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.
Have you read post 49810 by Kmey3434?
I think that post is a very plausible explanation for the proposal to increase the number of authorized shares - and one that would be in the interest of all current shareholders
Why do you think authorized but unused shares have a negative impact on current shareholders? It doesn't change the size of your stake.
If the shares are subsequently issued the effect on current shareholders would depend on what assets or revenues the company received in exchange for the shares.
We have 53 days until the annual meeting and a decision on increasing the number of authorized shares.
I intend to wait and see if management addresses the issue and if Sigma's intent is to ultimately use the additional shares in order to (a) facilitate institutional investment and/or (b) acquire or merge with other companies.
Either or both could prove to be in the best interest of Sigma and its shareholders, so I think it's prudent to give this some time before casting a vote
The increase in authorized shares could be in anticipation of acquiring Morf3D or other companies.
Or interest by institutional investors
Or for future forward stock splits in anticipation of events that will cause a dramatic increase in the pps.
The authorization in itself does not warrant a negative connotation.
On April 7, KMey3434 posted a video about GE Aviation.
How did those of you on this board interpret the video and what, if anything, do you think it indicates or foretells for Sigma?
Thank you. I was not aware of the use of the term as it applies to patent application. My initial though was the company was taking legal action for infringement of their patents. I appreciate you setting me straight. Most instructive.
Can you clarify what the company means when it states it is currently "prosecuting" ten patents?
Are they filing action against other companies for alleged violation of Sigma's patents? Or is the term "prosecuting" in this instance intended to mean something else?
I'm traveling and was not able to listen to the conference call.
Was there any reference to the $1M loan Sigma received last year? Has it been paid off with the recent receipts from the secondary offering?
Also, what are the terms of the $500K convertible note to Morf3D? I saw the posting that the note carries 7% interest but what are the convertible provisions?
Thank you, Silver. I hope you will be participating in the conference call on Thursday.
Jackie, could you comment as to what effect you think the recent announcement by NASA about its development an in situ inspection process will have on Sigma's business potential.
How does the NASA process compare with PR3D?
Thank you. Your comments and postings are always instructive.
What effect will NASA's development of an in situ inspection process have on acceptance of Sigma's products?
What do you mean by your statement "...once the lenders start unloading"?
What lenders? What will they be unloading?
Incidentally. Sigma is not based in
Albuquerque, and I don't think they have any "shacks" there.
Also, Thacker is no longer a director or employee of Sigma.
I would think we will see good volume on Monday as speculators and Sigma longs load up in anticipation of good news from the America Makes review in El Paso on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
If the news is indeed good, we could see a dramatic impact on the pps.
I don't believe there has been any announcement yet as to when earnings will be released.
Annual reports (10-K) must normally be filed within 90 days following the end of the fiscal year. In Sigma's case this would be March 31.
Quarterly reports must normally be filed within 45 days following the end of the quarter. So, we should expect earnings for 1Q 2017 to be announced by May 15.
Silver, what is your current estimate of the number of printers presently in operation? And what is your projection of the number of printers by 2020?
I believe in the past you have cited industry forecasts for 10,000+ printers within the next couple years. Is that still an appropriate projection?
And thanks for all your meaningful posts on this board. You have really contributed with your knowledge and insight of the additive manufacturing industry and Sigma's future.
Bert,
Thank you for explaining your calculations.
The projection of units sold and the revenues from licensing are very optimistic.
Obviously, time will tell, but I hope your estimates prove true.
Bert,
I also wonder if you mean that you calculate PPS at 3 times sales - rather than a P/E of 3.
P/E ratios for established companies are usually in the range of 10-20 times earnings. Price per share for burgeoning companies like Sigma could well be 40 or 50 times earnings depending on projections of future growth.
Your calculations are interesting, but I do not understand some of the computations.
For example: in 2018 you indicate 500 units. 500 at $30,000 would total $15,000,000 - not the $4.5 M you indicated.
The same math errors appear for units sold in 2019 and 2020.
Also: how do you calculate the P/E and PPS? There are approximately 4.5 shares outstanding. If profits in 2017 are $1.5 M (50 x $30,000) it appears the E (earnings) would be about $0.33 (1.5 / 4.5). A P/E of 3 would then indicate a PPS of about $1.00.
I appreciate your projections and the thought you have put into them. I would just like to understand your calculations a little better.
Thank you for sharing your insight.
Thacker is no longer a director. He resigned in January.
Furthermore, the S-1 states that neither Thacker or the other director (O'Nara) who served the company in 2016 received any salary or fees paid in cash.
Thacker did receive a grant of 5,000 shares of common stock for his services as a director. That is not unusual or inappropriate and does NOT represent any cash outlay by Sigma or diversion of any of the company's revenues.
You are making baseless assertions in an attempt to mislead those on this board.
That's an outrageous statement that suggests criminal activity in a public company illegally diverting revenues.
You had better cease and desist or be prepared to back up that statement or else you may well subject yourself to libel charges.
I invest in companies and their management and have been doing so quite successfully for many, many years.
My philosophy is to do my research and due diligence - not to try to tell the companies and their management how to conduct their business.
If I don't like what I see or I become negative on the company's prospects, I sell my interest and move on. I find no benefit in trashing the company and its officers and directors.
I have never met or talked with Mark Cola, but Capt_Smith is right when he says "...this company would not exist without him."
I am astounded by many on this board who complain about Mark's salary or the options he has been granted. The criticism to me is unwarranted and unrealistic in a business sense.
Mark is a founder of Sigma and the technology that many of us are hoping will ultimately produce big returns for our own financial benefit.
Regardless of what happens down the road, Mark has invested many years and personally contributed his scientific and technical expertise.
Mark is certainly entitled to be compensated for his time and effort in bringing the company to this point. His present salary of $220,000 is not unreasonable or inappropriate for the founder and CEO of a developing technology company.
The options, as many have expressed, are also a normal incentive and prospective reward for key employees in startup companies or new technologies.
The success of Sigma is largely dependent on Mark and his employees. If they succeed, those of us who have invested will also prosper.
But we need remember that as investors - or critics - we actually will not have contributed a thing to the company's success. Sure, we have invested our money, but that was our choice. If we had not chosen to invest, someone else would own our shares. As individual investors, we have no real effect on Sigma one way or the other. Mark and his key employees do. Let's let them do their job and not begrudge them for being compensated for their efforts. It's their work that will determine what kind of a return we get for our voluntary investment. They have much more at stake, personally, professionally and financially, than any of us.
Why do you deliberately misstate and mislead? Sigma did not spend "millions" on the printing machine. It was less than $1M. Let's not state "alternative facts."
Why would you be worried about the IP debt? The prospectus for the recent stock offering clearly states the debt will be paid off from the proceeds of the offering.
Does anyone on this board know what happened to Bill Herman, the former GE employee who was to head up the Arete-Sigma joint venture?
He supposedly had a good background at GE, yet we know the Arete joint venture never got off the ground. Was that a precursor of a problem with the "lock step"?
Does anyone know where Herman is working now? Not with Materialise I hope.
Wouldn't you expect the management and officers of the company to share in the rewards if the company is ultimately successful?
I think the awarding of shares and granting of options is appropriate and serves as good means of incentivizing key employees.
If the stock is above $4.00 the warrants will be "in the money" and command a premium.
For example: if the stock was at $10, the warrants should be priced above $6. The premium as to how much more than $6 will depend on how much time remains until expiration.
In the above example, if the warrants for some reason were selling at $5, you could buy the warrants for $5, convert for $4 and immediately make $1. That's why the warrants will always command a premium if the stock is above the exercise price.
The warrants are priced now at $1.20 which means you would be paying in the future $5.20 for a share of SGLB common that you can presently buy for about $3.75. That's almost a 40% premium.
The only reason I can see do that is the fact that you can conceivable control more shares for your money today by buying about 3 warrants (3 x $1.20) for the cost of one share of common ($3.75). But remember you still have to pay $4.00 a share to exercise the warrant in addition to the $1.20 you have already paid.
For me, I'd rather own the common even if I have to settle for fewer shares. That way I own something tangible, not intrinsic.
If the stock was at $100 within the next 5 years, the warrants at that time would be worth $96 plus a small premium. The premium would depend on how much time remained prior to the 5-year expiration.
So, you could, if you so choose, just sell the warrants at that time.
The exercise price of $4.00 is spelled out in the first paragraph of the prospectus. It was also mentioned in the press release.
The warrants are issued as part of the new offering of 1,400,000 units. Each unit has a price of $4.13 and consists of one share of common stock and one warrant which may be exercised within the next five years to purchase a share of common for $4.00.
The warrants may be obtained by purchasing units in the present offering or by separately purchasing the warrants on the open market. The closing price of the warrants on the open market today was $1.00
The officers and directors of the company are bound by a "lock-up" provision for 90 days.
To my knowledge, the institutional buyers of this offering are not subject to any restriction on the subsequent sale of their shares. But common sense and business practice would dictate that they are unlikely to flood the market with sale of their shares in the immediate future unless they have a pretty good profit. They presumably invested because they think the shares will appreciate in value.
And, no, prior investors are not going to see any warrants show up in their brokerage statements unless they purchase them in the open market. Unfortunately surprise gifts like that rarely occur.
The offering price of $4.13 is for one share of common and one warrant.
The common closed today at $3.69 and the warrants at $1.00.
So the total value of one unit st today's close is $4.69 compared to the offering price of $4.14
Well, the volume has resulted in an increase of about 20% in share price today.
Big volume so far today. Over 60,000 shares so far - the equivalent of 120,000 pre-split. This is about 1.5% of the outstanding shares (adjusted for the split and the new offering). Good indication of interest and activity.
The average (or break even) price of the shares you bought in 2014 has to be adjusted for the 1/100 reverse split and the recent 1/2 reverse split.
You now have 1/200 of the shares you bought pre-split so your average cost per share (break even) has to multiplied by 200.
Or, take the total cost of the shares you bought and divide by the number of shares you now have after the two splits.
The $21+ number you cite seems correct given the time and price of your purchases.
Did Murray Williams purchase options or were they granted to him by Sigma as part of his employment? I thought the filing indicated these were options that would vest at certain periods during Williams' employment.
Again, you mislead when you refer to "projected earnings" for 2017.
The $700,000 represents scheduled payments to be made in 2017 under previously announced contracts.
You apparently project that Sigma will not secure any additional revenue in the next 10.5 months. That is a rather unrealistic view, and in any event should not be passed off at this time as fact
The warrant gives you the option to purchase a share of Sigma stock for $4.00 at any time prior to expiration (5 years).
If you pay $0.70 for the option, the price of Sigma stock would have to rise above $4.70 in order for you to profit.
If the stock was trading at less than $4.00 you obviously would not want to exercise the option and the warrant would be worthless.
If the stock ultimately trades at $10 within the five year period, you would have a nice gain of $5.30 per share ($10.00 less the $4.00 you pay to exercise the purchase and less the $0.70 cost of the warrant).
Jeff, are you surprised or concerned about the actual offering price of $4.13 per unit? It is well below what was anticipated a few days ago and provides the company with far less money for operating purposes (retiring debt, buying machines, adding staff etc).