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.
If Vmatter and AAPL get to positive profit using LM before LQMT, that would be saying something.
....vs. huge expenses for SG&A that isn't producing sales, delayed schedules, and dilution => (mismanagement)
Updated website with interesting vmatter video where it is mentioned that $100,000 needed to finish out some molds and to acquire LM using their new campaign.
http://www.vmatter.com/
Why can't LQMT do this to get some product out the door to generate more revenue.
Anything that looks better can trump it. I suppose it also depends on the features and how it integrates with other Samsung products.
Have to believe that even if AAPL/LQMT come out with something later that it will look better with potential for smooth integration with other product lines. We'll see, right.
Some of them use "clean up" crews to go through the trash of employees at night (re: high tech/new IP industries); a small example. Lots of examples out there.
Wonder what the licensing arrangement between LQMT and new knives business is.
Does anyone know?
Their new logo looks nice.
I will be interested then! I would be a buyer of beautiful and aesthetic with electronics in it. As soon as they can make LM fast and feasible, the market can be there. 2014/2015 could get interesting!
That's very interesting. The reference to liquid metal has a "space".
You know, there are already beautiful aluminum based (injection molded like, with no seams) products on the market.
Agree, the watch looks kind of clunky and dated. LQMT/LM has more promise (to be aesthetically beautiful, water proof, etc.). When/if LQMT/LM reaches its potential, it will be an interesting day. Someday.
Why can't they secure a "comprehensive" license arrangement with existing licenses (e.g. A defense contractor ?) before then?
If LQMT could just get a contract that can grow or improve over time (more so than the initial swatch contract ( that didn't move the needle)), maybe they could start to build. It's the 2H2014 timeframe for "comprehensive" licenses to licensees and the need to finance between now and then ( or 1Q to then ) that has me worried.
Based on your comment, is it the case that aapl(lqmt) Crucible IP patent rights are now extended to Samsung? Do you have a link?
Is there a photo of the back of an iPad with a hologram logo?...that might point to LQMT.
Was looking open interest on options ( that can sometimes be a tell) and it appears to be high around strike of $100 this month and $135 for December options. I suppose the underlying can move quite a bit on its path to those strike prices.
I suppose that it can, e.g. Nugt still outperform gdx even with beta decay ( if history is any indication), but have you heard of people actually doing that, e.g. Buy and hold nugt ( dust) ?
This might seem out of consideration for day traders, but what are the chances that NUGT could be a long term hold (e.g. 18-24 months), and even with beta decay still outperform GDX.
With an attack on Siria, how high is NUGT likely to spike? Any guesses? What are the chances that it then drops immediately.
....but Siri could change things, right.
Maybe that pertains to remote 3D control, lol.
Nothing major is coming out through the big media today (re: CNBC) regarding upcoming aapl announcements that point to LQMT. Nothing new; sort of a confirmation.
Experts are seeing the recent rise in the price of gold as largely speculative and due for a pull back (see Fast Money video from this evening, CNBC, and MoneyandMarkets.com [Edelson]. According to them, price would have to climb above 1450 ish and then above 15xx to continue and confirm an uptrend.
I suppose ( and as stated here by others), that 1450 is a line in the sand with large overhead resistance.
I liked the comments in the article (AAPL/LQMT) toward the end of it that mentions a goal or outcome of a break through product that can't be replicated. Think of the legal hassles that could be avoided with a product having those attributes combined with a competitive advantage.
BTW: The iHub ignore feature works when "enabled"; it has to be "enabled." Also, it's possible to edit the list.
This feature seems to be limited through the IH iPad app but appears to be fully functional when accessed through a PC/laptop based web browser.
Sorry for several msgs (multi-tasking on an ipad checking several positions and dialogs as the market opened up....as you probably know from advertisements, the ipad doesn't multi-task itself in comparison with some competing projects).
The "comprehensive" licensing program that Steipp mentioned in the webcast would allow licensees/customers to "experiment" for their own uses and give them direct access to VPC, MTRN is sounds like.
It all sounds good except for the timeframe. However, it is consistent with what Steipp said at the Redchip Conference almost a year ago ( in terms of timeframes) with the exception that the substantial contract that they were supposedly on the cusp of still hasn't been announced.
The stock price hasn't done much for some time. We'll be checking to see if it drops further or for their name change. Thanks again!
Correction on the comment about VPC; it pertained to "investors" (the comment was made at an investor's conference)
in the webcast, 6:37 min into it, I now hear "comprehensive" license (more detail to be provided), 2H2014 target. That sounds positive to me but too far out for second sourcing anytime soon required for large contracts.
I just reviewed the first part of the CC audio at that link and there was mention of a planned licensing program for 2H2014....more details to be provided.
I'll review it again, thanks. Did you hear any mention of 2H2014 mfg license or any type of plans or projection for any type of future license?
(BTW, even though it's not related to this particular CC, in the past, some comments about VPC were edited out of an interview with the CEO regarding company financing, etc.)
Dilution seems good for suitor; they could get a lower price.
The longer the wait, the more potential for dilution (it seems to me) unless LQMT can secure some significant contracts/licenses, etc. With toxic financing comes pops, so maybe more pops to come. Still a guessing game.
Based on what you are saying, it doesn't sound that great for shareholders. Maybe a pop at the time of an announcement, then wait a long time for pps to grow if MTRN really buys it and develops it further.
I personally would not wait for that.
The opportunity would be the buyout price, but not long term hold it seems to me.
Meaning, a need for more financing after 1Q2014 keeps the boat floating while they continue to try to get their ducks in order, such as: securing their position for a buyout; keeping hostile takeovers at bay, etc.
And somewhere in there, based on the last conference call, and what sounds like a potential buyout (and maybe this is just a contingency plan), is a need for more financing and an anticipated 2H2014 "experimental" license (if we understood correctly). That plans implies that a buyout is not immediate. Maybe it's just a contingency plan ???
If the "earlier" anticipated defense contract is still "right around the corner" and MTRN and LQMT are still close to them, and the window of opportunity opens up after Fev.2014, it could look pretty good for both of them.
That makes sense. the question then (for investors) is what would be a buyout price based on a valuation, which is typically (or credibly) based on accounting numbers and forecasts.
If MTRN and LQMT are supporting/courting the same strategic customers, e.g. defense/aerospace/CE(AAPL), the a "forecast" could be pretty hefty, but not based on current or even potential near term revenues (assumed smaller than large co tracts that would require second sourcing).
It's unlikely that LQMT alone could support a large valuation => pps, without MTRN/VPC (sort of ??) under the assumptions.
So what are they really worth? The present value of the forecasted earnings based on the potential "future" revenues and hence earning that they could create for MTRN.
The further out the actual forecasted earnings, the smaller the NPV (MBA-an-eese).
So what are they really worth relative to potential emerging competition and expiring patents and the potential timeline that their technology could create new revenue streams for MTRN.
it was current enough for the point being made based on the product development/life cycle assumptions.
All of these stages take time. Not honors, just facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_product_development