareholder approval in the future to increase the number of authorized shares?
The tally on September 29 on the question of increasing the authorized shares from 7.5 M to 30 M showed that 70.8 % of the shares cast were in favor of the proposal.
2,018,874 in favor
765,052 opposed
66,319 abstained
The proposal failed because about
38% of the outstanding shares failed to respond and cast a vote for or against.
As Silver stated, a subsequent proposal could well receive a greater response and likely adoption.
Kanya, I appreciate all your comments about Sigma and your contributions to this board, but I was wondering how you know that Siemens is running Sigma’s IPQA on the EOS M290 and the M400 in Sweden.
I look forward to your verification.
Just keep things in perspective. The volume on the warrants today represents investment of less than $6,000
Doesn’t Sigma get their IP back as soon as the note holders (a) are paid in cash or (b) exercise their right to convert to the shares?
In order to retain the IP, I don’t believe Sigma has to wait for the note holders to convert AND then ultimately sell the shares.
Excellent presentation by John Rice at the MicroCap Conference in New York just concluded.
Archived version is now available on Sigma website. Slide presentation accompanies John’s remarks.
Trumpf and Additive Industries are identified as the two OEMs that Sigma presently has deals with.
You do indicate you expect the note holders to exercise and then sell somewhere in the 2.00 - 2.50 range. That then is your assumption or speculation.
As to whether the present note holders were investors in Sigma prior to the loan, I think we need to go back and review the documents at that time. Perhaps someone on this board can help shed some light - or more precisely - substantiate my recollection.
Weren’t these two note holders investors in Sigma before they became note holders?
If so, they may we’ll have more interest and faith in Sigma’s future than what you portend.
Remember, they don’t have to convert unless they think that is in their best interest. They could just take the cash if they feel like you purportedly do about Sigma’s future
Thank you, KMey. Your knowledge and DD are of great value to many of us on this board.
KMey, what are your thoughts about Morf3D being simply a strategic alliance as opposed to a merger with or acquisition by Sigma?
Interesting that Mark was in Europe instead of attending the annual meeting. I hope that indicates that there will soon be some positive developments with some of our European customers.
Was Ron Fisher also in Europe?
I am concerned about the inefficiencies of the voting process. I know of 3 accounts representing about 50,000 shares that did not receive any proxy voting materials or any follow up telephone solicitation.
Will audio of the annual meeting on Monday be available on the Sigma website?
Good question. Are you going to be present to pose it?
As I posted, I received a phone call because I had not received voting materials from my broker (Schwab). I know of others who also had not voted because they too had not received proxy materials and voting instructions from T. Rowe Price.
Yesterday's filing stated that Ron Fisher will be "... entitled to receive performance-based stock and cash bonuses if certain milestones are satisfied by February 11, 2018 ..."
Do you (or others on this board) attach much significance to the relatively short window of less than 5 months for Ron to reach these milestones?
Silver and others:
I hold Sigma shares in 4 family accounts with Schwab. We received voting instructions for one of the accounts last week, but nothing for the other 3.
I have now received a phone call from Alliance Advisors (877-777-8133) offering me the opportunity to vote by phone and have done so.
I am concerned though about the failure of Schwab to deliver voting instructions. I have a friend with a substantial number of shares in a T Rowe Price account who also has not yet received voting instructions. I wonder how many others are similarity affected.
Thank you, Jeff. We hope Harvey and its after affects have not caused you any harm other than the emotional toll we all feel
Thank you but that link still appears to be the May 18 filing.
Where can we access the registration statement and prospectus Sigma filed today? The only one I can find on the Sigma web site or on Sigma news outlets is the one filed on May 18
How do you explain the fact that the volume on UP days far exceeds the volume on down days?
Is it manipulation when the price goes down with no significant news?
Thank you, Jackie, for this and all the helpful information you provide.
Ted,, is today's announcement of delivery and installation of a version 2.0 system to Siemens a new sale or simply an announcement of delivery of a previously announced sale?
Read the release. It says "installed."
I asked earlier if you would be present at the annual meeting. I hope so. I will really be interested in your report. Hope to see you there.
HTRE, do you plan to attend and report on Sigma's annual meeting next month?
Likewise here in Sugar Land.
Jeff, I gather you live in or near the Greater Houston area, as do I. I hope you "weather" this incredible event. It is truly catastrophic with so many at peril.
C'mon. You've got it backwards. A reverse split does not result in increasing the number of shares. It decreases.
If, as you suggest, there was another 100/1 reverse split, each current warrant would be convertible into .01 (one one/hundredth) of a common share - not 100 shares.
Your comments and "guesses" are not only "confusing." They are factually wrong.
In the example you cited earlier, you are mistaken by a factor of 10,000 (100 as opposed to .01).
To the contrary. The fact that only about 2,500 shares were sold at less than 2.15 indicates it is far from a sell off. It is relatively minor action in a day where the volume is over 50,000 shares. If anything, it is a small effort by some to try to establish the market at a lower pps
That few shares have been sold under 2.15 and the present pps of 2.05 represents a minority view of the current value.
Over 50,000 shares traded but only about 5% below 2.15
C'mon. The warrants do not represent 100 shares. Each warrant represents the opportunity to convert to one share of common. A warrant is not the same as an option (which does represent 100 shares). I am surprised you don't know the difference
C'mon. There have been 5 trades of the warrants for a total of 2,421 shares. Meanwhile the volume for the common is over 43,000 shares. Your explanation falls "short."
There has been a new appointment to the board of directors. The board now has 4 directors. But John Rice is still the CEO - albeit it interim CEO.
John Rice is the interim CEO. Did you listen to the conference call last week or read his bio in any of the SEC filings?
I appreciate your posts. Your knowledge and due diligence have been extremely helpful. But I hope you refer to post 52858 by TedJ.
As Ted and others have stated, there are approximately 4.6 M shares outstanding. Until they expire in 2022, the warrants if and when exercised must come out of the approximately 2.4 M shares presently authorized but not yet issued. That's one reason why the number of authorized shares must be increased.
And even if the warrants remain "out of the money" for some time, they don't just disappear until they expire in 2022. If present investors in the warrants tire of their current paper loss, they can obviously sell the warrants, but then some new investor will own them. Sigma's obligation to possible convert the warrants and issue common shares will still exist and must be accounted for.
New director named. Dennis Duitch. See SEC filing under SGLB news
A "Dukie" and a "Tar Heel" do agree on this.
The verbiage in the quotation you cite is ambiguous and subject to interpretation.
I tend to agree with Jackie, KMey3434, jjsmith77 and other knowledgeable posters who maintain that the America Makes report actually stated that PR3D successfully met the objective of the project and that the language you deem to indicate total failure simply refers to the fact that the program also collected data for future study on other properties that did not relate to the IPQA process.
The semantics do not mean that ALL aspects of the project were not reliable related to the process. It simply means that data was collected to aid in further development to fully measure some properties like porosity and tensile strength.
The results may not have equated to the "Holy Grail" but that really was not the expectation and should not detract from the overall success of PR3D in the America Makes project.