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.
Boeing-Co Today's Featured Aerospace/Defense Under-performer
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11896079/1/boeing-co-ba-todays-featured-aerospacedefense-underperformer.html
Still rated as a buy... Hopefully they will close a deal with LQMT soon before August deadline...
April 9th old? August deadline, when-will-Apple-step-back-in?
Maybe this technology will have its day in the sun but in the hands of someone else?
Read-the-article sounds-rather-grim
Significant-financial-problems, cutback-in-R&D, (apple) even buy-it-outright...
True... just need a positive push
Any positive news and announcement from LQMT-would-move-it
2 10k orders at .092 and now one 200 share order same price. volume is way to low... need a push.
Another 250-shares @.0925... truly-amazing L2 ask holding
sometime-you-have-to-laugh,_trades: 15k@.0093, 30k@.0093, 401-shares @.0925
Steipp's-interview-posted-inside... Honest, maybe-too-much-so
http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles/liquidmetal-technologies-sets-cash-raising-strategies04102013
Liquidmetal Technologies sets cash-raising strategies
By Doug Smock Published: April 10th, 2013
Liquidmetal Technologies has enough cash to last into 2014 and is currently pursuing three strategies to boost its future cash position, CEO Thomas Steipp said in an interview with Plastics Today.
"Our revenues at this time are relatively modest, but what we are really measuring is the growth of prototypes going out into the market. We raised money in the middle of last year that is being amortized through equity and that runs through August of this year."
Liquidmetal Technologies had a net loss of $14 million on revenues of $591,000 in 2012 compared to a loss of $6.9 million on revenues of $572,000 in 2011. R&D expenses were cut by $177,000 to reduce costs.
Steipp said that once cash runs out the company needs to raise revenues again to support its amorphous metal injection molding business. He hopes cash comes in through one of three different areas now being pursued.
First is conversion of prototypes to production revenue streams. He said that the escalation of prototype programs is promising. Liquidmetal Technologies shipped five prototypes in the first quarter of 2013, up from four in the fourth quarter of 2012, three in the third quarter of 2012, and three in the first half of 2012. The company's technology was stabilized at the end of 2011.
The most significant interest is coming from companies that have been machining parts from titanium or stainless steel. Once the cost of the mold is amortized, bulk metal glass injection molding is far less expensive than machining. Amorphous metals are also much stronger than traditional crystalline metals.
Liquidmetal Technologies has ordered one specially designed Engel injection molding machine, which is now in operation at its production partner's plant in Denver, CO. He said that the company has made millions of parts for consumer electronics. He said while the business was welcome it was "a boom or bust" situation.
The company is now focusing on applications in aerospace, medical and specialty manufacturing that have multi-year life cycles. Those companies require significant testing of the parts, which slows the conversion of prototype programs to full-scale production programs.
The second is through additional licensing programs. The company has already received licensing payments from Apple and Swatch. "While we did licenses exclusively for those two, there are opportunities for time-limited or non-exclusive licenses. One area that comes to mind is golf where we have a publicly announced program to develop a golf club and test it."
Other potential licensing markets are in eyewear, automotive, aerospace, medical and oil and gas. "All are areas where we have seen interest or have shipped prototype parts." The company is looking for upfront cash payments, even at a discount, rather than long-term royalty payments.
A third area of potential revenue would be other types of licensing. The company could also issue stock or bonds to raise funds.
"Those are goals. We have not announced any programs in those areas," Steipp said in the interview.
He added that while Liquidmetal Technologies may have spent less in R&D, "it was a modest amount less. We have added individuals in R&D, most recently an engineering VP who has a background at McKinsey, PhD at Cambridge and industry experience. We are not cutting back on our engineering focus."
TOTAL AGREE
AthensWren I went through the same thing-and-I'm-tired-of-it
Anytime I expressed my point of view and it has been both in favor of or not. The Not got personal comments that were inappropriate. Just report it when it happens again.
Directed Personal Commentary should-not-be-tolerated TOS-V it.
It bothers me that a CEO-would-make-comments-like-that especially
When they are trying to make a real go of it given the increased prototype activity and dog-and-pony shows. it seems to be not in the best interest of that goal...
I have known all along that they were in trouble but I was hoping (somewhat hoping now) that they could pull it out somehow... we'll have to watch closely over the next several weeks - month, where it goes. In business August is not that far away.
My opinion not a recommendation or advisement
Holding 3/100k blocks at very-low-&-different-price-points
I think by July it is sink or swim...
Read through the-Steipp interview-August-deadline... WOW,some-snippets
"We raised money in the middle of last year that is being amortized through equity and that runs through August of this year."
"Liquidmetal Technologies had a net loss of $14 million on revenues of $591,000 in 2012 compared to a loss of $6.9 million on revenues of $572,000 in 2011. R&D expenses were cut by $177,000 to reduce costs."
" Steipp said that once cash runs out the company needs to raise revenues again to support its amorphous metal injection molding business. He hopes cash comes in through one of three different areas now being pursued."
"He added that while Liquidmetal Technologies may have spent less in R&D, "it was a modest amount less. We have added individuals in R&D, most recently an engineering VP who has a background at McKinsey, PhD at Cambridge and industry experience. We are not cutting back on our engineering focus."
It is a good-point with-their-funding ending-in-fiscal-2013
This is a ten year old company pushing a great technology but living on limited amount of cash year to year. How long can that go on without booking revenue? ... Of course the senior management is living large.
You-asked-me-if-your-math was wrong that is what I was replying to.
and I hope you keep your total number of shares and LQMT does hit a high price. that would be good for you and myself
Yahoo-finance: Shares Outstanding-255.93M, Float-168.92M.
I didn't come up with those numbers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=LQMT
I'm only commenting on statements Steipp made-at-a-recent-CC
Steipp was asked about raising the value of the company by doing a reverse split to generate interest and he said they had considered it but it was unlikely since the value, making money, was not happening at this point in time. It took me by surprise that they had even considered it but I understand why it was asked of Steipp.
I have no personal interest in a R/S at all... nor do I have any knowledge that anything like that will occur now or in the future, But investors (personal friends) that I respect have talked about.
Listen to this industry analyst:
http://yourlisten.com/channel/content/16912913/LQMT_Reverse_split_Question
http://yourlisten.com/channel/content/16970924/Reverse_Split_can_be_good
My opinion not a recommendation or advisement
The actual float is not 250m it-is-168.92m
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=LQMT
No you're not wrong and I hope that-is-what-happens.
Tomtom7 I'd love to see that cause I'm-holding-3-100k-blocks
But a P/E where the stock is $100 and the Earnings Per Share is ?? = WOW.
Had nothing to do with shares they-couldn't-get-out-of-the-2-to-3-dollar-range.
Had NOTHING TO DO WITH NUMBER OF SHARE OUTSTANDING... THEY WANTED INSTITUTIONAL PLAY AND THEY GOT IT ONLY when they R/S-ed the stock and put to the 50's. So please get your facts straight.
Did you not hear Steipp talk about R/S with the analyst to raise the value of the company? An 8 cent company is not where they want to be.
I'm not saying they will do it tomorrow but I bet they will at some point when the revenue rolls in.
My opinion not a recommendation or advisement
A reverse-split would-dry-up churn/trading kiss-of-death, Why?
One of the 3 main reasons why companies will execute a reverse stock split is to Increase their share price to avoid the “low-quality” stigma that is associated with penny stocks especially when the company is increasing in value and not decreasing.
]b] Listen to this industry analyst: http://yourlisten.com/channel/content/16970924/Reverse_Split_can_be_good
As we all know the investment market is huge and certainly much larger than the traders trading in stocks on the penny market. The majority of investors pro and non pro are not playing in penny's. You can confirm that by going to the OTC website and view the number of trades in LQMT s on a daily basis or any of the pennys for that matter.
A reverse split would open the trading in LQMT to the general market economy and possibly with good revenue inbound to a big league exchange. I'm sure that Steipp would not raise the price to an unobtainable value. He would, in my opinion, split it to a much larger class of investors with deeper pockets.
My opinion not a recommendation or advisement
$5 limit is standard but-not-all. Most-fund-managers-are-prohibited.
No regulatory requirement for Institutional Investors, mutual funds, hedge Funds, etc, but most directly prohibit their managers from investing or holding penny stocks (those traded on the OTCBB and pink sheets) and generally stocks under $5 dollars. this is also true for municipal, state, or federal pension funds' charters they also typically prohibit their managers from investing in stocks (or holding stocks) below 5 dollar level.
Institutional Investors do not feel that a stock trading under 5 dollars is good collateral. Some set the mark higher or lower but 5 dollars is the most common. They do this because of the higher risk associated with lower priced stocks. Brokerages worry that they may not be repaid if substantial losses are realized in a short period of time. These facts make stocks trading under the 5 dollar mark less attractive to the investment public including institutional investors and hedge funds.
Are you saying that LQMT is being offered through a Private Investment in Public Equity
So here is Steipp talking about a reverse-split,
Sounds like he is in favor when the company has revenue coming in the door. My guess is that it would create a perception of increased value given real profitability, revenue inbound. Understood that generally it is a bad idea especially when a company is in real decline with no possible way to become profitable... but in Citi Groups case it work out since they were becoming more profitable and it increased Institutional and Investor interest.
http://yourlisten.com/channel/content/16912913/LQMT_Reverse_split_Question
Well that's not the case/true... see Citi-Group
Reverse splits are standard and they do raise value
Hedge funds can't trade stocks below $5... 250mill valuation for a company that doesn't have any revenue is substantial, don't you think? Investors not on this board but players won't touch a stock at this value.
Not saying this will happen and to be honest this is a GOOD THING that companies do to add value
Prior-to-a-contract- announcement we might see-a-REVERSE-SPLIT declaration...
It's possible... This could happen to raise the value of the company to a fair market price to give the company stability to do business with the likes of Boeing and other major players and to attract investors. Also to adjust, "currently", a non-existent P/E to a reasonable P/E number. Not sure what the total outstanding number of shares is currently but valuation of LQMT: Stock Outstanding x Market Price would be, my guess, an unrealistic number.
Steipp at a prior CC was asked this question to raise the company value and his response was possible but not without a revenue stream.
My Opinion, not a recommendation nor advisement.
It would be nice
Impossible to-predict-the-stock-price given a major contract
With the APPL hype (NOW THIS IS APPL) on the i5 the stock got to 0.60 so add another 50 to 60 percent and I think it would get to a buck, maybe more...
I know some here are predicting $100
My Opinion, not a recommendation or advising you.
Ok, thanks for the info please-run-it-down
Wow that really seems to limit the market general participation... Let us know what you find out.
Thanks!
Keith If that is the case... a-ONE-VENDOR-SOLUTION!!!!
Better watch out! That won't hunt! There are many manufactures like the one mentioned below and you're saying they LQMT/ENGEL) completely own the manufacturing as well as the alloy and no one else can participate... ARE YOU SURE?
A close friend of mine who owns an engineering plant that makes parts for -Raytheon and other industry leaders owns a fairly large parts manufacturer and machines lots of parts for defense missile systems, electronics, radar antennas and supplies other military commands. In fact the CEO was the one that told me about LQMT quite a few years ago.
I asked him why hasn't it taken off... He said: the machines are quite expensive not that we don't have machining systems in our plant that are just as expensive but with no demand for this exotic material yet there is no need to pursue it. Of course he was talking about his business which does all of the work in plant like other similar companies and there are many. He also said that Asian part makers are tough competition given their labor costs. Also that current supply chains satisfy the majority of the manufacturing needs for standard components.
Are-you-saying-that-no manufacturer can buy these machines?
If prototypes were-so-important why didn't the stock-rally?
A company running on "no cash" is that an indicator of success? Not from the business school I went to. I do think that they have this fiscal year 2013 to produce revenue (by 3rd quarter?) and if that doesn't occur they will go on the chopping block. Again there IP is the real value of the company and don't think that there aren't companies out there eager to get that nest egg, big companies.
I'd like to see them succeed even though I am a short term player and have made good coin so far. And if they did book revenue I would hold some portion of my current inventory and buy and sell the way up to whatever.
I'm not advising you to do anything nor am I making a recommendation. I am just relating my experience.
What about shops that want to make-parts-in-shop?
Does everything have to go through Visser?
How expensive are these molding machines?
Seems to be a lot of people out there who have done a lot of tech research hopefully there are some knowledgeable people as to the pricing... so how expensive are these machines?