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.
But look at this, excerpted from the filing... and the Sabby Management number is the same as what you have posted...so these could be updated/ current numbers broken down by Sabby entity.
Not sure, but that's the way it looks to me.
(a)
Amount beneficially owned:
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. - 154,264
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. - 228,718
Sabby Management, LLC - 235,461
Hal Mintz - 235,461
(b)
Percent of class:
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. - 3.27%
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. - 4.85%
Sabby Management, LLC - 4.99%
Hal Mintz - 4.99%
It's not clear to me from the filing -- taking into account the few different Sabby entities and Sol Mintz, whether this represents a small net reduction in shares owned or not.
Here's the filing link, and it would appear to summarize the ownership of 4 different Sabby entities. And unless I'm mistaken, which I may be, they seem to have between 18 - 19% of the company.
Am I understanding, or misunderstanding the filing?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/788611/000153561018000034/sglb0118.txt
Certainly management is aware of any and all meaningful deadlines and I think we can be comfortable that they'll appoint an additional member of the Board of Directors within the required timeframe.
It doesn't appear that they had any difficulty attracting board members, with impressive credentials, at the time of the up-listing and I wouldn't think they'd have difficulty now, either.
Capt -
Please see my responses within your post, copied below. Thank you for your thoughts.
If what she says is true about their plans, then it'll certainly be more than one software company that are needed for this project as I believe it's supposed to include design to finish product. INTERESTING THOUGHT. SO, DIFFERENT SOFTWARE PROGRAMS WITH DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS AND APPLICABILITY AT DIFFERENT POINTS WITHIN THE BEGINNING TO END PROCESS, YOU THINK? AND WOULD YOU THINK ONE OF THE SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE SIMULATION SOFTWARE, AND ANOTHER IN-PROCESS MONITORING? ANY OTHER TYPES OCCUR? Keep in mind, too, that these will only be US based companies and not foreign entities as Morf has stated in the past. I EITHER MISSED THIS STATEMENT OR HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT IT. DID MELISSA ORME INDICATE THIS IN THE PANEL DISCUSSION VIDEO THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING? IF NOT, CAN YOU REFER ME TO A PARTICULAR SOURCE, PR OR OTHER?
Sigma Labs may not be a huge company, but they did form an official alliance with Morf3D that's revolved around exactly what they're planning. They're also a publicly traded company that trades on the Nasdaq and have a worldwide presence. If that isn't enough, Sigma even went as far as to loan them money to help purchase a new printer. ALL TRUE, BUT ALSO ALL WITHIN THE CONTEXT/ LEADING UP TO A CONTEMPLATED MERGER WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT AGAIN BE A GOAL.
I believe that Sigma reached out to the Navajo before Morf3D did based on past news, (BASED ON WHAT PAST NEWS?) and were likely instrumental in helping the project find a home. There might be grant money involved, which could help all those involved. SO, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, YOU'RE DRAWING A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE GROUP EFFORT THAT MELISSA ORME SPOKE ABOUT IN THE VIDEO WE'VE SEEN OF THE PANEL DISCUSSION FROM LAST MONTH AND THE NEWS RE THE NAVAJO DEVELOPMENT? YOU THINK THESE PROJECTS ARE LIKELY ONE AND THE SAME? OR CONNECTED IN SOME WAY?
Most importantly, is the connection between the customers (ARE YOU REFERRING TO EXISTING AEROSPACE CUSTOMERS IN COMMON BETWEEN MORF3D AND SIGMA, (?) OR MAKING THE GENERAL POINT -- THAT MORF'S GROUP PROJECT THAT ORME REFERRED TO IS WRAPPED AROUND AEROSPACE, AND YES, CERTAINLY AEROSPACE IS SIGMA'S LEADING AREA OF SPECIALIZATION AND PARTNERSHIP) and Sigma. Honeywell is already working closely with Sigma for DARPA,and all companies that will be sharing this space are in the Aerospace industry, which is where Sigma's expertise lies. If the companies were all focused on auto parts I may think twice about their involvement, but aerospace is right up their alley and I've seen absolutely nothing that's given me the impression that they're not going to play a huge role in this.
Just the three companies alone that are mentioned in the latest article (WHICH ARTICLE ARE YOU REFERRING TO?) (Boeing, Honeywell, and Lockheed) are worth a combined 386 Billion USD, so there's a lot at stake here and I'm excited about the future for all of these companies involved.
© 2018 Inv
GR1D - Thanks for this. Lots of compelling info here.
Thanks Jeff, so Cola did not speak at AeroDef last year, but rather rented a booth for Sigma to present the product, right? So, if that's right, I can see that it might be a simple economic choice -- rent a booth, -- or not. Perhaps most of the attendees would already know of PrintRite and it just wasn't considered worth the cost. Good to know about the connection to Ron Fisher on Linkedin.
Here's another one -- and I'll preface this by saying that I also was intrigued by the video of the presentation featuring Melissa Orme. When we first learned of the possibility of a merger with Morf I researched Orme and became, and remain, impressed. Her employment at Morf is perhaps Morf's greatest asset.
Anyway, I've watched the video clip a few times with particular focus on that 57th minute. I think it's certainly possible that Sigma might be involved in the group of companies which she references without naming. But, I still can't quite set aside my uncertainties that she had Sigma in mind because of her description of the firms as "...very large, well-known, global companies..." And I'm wondering if there are any specific reasons that you may find persuasive here?
She does mention, in her description of the types of firms in the group, "a software company." I suppose it's possible that her description of "very large" etc could apply to some, but not all of the planned group members. But, are there other software companies that we know of that Morf has partnered with, which could be the intended software co member? I know Altair has partnered with Morf in the past and from my quick research they appear to be a software firm. But perhaps they don't fit the group project, and what we know of it, as well as Sigma might? (I really don't know what Altair does and how they might or might not fit the complete digital thread...Wasn't that the term that was used in the discussion?) So...wondering your thoughts re Altair as a possible group member and any other software companies, if there are any, that have been attached to Morf in PRs.
Certainly there are a variety of compelling recent developments for Sigma, unrelated to Morf-- notably 3DSim and LZN -- and the future with Morf may not be pivotal, but I think I'd still like to see an expanded relationship between Sigma and Morf.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Jeff - I was checking to see if there is an indication of Sigma/ Cola attending the upcoming 2018 AeroDef presentation and didn't find any indication. Not sure that it's a big deal, but would have preferred to see that Sigma would be there. I did come across this post by you, copied below, from Feb 2017, which served as a reminder that Sigma had a presence at Aerodef last year. Any thoughts on why Sigma/Cola might not be there this year? Would Mark's participation last year have been by invite, or would you think that Sigma would have to have paid something as an exhibitor and then Mark would have had an opportunity to present, attached to the payment of an exhibition fee? (I have no idea how this sort of event may work from a money standpoint).
Among the many programs on the agenda for this year's event, which I skimmed through, I did see an indication of a presentation on process monitoring by an engineer with EOS N America. Here's the link to that presentation...
http://aerodefevent.com/sessions/sensitivity-analysis-additive-manufacturing-process-using-process-monitoring/
Your speculation appreciated, as always.
RE 2017 AeroDef...
"MC presenting at AeroDef in Fort Worth on March 9th. I plan to browse the exhibits on the 8th."
Thanks, Ted -
So you're saying that this is a registration that regards future option awards for employees and BOD members and does not set the price of those to-be-issued options today, and instead merely utilizes a recent share price that could be entirely meaningless, for purposes of establishing the fee due now, at registration?
So then, only when/if employees exercise to-be-granted (or existing) options, would Sigma receive cash income from options exercise. Right?
Well, if we're understanding this correctly... and if the full exercise occurs, at price per, yielding approx 500K to the company, then wouldn't it be a show of confidence by the exercisers in the company's prospects? (Assuming that there wouldn't be a quick turn-around and sale of the shares by management, that is).
Opinions about the fairness of the pricing of the Registration aside, who understands how this will operate?
I haven't had an opportunity to read through this and analyze thoroughly... But basically, if these options are exercised does that mean that the employee option holders' exercise of the options would result in the proceeds going to Sigma?
I'd like to give some thought to the sale of of 7K+ shares last Friday, by Mark and/or Amanda Cola, in relation to this registration statement. In other words, the implications for this small sale of last Friday look somewhat different, in my opinion, if co executives now have an opportunity to purchase more shares and at less cost by exercise of options.
Opinions of fairness aside, simply from an economic standpoint and a connotation of confidence in the co's prospects standpoint, if sale of shares at a higher price can raise cash for option exercise at a lower price...then the appearance is that the motivation behind the 7-8k share sale may be simply to purchase a greater interest in the company, (unless following option exercise there were to be share sales...Does anyone know if there are any restrictions on sale of shares acquired via option exercise under the Employee Incentive Plan?).
All I'm saying is that strictly from the standpoint of reading into the insiders' confidence about Sigma's prospects -- and w/o entering an opinion about fairness -- -- if insiders are trying to acquire more shares and willing to pay cash for them -- albeit at a lesser price than the current market price -- this could reflect confidence in prospects...(though I would wonder if there would be any time restriction on sale of the exercised option shares).
Anyway, who has a handle on the fundamental operation of this registration? For starters, would option exercise mean cash from employees and result in proceeds to the company?
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76383169
The system that you posted which calculated an estimated probability of bankruptcy of JP Morgan Chase at 36% is, in my opinion, nonsense.
I also think that you underestimate some of the long investors here. I believe there are plenty of longs who understand that Sigma is a speculative investment and MAY or MAY NOT work out for them.
I understand. Investors seeking nirvana in Sigma would find realities such as this troubling. They come in all flavors, and in the pinky world support can be strong all the way to zero. I've seen it and watching it again here. The unwillingness to accept the obvious is especially strong with pinky stock investors and especially with Sigma Labs. Isn't that interesting. Good luck.
Quote:
Look, in my opinion, a system such as this is meaningless, and devoid of any real value.
For context on this system I entered ticker symbol JPM, ticker symbol for JP Morgan Bank, and the company's "probability of bankruptcy" was calculated at 36%.
If JP Morgan has a 36% probability of bankruptcy using this system, then I'm quite pleased that it's forecasting a mere 95% probability of bankruptcy for SGLB!
Look, in my opinion, a system such as this is meaningless, and devoid of any real value. Which is NOT to say that I think Sigma is any sort of slam-dunk. It's a very small, emerging company in an emerging industry and in my opinion it carries all the attendant risk and potential reward, both quite substantial, of an investment in this sort of company, (tiny, emerging, etc).
Jackle - Thanks for this -- "...Many of these will be including PrintRite3D, especially I would suggest those which are part of the turn key production floors they are creating with SMS group that consist of multiple printers on one shop floor all linking with each other, something PR3D specializes in. -..."
Jackle --
Can you explain a bit more about your understanding of this? Specifically, these turn-key production facilities would be furnished to 3rd party manufacturers? AI/ SMS -- they aren't going into the printing bureau business themselves, (that's not what the partnership is about, right)?
Very Interesting...So, correct me, Jackle, if I've got any of the details wrong in the following....
1. We have Additive Industries as the first printer OEM to actually publish in their sales and marketing brochure, PrintRite, as an optional add-on? It seems to me that there is a distinction here, for instance, from the unnamed OEM deal. We know it's taking a long time for the OEMs to publicly embrace PrintRite and we understand why it might take an end-user to decide they want PrintRite as an add on, rather than the OEMs pushing it... That makes sense for an couple of reasons... BUT...it seems to me that publishing the PrintRite option in AI's marketing brochure for their printer is a step in the right direction. In other words, they're not hiding the fact that PrintRite could add value, even as they are trying to sell their own printers, (expensive on their own). So, from a business perspective/ ie from a sales perspective, why would AI want to even suggest that PrintRite, (only available at add'l cost, of course), might add value/ help to solve printing problems unless they feel strongly that it does?
AND...
It's also very interesting that they are also making 3DSim's software simulation technologies optional add-ons to their printers. Why??? Because we already know that 3DSim and Sigma have announced that their technologies work together... and that there is an optional module for PrintRite as an add-on to FLEX.
In my opinion AI may be confirming PrintRite's value in a meaningful way.
Do I have the details above, correct, Jackle?
Here
https://3dprint.com/128229/3dsim-additive-industries/
Additive Industries will integrate 3DSIM’s exaSIM and FLEX tools into Additive World, making them the first company to adopt the software tools, which are still in beta.
3DSIM’s FLEX tool is a cloud-based simulation program that allows users to virtually experiment with and optimize parts before actually printing them, eliminating the time and money wasted on physical trial-and-error experimentation for part qualification. ExaSIM is designed to minimize the support material needed in any print job by analyzing and predicting residual stress and strain data, saving manufacturers additional thousands of dollars in unnecessary support material.
Jackle, I'm assuming you've read the product descriptions of both ExaSim and FLEX? Is it your understanding that FLEX essentially provides the same value/ does essentially the same thing then as ExaSim, but is a later, improved version?
MY RESPONSES TO YOUR RESPONSES IN ALL CAPS
So Mark Cola brings in John Rice and this enables him to "siphon as much cash as possible" ???
I agree with this because MC was burning through cash too quick and making too many obvious mistakes to keep the gravy train runnin' so they brought in Rice to keep the money flowing a while.
YOU'RE, OF COURSE, AGREEING WITH YOURSELF.
Quote:
1. Since Rice came onboard there is his salary to pay (less current cash available for "the Colas")
This is an investment (see above) - bring in the expert so he can semi-retire AND preserve the flow of cash.
IT'S INDEED AN INVESTMENT IN THE COUNSEL AND GUIDANCE AND LEADERSHIP OF AN EXPERT BUSINESSPERSON.
Quote:
2. Amanda Cola no longer works for the company (no salary for her, so less current cash for "The Cola's")
Ya I know. They couldn't play that one out any longer. I'm guessing Rice told them that.
SO MARK'S ADDITION OF RICE HASN'T BEEN ALL ABOUT MORE SHORT-TERM DOLLARS TO THE COLAS.
Quote:
3. Expenses aimed at growth have increased (less current cash available for "The Colas")
Because of MC's mismanagement. There is no return on investment (no growth). Then it's just more expenses - going to Mark's part of the business (since he's more in operations now). It's a shift - from obvious to hidden monetary exchange. Rice is smarter than MC. That's why they hired him.
OH, SO BECAUSE YOU ALLEGE THAT THE "MONEY EXCHANGE" IS "HIDDEN" THEN WE CAN'T ASK YOU TO PROVIDE SPECIFICS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CITE WHAT'S HIDDEN FROM VIEW? OR CAN YOU PROVIDE FIGURES?
4. The Colas own a significant chunk of the company's equity
If you own (for example) 10% but manage to stick 40% in your pocket while the rest goes down the drain, you win.
YOU'RE REFERENCING A NUMBER, 40%, THAT I AM AWARE OF NO REFERENCE FOR, UNDER THE "FOR EXAMPLE" VEIL. BUT THAT ASIDE -- NO MATTER WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE EQUITY OF SIGMA LABS THE COLAS NOW OWN, OR MIGHT ULTIMATELY OWN, IF YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE COMPANY GOES "DOWN THE DRAIN," ANY PERCENTAGE OF NOTHING IS OF COURSE -- NOTHING. UNLESS THEY SELL OFF THEIR HOLDINGS, WHICH THERE HAS BEEN ZERO NOTICE OF, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.
Quote:
That you could possibly perceive Rice being brought onboard as aimed at enabling the Colas to "...siphon off as much cash as possible..." is, in my opinion - incomprehensible.
That's a big problem with Sigma too - lack of comprehension...failure to comprehend the effects of obvious blunders - uplisting too early for instance.
IN MY OPINION IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. THE TIMING OF THE UP-LISTING LIKELY INVOLVED THE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Thanks for repeating my analysis. That really helps reinforce my point.
© 2017 InvestorsHub.com, Inc.
Jeff, Vis, Jackle, et al -
Does anyone have a basic handle on the difference between 3DSim's two products, ExaSim, (existing), and FLEX, (expected to be released in early 2018, to contain an optional module to use Printrite in conjunction)....?
Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether there is some reason that ExaSim might be a better fit for Additive Industries MetalFab printer, as they indicate that ExaSim is an option, with no indication as far as I'm aware, of FLEX as an option.
OR, would you speculate that FLEX could be just as useful to manufacturers using AI's printer, and the reason that they may not be advertising FLEX as an option in their brochure is that it is not available on the market just yet?
So Mark Cola brings in John Rice and this enables him to "siphon as much cash as possible" ???
1. Since Rice came onboard there is his salary to pay (less current cash available for "the Colas")
2. Amanda Cola no longer works for the company (no salary for her, so less current cash for "The Cola's")
3. Expenses aimed at growth have increased (less current cash available for "The Colas")
4. The Colas own a significant chunk of the company's equity
That you could possibly perceive Rice being brought onboard as aimed at enabling the Colas to "...siphon off as much cash as possible..." is, in my opinion - incomprehensible.
The only reason for this company now is to preserve funds for the Cola family. Rice was brought in to avoid short-term failure and siphon off as much cash as possible. The only significant (real, not made-up connections) business activities we have seen for many months is for them, not the long term interest of the company or shareholders. I don't think they want a PR person to push that message. For Sigma, the truth really does hurt.
Additional thought/ question Re AI Brochure - The reference in Additive Industries' printer brochure to 3DSim's simulation technology as an option specifically refers to 3dSim's product "ExaSim" which I believe is their existing product. My understanding is that 3Dsim's optional module for PrintRite is not a part of their ExaSim product, but rather their soon to be released "FLEX" product.
Does anyone have thoughts as to why AI might refer only to ExaSim here and not to FLEX? Would your assumption be that AI is not making FLEX an optional package with their printers and only ExaSim works with the MetalFAb printer from AI, or would you think it's a matter of timing and ExaSim is an existing, currently available technology whereas FLEX has not yet been released? In other words, would you expect AI to make "FLEX" an option with their printer once FLEX is released and just not want to refer to an optional product that has not yet been released on the market?
From AI brochure on their MetalFab printer... (Reference to 3DSim's ExaSim package)...
"Design and Simulation Apart from the workfl ow to support the management of part
opti misati on, the Additi ve World Platf orm off ers the functi onality to
store all relevant part data in a single place, including CAD and CAM
data – all governed under version control that manages version history
and is used to link part versions to producti on builds, allowing a full
part history overview in the system.
By integrati ng 3DSIM’s exaSIM package (opti onal), the Additi ve World
Platf orm will off er integrated part as well as build simulati on. This will
enable users to prevent build failures by predicti ng errors in simulati on
as well as improving part design and build support in order to reduce
the risk of build errors all while increasing functi onality
The 3DSim reference appears on page 32 of the AI MetalFab brochure. I've excerpted from the brochure and copied below. Spacing obscured a bit when I pasted, so it may be easier to have a look at the AI brochure yourselves, for anyone interested.
I'll also re-post 3dt's post of this morning, (at bottom), with the link to the AI brochure and reference to the appearance of Printrite as an option....
Design and Simulation
Apart from the workfl ow to support the management of part
opti misati on, the Additi ve World Platf orm off ers the functi onality to
store all relevant part data in a single place, including CAD and CAM
data – all governed under version control that manages version history
and is used to link part versions to producti on builds, allowing a full
part history overview in the system.
By integrati ng 3DSIM’s exaSIM package (opti onal), the Additi ve World
Platf orm will off er integrated part as well as build simulati on. This will
enable users to prevent build failures by predicti ng errors in simulati on
as well as improving part design and build support in order to reduce
the risk of build errors all while increasing functi onality
3dt's post, with link:
"New MetalFab1 brochure lists PrintRite3D as an option on their machines for "In-process quality control"--see p.11:
https://additiveindustries.com/uploads/media/5a14195f68f83/hr-add17017-01-bedrijfsbrochurev5-zs.pdf
Most of us probably kinda figured that this was going to be the case, but it's good to see it in writing. And maybe this will put to rest any future conjectures that every MetalFab1 is going to incorporate the "Intel Inside" model--maybe not needed if you're making parts for a bakery, maybe absolutely essential if you're making parts for a jet engine (or race car?)."
Z- Is the PR that I've attached below what you came across that links Additive Industries and 3DSim, or something else?
Thank you
http://learn.3dsim.com/additive-industries-announces-adoption-of-3dsim-software/
Great research. Yes, not surprising, but as you say there is value in seeing something in print.
Alan - Interested in your thoughts re 3DSim point, below, so I have re-posted. I think there's a lot that we can't know yet re the technology and its potential market value. We may have something of value that yes the market may not being ready for -- but perhaps combined with other technologies could achieve marketability, either sooner or later.
Look at the 3DSim deal -- does it mean an immediate or certain traditional revenue stream? Likely not, -- but if our technology bears out their technology, and if they are valuable enough for a large, respected software simulation firm to purchase, then this could represent both a future revenue stream and at the same time may represent a window into the usefulness of PrintRite.
I don't feel able to assign a specific probability of success for PrintRite and Sigma. My opinion is that there's a decent shot there. I view this much like a VC investment that you do your best dd possible on, but can't wrap your hands around entirely -- decent shot -- but of course far from guaranteed.
Alan - I think there's a lot that we can't know yet re the technology and its potential market value. We may have something of value that yes the market may not being ready for -- but perhaps combined with other technologies could achieve marketability, either sooner or later.
Look at the 3DSim deal -- does it mean an immediate or certain traditional revenue stream? Likely not, -- but if our technology bears out their technology, and if they are valuable enough for a large, respected software simulation firm to purchase, then this could represent both a future revenue stream and at the same time may represent a window into the usefulness of PrintRite.
I don't feel able to assign a specific probability of success for PrintRite and Sigma. My opinion is that there's a decent shot there. I view this much like a VC investment that you do your best dd possible on, but can't wrap your hands around entirely -- decent shot -- but of course far from guaranteed.
I think there's an element of tax-loss selling also in the mix. But I believe the shorts were waiting, anticipating the tax-loss selling to bring the stock down faster and further. Probably the intention was to start bringing things down following the earnings call, which has seemed to be a pattern. However, the call seemed to be taken positively or neutrally at least, and had less selling pressure associated with it than with previous calls.
I suspect that the shorts - at least some of them - also trade the stock on the long end and helped to carry the stock back up to nearly $2 a few weeks ago and that gave them a more favorable reentry point, on the short side, early this month, or at least a decent exit point, on the long end.
The short interest went down slightly between mid-November and end of November -- but when we see the mid-December short interest I suspect we'll see that it rebounded to the level of mid-November and perhaps increased further.
The negative posts also approximately correlate, to the best of my recall, w/o researching the history of posts over recent weeks, with the recent ups and downs in the stock, all without any fundamental change in the outlook for the company, as far as I can see.
All in my opinion, of course.
Oh, and I'd like to add -- and I've said this before -- that I think the most honest posts/opinions about Sigma's prospects are those that are neither bleakly negative or glowingly positive about the company's odds of success. It's a speculative investment by its very nature, as a tiny emerging company. My opinion is that they have a decent shot, but I don't think anyone can say that their odds are tremendous and I certainly don't think that the naysayers can say that the company's odds are remote. Anyone can say anything, of course, so look for balance. I think they have a decent shot, and that's my opinion.
Possibly, but was the whole conference smoked out or just the final day? I thought it might have been just the final day, but I'm uncertain. Regardless, it looked to me as if the shorts pounced on the cancellation of the anticipated conference. A seizing of serendipitous opportunity, in my opinion. That seemed to mark the current drive down, with no apparent change in Sigma's circumstances or odds of success -- which remain decent -- ie I think they have a decent shot -- in my opinion.
Vis' post may not have been perfectly reflective of the status of the various relationships that Sigma has.... but in my opinion his overarching point comes closer to accuracy than your response.
T&L - I see the references to in-situ now, on the linked NIST site.
GetRich - I think your asking of Sigma if they plan to attend/ participate is an appropriate and good question. (Though one would think that if they were going to participate that they would likely already be involved and noted as an involved party). Please post the response you receive.
Thank you
T&L - Thanks for posting this. Maybe I wasn't as thorough as I could have been, but I didn't see mentions of in-situ monitoring. Can you direct us to them, please?
Thank you
Thank you for your input then, on behalf of all longs.
Thanks for the courtesy of your concern, for our frustration, I'll extend the same back at you and wish for your sake that Sigma's stock price not appreciate.
http://learn.3dsim.com/category/news/ - For balance as to recent developments, let's not forget the news item posted on 3DSim's site, just one news item before their announcement regarding Ansys's purchase of their firm.
This press release sure appears to underscore the value of Printrite as validation for 3DSim's newest simulation software, Flex. And let's not forget that 3DSim isn't standing alone in their estimation of their technology's value -- respected software behemoth Ansys certainly believes that 3DSim knows what they're doing.
Regarding "...With 3D Sim recently acquired by Ansys,. Perhaps that was one piece of the puzzle that was waiting to get put together..." I had the same thought. Didn't Melissa Orme, though, when asked about simulation software, refer to some other companies' simulation technologies in a positive way?
It's very difficult to ferret out which companies might bring their technologies together in a joint endeavor with Morf, (though it does seem in the natural course of things for Sigma, hopefully to be included), but I think your overarching point that there is increasing recognition by management of companies with technologies in the area, of the need to come together, sounds right. In addition, the need to pull together should only increase in order to stay competitive, now that the trend has begun. And it would seem that Sigma ought to be valuable to potential partners with complementary technologies, combined with Morf and/or others.
I also wonder what the private discussions are like between John Rice and Mark Cola. Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall there. Sigma is of course Mark's baby. John Rice is of course a businessman, and my confidence is that he would objectively recognize the need to make a move to join another organization when/if the timing is right. Because Mark is a technologist and father of PrintRite I would just hope that he would not cling to notions of Sigma's going the distance alone and winning a race, potentially against the odds. Hope those guys are on a page, together.
When you see the sort of consolidations and prospective consolidations that we are discussing, and taking the example of 3DSim's sale to Ansys as an example...yes, clearly 3DSim has value...but it may be the case also that its principals recognized that their value could have come to be at competitive risk from a number of directions and effectively have made it known in industry circles that they would entertain offers. Of course a company can have more value down the line, but it's also riskier to keep going it alone, especially as others are pairing and partnering...
Interesting to speculate.
You refer to this in your next post as an "endeavor" which may be a better characterization than to speak in terms of "merger" Maybe we will still merge with Morph3D...but if we are indeed part of Morph's plans that they are driving towards for 2018 that Melissa Orme refers to -- I think she may be speaking of something different than a merger...so I think your broad "endeavor" characterization may apply best.
Certainly, John Rice is acknowledging the importance of coming together with other companies/technologies, (notably so at the end of the video that Ted reposted here yesterday).
In this video with John RIce, (link below), note what he has to say in the end, beginning at 10:23. Wondering others' thoughts on what Rice says here, considered alongside what Melissa Orme says regarding the planned/ goal of Morf3D coming together with other firms in 2018, in the video link that Captain posted today.
Again, as I said in my last post, it's exciting and sounds like Orme may be speaking in reference to Sigma, but then there is her characterization of the firms that Morf3D could merge with next year as large and global. (a bit confusing, no?)
I'm not recalling if a link to this video with John Rice has already been posted here. I hadn't seen this particular video previously, myself, so perhaps not.
Thanks for posting this -- Hmmm - well, this is quite interesting...and it sounds very likely, in the earlier instance, (so far I've only listened to the portions of the interview at the intervals you referenced), that Melissa Orme could be referring to Sigma, among the companies that she talks about coming together in some form, perhaps within 2018, she hopes. She does then go on to say something about the firms being very large, well-known and global, though, which doesn't sound particularly like Sigma. I'm left confused because the approach and focus sound so Sigma-esque, but not her characterization of the firms' size and global reputation. What do you all think? Thoughts appreciated.
Vis - John Rice spoke - on the Q2 call -- about potential customers on a faster track than the "tier 1 aviation companies," but as best I recall did not characterize the type/s of firms. Do you have a sense of what types of companies he may be referring to?
Then on the recent Q3 call he made the point that it's his expectation that the first traditional purchase will come from an end-user, either directly or via an end-user's demand of an OEM. Again, wondering the types of end-user firms that he may be referring to.
Thanks
Ted, Thanks for this.
Ted et al,
Wondering if you were able to listen to the presentation that you referenced here, Ted? And if so, interested in any/ all impressions that may relate to Sigma.
Thank you