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.
Who authored that report? Please cite the source. Thank you.
Regardless of the reasons for Chung's sale, he has sent a very bad message to potential customers. The history of this company is red-flagged enough by all sorts of shananagins. Chung's sale make it look like it's the old Kang garbage all over again. - And, btw, Chung was one of the old Kang cronies... or have you all forgotten that?
Stop complaining and take action.
Join me in writing to Prof. Li and demand that Chung be removed from the Board. As a Director of the Company, Mr. Chung had/has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Selling so many shares, especially selling into a declining stock price, sends a message to potential customers that our own Board members have no faith in the future of the company.
As shareholders, we have the right to petition the Board. So get off your butts, invest in the cost of a postage stamp, and write (a letter - not an email) to Prof. Li, demanding that Chung be removed as a Director of this company!
Ha ha. You and me both, friend.
That $1 share price is now (finally) a realistic expectation.
You certainly have the right to complain and point out “failures” as you see them.
Hope you feel better now.
I’m not implying that either Tom or Lugee attempted to screw anyone. They were/are doing what was/is the most important job at the time.
In Steipp’s time as CEO the company was always a year away from bankruptcy, so he had to find VC money at the best price possible. The better terms he got, the less the stock dilution. So for him, releasing news that was more hopeful than realistic was important to the company and to its stockholders.
Lugee is playing on an entirely different field. He doesn’t have to pitch to venture capitalists nor does he have to scramble to hook up with a certified contract manufacturer (because Lugee already is one.)
Steipp was not in Lugee’s league; but to his credit, Tom kept the company alive against good odds that it would fold. That doesn’t mean he was out to screw anyone. And I don’t see Lugee wanting to screw anyone either. So while I know you are one of the few intelligent posters on this board, I don’t understand your thinking on this matter.
Lugee isn't Steipp. Tom Steipp was always forced to send out PR's to lure venture capital in order to keep LMT going from year to year. Lugee has no such need or interest. Lugee's entire focus is on growing the company: not impressing the venture capital market... or anyone on this message board.
bobroo is entitled to his opinions BUT...
He is not not entitled to make up his his own set of "facts." While it is true that Lugee Li's shares in LMT are held by Liquidmetal Technology Limited, the recent 10K, on page 50, clearly states that "Lugee Li is the sole owner, officer, and director of Liquidmetal Technology Limited and has sole power to direct the voting and disposition of such shares;" There are no other investors or venture capitalists in Liquidmetal Technology Limited, as claimed by bobroo. Ownership of large amounts of shares by an individual is often done through holding companies (such as Liquidmetal Technology Limited) as a way to protect the investment of an individual owner in case the owner of said shares is sued, personally.
At the very least, bobroo is grossly misinformed and is eager to share his misinformation (for reason's known only to him).
Ah, Gamesc, alas you're wrong.
Having sold commercial real estate in California for over 28 years, I have to tell you that Jollymon and Watts are correct. Before purchasing any commercial building in California, one has to do an environmental impact study as well as an in depth analysis of tectonic plate movement. Further, the new owner/occupier must sign a sworn statement that he/she will do no manufacturing on the second floor of any commercial building with any machinery weighing more than 376 pounds per 50 square feet. (See: California building code of 1938, Sec. 8, paragraph 12 - 36.)
"Each machine can make $3 million a year..."
That sounds about right. Steipp once said that they could be at, or very near to, break-even with 2 machines running 24/7; and when he said that the burn rate was close to $8 million a year.
So they have floor space... and machines. All they need now are customers. (Paul... are you listening?)
Good points, Pay.
The best competition is self-competition. E.g., no matter which Post cereal one buys, Post makes money. That's why they sell so many varieties. In similar manner, Lugee Li will make money whether a part contract goes to Eontech or to LMT. But we (the shareholders in LMT) will only gain from sales that come through LMT.
So it's fine for "The Chairman" to wax poetic about competition, as he comes out on top regardless. But given his buy in price of only $.15 a share (on average), Li stands to make considerably more money by growing LMT than he does from the continued growth of Eontech. And that is why he will do everything he can to build up LMT. -- At least, that's what I am hoping for.
"The (amorphous) market is too big to see competitors."
That must be the joke of the day. If the amorphous market is so big, why aren’t the revenues for LQMT at break even or better?
Thanks Joshuaeyu, but you didn't answer my questions.
I arrived at the same translation as the one you posted.
So how would you respond to the implication that Prof. Li purchased his 405 million shares of LQMT with full intent, from the start, to eventually transfer ownership of those shares to Eontec?
Did he buy those shares with his own money? If so, is he really going to gift those shares to Eontec? That seems preposterous.
Or did he act as an agent for Yian Technologies (Eontec), using Eontec's funds to purchase the 405 million shares?
If the latter is the case, wasn't said act an attempt to mislead the minority shareholders of LQMT when they voted to effectively double the number of authorized shares, thus diluting their stock by 100%, so that Lugee Li, and not Eontec, could purchase those shares?
Something doesn't make sense here. Can you clarify?
Joshuaeyu, I read your recent post about the Letter of Commitment on Regulating Related Transactions and Avoiding Competition in the Industry. In particular, I was struck by the following: "5. Upon Liquidmetal Technologies meeting following conditions, Liquidmetal Ltd shall transfer all of its owned Liquidmetal Technologies Inc. shares to Eontec,"
Lugee Li, as an individual, not as a representative of Eontec, purchased 405 million shares of LQMT. Then,on November 3, 2016, he transferred ownership of those shares to Liquidmetal Tech, Ltd,, (a Hong Kong corporation, holds such shares of common stock. Mr. Li is the sole shareholder, executive officer and director of Liquidmetal Technology Limited.)
Based on the above statement in the Letter of Commitment, one might conclude that Prof. Lugee Li purchased the 405 million shares surreptitiously, as an agent of Eontec, all the while intending to transfer ownership of those shares to Eontec. I do not know Prof. Li, but I believe him to be an honorable person. So how do you (Joshuaeyu) explain the purchase of 405 million shares of LQMT by Prof. Li, as an individual, with the apparent intent of transferring ownership of those shares to Eontec? And would the transfer of those shares to Eontec be a gift (most unlikely), or a repayment for funds taken from Eontec to purchase the 405 million shares?
This raises a serious concern. You will recall that the shareholders of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. voted to increase the number of authorized shares buy approximately 500 million to allow Prof. Li to purchase his 405 million shares. We, the minority shareholders, did not vote to dilute our shares buy 100% to enable Eontec to purchase the 405 million shares.
With all due respect, I ask you to please provide a direct link to the Letter of Commitment so that I might obtain my own translation. -- Thank you in advance, John.
Best news I've heard all year.
There are those who believe, and those who think.
"The whole point is a revenue bearing, net profitable contract."
Ahmen. Now you're talking the truth. Everything else in the original tirade was - as you put it - puff.
Also agree about Otis. Why is he still there? Does the Kangster family still hold sway over the company? If so, Li will put an end to that.
Not all points are valid, Watts.
FDA approval isn't necessary for the device in question since it would be classified as a surgical instrument that is not left inside the body. E.g., the FDA does not have to approve surgical forceps, scalpels, clamps, catheters, etc..
Get it?
No. I'm sure you don't.
Good points, Watts. But why did you omit CoNextions in your statement that, "All we have really seen out of actual buying customers as partners is Miltner-Adams?"
Interesting thoughts, Watts.
I agree that the composition of the Board is important. However, the Board should be involved with governance: not with running the company. It is the job of the CEO to run the company – not the board. When a Board is dissatisfied with the way a company is operated, they should fire the CEO and hire a new one. Boards that get involved with running the company (micro-managing as it is called) is a recipe for disaster. And we certainly can't handle another disaster. This company has had more than its fair share of those.
As for your wish of having Li remove Steipp from the Board, that will never happen – unless Steipp is also removed as CEO. (And that could happen.) A CEO of a company ALWAYS has a seat on the Board. Still, I certainly understand your well justified concerns. It would be refreshing to have you occupy a seat on the Board. That would put an end to business as usual. That's for sure!
Watts, you are 100% correct.
Thank you for pointing that out. Much appreciated.
Li could become Board Chairman if so elected. It's up to the Board Members to elect their Chairman.
_______________
BYLAWS OF LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ARTICLE III -- BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 3.3 -- Chairman of the Board. The directors may
elect one of their members to be Chairman of the Board of Directors. The
Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be subject to the control of, and may
be removed by, the Board of Directors. He shall perform such duties as may from
time to time be assigned to him by the Board of Directors.
Ref. http://contracts.onecle.com/liquidmetal/bylaws.shtml
Note: Maximum number serving of the Board of Directors =7
Maximum number of Board appointees by Li = 3
Therefore, he is certainly not a shoe in for Board Chair, unless at least one of the other 4 members vote for him.
Sir: Please clarify your post.
You raise an interesting point by writing that, "...the one thing that all LQMT investors, positive or negative...." Why would one remain invested in a company that one is negative about? (Unless one was shorting the company.)
Thank you in advance for your clarification.
Ah, yes. It is always best to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. Thank you most kindly for the laugh.
Whether you vote or not, you still vote.
According to the LMT bylaws, in a vote to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares, abstentions are counted with the No votes. (See citation below.) So if you are against the upcoming vote to increase the number of shares, vote no, or abstain. BUT IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR, (which will also result in LMT receiving the full $63 Million cash infusion plus the benefit of working with EONTEC) be sure to vote Yes. Otherwise, by default, you will be voting No.
https://materials.proxyvote.com/default.aspx?docHostID=151539
“Proposal 1 – Increase in Authorized Common Stock. Approval of the amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation in order to increase the number of shares of common stock that the Company is authorized to issue will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, Series A-1 Preferred Stock and Series A-2 Preferred Stock, voting together as a single class (with the shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock and Series A-2 Preferred Stock voting on an as converted to common stock basis). As a result, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as votes against this proposal.
Barnabas, that was back in December, 2013. It is now March, 2016. Things change with time, even if people don't. The time span referred to in that old post has changed, thanks to Engel.
"I am missing something here."
Yes.
"Why has Materion pushed back their estimated time to make big bucks out to 2019?"
Simple. Materion's annual revenues from sales exceeded one Billion dollars last year. If LMT has sales of only $10 million, that would be HUGE for LMT. However, the amount of of money going to Materion from LMT's use of the alloys would amount to just a few million dollars — which is only a tiny percent of Materion's overall sales. LMT would have to have sales exceeding $100 million before Materion's sales would increase by a significant amount. And that is not going to happen until 2019, or there about.
In other words, the stock price of LMT will exceed $10 a share before Materion starts to make a lot of money off of the alloys supplied to LMT's customers.
It's good to see you positive, Barnabas. LMT is FINALLY getting set to take off. I hope you make a fortune. After suffering for so long, you deserve it!
Engel to host 3rd Liquidmetal conference in a year!
http://www.engelglobal.com/en/us/news-press/news-press-releases/detail/news/detail/News/engel-presents-liquidmetal-at-the-2016-hannover-messe.html
With Engel pushing LMT, nothing will stop LMT's success. Dr. Li is no fool. He knows exactly what he is buying.
Seriously. What did he say?
Yes sir! We are certainly moving in the right direction.
I'm also happy Li will be on the Board. (At least that's what Steipp said.)
They are assured the deal will be approved by shareholders.
With Li committed to buy shares at $.25, how many shareholders would be foolish enough to vote against the deal?
MTRN CEO discusses liquidmetal's market potential
Excerpts from MTRN's CC of June 26, 2013:
https://tinyurl.com/pq5fcta
Speaking about the future growth of MTRN:
Dick Hipple
To give you just a couple I talked about this one before is there is probably let’s say two primary ones, one is in the liquid metals alloys where we have developed a technology for that and we see that as a new growth platform. -snip - So they have two very nice platforms that we expect to be growing over the next couple of years.
Then, further along in the CC
Jim Casagrande - Brant Point Capital
I just wanted to follow-up I guess on market comments around momentum; you mentioned liquid metal as a growth platform. - snip - ...is it growth something we will see in ’13 or is it more of a ‘14 opportunity.
Dick Hipple
I would expect that to be ‘14/ ‘15 you know but ‘14, I’m not saying it's a ‘14 or is it ‘15 we’re shipping low millions of dollars into that market today, so it's real but I see these markets do take some time to develop before you start to hit a curve.
If Hipple is to be believed, the current price of LQMT stock is cheap... if he is to be believed.
No chance it's for Apple Watch
Tim Cook made a point of saying that the iPhone 6 contains no beryllium. So I can't see Apple using the beryllium containing alloy in the Apple Watch. But perhaps they will use the non-beryllium alloy? I doubt it. But they certainly won't use the alloy with beryllium.
MTRN's large order for beryllium containing product is also not likely to be primarily for LQMT. But a part of the order, perhaps? Even a relatively small part? Maybe Barnabas could ask Chung. LOL
MTRN up 20% Re-affirms Positive Outlook
Hmm. Re-affirms positive outlook for 2015. I'm just guessing that....
Zombie, you are ignoring Steipp's oft repeated statement that LMT will receive no revenues - no royalties. or fees - from Apple's use of the alloys.
iPhone 6 has liquidmetal component after all.
From the Apple iPhone 6 Keynote - September 2014 Launch Event... remarks by Eddie Cue:
"Now Apple Pay is built into every iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.... And we’ve got a new chip called the Secure Element and it’s built into every iPhone 6 and it stores all of your payment information encrypted and securely." Eddie Cue goes on to say: "Now we’ve also integrated security throughout both the hardware and software in a way that only Apple can...and we store it safely in the Secure Element." (You can read Cue's remarks here: http://www.singjupost.com/apple-iphone-6-keynote-september-2014-launch-event-full-transcript/3/)
The Secure Element? I call your attention to the following patent filed by Apple and assigned to CIP - a wholly owned subsidiary of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.: Tamper-resistent Amorphous Alloy Joining; Crucible Intellectual Property; Theodore Waniuk et al.; Publication: 04/2013, Filing: 09/2011. Section [0071] of that patent reads: "Tamper-resistant amorphous alloy joining could be used for tamper-resistant microprocessors that are used to store and process private or sensitive information, such as private keys or electronic money credit. To prevent an attacker from retrieving or modifying the information, the chips could designed so that the information is not accessible through external means by security encapsulation using tamper resistant amorphous alloy joining."
Want confirmation? Wait until the first tear down is reported. And remember that you heard it first on iHub.
Good question Watts. Maybe the guy that predicted the $.35 price is "the expert" in this article. If so, that would explain a lot.
Gamesc, thanks for that funny article. What a sad-tragic-funny story. I don't know who that "expert" is, but for selfish reasons, I hope he recovers his losses in LQMT and makes a profit.
How can anyone be an expert who "watched in horror" as he gradually lost $9450,000 and didn't sell? There is a lesson here for all of us. As investors, we need to be careful of who we take advice from - be careful of who we call "experts."