It's time to get real and stop dreaming!

There is no contradiction between your conclusion, above, and the latest press release, titled Last quarter was in 2012. All the PR states is that there was a 233% increase year over year - it does not imply a 233% increase since the last quarterly report.

The only problem I see is that folks are so anxious for news that Will Not Come until at least the end of the year that they invent things to fuel their hopes; and then, when those self-invented myths do not materialize, Steipp gets the blame. We need to listen to what Steipp says. During the last CC, Steipp said But folks on this board keep expecting to see significant revenue reported in the 2012 10K. It's time to stop dreaming and get real.

The question is not what could it be, but rather, "Watts, could it be?"

Only LQMT can PROUDLY boast of an increase of 233% which, in reality, is an increase from 3 to 10 customers - potential customers, that is, in the exploratory phase only. How nice it would have been if the increase was in customer orders for parts, instead of prototypes. Oh well, it's a step in the right direction. And it just may result in additional revenue by the end of this year... maybe... perhaps... if only...

There is no investigation. LQMT Board did nothing wrong. It is just a B.S. fishing expedition by hungry lawyer-sharks.

Not surprising. But take heart in the knowledge that Apple has essentially "legitimized" the alloys and has made LQMT a company who's IP should be taken seriously. That's the primary benefit of the MTA.

Pappy, I will be honored to supply the drinks, win or lose.

Pappy, thank you. I see we are on the same page.

I am not counting on Apple spinning off revenue to LQMT, but I am counting on a nice bump up.

I trade only what's in my IRA, and therefore I am prohibited from shorting – even if I had the stones. But I will sell a part of my 16 billion shares into any significant bump and will then wait for the price to slowly settle back down, and re-purchase the number of shares I sell (not the dollar amount I'll get from the sale).

LQempty. Maybe I'm the one that's confused. I thought I understood the agreements. But after going through them again, and everything that Steipp said about them, I'm no longer certain that I even know who I am, let alone what the agreements really say... or, for that matter, what Steipp has said they say.

Help!!!!!!!!!

I'm with you, brother! I'm adding you to the list of people I'd like to have a drink with.

Seems to me that you've supported, not refuted, many of my contentions in several of my posts here.

RareR, you question was a good one. IMO, VPC will not be manufacturing parts for Apple (at least not any time soon). I could elaborate, but I won't. Too many folks here believe otherwise and I have no desire to engage in what I see as a pointless discussion... from my prospective only. I am not denigrating others with opposite points of view.

There is a major advantage to being long - and by long, I mean having a 2 to 3 year horizon as a minimum. That advantage is that I don't have to concentrate on minutia. Small bumps in the stock price is not what I am looking for or even concerned about.

I am much more interested in the overall pattern that has emerged since Steipp took over: events, when taken as a whole, paint a very positive long range future for this company; i.e., the aggregate of the MTA, the agreement with VPC, the hiring of Bromage and Jelbert, the deals with Materion and Engle, and the many new patents going into CIP.)

So whether I buy at 8 cents or 6 cents is nowhere as important to me as what I think the stock price will be in 2, 3, or 4 years down the road.

But that, after all, is just my $.02

LQempty, I wrote:

LQempty answered:
I do not follow your reasoning, LQ. 1st of all, Visser can do work for Apple but if he does, no revenue will go to LQMT. I quote from the Q3 CC:

Materion is not precluded from providing the alloys to Apple (who also owns the rights to the alloys), nor is Engle precluded from making machines for Apple. So where do you see revenues flowing in to LQMT from Apple products that contain liquidmetal alloys?

I'd love to see LQMT get revenue as a result of liquidmetal alloys in Apple products, but that ain't gonna happen. It seems that no matter how many times Steipp elucidates the fact that LQMT will not receive $$ as a result of Apple products, there are always those who believe otherwise. (LovePoler, that is why we had, and will continue to see, bumps up on Apple rumors of liquidmetal containing products, and why I expect a BIG bump when Apple actually employs the alloys for the first time.)

RareR (I hope this does not violate the TOS), I'll bet you one half of one share of LQMT that we will never see $.05 again.

RareR, you are, of course, talking about timing the market. As soon as you figure out how to do that on a consistent basis, I'll fly up to the North Pole where you live so we can form an investment partnership. I will gladly provide complete funding. You won't have to put up a nickel. All you'll have to provide is the magic formula.

There is certainly more profit to be made buying in at 5 cents than at 8 cents. I happen to own a few shares I bought at $8.50, so they are much better shares than the cheap shares you picked up at 8 cents. (And, BTW, you can have some of those better shares at only $4.25 per.)

Pappy, first of all I congratulate you on your questions. They were among the most salient I have ever heard at one of these CCs.

I hear you loud and clear and I'm right there with you. I have a few more shares than you, but I, too, am looking forward to recouping my investment and then going along for the ride free and clear. I don't see a return to the 5 cent level, but I have been wrong so many times about this stock that I am the last one that should be taken seriously.

LovePoker, I am no wiser than you are. I do not have to do DD on GM because I am not invested in that has-been company.

The price pops you refer to are very easy to explain and were NOT orchestrated by "the big guys," as you believe. The first one, from near 5 cents to $1.74 was due to a total misunderstanding of the MTA between AAPL and LQMT. (In fact, very few players even read the document.) People thought that LQMT would receive royalties from soon-to-be Apple products featuring liquidmetal cases. In the first place, as explained ad nauseum by Steipp, LQMT will receive no royalties from Apple. Second, the "soon to be" Apple devices made with liquidmetal have yet to hit the market.

The second pop came about for similar reasons, but only went to about 60 cents. Rumors and speculation about a liquidmetal case for the iPhone 5 was the cause. That time, however, there were fewer dupes that misunderstood the MTA.

Should Apple produce a liquidmetal device, the stock will bounce again... to what level I have no idea. But it will fall back down as soon as people realize that LQMT will derive no revenues from the product. So your admonition to sell on the next pop is a good one.

As for a reverse split - don't count on it. The stock was once 5 cents for a VERY LONG TIME and there was no reverse split. In spite of all the crying and gnashing of teeth about dilution, with only 500M shares authorized and less than half that issued, there are too few shares in the float to make a reverse split an option. If necessary, they will do more PIPEs, as Watts has correctly stated many times.

Well... maybe I am just a tiny bit wiser than you, but I'd bet the ranch that you would clean my clock at poker.

After re-reading the Q3 CC, there are a few points I'd like to stress. One point deals directly with the question of dilution, that so many of you have expressed concerns about. Please read the Q&A for the first caller. It explains exactly why LQMT may need to issue more shares, and supports my contention that issuing more shares can, in the long run, benefit long term investors by keeping the company solvent.

Second, there have been a number of folks who do not understand the MTA between Apple and LQMT. They have posted, on more than one occasion, that Apple has only until the end of the extension of the MTA agreement in 2014 to either produce parts made with the alloys or lose their right to do so. I quote (from Tony Chung, during the CC):

Sometimes reading the transcript of the CC is more informative than listening to it.

Thanks again, RareR.

Good work, RR. You da man!

BTW, I'd like to meet Amber. Think you can arrange that for me?

I am not a penny stock trader and I have not been waiting for a further price drop, if that's what you're referring to, brother. At the current price, there isn't much room for a further decrease (although I once said as much when the stock traded at $3. So what do I know?).

BTW, just to clarify some of my references to day traders and penny stock traders. I sincerely wish them good fortune. I've nothing against them. It's just not bag, brother... is all.

Liquidmetal investors are incredulous and their beliefs are immutable. We will continue to post long after the Earth is destroyed.

bif, I love it! If you lived close by, I would certainly invite you out for a drink.

Cheers!

I know many will take issue with this, but increasing the number of shares issued can have benefits for long term investors – even though it will hurt short term traders. It depends upon how the company uses those additional shares. IMO, the benefits, in this particular instance, will prove to outweigh the deficits to longs like me.

Just my $.02

One of the so-called rules of investing is to seek growth companies in which there is significant insider buying. Ten years ago I came across an SEC report showing John Kang had purchased a significant amount of shares of LQMT. Note that I said "purchased" - as in "bought with his own money." These were not shares given to him or executed for pennies on the dollar. Or so I was led to believe.

I had never heard of amorphous metallic glasses, LQMT, or John Kang. I was fascinated by the properties of the alloys, saw the tremendous potential they held, and bought in. It took a while to understand that the CEO of the company lied - even in SEC filings: the "official documents" we all rely on to digest the financial data of any company we invest in.

I could have gotten out at any time, and (thanks to pressure from Mrs. Rahma) I did sell half of my shares at one point. Staying in was not Kang's fault. I'm still underwater, but with an average cost per share of ~ 30 cents (and falling), I'm very happy I'm in.

Yes, that Design Guide is quite impressive. IMO, it is a lot easier to comprehend than any 10K I've struggled with.

I realize that's a rhetorical question, but I'll list just a few reasons:

1. The lack of significant revenue. (While potential exists, there's no beef in the bun.)
2. It's a very speculative investment. (Most savvy investors won't touch it.)
3. The lack of significant revenue.
4. It's a very speculative investment.
5. The lack of significant revenue.
6. It's a very speculative investment.
7. The lack of significant revenue.

I could continue, but you get my drift. (BTW, some of us are "busting down the door" at these prices. I suppose that excludes us from the 'savvy' investor class.}

Have a great weekend.

I'm sure you will disagree, Mr. Watts, but the addition of Bruce Bromage and Dr. Glenton Jelbert are major achievements and will benefit us all. Of that I am certain. Giving them incentives is smart business, and I hope to see a form 3 filed on behalf of Dr. Jelbert.

As for long term shareholders being skinned by the previous administration, no one forced us to buy stock - at any price - or held a gun to our head and prevented us from liquidating our positions at any time. It is not Kang's fault. It is not Bush's fault. It was OUR fault that we bought in far too early. And the sooner you come to grips with that, the happier you will be - as will everyone else on this message board.

Rejoice in the knowledge that this company is not the same one we invested in 10 years ago, and don't let your anger stop you from taking advantage of the current low price of the stock. If you fail to overcome the anger over the damage you suffered during the Kangster era, he will win and you will lose. As for me: I intend to win.

That was another step in the right direction. It's important for senior-level team members to have skin in the game.

You're right, brother. I will call Tom and ask him to withdraw the dividend announcement.

In my experience, the sales people in the Apple stores have less information about the company they work for than any of us on this forum. But the fact that they have heard of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., is very impressive by itself.

(Head slap!) Of course. I forgot about that. And as late as 9/30/2012, they had only issued just under 200M shares, so upping that to 233M is relatively new.

Oh well, along with my white hair, failing memory is the reason I was forced to move to Florida. (sigh).

Thank you for the clarification.

Sorry for being dense, but share dilution, as I understand it, refers to the number of shares held compared to the number of shares Issued: not compared to the number of shares authorized.

If you do the math, Steipp has ~ 7.6 million shares which, according to the latest form 14A makes him a 3.3% shareholder. 7.6 million is ~ 3.3% of 233 million... which happens to be the number of shares issued.

Unless I missed it (which is quite possible), the number of shares issued has not changed since the 14 A was filed a month or two ago. It's still about 233 million.

And the number of shares authorized has not yet increased. I believed that technically, the number of shares authorized Will increase to 500 million After the votes are tallied at the ASHM.

So please explain how dilution reduced the BofA stake to less than 5%.

TIA

Pardon me for asking, but why are 'private' phone calls attached as sticky notes? And we complain about Steipp not wanting to give out information?

John has no scientific background. IIRC, his degree is in economics (and also in playing poker with a dead-pan face). James, IIRC has a degree in Business. How they come to have their name on patents is anyone's guess.

All that matters not. Focus on what is happening at the company today.

What? You say that there is no way of knowing what is going on?

Oh. OK. Then let's focus on our dreams and be happy. Remember the Mantra of The Dahli Rahma: Reality Is The Leading Cause Of Stress.

ditto. I did the same thing. My guess is that news of some sort is going to come out before mid-March, and Tom wants to get ahead of the release. By who, or about what, I have no idea.

No news could drive the price down to a nickel. Good news will drive it higher than 8 cents. "You pays your money and you takes your choice." - Huckleberry Finn

Right you are, pappy.

Ah... so sorry for not understanding. I never heard of Obama and just assumed he/she was a popular person in your country.

LQempty, you are just a pessimist at heart. Perhaps you will like this Obama quote better:

"A once-rundown start-up company in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, is on the verge of becoming a state-of-the-art IP company, where new workers are mastering techniques to produce fully net-molded products out of transformative materials that have the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There's no reason this can't happen."

With respect, I remain...

Hope U R correct. Trouble is I remember too many bounce backs that fell into the category of a "Dead Cat Bounce." But this time, of course, things will be different.

Mr. Jolly, I have been thinking along the exact same lines (and for a number of reasons). However, it will not be sold off at 8 - 10 cents a share. If you re-read, and think about, what the company offered as a reason for the additional 100 million shares, they pretty much tipped their hand vis-a-vis their long and short term intentions.

Tom did not join this company for the salary they pay him or to walk away with a $500K bonus. That, I will bet the ranch on. (Btw, Mr. Tom now owns just north of 7 million shares.) In order for the insiders to make substantial personal gains, this stock has got to be over $2 a share before they arrange for a buy out... and we have a way to go before that happens.

Unlike some of our 'dear leaders,' I am always happy to see others make handsome profits on their investments and/or on their hard work - especially when I can ride along on their coattails. So I wish the LQMT insiders LOTS of luck and, hopefully, a VERY big payout.

Why the LQMT Board should ignore it’s shareholders.

OK Mr. Watts, before you get your panties in a bunch and start blasting me, I am posting this solely as “thoughts for the day” and take no personal position on what follows.

Felix Salmon wrote a recent blog titled,“Why Apple should ignore its shareholders.” I see a few parallels between Apple and LQMT. In the quotes that follow, I substituted LQMT for Apple, and Tom Steipp for Tim Cook:

“Basically, everybody knows nothing, when it comes to the famously-secretive [LQMT], and it would be crazy for someone like [Tom Steipp] to pay much attention to such ignoramuses. –snip – The share price has never been particularly useful in terms of being able to predict what's going to happen next to [LQMT] the company.”

“When [Tom Steipp] became CEO, he was given… stock [6 million shares]. The point was to keep him focused....”

Apple received 1,135 patents in 2012. So you fans of linking LQMT's up and coming break-out (ha ha) to Apple's patents really have a lot to be happy about - and a lot of work cut out for you researching those patents.