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.
Firm contracts, real revenue, and perhaps a bit of profit…then you will see the results everyone here is looking for. Until that happens Gary can publish an article once a day and it is not going to move the stock price. I'm not sure what the price channel will be until this occurs but I would be very surprised to see it above a quarter or less than a dime.
It's just possible that the broader market is not nearly as impressed with the term "intent to cooperate" as this board obviously is
Silversmith:
I think that you are most likey correct. I just believe that they could have worded the release a bit better to spell this out. It's a perfectly reasonable way to go about something that is this complicated and I believe would have been well received.
It is either a poorly worded announcement (using the term "intent" instead of "will"): which would be a shame and their PR person should be fired. Or, it was intentionally worded to give an impression of a sealed deal which is yet to be sealed. Judging from the euphoria on the Board most read it that way. I'd be pretty disappointed in Mark Cola if that were the case.
The "agreement" is for the "intent to cooperate". Does this mean that this is yet another M.O.U.: or is there a signed contract stating that "they will cooperate" . If so, can someone point it out please?
The true test of todays up-swing in share price will come two weeks from now. It's clear that today's bump in price and volume is attributable to Gary's article. As he states it will likely be strong again tomorrow when it hits Seeking Alpha. Many of these new buyers are looking for a quick return with speculative money on a speculative stock. When that doesn't materialize in a couple weeks I believe you are going to see the share price drop back and we will be where we statred from on Friday. Just my opinion. Let's see what happens.
Drifting:
Stock buybacks typically signal that management believes the stock is underpriced and by buying back shares they increase the earnings per share. Always a very positive sign in my opinion. Reverse splits and buybacks have nothing in common. Reverse splits artificially raise the price of the stock to hopefully make it more appealing to a wider audience. Even if the reversal is to gain admittance to a higher exchange many stockholders view the move with suspicion. Here are a couple articles that discuss the typical effects of a reverse split on the stock price.
http://www.ourlegalsystem.com/theboemangroup/Investmyown/First_Page/Definitions/reverse_splits.htm
http://www.online-stock-trading-guide.com/reverse-stock-split.html
I also believe a reverse split is a very bad idea for SGLB. Since it changes nothing in terms of the company's valuation most investors see it as "cosmetic in nature" and wonder why it is necessary for the company to prop up the share price. Overall, there is no question that reverse splits have a negative stigma and in my opinon would discourage rather than encourage new investors to the company. My personal experience, and this seems to be supported by research, is that share prices tend to drift downward following a reverse split. If SGLB truly has the potential to change the world of additive manufacturing then a reverse split is not going to be necessary. They will grow exponentially on their own merits
Silversmith:
I think those are really great quotes and they pattern the way that I like to personally invest. The only caution I would urge (learned from painful and expensive experiences) is that sometimes uncomfortable ideas are uncomfortable for a reason that simply may not be apparent to you and the risks to lose everything are real. By investing only what you can afford to lose and spreading the risk among several "unconventional ideas" you minimize your risk and have a better chance of overall gains offsetting losses in risky investments that don't pan out. A few years back I was heavily involved in Chinese micro-caps and after making significant gains early on bet heavily on a couple of companies that I had thoroughly researched, only to become aware when it was too late that the management was corrupt and saw my entire investment go up in smoke. It does happen and the advice of never to put all your eggs in one basket still holds true today.
An Alternative Viewpoint
We all see the near and intermediate future of SGLB somewhat differently. I believe there is reasonable agreement on the longer term future or we wouldn't be wasting our time here. I believe further that many (certainly not all) of the regular posters here have come around to the fact that it will take a major announcement (significant revenue generating contract, product distribution agreements, etc. ) to cause a significant upward movement in the share price. The conference speaking engagements, minor patents, etc. may cause a minor blip in price, but they are not going to be game changing.
After the quick move up out of a .12-.14 channel to .17 the stock has been in a slow downward trend for a couple of weeks now. It seems to me the unanswered (and unanswerable question for shareholders) is how soon (and perhaps even if) that major share-price-boosting announcement will come. The truth is none of us knows or we would be very rich in short order so we have to make our own odds of what the near (30 -45 days) and intermediate (45-120 days) might hold.
My odds for when the game changing announcement will materialize are as follows:
Within the next 30 days: 10%
Within the next 60 days:25%
Within the next 90 days 60%
Within the next 120 days 85%
Beyond 120 days 90%
Never 10%
It is clear that I am the Board's pessimist and that's fine. As I said in the beginning we all see the future differently. I'm certain that my odds will generate strong disagreement and that's healthy. We all learn something along the way. While your odds for the same time frames may be radically different from mine (most will be) I would encourage you to actually write them down on a piece of paper as these odds should guide your investment decisions in SGLB (not in the longer term, but in the next 90 days or so). As many here will immediately point out: If you are out of the stock when such an announcement comes it will be too late to get back in. We won't know, I suppose, until that announcement comes. The downside of that argument is that if the "announcement" does not come within the nest 60 days or so I believe we are going to see further serious erosion in the share price. It's all a matter of playing the odds and it's important that you arrive at your own personal set of odds to guide your personal investment decisions.
Dad:
You say " The future of 3D printing everywhere looks bright." Perhaps, but it is yet to be reflected in their stock prices recently
ExOne:
Five days ago: $36.00
Today: $31.49
3D Systems:
Five days ago: $59.25
Today $54.70
SGLB:
Five Days ago: $16.50
Today $14.10
Johnny:
You have identified many of the same factors that bother me, and that as time goes on without a major contract announcement, will bother others as well. Despite the optimism that has always been prevalent on this board there will need to be some signficant milestones achieved before the stock price is going to break out of it's current trading range. Presentations at conferences and MOU's without achieving final agreements are simply not going to move the stock price.
Duffy:
It's all a matter of scale. SGLB certainly has the in-house talent. Could they independently support another customer or two besides GE? They probably could. Could they support sufficient new customers to justify a 560 million dollar market cap ($1.00 per share is what many here seem to be forecasting in the reasonably near term)? Clearly, no they could not. In my opinion it would be a mistake for them to even try. Their primary strength is in product development and every resource they devote to supporting end-users diminishes their abilty to transfer R & D from the LAB to the outside world. They need to stick to what they do best and contract with others to carry the rest.
It's not big enough for me. Is it for you? If GE is the only sales you expect for SGLB then your ambitions are far less than my own?
Oscaro:
You say: "In other words, this is expected of a start up, and it's a hurdle to be LEAP'ed over. It's just an obstacle, and not a show stopper". I agree completely that SGLB will identify and contract with suitable distribution channels for all their products…. it's really a necessity if they expect to generate any volume sales. The problem, as I see it, is that until this is put in place it is in fact a show-stopper. No large scale manufacturer is going to purchase a product in any volume without full assurances that it can be supported and maintained. At the moment SGLB is not equipped to do that, particularly if one hopes for widespread distribution and use. I see this as the biggest stumbling block to them realizing any sort of volume sales and will hold down the stock price until they get it resolved. I'm certain it is being pursued. It's just not terribly clear where they stand.
JJ:
SGLB is basically a pure R & D facility that has come up with a product that would seem to have great potential in the commercial marketplace. They are not equipped to market a finished product in the commercial marketplace. If you were a Ford Motor Company engineer would you purchase a product (other than perhaps an evaluation model) for wide implementation in a critical manufacturing area of your company from a 12 man R & D facility? Even if you say that you would, I can assure you that your boss would not allow it. Ford is but one example, the problem multiplies when you have fifty customers all of whom want product demonstrations, documentation, training, comprehensive documentation, assurances that implementation problems will be resolved, etc. SGLB is simply not geared up to support end customer needs on a wider basis.
Thank you. I missed that announcement. Going to the Metronic web site it would appear that they are primarily a laser scanning company focusing on quality control in the 3D scanning arena. That would seem to be a reasonable fit for the PR3D product. However, it does not appear that Metronics is currently doing anything actively to promote, market, or support PR3D. They list their "business partners" as Geomagic, PolyWorks, Rapidform, and Origin….all software companies in the 3D space. No mention anywhere on the Metronics web site is either SGLB or PR3D mentioned. The announcement from SGLB was not specific about what was involved in their collaboration. At least at this point in time it does not seem to have gotten off the ground.
Silversmith:
You said: "It seems that commercialization means different things to different people. I have taken it to mean that PR3D is essentially/mostly fully developed and deployable into the 3D print industry in general." I would agree with your statement (with the exception of PR3D being "mostly" fully developed). To be commercially viable PR3D has to be fully functional, robust, and supportable. Several on the Board have argued that Morris, since being acquired by GE, is in effect the implementor and supporter of PR3D within GE. That sounds reasonable to me. But, I also think I heard that since being acquired by GE Morris is no longer being considered as a potential distributor for PR3D (even though the Morris web site continues to talk about their work in the medical and other technologies fields as well as aerospace). Please help me out here if Morris is not going to commercialize AND distribute PR3D who is? Let's just suppose that Ford or GM wanted to consider the use of PR3D to construct a key component of their catalytic converters. Who is going to provide them with a finished product, complete with documentation? Who is going to provide training to their technical staff? Who is going to fix the inevitable bugs that develop? Nobody can debate the inroads that SGLB has made with GE. It would seem almost certain that follow-on orders will flow from GE and that GE (particularly with Morris on board) is fully capable of supporting their internal use of PR3D. The big question however is who is going to perform the Morris functions for other potential customers? Clearly, SGLB has no intention of being a "one-horse pony" with GE as it's only customer. Can someone please enlighten me as to their plan to move beyond GE if Morris is out of the equation?
There has been considerable discussion on the board recently about the probability of SGLB being acquired by GE. I believe that there is very little liklihood of GE (or anyone else) acquiring SGLB. The reason is that SGLB has a close and special relationship with Los Alamos Labs (both because of being founded by Lab personnel) and because of their status as a wholy independent research lab. If GE were to acquire them I am almost certain that the Lab would not grant GE the same sort of access to their applied research as they do to SGLB as an independent entity. This continued access is the lifeblood of SGLB and I simply can't see them taking any actions that would diminish that access. Under the current relationship with the Lab there is almost certain to be follow-on products from the Lab to Printrite3D. It's hard for me to visualize the Lab giving access to future products to a single large manufacturer.
Yup. My mistake. I apologize. My hand calculator only has eight digits, and I didn't catch the error. And, by the way, no one was trying to fool you so get over it!!
Mac: Check your math. .157 X 56,000,000= 8,792,000. I have never questioned how Morris was working with GE. That relationship is solid. How do you think that SGLB is going to market to the rest of the Aerospace / Medical, Other Technology (auto manufacturing, etc.) markets if Morris is not going to do this for them. They are absolutely positively incapable of doing this on their own.
SGLB's Stockholders Equity on 12/31/12 was $558,000. I would expect that to have increased when the 10K is released.
Stockholders Equity is Total Assets Less Total Liabilities……. basically what the stockholders ownership in the company is worth.
Just a quick comparison of why INO may be exchange listed and SGLB is not:
INO:
Market Cap 785M
9% institutionally owned (29 owners)
SGLB:
Market Cap 8.8M
1.9% Institutionally owned (1 owner….The second owner with 10,000 shares is far less than virtually everyone on this Board)
JJ that's a non-answer. If you believe that this sort of consortium is going to be able to market and support a complex product like Printrite 3D you are hallucinating. Note that they say "develop" not distribute.
Morris Technologies. The reason they were chosen by SGLB is that they have a foot in the medical and engineering fields as well as aerospace. While it is clear that they have been acquired by GE I see no indication that they have modified their business model. If you go to their web site you will see that they still are very active in the engineering and medical markets as well as aerospace. If you have evidence that they are not still in an evaluation mode regarding Printrite3D please reference it. If not Morris then who?
OK Guys help me out here. If not Morris Technologies just who is going to distribute PrintRite3D? If your answer is that SGLB is going it alone that is news to me. Do you have something to back that up with? Mark is way smarter than that. If Morris Technologies is truly out of the picture (never been changed on the web site) then I am even more concerned than preciously.
Yes, Morris was acquired by GE and no Morris is not the end user. GE is the end user, and Morris is still very much a distributor, who is still very much in the process of evaluating the Printrite3D product. Just whom do you suppose is going to support PrintRite3D for sales and support beyond GE? Nothing has changed with GE's acquisition of Morris. SGLB's ambitions of selling and supporting Printrite3D beyond GE is still very much dependent upon Morris agreeing to be the distributor.
Actually, I have read the job postings. Thank you. Let me quote from the SGLB web site as of last September:
Sigma Labs, Inc. Announces Memorandum of Understanding With Morris Technologies, Inc. Relating to The Commercialization of Sigma Labs' Printrite3D™ System for Additive Manufacturing
SANTA FE, N.M., Sept. 13, 2012 -- Sigma Labs, Inc. (SGLB) announced today that it has signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with Morris Technologies, Inc. (www.morristech.com) ("Morris Technologies"), a world leader in the field of Additive Manufacturing and 3D printing, which sets forth the parties intent to explore the formation of a joint venture for the purpose of commercializing Sigma Labs' PrintRite3D™ technology for the Additive Manufacturing industry.
Morris Technologies will do the commercialization when/if it is done. I'm a bit concerned (as you should be as well) that no definitive contract has been signed with Morris Technologies to date. They have been evaluating Printrite3D for six months now. This is not an unusually long time for such a complex evaluation but if it goes on too much longer it will become worrisome. To my understanding this is the only distributor who has undertaken a serious evaluation of Printrite3D. They have to be convinced that it is complimentary to the other products they represent, that they understand the business proposition thoroughly and are convinced that they can make money on it. This should be coming to a head soon and it is all important to SGLB that Morris takes on PrintRite. I don't have any idea how long the ramp-up will be to full support once they make the decision, but it clearly will not be instantaneous for so complex a product.
For those that may not be familiar with the distribution model for high technology products this is an excellent primer on the subject.
http://www.gtdc.org/Primer_lowres.pdf
Please keep in mind that you are not dealing with an Apple or a Microsoft here. SGLB is an early stage startup with zero ability to support a customer base on any kind of scale. The distributor will be responsible for manufacturing, duplication, documentation, training, technical support, distribution and so on. They are going to take the vast majority of any margin generated because they are doing almost all of the work and taking most of the risk. I could be wrong but I would be amazed to see more than 10-15% net margin drop down to SGLB. In terms of sales in the first year I really have no idea. To my knowledge there has not been any disclosure of what each sales unit consists of, (does it include training and support, etc.). In my opinion sales of 5-10 million dollars in 2014 to GE or another major manufacturer would solidify SGLB's legitimacy and lead to a more aggressive sales rampup over the next few years. We are all guessing at this point however. That's my best guess. Perhaps the 10K will shed further light on the question.
10M in earnings would imply sales in the neighborhood of 40M with a 25% margin (hard to do via a distributor…who by the way has yet to sign an agreement with SGLB). Sales in Q-1 are zero so 40M in the next three quarters??? Possible….but far from a conservative estimate.
You will get an answer. The answer to what has changed is very little and that is the problem. There is no distributor signed. There is no significant contract award. There is no on-going and sustainable revenue stream. Are these just around the corner as most here would have you believe or are they perhaps months away? As I have stated earlier I like the technology. I like the company. I don't like the risk that the present price of the stock presents. It's as simple as that. I took the time to attend the Board meeting. I have spoken to Mark in person as well as three of the then four Board members. I have a forty year career in high tech including worldwide responsibilities at Apple and Burroughs. I've managed a seventy person software development lab and been a ground floor member of both hardware and software startups. I believe I know my way around the block and I am making investment decisions based upon the best information available to me. I have already made a six fold profit on a sizeable earlier investment in SGLB and will invest again when I believe the risk/reward warrants it. Obviously, most here don't agree with me and that's fine. I don't wish anyone bad luck on their investments but I do get tired of the incessent pumping based upon little more than wishful thinking that is a daily occurrence on this Board.
560 million shares outstanding, virtually zero revenue, no signed distribution agreement, no major contracts signed, quarterly losses increasing, Those are just a few of the thoughts that come to mind. Unquestionably bright guys, high potential products, but currently no contracts, and no way to support any sort of significant sale until distribution agreement is inked. Keep in mind that the entire company consists of 12 people. I could seat them alkl comfortably in my living room. Some might think that this size company with 560 million shares issued posed somewhat of a risk. Obviously no one here does. To each their own.
No shorts…just a realist or two that don't subscribe to all the hype put out on this board.
As Silversmith points out: "300K shares at .13 is about $40K dollars. 300K shares, a few hours after the right PR, could be $120K dollars, and you have missed the boat. You should also consider: 300K shares at .13 is about $40K dollars, another month or two without a contract announcement and those shares could be worth 24K to 30K and you have also missed the boat. The risk is very real. Regardless of what some here would have you believe here this is far from a sure thing.
Please see posts 13514 and 13537.
I may attend again depending upon whether I'm a shareholder at that time.
I would consider six months a "considerable length of time". You may have the stomach for that, others may not. The stock price will reflect the consensus. One thing for certain you are not going to see a sustainable increase in the stock price until a revenue stream is established. Everyone will have their own tolerance level of how long they are willing to wait.
Silversmith says" In disagreement with Alan, the stock did not drop straight down beginning in December. It took a measured pace down to a new equilibrium level." In mid December the stock was at .27 a month later it was at .11 and has stablized in a trading range between .12 and .135 for well over a month now. Every blip of a quarter of a cent in share price is taken by many on this board as a sure sign that a major contract is just around the corner and the stock will double or triple overnight. The facts are that the stock could remain in this channel for a considerable length of time and the longer it does the more disillusioned shareholders will become. No one here likes to consider this possibility. The trend is not currently your friend and not considering what could go wrong as well as what could go right can be expensive………as those who bought in the .20's might attest to.