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.
Or "western" customers book their orders through LQMT (big revenue, small or no profit for LQMT). LQMT produces those orders in China (big revenue, good profit for Eontec). "Eastern" orders are routed through Eontec.
Why collect royalties when you can count the revenue twice? I agree that the profit would look the same for both companies.
It looks as if this prediction for a 10/31/2019 completion, made 1 month ago, will miss the mark by a day or two.
Thank you JAG69 for sharing your DD.
Good post. I have always believed that Li will shift to full rocketship liftoff when the whole story is ready to unveil to the public. Escape velocity (big board listing) means achieving and maintaining revenue and share price targets. When you move, move decisively and make it count.
With Eon purposely pushing their 10k to April 26, I tend to think that our (circa) May 7 quarterly will be the one to look watch for revenue-wise. I'm assuming that whatever the secret the Eon 10K is being delayed to hide, Li would not want it revealed in March via LQMT. I feel like he wants to light the fuse, and do it after the trade war is settled.
I would expect the 10K itself to give us some better clues. I'd also hope for a linear escalation of revenue. Just my opinion.
Smartphone patents battlemap...
https://www.scribd.com/document/390844609/18-10-14-Smartphone-Patents-Battlemap
It could be part of a 2025 plan. In a normal, competitive environment, the first to announce that they are using liquidmetal would have the advantage. To agree to a truce until everyone is ready to announce requires either government intervention, or the promise of a bigger payback for holding back.
The fact that Josh put a date on the truce is even more intriguing.
I’ve always felt that if LQMT wants to mak it to NASDAQ land, it would need to very quickly surpass $4 a share and then stay there. This would require not slowly leaking good news, instead saving it for a big-bang. The idea of a Chinese truce and subsequent unveiling dovetails with that theory. Just looking for more opinions.
A truce implies a big-bang, unveiling once everyone is lined up at the starting gate.
Is this a coordinated launch to promote Liquidmetal orchestrated by all parties (including Chinese government)?
Here's a post arguing against near-term revenue from CE...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145805579
You don’t have to convince me. I’m a believer. I just recognize the perspective of the skeptics as legitimate.
I think there is, yes. I also concede that there are a few educated guesses needed to complete the story.
How will revenue be shared in “The Maze”? The willingness to accept one answer over another without a concrete position from LQMT is the primary difference of opinion on this board.
“Lead” as in evidence to back up an assertion, (demonstrably factual or not). Certainly Josh and others have posted tons of facts, data, articles, conjecture, etc. that may or may not result in LQMT revenue. In that sense, they are “leads”. Caveat emptor.
This is where the controversy sits. Revenue is not “fact” until it is booked. Facts about Li’s maze, or production contracts are not a guarantee of LQMT net profit and share price appreciation. To DMN’s point, it is not fact until reported in some SEC sanctioned manner. Until that point, it is speculation.
I just happen to think that if you buy a penny stock, you are speculating by default. You might as well have a defendable narrative for why you believe the odds favor your investment (as long as it isn’t fueled by cognitive dissonance). The fact that DMN or anyone else wants demonstrable proof before believing is okay with me.
Guns are real. Lead bullets are real. 6 chambers are a fact. Fact is, odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. If you get an offer to put the gun to your head, pull the trigger and be paid $100 million if you survive, do you? Some will, some won’t. To quibble over whether it is fact that you could die vs. fact that you could be rich is silly. I’d be calculating my odds and those things that influence my odds and weighing them against my tolerance for violent end to my speculating days. In that world, every shred of information is crucial. In that world, I hope I have access to the joshuaeyu of Russian roulette.
It is simply a matter of perspective, and where you choose to draw the line on speculation. Penny stocks are about potential. At some point, in a forum such as this, we need to define the potential that we see. If you do not have a an imagined path to profitability, you are gambling.
Saying that it is a "done deal" at this point is crazy. There are lots of great signs on what is to be sold, and how revenue might be divided. Nothing is concrete. Saying that it is a waste of time until there is reported revenue is equally crazy. That means that one does not have a reason for investing. Instead, when revenue shows up the remaining investors won the coin flip.
The middle ground is where you seem to be. You believe in the technology. You believe that the FDA approval, the molds, the machines, the demonstrable scraps will lead to something bigger. You are not willing to buy into "the maze" and our place there. That is understandable. It doesn't make the circumstantial evidence wrong either.
There is a story, good or bad, that we don't know. There is zero chance that I am going to invest in a penny stock without uncovering every rock to build that narrative. If, as Josh says, the worst case scenario is that all of these Eon sales make Kris Kent's job easier, then why not speculate?
Taking these well-researched leads and turning them into incontrovertible facts is the sign of a manipulator. Completely ignoring these well-researched leads and saying we are doomed (while still invested) is the sign of a manipulator. Degrees of optimism and skepticism are part of the game.
I enjoy your posts enough to go back and read the last year's worth every now and then. Don't stop contributing over the extremes.
My uneducated guess where the shipment is headed...
APTIV Mobility is a large company with a factory in Nuevo Laredo that supplies GM and VW, TSLA.
https://www.aptiv.com/innovation
https://ir.aptiv.com/investors/why-invest/default.aspx
https://profilemagazine.com/2018/how-sidney-johnson-and-aptiv-are-reimagining-mobility/
If I had the final say with regard to which company I would distribute incoming revenue, I would answer "both". $1 million sold by LQMT and contracted to a Li controlled company in China becomes $1 million in revenue for LQMT and $1 million in revenue for Eon (minus LQMT profit). We then become a pass-through entity for our territory, making whatever profit we are allowed off of potentially enormous revenue.
Why wouldn't Li shove every western penny he could through LQMT, then manufacture in China so that the same dollar was again counted as revenue for Eon? What profit he allows LQMT is more the question in my mind. But at least for the next year or two, I wouldn't be unhappy to see low profit margins but enormous top line numbers. Eon would enjoy nearly the same top line numbers from the LQMT territory, plus the numbers from their own.
I wouldn't cry right now if we had $200 million shoved through LQMT, only to receive $10 million in profit, while Eon receives $195 million in revenue and makes $20 million in profit on "our sale". Eon/Yihao becomes our CM and therefore a cost of goods sold, while our COGS becomes their revenue.
I simply don't see a way that is of greater advantage to Li than this. Any small profit Li allows LQMT to have as part of the pass-through would be justified in the PLA. He could argue that having an American outpost and prototype shop increases the chances of revenue and world domination by enough to offset any profit LQMT keeps.
As of 11/15, the City of Lake Forest reports that the request is still under review...
Community Development Department Status Report
If jointly developed and co-owned, but excluded from CE for both parties, how would either party use the jointly developed patent in CE?
If you are saying that only Liquidmetal is excluded from using jointly developed patents in CE, but not EON, I'm missing that connection. Appendix C appears to apply to both companies. Are you saying that LMT can keep EON from using 106c in CE, and EON can keep LMT from using it in CE?
BYD ranks highest in their readiness for EVs. YiHao lists them as one of their 9 partners.
China Is About to Shake Up the World of Electric Cars
www.yihaometal.com/?page_id=9193
It would be interesting to know if the final payment for "production tooling" came upon the successful production of the first part.
If the $250K came from tooling, is this for the Zyris parts? If not, what portion of our revenue can be attributed to Zyris? I think Josh "back-of-the-napkined' approximately $600K annually from Zyris. If we are producing those parts, I would expect to see some revenue that was related to that order.
"Attentive readers will have picked up on the word LiquidMetal a few paragraphs back. This is the same stuff that Omega has been using in its Seamaster Planet Ocean bezels for a few years now; the material is not proprietary to Omega, but until now no other brand had used it. And no brand has produced a watch cased entirely in the alloy.
The Panerai Luminor Submersible 1950 BMG-Tech 3 Days Automatic costs £8,200."
Panerai calls it BMG-TECH...
BMG-TECH™
STRONGER THAN NATURE
LUMINOR SUBMERSIBLE 1950 BMG-TECH™
3 DAYS AUTOMATIC - 47 mm
PAM00692
An invisible but revolutionary innovation, resulting from Panerai's continuos research into design and new materials: the first mechanical watch whose case is made of BMG-TECH™
www.paneraibmgtech.com/en/
Maybe when they chose the new location for the factory in late 2016, the customer requesting MIM hadn’t yet materialized. Or maybe that customer hadn’t yet decided to use MIM as a one or two year alternative before moving on to Liquidmetal?
YiHao sure has a lot of MIM capacity. Why would we bother building our own capacity?
Why wouldn’t we subcontract that work to someone else, if it is a one client exception?
So many questions...
And why is that? What is the population of people who would understand that YiHao, which is 60% owned by Eontec, is manufacturing for Foxconn who is assembling for Apple, who is ordering through LQMT-China which may pay LQMT (assuming that is the path for LQMT revenue)? How many of those people have the money and access to by a penny stock in the US? Those that do have access, how many shares would they buy on average? What if they have been buying in?
If 500 people all found out at the same time and bought hundreds of thousands of shares each, I agree we would see some appreciation. But if 30 - 50 people have the right combination of information, and have bought in over time, I don't see why things would be so different.
If I were Li, I would choose to run revenue through LQMT and manufacture with an Eon subsidiary. This allows both companies to succeed without choosing favorites. It also utilized the tax loss built up at LQMT.
"If the Apple component is in the CE field and does use Eontec licensed technology, then LQMT has to turn Apple away because LQMT doesn't have a license to Eontec's technology in CE."
What if Apple wants to use a process from CIP, but use Eontec licensed technology? What if Apple wants its prototypes developed in California and not in China?
LQMT only has to turn Apple away due to an agreement that is meant to protect Eontec. What if Eontec doesn't want to be protected from an Apple contract? Does the agreement tie Eontec's hands if Apple insists the work originate with LQMT? Or does that put Eontec's technology at risk?
My stance is that I don't know and haven't seen enough to be convinced one way or the other. What I have seen is enough evidence that #4 is plausible.
The three parties had to protect themselves from being exploited by each other. That does not preclude them from striking a deal to work together. Using those restrictions as a reason to eliminate any and all possibility of cooperation is missing something.
Apple was our relationship, not Li's. Either we brought Apple to Li, or Apple brought Li to LQMT. If an agreement was struck with Apple, it isn't crazy to think that the work will flow through us. Paraclete is correct in that an additional mouth to feed would be too costly. PatentGuy is right that Li can't simply take a 10% chunk out of Eontec and give it to LQMT without some blowback from the Eon shareholders. But we could certainly book a huge revenue and a huge expense, and end up with a few hundred thousand in profit, but revenue in the tens of mullions, while Yihao makes the margin.
Option #1: Apple/Foxconn do not use BMG at all and stick to other alloys throughout their lineup. We make no money. BMG becomes proprietary titanium and never takes off. We all lose, including Li.
Option #2: Apple/Foxconn do use BMG and use a non-Li company to do the production with CIP patents. Someone with the production capacity big enough for Apple is out there that we don't know about.
Option #3: Apple/Foxconn work with Eontec to develop prototypes in China, and order their parts via an Eontec subsidiary in China with no direct involvement from LQMT. LQMT does not receive revenue due to all of the reasons cited in the various restrictive agreements.
Option #4: Apple works with LQMT in Lake Forest to develop their prototypes, and places their order though Foxconn, via LQMT directly or LQMT-China. YiHao produces (Eon makes money), LQMT-China makes a cut (Eon makes money, and LQMT makes little to no profit. However, the top line number is run through LQMT, boosting the share price and Li's fortune in the USA, while concentrating all profits with Eon.
Why are numbers 1 -3 above reality, but #4 is "a dream, supported by conjecture and myths, but without a single shred of evidence to support it." I see quite a bit of evidence that suggests #4 cannot be eliminated from consideration.
What if Apple placed its order through LQMT, via Foxconn? How do these apply? Is your assumption that the order is going directly to Eontec? If so, your argument is holds more water. But if Apple decides that it wants to use the non-CIP, co-developed 106c alloy, how does that play out?
1. Apple's exclusive perpetual license was negotiated to keep LQMT from licensing it to a competitor.
2. If YiHao does the production of a LQMT order, Eontec makes 60% per Josh's chart. 106c is co-developed.
3 and 4. Would any territorial zone apply if Apple came to LQMT?
5. If Apple gives LQMT its business, using 106c and CIP patents, what can Eontec shareholders say? It is our business.
I'm not saying that this is the case. But what do you see that eliminates this scenario or prevents this scenario? Why assume that Apple hasn't always wanted to work through LQMT for its USA based prototyping capabilities and proximity to Cupertino? Maybe Apple even facilitated the first meetings with Li.
Apple's exclusivity was meant to exclude competition not Apple themselves. The Eon/LQMT restrictions were meant to keep Apple from inheriting the right to use Eontec's formulas, not to keep us from doing business with Apple. Looking at the restriction language only without looking at the intent for the restrictions is only half of the argument. If all three of the companies want to do hundreds of millions of dollars of business together, they all have the power to work around the language. Apple can allow LQMT into CE because it is for Apple. Eontec can allow LQMT into CE because it benefits Eontec.
It is reasonable to think that Apple’s thinking has evolved since 2010 as well. Most of the patents in CIP have to do with BMG process and machinery. If the manufacturing of components is done through an LQMT affiliated company, there is a level of protection in that the expertise for commercializing the process stays within the group that co-created it. Apple has the right to manufacture with anyone using those patents. But by doing so, it is purposely building expertise with a manufacturer that has little incentive to forget their new found skills should Apple move somewhere else. Li has an incentive to protect “his” patents in China as well as in the US, and has major investment from the Chinese government as a deterrent from anyone who wishes to steal that IP.
Maybe the orders were booked through LQMT.
Lack of liquidity in the market forces selling.
Where did I mention LF? Where did you mention LF?
Eontec is down .19 even though their earnings increased more than 400% over the same quarter last year. I assume that you are implying some sort of connection between the Eontec share price and the LQMT share price by posting it every day. If so, maybe the same connection exists for expected revenue for the quarter. To imply that one is relevant while ignoring the other seems a bit inconsistent.
And yet their quarter will exceed the same quarter last year by over 400%. That seems like a more meaningful metric of their success in obtaining contracts to me.
I’d prefer caramel apples delivered to our door.
If what you posted was truly the information that Bryce Van gave to you over the phone, please accept my apology.
1. There is no handshake deal with Apple...
If there was, he wouldn't tell you. If there wasn't, he couldn't tell you.
2.There are no contracts:
Zyris, Martin.
3. They don't have the capacity to deliver on a major contract for a manufacturer like GM:
I doubt anyone here felt they did have that capacity or was even thinking about creating that capacity.
4. No US content manufacturers
I doubt anyone thought there were.
5.They won't order the machines until they have a deal and they won't get a deal without many machines in place.
The VP of Finance told you that they were in a catch 22 that will result in no future manufacturing.
6.Chinese tariffs...
No Chinese tariffs on magnesium or BMG to date with China. Plenty of final goods that could utilize liquidmetal but are currently burdened with tariffs, are burdened with steel and aluminum as well.
Please differentiate between your opinion and the opinion of Bryce.
Respectfully, no it doesn't make sense. These look like an automated alert system picking up SEC filings from years ago. If you look at the original filing date of Abdi Mahamedi's options grant of September 1, 2011, you will notice that the strike price is .49 and expired in 2015.
These alerts are dated recently. The filings are old. What website generated these alerts?