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.
There's a movie about Nikola Tesla on Netflix.
Sometimes being first isn't best. it can be expensive to be the first to prove out a new technology. Sometimes there is first mover advantage. And sometimes it's better to let someone else (or organization) to bear the expense of testing the market, and then come out later with an improvement after someone has done the difficult part.
It seems like LQMT may be at that juncture: first to develop (way back), close to commercialization, some hard lessons learned, some expensive lessons as well.
To take their innovations and BMG innovations from leading universities and research organizations forward, it seems to me that big companies need to step forward. MTRN may be the one. We'll see what happens next.
I think they generated some interest but a snag was second sourcing which really is short sighted on their part but they needed confirmation apparently and have limited resources.
They could have had a "plan" at the time that outlined how large customer prospects could consider a "comprehensive" license but it sounds like they only realized this after they talked to customer prospects and got some feedback.
Who but those big company BD and sales guys would know about requirements for second sourcing. More likely, they went into customer meetings without a solution (for second sourcing) while at the same time went ahead and spent money on customer prototypes at LQMT expense.
=> short sighted (not strategic thinking at all for pros coming from large established corporations).
But no body ever said it would be easy operating on a limited budget.
If you can't make money on actual sales, try toxic financng!
Someone might consider asking the MTRN board if a merger with LQMT would help to address second sourcing issues with large potential customers.
Since they didn't seem aware that MTRN has a current role in sales development, they might not know.
But as time goes on, they may develop more expertise on MTRN to report back to the LQMT board as it could relate to LQMT.
I agree except the original timeline on growing revenues has slipped out two years (see chart at MTRN board).
Overall, sales/revenues have not developed to schedule whether generated by LQMT or MTRN.
Again, second sourcing for large customer prospects (defense, medical, automotive, etc.) was an issue this year in building a larger customer base.
The mention of 2H2014 for "comprehensive licenses" (may or may not relate to second sourcing since it VPC was mentioned in the same sentence) is much later than when the company needs new revenues (from licenses) as Steipp said that there will be more information forthcoming 2H2014.
Now that we read that ASHM are not necessarily held for attendance by shareholders, and given the communicated timelines and slip in schedule of the planned "revenue ramp" by two years, and a potential contract or revenue 4Q2013, 1Q2014, but not enough to fund operations in 2014, more financing is imminent (potentially dilutive).
If MTRN wanted to merge with LQMT (through a stock swap) and secured a larger stake in LQMT, they might have more say in how LQMT is managed (implied to be good if they want to grow their investment).
It seems to me like LQMT doesn't mind dilutive financing (for years), and might even prefer it, and is in no rush to change things, needs MTRN's customer base, and MTRN may look forward to future business from AAPL, and that the reality of the situation is just slow.
If a merger with MTRN solves second sourcing issues, then a merger sooner than later would/could address that issue.
As for sales groups, since MTRN also has not grown new revenues (and is identified on LQMT's website as having that role also), I don't see how all of the blame can fall on LQMT.
Anyway, even if there is a merger sooner than later, without second sourcing firmly in place (takes time to develop it, merged or not), a revenue ramp to grow general shareholder value anytime soon sounds unlikely.
But maybe the stock will pop on an igolf related contract announcement and/or a merger announcement.
This is consistent with Steipp's earlier comments about AAPL's timeframe for AAPL to do it themselves.
His mention of 2H2014 for comprehensive licenses also somewhat aligns with this, and with manufacturing related licenses manufacturing/production doesn't start right away.
Other areas where we differ in opinion (since the MTRN board assumes that LQMT is strictly responsible for sales generation):
LQMT and MTRN seem to have a good working relationship.
If they are driving sales relationships together, they probably share in the success of securing a contract.
I asked them when MTRN would be generating sales that could improve LQMTs financial picture (and stock appreciation).
It's news to them that MTRN has a role.
Let's hope that MTRN is also stepping up to the plate on behalf of LQMT.
Apparently they both have an objective to drive sales.
The MTRN board is calling the LQMT/LM board the experts on sales topics relevant to MTRN involving LM.
Indeed we are! MTRN is also stated as pursuing sales opportunities for the application of LM/LQMT as is LQMT of course.
We knew it before they did even though it involves both.
Good job LQMT for posting it on your website.
http://liquidmetal.com/about/partners/
Here's the reference that points to MTRN pursing sales opportunities implying use of their sales channel and/or jointly with LQMT:
( found at the partners section of LQMT's website)
"MATERION"
> Produces high-quality Liquidmetal alloy feedstock
> Pursuing sales opportunities where introduction of Liquidmetal can provide a unique material solution
"
It's stated here next to the MTRN logo below the supply chain diagram: http://liquidmetal.com/about/partners/
I read somewhere that LQMT intended to leverage the customer base of MTRN, and that MTRN had a customer channel to leverage. It seems joint that more hasn't materialized.
Good job keeping the watch. You were right. There have been a few fake outs, but ...
Did the company ever launch their new website under a new name?
We're hoping that more than, primarily, the relationship with LQMT will be discussed on this MTRN board since MTRN as a company is much broader. For example, the transition of some MTRN business units and/or product lines over to LQMT/LM based materials would be interesting to discuss or know about as MTRN considers this over the next 5 years based on comments in a past Annual report. Whether or not and when MTRN considers this would ( or could) factor into LQMT's plans overall as well. We don't expect to spend a lot of time here since our original interest was in LQMT. But seeing that MTRN is a major partner of theirs, it's worth keeping an eye on occasionally if something more significant could develop. Our question is "when" will LM/LQMT become significant enough to MTRN to be reflected in LQMT financial and stock performance.
We heard that that the board for MRTN (LQMT's partner) can be a place to get information on both from a MTRN oriented perspective; a place for like minded long investors hoping for a buyout of LQMT by the former.
....but I never got the impression that either AAPL or MTRN were in any hurry.
Maybe if things are proven out enough, MTRN is closer to considering them, in the meanwhile, LQMT might have to keep financing to keep going, etc.
Notice how no one seems to object to it except general shareholders.
Then that definitely sounds like MTRN. And if MTRN isn't in a hurry, then LQMT might need to do another round of (toxic?) financing to keep operating until MTRN is ready.
It seems like MTRN has he channels to market, so they'll get to call the shots.
It seems to me that to command a higher price, they need to pitch one bidder against another without alienating future potential business.
It sounds like they are trying to buy time to stay open to getting larger potential business driven by someone else (MTRN?) while potentially trying to ward off someone else for a hostile takeover, and that they anticipate another round of financing to stay alive, and keep their options open for larger potential contracts driven by someone else.
OR, if they really did want to retire, take the golden parachute, etc., a bidding war might be best.
So if that's the case, they might need MTRN to get more aggressive. How do they get them to do that? ... By securing a contract (even if not initially big, but a beach head) that involves MTRN.
Think about it...."expendable" ....decoys.
(Separate note) MTRN does not seem to be in any rush (it seems to me), so I wonder if they are really pursuing LQMT.
They have government sponsored activities. Why would they be in a "rush" to acquire LQMT. Without knowing that much, I would question if their govt. sponsored activities are in a rush as compared to non-govt. markets (more aggressive competition, etc.) unless there is a war, etc.
Maybe LQMT is trying to get a contract in and buy time to potentially command a higher buyout price later (vs. poison pill) while they continue to work with MTRN on government related projects.
In the meanwhile, they need to keep operating even if they get a contract (that might not cover all bases initially).
A point made by Steipp on the last CC that concerns me was his comment that they would need to get more financing to operate beyond 1Q2014 and that more information would be forthcoming 2H2014 regarding a "comprehensive" license for licensees (or a licensee) and that MTRN, VPC would be covered by it or something to that effect.
I haven't read the full scope of the most recent filing, but it sounds like management might be trying to protect themselves in the event of a buyout while at the same time they want to continue as a going concern though 2014.
It sounds almost like there may be interest by some group in buying them out they they keep trying to dodge, but that something might be coming 1Q2014, e.g. A contract, which might explain the inside buying.
My issue is wondering if another round of financing will be dilutive even if they get a contract and some traction.
I had a weird vision last night. The word "Kilgore" popped into my mind. I did an internet search and ran across a "Kilgore" company that produces and tests flare decoys for the military.
Is there any chance that LQMT might be working with them?
http://www.kilgoreflares.com/
I don't know military or defense at all. The only Kilgore(s) I have ever known or heard about are surnames, a law firm, and a town in Texas.
....and sees gold going lower.
I have Sprint's first gen (maybe it was 2nd/3rd gen timeframe for AT&T and it is heavy and made of glass...Sprint wouldn't offer insurance on it).
...and potentially longer runs and bigger returns.
For example, Crook added the granularity on this leg down and set a target and Edelson modified his forecast to allow for two dips and both are consistent (have to follow both streams).
Both projected this leg down.
Based on Crooks analysis and near term targets for gold, miners should hold their lows.
But if gold drops further (an option described by Edelson for now or January), they could go lower.
But either way, the current dropping was anticipated assuming that miners still follow general direction of gold and by looking at historical price action.
Crook anticipated the bounce two days ago.
Ok, thanks. Do you know the timeframe relative to the ASHM, end of year, and Feb2014?
Our question was for Magicland.
Also, I don't agree with the full assessment of MTRN. For instance, some of the people at MTRN are really close to Steipp and like him.
Those posts are really long and verbose.
Can you say if he sees the next round of financing as putting pressure on share price? E.g. Yes/no?
Thanks for the three replies.
it sounds like the transition in the company is definite.
Can someone explain where the next round of "financing" fits in and whether or not you believe it is good or bad for share price (and general shareholder).
It sounds like potential dilution to me with potential pressure on share price in spite of any potential positive developments (e.g. Changes in management, low revenue contracts (igolf related), etc.)
Could save alot of guesswork and churn.
You cam get it right if you follow and combine Edelson and Crook at Money and Markets.
After initial innovation, improvements, etc., usually happen a lot faster. The Caltech Research team comes from the beginning/it's not like they are doing something totally new from scratch. The same could apply for other competitors of LM.
Also, a more general material (vs. specialized properties) could have more widespread application. It depends on the application and market.
LQMT may come through with a great announcement soon, but any organization in a competitive field that is known to intentionally "take their time" doesn't sound competitive. They need to get bought out by an organization that can take things forward.
10 years of testing, refinement and development is not a standard or a rule. It could take 2 years or less.
Example, maybe it took 10++ years to define and develop the first transistor, but after that solid state devices, semiconductors, etc. came much quicker, were optimized, and then commoditized...quickly in comparison.
The "ignore" feature is working for us. great iHub feature.
The "ignore" feature works when "enabled" and can be edited.
There's nothing innovative about trying to bring back a past product line; instead they are correcting mistakes.
Correction: meant MTRN. If MTRN is smart, they'll continue to evaluate alternatives. They could buy LQMT, pay off the execs, and only use some of the IP. Common investors may not get benefit beyond a pump.
long time holders of the stock are hoping and praying that MTN will commercialize LQMT technology. The longer they wait or the more time that passes, the more time that better technology can materialize, e.g.
Maybe LQMT will be pumped again. They don't seem to have the resources to advance their IP par with Caltech which could pass them up at any time.
They hardly produce revenue and are over staffed on sales and business development that can't bring any in anytime soon.
They might have made more selling the referenced gumball machines...didn't even try or can't show that they did.
As other posters have pointed out, the company is worth what they can get for their IP and/or "on the cusp" (to be realized n the future, maybe) defense contract ... Maybe down the road, maybe when MTRN buys them out.
THey have real competition emerging out of Caltech that sounds better than what they currently have.
If I were a big company looking to make future investments further down the road, I'd be taking a closer look at Caltech's recent patents instead of LQMTs older ones, especially if the more recent patents cover capabilities that are easier to implement.
The post on the Caltech activity did it for me. If I were MTRN, I'd be looking at Glassimetal instead.
Supposedly a bigger drawdown in gold prices is needed to flush out some miners; we haven't seen the bigger drawdown yet.