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.
So a completed dataset is all that is needed for X number of companies to pull the trigger on a license and/or tech transfer agreement? I wonder if 99% of all agreement details are already "complete" simply waiting on this one magic moment (which has likely already happened or will happen prior to our finding out more at October public presentation?). Or is it less important to announce agreements right now in order to preserve confidentiality and first mover(s) advantage for when a partner is ready to take orders and deliver real product at significant scale? Just trying to understand how quickly we end up going from "0 to 60".
If we got "market acceptance" at the end of May, then you would think some time in the next few months we would see additional deals and/or deliverable product. Competitive advantage and time to market should still mean something. Yes, I don't claim to have knowledge of all of the complexities, long production cycle restraints, etc. but if Dr. Lebby has the data results, how long can the industry stand to wait? My guess is that there is some element of friendly "collusion" among market players that makes it tough for any one player to jump too far ahead of everyone else. Sigh.
Only thing I will disagree with is the take that no one else here willing to ask a critical question of Lebby on the record. Do not believe that to be the case.
Yep. This biggest "issue" with this stock has always been the long lead time provided to get to volume production, together with the secrecy apparently forced by NDA. Definitely requires considerable patience...but I don't care who you are, it's more "pleasing" to make purchases at lower prices...and the timing thing becomes quite frustrating. Sort of maddening that ideal timing will be sort of a question of on the part of the average retail investor. I guess that's why long term investing is what it is...hard to pick the bottom or the top, especially with this stock...just need the confidence and staying power to know that our day will come.
Sloppy for sure. Although LWLG likely deserves some blame as well as they should be at least proofing any PRs before they go out.
Like it. Lockheed…the company that brought us the vaunted P-38 Lightning.
er...real news and progress on the business front will ultimately crush the shorts (and/or whatever market manipulation is inherently part of a not so perfect, non-transparent system). IMO, need to get over "bonus" envy for executives. It is part of the risk/reward to keep the best people in place. It's called capitalism. The company can be aware of the manipulation and shorts without becoming negatively distracted by it. Let's not let them lose focus on advancing the development/business ball by becoming a champion of the campaign against illegal shorting/manipulation. Who is to say that the company will not ultimately be in position to make positive contribution toward exposing the corruption? Clearly, the company is aware that it goes on and is not happy about it. Timing may be more appropriate to make that "positive contribution" in the future...after we are all considerably "richer."
Not sure, but count me as one of the folks whose trust is "undermined":
A line from the Investopedia description of cross trades:
"Cross trades are controversial because they may undermine trust in the market. While some cross trades are technically legal, other market participants were not given the opportunity to interact with those orders."
From Investopedia:
Trading Skills Trading Basic Education
Cross Trade
By James Chen
Updated January 23, 2021
Reviewed by Gordon Scott
What Is a Cross Trade?
A cross trade is a practice where buy and sell orders for the same asset are offset without recording the trade on the exchange. It is an activity that is not permitted on most major exchanges.
A cross trade also occurs legitimately when a broker executes matched buy and a sell orders for the same security across different client accounts and reports them on an exchange. For example, if one client wants to sell and another wants to buy, the broker could match those two orders without sending the orders to the stock exchange to be filled but filling them as a cross trade and then reporting the transactions after the fact but in a timely manner and time-stamped with the time and price of the cross. These types of cross trades must also be executed at a price that corresponds to the prevailing market price at the time.
Cross trades are often performed for trades that involve matched buy and sell orders that are linked to a derivatives trade, such as the hedge on a delta-neutral options trade.
How a Cross Trade Works
Cross trades have inherent pitfalls due to the lack of proper reporting involved. When the trade doesn't get recorded through the exchange one or both clients may not get the current market price that is available to other (non-cross trade) market participants. Since the orders are never listed publicly, the investors may not be made aware as to whether a better price may have been available. Cross trades are typically not allowed on major exchanges. Orders need to be sent to the exchange and all trades must be recorded.
However, cross trades are permitted in select situations, such as when both the buyer and the seller are clients of the same asset manager and the price of the cross trade is considered to be competitive at the time of the trade.
A portfolio manager can effectively move one client's asset to another client that wants it and eliminate the spread on the trade. The broker and manager must prove a fair market price for the transaction and record the trade as a cross for proper regulatory classification. The asset manager must be able to prove to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the trade was beneficial to both parties.
Key Takeaways
A cross trade is a practice where buy and sell orders for the same asset are offset without recording the trade on the exchange. This is an activity that is not permitted on most major exchanges.
A cross trade also occurs legitimately when a broker executes matched buy and a sell orders for the same security across different client accounts and reports them on an exchange.
Cross trades are permitted when brokers are transferring clients assets between accounts, for derivatives trade hedges, and certain block orders.
Concerns About Cross Trades
While a cross trade does not require each investor to specify a price for the transaction to proceed, matching orders occur when a broker receives a buy and sell order from two different investors both listing the same price. Depending on local regulations, trades of this nature may be allowed, since each investor has expressed an interest in completing a transaction at the specified price point. This may be more relevant for investors trading highly volatile securities where the value may shift dramatically in a short period of time.
Cross trades are controversial because they may undermine trust in the market. While some cross trades are technically legal, other market participants were not given the opportunity to interact with those orders. Market participants may have wanted to interact with one of those orders, but was not given the chance because the trade occurred off the exchange. Another concern is that a series of cross trades can be used to 'paint the tape,' a form of illegal market manipulation whereby market players attempt to influence the price of a security by buying and selling it among themselves to create the appearance of substantial trading activity.
Well, if you believe in the idea of "ubiquity"...and I do, $20 was still low for sure. IMO, there will continue to be ups and downs was my only point, the big picture trajectory is clearly UP. You are right that company will always "still have work to do"...that does not change even when they reach triple digits assuming they remain independent. I have faith in Lebby and company that they will not be taking things for granted and get "sloppy". That said, they share volume and price movement is something to be celebrated...no tissues required LOL.
F2, congratulations on your wise additional purchase following the shareholder meeting. Great to meet you and the others here in person...life is good. . Nothing goes straight up, but certainly like the satisfaction of validation. Nice to be able to celebrate and yet still remain humble.
I will chime in to suggest that at this stage, LWLG need not potentially "underwhelm" the market with conservative revenue projections when they are suggesting that eventually their solution will become "ubiquitous". Especially after only announcing their first license. Let the pressure and momentum build with additional licensees added to the tally...perhaps sooner than many expect. As some suggested in Denver, OLED adoption/rollout happened sooner than many thought would take place. Perhaps the same happens with Perkinamine.
Heading down to bar (unless folks are elsewhere). Wearing red ball cap. If you are not busy would like to meet/buy you a drink.
Would love to see new PR at end of day surprising us with news of a contract/license announcement. Now that would be shock and awe. Commercialization "journey" makes me tired.
Lewrock, fellow Virginian (Richmond-born) here...now and long time in Ohio. Look forward to perhaps meeting next week in Denver.
I also wonder if he has always done cashless exercise of options in the past, he may be wary of being inconsistent with doing something different now...especially with company supposedly being on the cusp of major announcement(s).
Sure wouldn't mind one of the "500K plus" investors putting in a limit BUY order for let's say a 100K shares at say $4.80. Give the manipulators a dose of what's possible.
Pure speculation, but at what point do you give up on at least the goal of ubiquity (in the shorter term) to provide more of a "sweetheart deal" to a partner willing to move forward now. There are all kinds of ways to structure such a deal without giving up the farm but also recognizing that first move advantage is real and should be rewarded. Weren't we at one time an entrepreneurial country?
At this point, I'd love to hear Lebby state for all to hear that company has reached a stage where tech is proven, stable and ready for commercialization. Not just spoken to one or two shareholders over dinner or at a conference. I suspect we either get that before or during the shareholder meeting...if not, an obvious demand to reveal to shareholders what is holding this up. If the "free market" worked like it should, some aggressive "partner" would be moving to get first advantage and sign a deal. Isn't that why Lebby stated they are working with multiple foundries? (and other partners?). I am not dismissing the notion that this is in fact already happening.
Haven't bothered to read the drivel from many posters here...but will say almost hilarious how some creating "false deadlines" as if they mean something. Even the "goal" (vs. deadline) stated by Lebby at the last annual meeting was for doing a license xfr and tech xfr...but if he doesn't, does not that mean any of the impressive accomplishments of the past 11 months go away if the first "deal" happens a week or month or quarter after. Evidently, they have put themselves in a position technically to accomplish the goal...just a matter of getting the right deal at the right time. I would be nervous to be short. (PS, "deal time" itself is not necessarily nervana in an of itself, only the beginning of an exciting phase of commercial acceptance and growth...and perspectively, ubiquity).
Call me a crazy optimist, but I do believe that Lebby is working diligently on getting a deal(s) done. I don't want just "a deal" done...I want the "right deal" done. It's a balance. Substantial new technical achievements reported at PIC according to the folks that understand...that presumably puts LWLG in better negotiating position. How long would it take for naysayers to begin questioning whether they "lost at the negotiating table" AFTER a deal actually gets done if Lebby were to cave to deal pressure alone? I will wait and trust and continue to closely monitor all new developments. Booked my ticket to annual meeting yesterday. Look forward to further possible news between now and then and suspect we will get considerable further insight during the meeting (if not sooner).
You raise some valid questions...and some that I think of as well. My attempt to counter argue would be as follows (may or not resonate):
Longs have bought historically so much that they are "tapped out" at this point. (I know I have been reduced to "pseudo buying" by xfring shares at these low prices into Roth IRA...I can pay the piper at end of year in taxes).
NDA's in place keep insiders (including those in the know at foundries) from risking running afoul of insider trading rules (yes, some folks are actually honest).
Engineering folks in general may be less inclined to be motivated by trading in stock.
The amount of time required to accomplish what LWLG has done over many, many years keeps skeptics from realizing that it really is almost "soup time". This is complex stuff and takes patience, insight and smarts.
Usually things occurring after report date but still included in the report is listed under topic titled "subsequent events". Pretty common to see in 10ks.
Also, for those clamoring for joint PR including Lightwave, might I suggest that Lightwave wants to save that for a substantial foundry/end user customer that gets big market attention?
I am just guessing that they feel they are "close enough" (meaning prior to May annual shareholder meeting) to meeting the goal of tech xfr and license agreement to NOT provide a general update on progress right now. Should they be in a position where they are more "confident" that they will miss this goal, I would expect we will get much more insight into when/why not/how they will get there. Personally, would prefer that if they are not going to make the goal, we get some update prior to May conference. That said, I have to trust that company is looking out for shareholder best interest in order to not jeopardize the bigger overall prize...aka becoming ubiquitous.
Also ditto
There are definitely distance considerations for locating data centers within proximity of one another. (redundancy, load distribution, etc.)...that said, I am out of my league here in terms of describing how LWLG technology (while not the primary use target today) may help change the calculus here in the future. Others here much more qualified to comment.
All bodes well for LWLG on the macro front...
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/amazon-web-services-plan-invest-35-billion-virginia-data-centers
Note that Photonics West Conference begins the following day...January 31, also in San Francisco. I don't see LWLG on agenda at Photonics West but there has been some speculation about one of LWLG partners perhaps making product announcement and/or demonstrations there. Any thoughts?
I disagree. I think continued mention of the organic uplist to Nasdaq is a great reminder that the company is ultimately in tune with investor interests...and this is not JUST about changing the world in a positive way . When you are a well renowned scientist, it's also good to remind investors that you are also a great business person who is looking out for investor interests. I wouldn't call organic uplist to Nasdaq small potatoes.
Really appreciated his point about how the vast majority of value is significantly down the road when a company has "durability" vs. the market's tendency to look more at immediate growth. My guess is we get it ALL here. Hope to attend May Annual meeting and meet some of the fine folks here, especially you and several others.
Thinking we have some SUBSTANTIAL "durability" here! Thanks for posting this.
Meant to state “LWLG” investment winnings but will take either, preferably both. ??
Sometimes it is necessary to separate your "investing interests" from your personal beliefs a bit. I find Black Rock leadership and their ties to "swamp" (as well as their politics) to be one of those cases. It makes sense for LWLG to work within the constraints of the established paths to success (aka the swamp) from an investing/growth perspective...doesn't mean you have to completely like it. A personal choice for each investor to be sure, but hopefully can use future RYVYL investment winnings to somehow effect change in the things we are each personally passionate about.
I am prepared to wait as long as it takes for this story to play out...that said, I do have some trepidation about going through an entire year (2023) waiting for the "ultimate proof" of success to be full scale production in 2024. Yes, it may be no different than what is technically required by customers/partners but I hope that the company is able to disclose positive results, etc. that help the drive stock price up well before 2024. Guess that's a common wish shared by most here! . I don't know whether announcement of a single licensing partner does the trick...or pursuit/validation by another market (aka Lidar) does it...or publishing more extensive positive testing data....just don't want to continue to see the share price manipulated downward for the next many months. I am guessing that while Lebby is focused on the long term progress/goal chiefly, he also is aware of the need to provide his shareholders with air cover as much as is reasonable/possible.
Hmmm….I read that as Nubis having something to announce. (But perhaps LWLG involved.)
Sure, "working with them"...but does not necessarily mean agreement on a price yet.
I think this has been posted here before...but very interesting/relevant.
http://www.bostonphotonics.org/seminar.aspx?seminar=353
If the standards bodies want to join the party for the ride great, but I am very wary of pushing their acceptance as the primary focus for market acceptance. From a philosophy perspective, many of these standards bodies strike me as socialistic, tough to get everyone on board, and pseudo governmental (aka slow and prone to nefarious influence at times). Having witnessed IDCC languish for years with their strategy of pursuing standards and court cases and not getting far was proof enough for me. Sure, standards bodies endorsement may be required for ultimate ubiquity, but it will be because it becomes obvious not because they are decreeing it as such.
Well, an attempt at a hostile takeover would certainly flush a nice number of potential suitors out of the woods...and may drive the price much higher than what you suggest. A nice way to achieve more widespread market awareness in a hurry anyway.