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.
SGLB continues to be in front of the military complex.
militaryam.dsigroup.org/event-sponsors/
All the best,
Silversmith
There is a stress that has built up between end-users and the printer manufacturers. The end-users want closed loop. The printer manufacturers don't want to open up their architecture. So the printer manufacturers are telling the end-users they won't open up the printer internals until the end-users make it clear they are going with IPQA, and a specific IPQA at that. So the end-users are being pushed to get on with it so they can get closed loop.
All the best,
Silversmith
Optical Tomography is now openly stated to not be functional for IPQA both in the USA and the EU. That is after 5 years of looking at it, because EOS, Concept Laser, GE etc were pushing it. Everyone in the industry knows GE's acoustic is not only after the fact of failure, but is incapable of prediction. And the whole time PR3D was not configured for operator level operations until version 5.0. Now the spot light is squarely on SGLB for IPQA, and so far there are no negative outcomes to report with version 5.1. It won't be long before the first PR3D applications for production are announced. And don't forget, Airbus is essentially equal to GE in its additive footprint; maybe bigger with the way the EU is embracing metal printing. A win with Airbus is the same as a win with GE; the very largest users of metal AM in the world. A win for SGLB in a production environment with a competent, leading, end-user will be a stake in the heart of optical tomography.
And things have to get even more complicated for IPQA platforms soon. End users want to utilize the entirety of the build chamber. They want to have multiple part numbers being printed within the same build chamber to make the most of the powder volume, build space, and time. And some of those part numbers will require differing parameters at differing times in the build. IPQA has to be able to track that and still provide quality, with multiple lasers. It is asking a lot for sure, but that is where it is going.
Things are getting serious around IPQA, and SGLB is right in the middle of the storm. 2020 is going to be very interesting.
All the best,
Silversmith
Well I see we didn't sell off for year-end like we have for the last handful of years; probably a good sign. I didn't get a chance to double down. But I will be buying in January. All the behind the scenes action continues to now strongly point to SGLB taking over the IPQA role for the industry. The word I hear is negotiations are getting heavy for SGLB. Intense is the word used most often. We'll see what 2020 actually brings, but I expect SGLB will be a winner in 2020. How many years yet before the fruit is fully ripe, I don't know. They will likely be bought before that though.
All the best,
Silversmith
I think bringing Ruport on board will turn out to be a bigger deal than most probably think. There is talk out there that Autodesk plans a further aggressive move into additive. I can see them buying SGLB for sure. There are a lot of moving parts here. The metal printing industry is reaching critical mass in many areas globally. SGLB will likely be coveted by more than a few players. I would not be surprised to see the company bought by the end of the new year.
And Japan is kicking things into a higher gear in the additive sphere also. My take is the Japanese OEM SGLB contracted with is Mitsubishi Electric. They are already into additive from a different application position. It appears PR3D can be applicable for more than just powder bed.
2020 is going to be a very interesting year for SGLB. I suspect the picture will be very different this time next year. With SGLB being global and a cash cow as PR3D gets incorporated, I really don't see how they don't get purchased.
All the best,
Silversmith
Most people here don't realize the enormity of what SGLB and PR3D means for the metal 3D print industry. Most don't have a clue about the extent of the gigantic disruption our little ole SGLB presents for the industry. SGLB being implemented for IPQA will be like a small supernova explosion within the manufacturing world, and will usher in a monumental upheaval to the way things have been done for over two hundred years. Little ole SGLB is going to cause a complete rewrite of manufacturing infrastructure.
All the belittlement of how long this is taking, and how so many could have looked at PR3D and not implemented it, indicating a failure for SGLB , are vastly missing the big picture. If a single large manufacturing company implements PR3D, a gigantic cascade of events will ensue.
These companies will want PR3D on all metal printer machines, not just some. Serial production is their goal. And along with serial production comes the need for massive capital expenditure. They absolutely must get this right, because hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars will suddenly be required to complete the setting. The instant they turn the switch for IPQA, the landscape changes.
From all the way back at the historical beginning of the Deming, Taguchi et al days of the Japanese foundation of profound quality control systems in manufacturing, there has been a separation of production and quality operations. It is like the separation of church and state in nations. Engineering/production can't ship a part unless QC says it is good to go. But here we have PR3D that is both a production tool and a QC tool, simultaneously. Who's domain does it go to? Who will oversee PR3D in the factory?
How does it fit in the idea of QC standards and measurements for calibration to a primary standard of first order? How does the concept of first article inspection apply when essentially every single part is both a first article and the whole lot at the same time. Does FAI even make sense with PR3D?
Regardless of the issues of domain and QC, massive amounts rewriting will have to occur for production operation procedures, material routing, job tracking, document change procedures, ISO platforms, QC platforms and on and on. The change that will be required with SGLB's product will touch essentially every single part of the whole manufacturing body. And don't forget that the super regulatory bodies will have to rewrite their entire suite of governing platforms. What SGLB is doing will cause a complete sea change in manufacturing infrastructure.
Then, we get to the part about closed loop. Manufacturing will insist that closed loop happen. They will absolutely insist that all the printer manufacturers open up their printer architecture to the industry to allow closed loop to be implemented. This will cause all sorts of changes in the printer manufacturer's infrastructure. SGLB's PR3D is so at the heart of everything that is metal 3D printing, that the instant the switch is flipped, massive disruption and change is immediately required.
I could go on and on with this. It is truly astounding the impact IPQA will have on manufacturing. I really don't see a half-way event going on here. With SGLB and IPQA and everything involved with it, it is going to be the whole enchilada that comes their way.
All the best,
Silversmith
Max,
He said it three days ago during the investor presentation in California.
All the best,
Silversmith
Has anyone done the math on Rice's 60% of 11,000 existing printers at $120K per machine for SGLB? It is a big damn number.
All the best,
Silversmith
Clawed its way back up pretty well considering it's been banging against the 200 day MA for two days now. I am wondering if the Ruport announcement is the thing Rice was referring to in the CC as what he thought we were going to be happy about. Or is something else coming in December?
All the best,
Silversmith
I look at it as SGLB moving to cement its place as a true SaaS company, instead of just another 3D print industry company. I am all for it. The SaaS multiples are much higher in the market than manufacturing multiples.
Works for me.
All the best,
Silversmith
These are going to be relationship of a different sort, outlook. These are going to be other than 3D print end-users. These are going to be with the titans of the software business world. Rice doesn't get to pick up the phone, call Oracle, and ask for Larry. But Ruport can.
All the best,
Silversmith
Ruport has connections among all the very big dog software corporations. This is going to get interesting fast.
All the best,
Silversmith
One of the things I hope JR is looking into is listing SGLB shares on some of the EU exchanges. With the way the EU sees SGLB as the IPQA solution, setting up an arbitrage across exchanges would move things along for the stock in the USA. Since the USA won't drive SGLB's value where it should be, let the people who understand the situation drive it.
All the best,
Silversmith
The year 2020 is going to be interesting around here. The SGLB story will become quite a bit more clear by the end of 2020. Enough information and action around IPQA for the metal printing industry should become evident by the end of 2020 to tell whether SGLB will be a big winner or not. I'm not necessarily talking about SGLB stock being a grand slam in 2020, but rather that enough of the story will be told to indicate the flight path of SGLB's future.
It seems reasonable that the Materialise integration and commercial agreement with SGLB should be complete in 2020. It seems reasonable that the several printer OEMs looking at SGLB will either capitulate and build PR3D into the printers, or at least tip their hand about opening up their printers' internal operations toward allowing for the integration of IPQA for the betterment of the industry's need for closed loop control. And it seems reasonable that the first functional closed loop control will be announced in the industry.
It seems reasonable that the battle between optical tomography and thermal analysis should resolve itself enough to tip off the eventual winner of the IPQA methodology. Be on the lookout for indicators that OEMs have backed off of efforts to build out optical monitoring IPQA systems, or wholly one sided announcements of new SGLB thermal analysis evaluations and almost no new optical announcements. Someone like an EOS inviting SGLB in for evaluation would be a big indicator for me. Keep in mind that there will continue to be optical systems for monitoring powder bed behavior and the like. New attempts to gain a footprint in the thermal analysis space by others will be an indicator also.
It seems reasonable that the remaining SGLB patent applications will likely be awarded. The standards bodies are so far behind in their efforts that it is questionable if we will see any IPQA standards written that sanction PR3D. The standards writing institutions ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are way behind.
It seems reasonable that if its going to happen, SGLB should win its first actual commercial production contract with one or more end users. I really can't believe the metal printing end users will drag this beyond 2020.
It seems reasonable that we should hear PR3D has been upgraded for multi-laser capability in 2020 as well.
Up until 2019, the public view of SGLB has been continuously negative, with a unrelenting weakness in the stock, and a continuous boxing into a corner of the company with less and less good options for breaking out of the shackles. Weakness begets weakness, and that has been the entire story of SGLB for many years.
But 2019 was a big year for SGLB. And 2020 should be an even bigger year if things continue in the direction they are going. The flip side of the coin is that strength begets strength. 2020 should tell the tale of whether the coin has now been flipped. If it has, we will see strength all year.
SGLB must develop a real investor pool. They must get to the point where a typical day is one to three millions shares trading daily, whether its an up or down day. I think this is on Rice's mind now. We'll see what he plans to do about it.
If everything on the table for 2020 comes out favorable, I expect there will be a few newly minted SGLB millionaires by the end of 2020. I can see us at the $7-$10 range by the end of 2020, provided no big dilutions occur.
All the best,
Silversmith
Regardless, to my knowledge nobody is writing calls or puts for SGLB. I would love to see someone write out-of-the-money calls for SGLB. I would welcome the leverage. But having options written is a component that is missing from SGLB. I have wondered since the last conf call if that may be part of the plan SGLB and MZ Group are working on for efforts to increase the quality of investor in the SGLB pool.
All the best,
Silversmith
Oh. Wait. I forgot.
SGLB doesn't have investors. They have flippers and day traders and haters. I forgot. My bad.
All the best,
Silversmith
Yes, and if it drops a ridiculous amount with year-end selling, that beep-beep-beep sound you will hear is me backing up the truck. I have a boat load of shares, but I will double down if it gets more stupid with the share price.
All the best,
Silversmith
So let me get this straight.
A company that has a key, enabling, breakthrough product for a ground altering new form of manufacturing that can change human history,
Has no debt,
Has $1.2 million in actual POs and promised POs for the quarter,
Has beat the leading competition in head to head analysis without fail,
Has had its product validated by some of the most premier investigative entities in industry,
Has completely encircled and protected the technology of its product with approved and ongoing patents,
Has live phase two evaluations happening right now with global premier corporations,
Is staring straight at a one-hundred-plus metal printers opportunity with arguably the cream of the crop corporations in down-well energy and aerospace,
Is courting all of the most significant global giants of end-user and OEM corporations in the industry,
and on and on,
And the company is only worth a market cap of what amounts to the same as what SGLB will get for a measly 85 printer installations worth of PR3D business? And plenty people here feel SGLB is over bought? Good grief. SGLB is definitely playing in the wrong investor sandbox.
All the best,
Silversmith
The reason you hear almost nothing about IPQA from EOS, Concept Laser, SSYS etc is because optical tomography hasn't been able to identify or link most defects with a precursor event. In fact, optical tomography doesn't even see several forms of defects that are a problem for the industry in metal AM. That is the result of the VTT study and many others, and why what was probably EOS, was flagged as not functional for IPQA. It is also why America Makes and GEA have large amounts of egg on their face in the way they handled early IPQA studies. A big key to knowing what SGLB will do in the future, how significant the gains will be for investors, is discerning where and when and in what form the metal AM industry indicates that optical tomography is a probable dead-end.
At that point, as was mentioned in the call, "if optimal tomography can't compete with Sigma (sic. melt-pool thermal analysis), then SGLB will be most formidable." And the industry knows it. For Rice to say that much anxiety is being expressed by the OEMs who have spent millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours on their own efforts at optical systems, I would say things are looking very good indeed for SGLB, And the industry knows SGLB can't be beat at IPQA. And SGLB is the only player for melt-pool thermal analysis. Why? Because of the patents, that's why.
If the industry indicates that thermal is the way it will go, then SGLB will be very much bigger than any of you are thinking about now.
All the best,
Silversmith
Not quite Endra. I don't think I stated $100 bucks a share anywhere in the past. But I do think this thing should have long ago been at $100M for a market cap.
There is just too much happening to not justify it now. SGLB and PR3D are spreading into the industry with webs in many places, many very important places. They went head to head with a major company in the IPQA space for the VTT win. Given that VTT is deep in the heart of the EU effort, I seriously don't think they were looking at GE for Concept Laser's QA platform. I'm betting it was EOS that failed to beat PR3D. I'm betting it was EOS that VTT declared incapable of successful IPQA. And Concept Laser is the same tech as EOS. SGLB is it when it comes to functionality in IPQA. I have been pounding the table for a long time that the patents are the big thing. And yesterday we heard it from the horses mouth. The patents are a gold mine, solid, and encompassing. If IPQA rolls out full scale in the metal AM industry, it will be SGLB providing it, and no one can stop it. The patents and SGLB are IPQA.
Materialise and SGLB are going to provide closed loop to the EU industry. That will be a gigantic step for the industry. And unless the USA gets its act together, they will be left in the dust by the EU. I can't think of two companies better positioned to provide it for the industry. The coming Materialise union is going to provide millions and millions of dollars of revenue to SGLB for many years.
This thing is just getting started for raking in cash flow for years to come.
We should have been at the $7-8 mark for share price for a while now. It was clear yesterday, to the world, that SGLB's rag-tag investors have badly gotten the story wrong. Lets see how long it takes to correct. I added nicely today. Still have not ever sold a single share of SGLB. Because one day we are all going to wake up to a bolt out of the blue announcing a solicitation for purchasing SGLB. In about 30 seconds the stock will go from wherever it was to the buyout price. You won't be able to get many shares in those 30 seconds. The game is getting serious now.
All the best,
Silversmith
Provided there are no serious hiccups, SGLB is going to become what wall street calls a cash-cow. This company will get bought by someone. It is up to investors to establish the forward looking market cap telegraphing the price tag to a prospective buyer.
All the best,
Silversmith
Outstanding call.
Congrats to the SGLB team.
All the best,
Silversmith
What you are hearing on the call is that Wall Street is getting ready to figure out how to price SGLB according to the reality on the ground. The whole group is acknowledging that SGLB shareholders have gotten it badly wrong up to this point in time. SGLB is worth way more than current share prices.
All the best,
Silversmith
Windbag pretty well summed up the history of it. But the future is in the details.
I have never seen such a botched, disorganized, disastrous, circus of a roll-out of a new industry in my whole life, like what has transpired with metal AM. Everyone who intended to 3D print in a big way thought they would do it all by themselves and behind closed doors. They thought they would keep it all for themselves and be capitalism corporate heroes. But what actually happened is complexity and physical nature handed them all their asses.
Suddenly they discovered they couldn't print well at all. Yields were abysmal, and the failure analysis showed root cause to be from all over the process floor; design, powder, printer, contamination, build chamber, you name it. And during all this, SGLB was flapping their arms saying we have a quality solution for you to enable you to see what is going on. Pay no attention to the fact that your whole manufacturing process is on fire with issues. And move that stuff out of the isle so we can fit this monstrous magic wheel cart contraption, with who knows what inside, along side your printer, you'll see.
But the industry didn't have time for IPQA. They had far more basic and big issues to tackle. And that will probably turn out to be a good thing for SGLB. It gave them time to work on the tech and make it good.
Meanwhile Wall Street looked around and saw that the whole metal AM thing wasn't working, moved on to other pastures, and left behind the shareholders of today.
Fast forward seven years and we now have some understanding of metal AM. Enough of it that the industry players are now looking toward making it cost effective, to compete with traditional manufacturing , and eyeing serial production. Now, at least the EU anyway, understands that it is so complex they need to have the whole metal AM field cooperating to bring it together. Now they have some time for IPQA. Now they are thinking IPQA is required to make serial production work. But the residue SGLB shareholder feels like they have been through a train wreck. And no matter what, they refuse to think things are different now. The IPQA chapter of metal AM is starting to be written now. But SGLB historical investors won't have any of it. Given that IPQA is now seen as mostly necessary for metal AM by the industry, and given that SGLB sits at the top of the pile for IPQA in metal AM, the patents alone would be worth $100 million usd to the industry. I mean if IPQA is it, then you have got to have the patents behind you, because SGLB owns the patents.
But SGLB historical investors are not in a position to value them or the company. So now what? The only thing to do is develop a market with a different set of investors. Ones that see the here and now, and see how things are likely to be. If Rice and his help can develop a real market for SGLB stock to trade in, with market participants that think and act according to where things are now in the industry and the company, then SGLB will have a chance to have a proper valuation applied. And if metal AM actually really gets going with serial production, then Wall Street will come back. But I really expect 2020 to be big because metal AM is really looking toward IPQA to help them in a big way. I am pretty sure the IPQA chapter in metal AM is starting now.
All the best,
Silversmith
MZ Group is going to get SGLB in front of some much higher character people. And those people will have their own six-degree connections. If the SGLB story plays well on Broadway, it will also start playing on Wall Street.
I expect 2020 to be a big year for SGLB.
All the best,
Silversmith
You are remembering correctly Hawks. In the very beginning SGLB went down the acoustics road. They abandoned it around 2013-2014. The only thing I ever heard about why they abandoned it was they determined more meaningful data could be had though spectral sensing.
All the best,
Silversmith
It is only about how you make a visual image of the part for viewing on a screen. It isn't about anything else.
SGLB's sensing and analytics are owned by SGLB in their own patents. I think SGLB will see either no impact at all, or minimal impact if they are making part images using the GE method. There are lots of ways to visual image a digital data set.
All the best,
Silversmith
That is pretty interesting. I wonder how it differs from all the normal imagery methods like CAD, virtual reality, PET scan, CT scan, cinematography, etc. They all use some version of a mapping algorithm.
All the best,
Silversmith
There is certainly an enormous difference in the two velocities, but I would think the relatively small distances inside the print chamber make it a non entity. But if closed loop for melt pool requires as near instantaneous interpretation as possible to enable time for an actual on the fly adjustment to the melt pool, I would think acoustic would make it more challenging.
All the best,
Silversmith
I've been looking at Concept Laser's own product data sheets, and the only two patents GE has for AM quality inspection. Concept Laser's own sheets state that MeltPool QM uses a photo diode, and clearly states that meltpool data is ONLY available after the part build. Maybe they are hoping SGLB won't come after them over it if they hold the data until after the build. Who knows.
The GE patents are both for acoustic sensing. They are simply listening for the signature of anything other than the smooth noise of congealing liquid metal. Anything other than that indicates a problem. Imagine the cross-talk mess with multiple lasers.
As for the cross-talk with PR3D, I agree it would have been a concern earlier. But as I understand it, the sensing move from the oblique off-axis position to the laser down-column position makes the issue mostly moot. The signal path direction that PR3D captures is straight back up the lasing column. You don't get contamination signals that can actually travel straight up the column if they originated from elsewhere in the build chamber.
All the best,
Silversmith
Multi laser was never going to be a real problem for SGLB. At the very least they could have just installed however many PR3D systems for however many lasers there were in the machine. The question was always going to be how could it be made more efficient than that. What aspects of PR3D could be split into multiple domains so that a single function could be made to handle multiple, identical, parallel functions. It was never going to be the case that SGLB couldn't deal with it. And don't be surprised to see several generations of multi laser capability come out as it gets more and more refined.
All the best,
Silversmith
A stock's price is almost always set by the fringe trading. I haven't looked recently but I think I recall about 40% of the outstanding is held by insiders and institutional. They are starting to move in. They are starting to take shares out of the hands of the OTC residue. That means out of your hands dude.
All the best,
Silversmith
Oh it's a two way street windbag. No doubt about it. And neither side has done well in my opinion. But in getting a startup to fruition investors have to be willing to carry their weight too. SGLB's team has continued developing the product, continued working toward getting it validated by oversight bodies and into the standards, continued getting it out in front of the big players, continued submitting patent coverage, and winning the patents and continued to be pretty frugal. But other than a reduced expansion of the authorized, SGLB investors have given the company nothing. Not a thing, other than handcuffing them and bitching about them. Early startup VC funded companies suck money for years and years. The VC's know if they are going in, they need to be willing to give funding for a long time. SGLB investors, and I use that term loosely because SGLB has very few real investors, have never been the kind of people who had any experience with this kind of thing. They all got drug in from the OTC where it is mostly all a pipe dream and a fling of the dice for them. They have no idea about getting a breakthrough product in a breakthrough industry across the finish line. It is a rough, hard ride. Hell, just getting the patents researched, written up, submitted and approved cost $10 million. The patents alone are worth a lot more than $10 million. But not to SGLB's investors. Because they don't have a clue.
All the best,
Silversmith
This all illustrates the type of investor SGLB has as its base. Not very sophisticated. SGLB investors are all about getting something for mostly nothing. Instead of the mind set of what the value of the tech would and could be for the industry and manufacturing, and what value would be appropriate and could be commanded in a market, they mostly only have a sense of what they need it to be. What they want out of it. What would work for their own brokerage account, or feelings, or emotions, or to save face.
And they want someone else to make it happen for them.
So what is the tech worth to society and the industry? Do you really think it is worth $10 million usd? Apparently. There needs to be lots more discussion of what the company should more appropriately be valued at, because it isn't $10 million. There is as much information out there indicating SGLB's solution will be used by the industry, as there is indicating it won't be used.
And wick, you really need to reconsider about the AI stuff. AI is when a code of program reads a data set, recognizes a pattern in the data set as one it has seen before, back when it was taught what the pattern meant, infers that the same thing is happening again, makes a judgement, evaluates what actually ended up happening, and re-codes the memory data base to annotate the actual result so that it learns all by itself. Which of course is exactly what SGLB's PR3D does.
All the best,
Silversmith
Neither GE or Honeywell has seen 5.0. The PR3D GE has seen was the Cola mad scientist abortion that had cables and wires hanging out of the industrial wheel cart. It had no user interface except for at the programming level. It was very crude. Honeywell never saw 5.0 while with DARPA either. The latest generation is a very different thing.
All the best,
Silversmith
I don't know why you think they couldn't be stopped. SGLB shareholders think they are little, powerless, people. But we all would have to vote approval for the buyout. SGLB officers don't just get to sell the company on their own. We all own the company. We all have a say in it. The market put a stop to GE buying SLM because they thought the offer was too low. The same can happen for SGLB. Unfortunately SGLB shareholders think the company and the tech are worthless. It puts handcuffs on the c-suite. They have to raise money at ridiculous cost, use up the shareholders authorized share kitty, then listen to the shareholders bitch about it. Even if a VC or investment arm of a major corporation wanted to buy in, they would obtain proportional company ownership. Common investors would have to split the pie just the same. Money doesn't grow on trees. And shareholders have to carry the company either through depleted authorized, or holding share prices up through buying. There is no free lunch. And on top of it all, y'all will scream bloody murder if GE tries to buy SGLB for $10 million. You can't have it both ways.
All the best,
Silversmith
GE would license the right the use any tech protected by the patents from SGLB. That would enable them to be free to purse IPQA in their own way. And maybe GE will buy SGLB in the end. Who knows. But why buy SGLB up till now? The market cap is so ridiculous why not wait and see how things turn out. This is where SGLB investors are shooting themselves in the foot. They refuse to place a proper value on the tech. So as long as that's the case, why not wait. Even if SGLB goes on to have a $300 million market value, many companies can buy that without blinking an eye. Plus they will know without a doubt PR3D is a winner.
All the best,
Silversmith
I don't think I would go that far El Jefe. He says the few out there are good, but not what he himself wants them to be. Plus he would have been including Concept Laser's system in the cast. So I take it to be IPQA is good and getting close to what they want. I imagine there is still a ways to go with the AI portion of PR3D recognizing all the many defect types on the fly. I imagine it is the same for all the IPQA wanna-be's. Plus the industry clearly desires closed loop and multi laser IPQA. As he said, they want to start a serial production run and run 24/7 without any issues at all. It is a tall order. But more interesting to me is how GE seems to always be tippy-toeing, walking carefully, when IPQA is the topic. I really think GE knows SGLB's patent mote around the tech is a true issue for them. I fully expect that GE will license the tech from SGLB, and there will be two IPQA systems that the industry goes with; mostly along the lines of SGLB's in the EU, and GE's in the USA.
All the best,
Silversmith
I'm loving the cup implant study. It moves SGLB a little bit out away from aviation. And if things move steadily out into automotive, drilling and medical, then I am betting SGLB will be priced in the market more as an SaaS company, rather than the household named group of 3d printer companies. Pricing similar to the SaaS space will average in the 10x revenue range. With a modest 8% market share of the expected metal AM printer sales numbers, 1,768 in 2017, and 3,114 in 2018, if the outstanding share count stays where it is, and SGLB continues to get $110k per unit, we are talking about between $20 and $30 per share. But who knows.
All the best,
Silversmith
insert-text-here
All the best,
Silversmith