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.
Driftin...this will be my last comment on Vivek's departure. Since we can't read his mind neither of us can know his motivations for certain. My only point about his diminished role is that as a co-founder and developer of SGLB's core technologies doesn't it seem strange to anybody but me that just as SGLB is poised to cash in on all the developmental efforts over several years Vivek makes his exit. I can think of three possible reasons: 1. For reasons we will likely never know he was forced out by Mark and the Board. I discount this reason because of his continuing presence as an advisor. 2. The opportunity to be the CEO of a high-tech startup had so much potential both monetarily and technically that he simply could not pass it up. or 3. and the one that should give some cause for concern here is that, as the technician most knowledgeable about the potential of PR3D he simply did not see the market potential for the product suite that others here claim, and got out while he had other attractive opportunities. My bet would be on option 2 but even if true this should still give some pause as to why a new startup would be more attractive than SGLB's potential to revolutionize the metal printing industry. Apparently, no one but myself sees this as an issue so enough said.
As I think back on it now when I attended the SGLB Board meeting in October of 2013 Vivek was not in attendance. It was explained that he was out of state doing consulting. They connected him via an amplified telephone so that he could participate and he was introduced as the Executive VP of SGLB. According to Vivek's own account he left SGLB in August of 2013 to become an independent consultant.
So going from Executive VP with no other conflicting activities to becoming an "advisor" with three other major on-going commitments is "no change". Dream on.
It is incorrect to state that Vivek's role is unchanged at SGLB. He has gone From being a co-founder and Executive VP for a period of seven years...to a consultant...and finally to an advisor (since December of 2014)...clearly a diminishing role. At the same time he is not only the CEO of Knowledge Machine, but is a co-founder of Kinalco and a Founding Scientific Consultant at Northern New Hampshire Technical Associates. The job descriptions and time periods below are taken directly from Vivek's Linked In account. Note that he describes himself as the CEO of Knowledge Machine Inc. To me, this leaves liittle doubt as to where his current emphasis is placed. It is abundantly clear that his main focus is no longer SGLB.
Vivek R. Dave, PHD
CEO, Knowledge Machine Inc.
Scientific Advisor, Sigma Labs
December 2014 -present
In this position I will be offering external independent scientific and engineering advice as requested by Sigma Labs on a wide range of technical, programmatic, and product development matters.
Scientific Consultant, Sigma Labs
August 2013-December 2014
In this consulting role, responsible for overall scientific vision for products and strategic partnerships as well as intellectual property (IP), i.e. patent filings.
Co-Founder and Executive VP, Sigma Labs
June 2006-August 2013
Co-Founder of a small technology company dedicated to developing and deploying advanced materials and process technologies for the defense, aerospace, oil and gas, energy production, and biomedical markets. Special emphasis on in-process, on-machine, real-time process sensing and control for quality.
Co-Founder
Kinalco, Inc.
August 2013 – December 2014 (1 year 5 months)Cambridge, MA
Co-founded an advanced materials company with an innovative team from MIT consisting of students, faculty and consultants. Helped facilitate the transition of this technology out of MIT, filed additional patents, helped to secure seed stage funding, and helped to establish initial customer contacts.
Founding Scientific Consultant
Northern New Hampshire Technical Associates
2007 – Present (8 years)Concord, NH
Experienced consultant in materials, metallurgy, and manufacturing as well as providing support for product liability / product performance matters.
Co-Founder and CEO
Knowledge Machine, Inc.
December 2014 – Present (2 months)Greater Boston Area
An early stage technology company involved with advanced materials, manufacturing, predictive algorithms for complex and non-linear phenomena, and other technologies. Unique technology maturation model focuses on those technologies ready to leave the lab but not through all stages of product development yet. Revenue model focuses on non-equity relationships with other firms including joint ventures, partnerships, and licensing agreements.
A bit like saying "I still love my wife, but I've decided to get a girlfriend on the side". If the impact on the 3D metal printing industry is going to be even remotely what some here claim, this makes no sense at all. SGLB is all about innovation. Vivek does not need to go somewhere else to do that. Sorry, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
Chef. Further to your point, the thing that would concern me the most is that the chief scientist of the company would choose to branch out on his own with such a supposedly bright future projected for SGLB. Who would be in a better position to know what the potential for SGLB's technology would be than Vivek? If this does not ring alarm bells in the minds of the faithfully devoted here, it certainly should. This is just one more reason for having board members who are independent of the company and have stockholders interest as their primary motivation in control.
Driftin. We probably are not all that far apart on our views as you may believe. I was impressed with SGLB's potential early on but have become disillusioned due to what I perceive as slow execution, dilution (with the potential for more), and limited resources to become a name player in the industry. I agree that the 3D sector will recover and that 3D metal printing will be a dominate force. I also agree that the the scientific management core of SGLB is exteremly sharp. I do have some concerns about their business abilities and what I consider to be their fluff PR's to shore up the share price. The fact that, to my knowledge, they have yet to actually sell a PR3D system that has been available for months now, also raises doubts in my mind about how the industry views their products. You are absolutely correct that I will be left in the dust if they announce a multi-million dollar contract in the near future, but I just don't feel confident enough in their future to pull the trigger at this point.
P.R.'s with promises and projections won't do any more than create a small blip in the stock price. We are solidly into the "show me the money mode" and RFB is correct the PPS will fade quickly after a day or two. SGLB will be on life support until that first substantial revenue announcement is made.
Yup. May be one of the few "fence sitters" here. It's very hard for me to get my head around most of the wildly optimistic forecasts for SLGB's future. I also do not buy into the "scam, going-out-of business camp" either. I have personally met and talked with these guys and know them to be super smart and visionary. Whether they prove to be good businessmen is still up-for-grabs in my opinion. The price point is getting very close to what I believe is fair value for the risks. I've gotten so beat up on my oil and gas holdings that I've become much more protective of my resources. The tipping point on this stock is close at hand. How far it will "tip" on good news is anybody's guess.
The idea that the decrease in the stock price is all due to "manipulation" just simply does not stand up to the price history over the past year. If you take any time period ( a week, a month, three months, six months, there has been a steady and consistent down trend). The stock has fallen from .19 to .07. The fall is based upon the failure of the company to generate revenue and or contracts and the cloud of further dilution. No amount of artificial "manipulation" results in an almost three fold decrease in a share price.
"Let's see if PR3D or parts manufacturing contracts are on the horizon". PR3D was "commercially available" in September and SGLB has been "analyzing requests for quotes" for contract manufacturing since October. As much in demand as this product andthese services are assumed to be by most here it would seem that orders would have materialized before now. It's hard to believe that the SGLB IR machine would not have announced either event. After all, if it's significant enough to publicize that SGLB is analyzing reuests for quotes, one would think they would let us know when they received a firm order.
How about "the fact" that the stock would have to triple in price just to attain what the price was a year ago vs. some very wishful thinking for what the future will bring. Surely you jest!!
It's December 31 and a good time to take stock of where we are. Of the 400 plus followers of this board it would seem that 99% or more have retained their faith in the future prospects for SGLB. Last year on this date the share price was at .19, today it is hovering in the mid .06's, a 65% decline. I can't help but recall many of the pundits over the past year projecting the bottom was in when the share price sank to .16, again at .12 and loudly when it reached .10. I do believe that SGLB will be successful longer term but I have a hard time buying in to the share price expectations that crop up regularly here. With more than 600 million shares outstanding (and more on the way) coupled with a staff of under a dozen scientists (no matter how brilliant) I simply can't buy into the aggressive projections being made. Will the share price pop when revenue or contracts are announced? Most certainly, but not to the extent many here hope for. I thought we would see a major pop when Printrite3D commercialization was announced in October (it didn't happen). Most here believe 2015 will be SGLB's year to shine. We only have one more day to wait before we find out.
Of course "you can keep shareholders in the dark". Just watch what happens to the share price however if that's what they choose to do.
You simply can't have a filing like this and keep investors in the dark about what your plans are. Management needs to have a very good story to tell about how this cash infusion is going to benefit shareholders or there will be no limit to how far the share price will decline.
Whatever the reason for the planned dilution it is in the company's best interest to make it public quickly. Mr. Market is never happy with dilution that is not clearly accretive to earnings.
It appears that there is some tax loss selling going on. In my opinion there is at least a 50/50 chance that someone would be able to rebuy shares 31 days from now in this approximate price range. Worst case, if there is an announcement shares could be bought back earlier and a wash sale would result in losing the tax loss advantage. Prices should firm up closer to year's end.
I would certainly think that the first order for PR3D or the first contracted printing order would be a material event and be reported.
Jackie: You make a compelling case for SGLB's future. I'm more focused on the present. I would have expected to see orders for PR3D and contracts for custom printing by now. The fact that these have not materialized makes me wonder about the assumed built-up demand. Some will say it's too early for orders. If the need is as great as many here suggest, it would not seem too early at all, but that is just my opinion. Until the orders, contracts and revenues actually appear the PPS will continue to sink. Will I miss the boat completely, by waiting? Perhaps, but that is the difference in our investing approach. You are convinced of future success. I have yet to see verification of that conviction.
Well, they had requests for quotes over a month ago, and still no agreement for a single part. What about PR3D being "commercialized for three months now and no orders. What about the $750,000 in revenues to be booked this year? You may not be "fussed" but perhaps you should be?
Why I Have yet to reinvest in SGLB:
I am not in the industry and I don’t have a crystal ball to reasonably predict the future success of SGLB's technology. Those that are more knowledgeable than I seem to have universal agreement that SGLB’s products will gain universal acceptance as industry standards and be enormously successful. They may be exactly right, and I hope that they are.
I’m a New Mexican native and invested in SGLB early...in at .03 and out at .17. I attended the SGLB Board meeting two years ago (shortly before I sold) and have followed the stock closely ever since looking for a reentry point. Last Spring, when the stock was trading in the mid teens I felt that if the PPS reached the .08 region the risk/reward would be appropriate and I would reinvest. I have decided to wait for further price erosion, which I expect to occur, before pulling the trigger. Here are my reasons:
I assumed that the commercialization of Printrite3D would be the major stumbling block to contract awards and revenue generation. With the allegedly enormous need for this type of software, and SGLB’s wide industry contracts with major players, I expected to see orders flow from the announcement of availability. This has not occurred, even three months following the announcement.
SGLB stated that they were receiving requests for quotes for contract printing on their new machine (which is apparently now operational) yet have never announced a service contract or associated revenue. I also have to wonder what the “payback” time is for a 3/4 million dollar printer to generate one-off parts a single part at a time.
SGLB announced almost a year ago now that they expected to see $750,000 in revenue this fiscal year. No announcement to date (this is a significant event) and two weeks left in the year.
Perhaps most worrisome to me is the fact that SGLB has only a single independent director who is looking out for shareholder interests. There is absolutely no excuse why this has been neglected for so long and raises a red flag in my mind.
Finally, with 612 million shares outstanding assuming a 20% net profit margin, SGLB would have to generate 30 million dollars in sales for a single penny to fall to the bottom line for each shareholder. While I could be completely wrong, I personally don’t see this happening in the next 12 months, under the most optimistic of assumptions.
My new target is sub .06 PPS. I’ll reevaluate when/if the PPS ever reaches that point. Clearly my opinions run against the grain here, but that is how I see it.
Yawn!! Show me some revenue, if you want to generate real interest. I didn't agree with others that were predicting sub .06 PPS earlier, but I am joining that camp now. The longer they go without generating meaningful revenue or contracts the more shareholders are going to drop by the wayside. I never imagined it would go this long. SGLB desperately needs to show sales/contracts soon.
While I believe RFB's argument has merit, I am not nearly as pessimistic as he is. I do believe however that the stock will be trading below eight cents in the very near term, absense a contract announcement. Shareholders have had a history of being "event driven" whereby every announced event tends to drive up or firm the share price and when no blockbuster news is announced the share price tends to drop in the following weeks. We are in the midst of tax selling season and many shareholders are significantly under water. Some will exit because they have tired of waiting for news of contracts or revenue announcements. Some may also exit in the near term to capture the tax loss with the idea of buying back in January. It doesn't take a lot of sellers to move the stock price and the odds would seem to favor short term lower price points.
It did not. If you google SGLB employees you will find several references that indicate the three employees I mentioned. My assumption was that these references must be out-of-date and hence my question.
I'm not sure what to believe and that is why I asked. I've been unsuccessful in identifying other employees in the research that I have done. I just assumed that I must be missing something.
Clarification Please:
I am probably missing something in regards to SGLB's headcount. I'm aware of Mark, Vivek, and Monica on a part time basis. Does anyone know anything about the software engineer's', market development person, etc. that they advertised for some time ago? Were any of these folks actually hired? Does anyone have a handle on their contractual employees, if any, at the moment. Thanks.
Crook: .02 is wishful thinking but I do think you can grab some in the .07's if no contract news before tax selling gets going in earnest.
I have been either a founder or board member in two software startups and one hardware. How about you?
Quite the contrary. I don't think they should have bought the first machine.
r0und: Guess we will continue to disagree on this one. I maintain that revenue WILL BE minuscule compared to what is anticipated (hoped for) marketing the Printrite3D software. You are talking about a single machine manufacturing one part at a time. Jeez!! Yes they should get revenue, but this is not what they should be concentrating on. They made a big splash several months ago about hiring a business development manager, but no news since. They need to get this function up and running in a hurry. It should have been no news to any of the host of potential buyers that Printrite3D was about to be released. Several here have made the point that it takes time to get orders. Certainly true, but they should have been working on this well prior to the release date. Once again what I see are brilliant scientists and terrible businessmen.
100% agree Johnny. This is a distraction from what they should be concentrating on….getting orders on the book for Printrite3D. The revenue from manufacturing parts will be miniscule and in my opinion (other than proof of concept) is a waste of time. By the way what ever happened to the Business Development Position that they recruited for several months ago? This position is critical to their longer term success and I have heard nothing since the original job posting. If SGLB gets a "pop" from this announcement it will be short-lived. Unless real revenue shows up soon I believe there is a 50% chance that the stock price will sink to the .05's level.
Insiders At Sigma Labs Inc (SGLB)
Name (Connections) Board Relationships Title Type of Board Member Age
Mark Cola 7 Relationships Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Operating Officer, Director and Member of Finance Committee Chief Executive Officer 54
Vivek Dave 7 Relationships Chairman of Technical Advisory Board and Chief Scientist Chief Scientific Officer 44
Michael Thacker 9 Relationships Secretary and Director Secretary 77
Other Board Members On Board*
Name (Connections) Board Relationships Type of Board Member Primary Company Age
Charles Farrar 7 Relationships Member of Advisory Board Sigma Labs, Inc. --
Damon Giovanielli 9 Relationships Member of Advisory Board Sumner Associates, Inc. 70
Allen Mason 9 Relationships Member of Advisory Board Sumner Associates, Inc. 81
Tom O'Mara 7 Relationships Member of the Board of Directors Sigma Labs, Inc. 77
Jim Williams 7 Relationships Member of Advisory Board Sigma Labs, Inc. --
*Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy.
Thanks. Was there any explanation as to why Vivek was dropped from the Board this time around?
Since I am not a shareholder I did not receive the proxy information. Do I understand correctly that the election of some new independent directors was on the Board agenda? If so could someone please post the names and, if known, the voting results? Thanks.
I am remaining on the sidelines here. My plan several months ago was to reenter when I thought that the stock price had reached fair value (in my estimation that was .08 more or less). Even though we are now at that level I am hesitant to buy because of my disappointment in the Board for not seeking out independent directors. This is, of course, a requirement for upgrading and I believe a pre-requisite for gaining wide accepance in the marketplace. It was fine for a group of former employees to get together and get the company off the ground but now that they have some maturity under their belt and are getting ready to generate contractual revenue I simply don't feel comfortable with insiders running the show. I had hoped that they were going to address this issue at the last board meeting, but from all appearances they did not. I believe that there should be a strong push-back from current shareholders for the Board to rectify this situation before they get too much further down the pike both for increased confidence in the Board's actions and as a pre-requisite for eventual listing on a major exchange.
Yup. Rememebr at least some of these numbers were "up to" figures , not hard contractual commitments. Let's see, at 30% net profit margin (generous) that would produce earnings of $.00068 per share, or seven one hundreth of a penny. I don't think that whether they come to pass or not that it will make a whole lot of difference.
No, 12:00PM NYC time. Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific. Mountain time is two hours behind Eastern.
Santa Fe is on Mountain Time. 9:05 AM here now.
Silversmith is correct. I'm not a shareholder at the moment and so will not attend. I do find it pretty amazing that with all the interest in this stock and the considerable holdings that some of you have that no one wanted to spring for an airline ticket to attend. This is a rare opportunity to get both management and board members in one-on-one conversations
I'm afraid those buying today in anticipation of a significant announcement or news at the annual meeting are going to be disappointed. Material news must (by SEC regulation) be announced when it occurs. It would be illegal to disclose anything at the meeting of a material nature that has not previously been disclosed. I believe the stock price is going to retreat to earlier levels within a few days following the meeting. Most here will disagree. We'll just have to see.