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.
The fat that LQMT has ripped off so many shareholders with their incompentence, meaning, their inability to know how to really capitalize on them.
I hate this company for what they represent.
It's been said before, patents are their primary asset.
How does a company capitalize on patents? By negotiating attractive licensing and royalty deals to support process and use, etc.
Thus far ( and this could,change), LQMT has not demonstrated that they can do this to LQMT shareholder benefit.
This plain as day in a competitive industry.
Sorry to be on a rip about LQMT after the "feel good" , I have patience, etc., stuff.
These guys are bend over for AAPL big time with zero regard for LQMT shareholders.
If investor loves AAPL trends, buy them, not LQMT, because LQMT has given away the farm to AAPL at shareholder expense.
Why sit back and bask in the AAPL/LQMT light. Even if AAPL comes out with an LMT featured handset, it doesn't mean that LQMT is suddenly competent at securing and building their own mon-CE customer base.
I'm sure that LQMT feels special in supporting AAPL and getting access to their resources, collaborating, etc.
But they haven't done squat to increase shareholder value and even though they are now "talking it" (after being asked, not something they came up with on their own), they still aren't showing it other than a blip of an increase in revenue due to consulting, etc.
They are starting from ground zero with an improved process, finally structuring licensing in a scale way, but yet to negotiate favorable licensing terms for recurring shareholder benefit and in a legal conflict with an exclusive partner.
It seems to me that LQMT is motivated by special interest more than anything.
If AAPL is setting their pace ( after losing a,defense contract ???), them why not just buy them outright (e.g. AAPL/MTRN).
.... And stop wasting shareholder time and value with psuedo CCs, psuedo partnerships, psuedo PRs, etc.
It won't. I'm not waiting on this stock, the management, or anything.
Even if they were to get a factory out of it with AAPL (the ultimate), it doesn't make sense to sit and wait now.
This stock is more about which handset supplier comes out with what next; that race has been running for over 20 years.
It's cut throat and competitive.
AAPL could corner the market on LMT for CE, but look at what they had to do to try to get it; required an exclusive license and taking years to get there and required LQMT to shut down business with existing customers.
I think LQMT went too far on that; meaning, they don't have a competitive spirit at all u less someone made an under table agreement with them to look out for them or take of them for doing the favor ( shutting down and turning away business ).
The short or long of it; LQMT is not about shareholder value; it's about protecting special interest at shareholder expense.
Next gen phone could have a memory foam case, flex and fold feature, and ultra large display, so large that you could consider sleeping on it ( portable bed, lol).
Love it. maybe we can develop "the watch list" of the year/decade ( notice an earlier one?). Maybe I can send a list and you can comment (stay tuned).
How far can SLW, et al drop? BTW, RGLD missed estimates.
Do you rely on the ETF site quite a bit? Reliable?
JM58, hope you are not attributing any patience in LQMT stock as similar to being a grand dad! :)
Curves kind of get back to some earlier models ( way back)..
I wonder if clam shells will ever come back ( gets back more to jewel box effect, compact, etc., protects the screen, etc.)
I loved the clamshell; hoping that the flex phones are just the beginning.
That's interesting; really like the curves ( nicer fit for the hand ); self-healing has nice appeal to engage the user; as soon as something that comes out that doesn't require healing, ppl probably will notice even more.
Looking scarey; almost everything is red except the Japan and the dollar.
it's kind of serious if you have to suggest that a CEO/CFO include "shareholder value" in their communications to shareholders.
Takes more patience than I have given other opportunities out there.
LQMT holds the crown jewels as long as they can dilute or hold majority position.
He advises Richard Branson on how to trade oil futures for example. He's well known for being good at options.
I don't think that he or Caroline B do fundamental analysis on stocks ( their methods are statistically based and they use Fib.).
If you get into stocks and company fundamentals, you can actually generate higher returns using different algorithms/technical systems ( I tested them, talking only about non-leveraged trades here).
See also fibonacciqueen.com ( check spelling ). They work together, both popular.
Sign up for free emails at simpleroptions.com
Congratulations, AsiaT !!!
I just found a list of stocks that I screened for innApril of 2009 ( close to the market bottom) that met IBD's screens for socks under $10/ share and top composite ratings ( good earnings growth, sales, etc., acceptable ROE, etc.)
4+ years later ( and only looking at the first page and not studying all of the charts), based on price only, they most of the stocks have only doubled.
While some of them went higher and then dropped back to current levels, the point is that even stocks/companies with good fundamentals by investment standards can fizzle out after they had looked cheap and attractive earlier.
Consider a company like LQMT. They might have their day n the sun and reward shareholders handsomely. They could everything perfectly from here on and a competitor surfaces and takes over their potential market.
Anything is possible.
The reason that I like stocks/ companies with attractive and accelerating positive financial performance ( by several metrics) is that if the trend is right, they can continue to do well, for awhile.
But eventually, in most cases, all things come to an end, or change, or shift, etc.
My case, why not hitch a ride n a train that is already moving and proven coming out the gate vs. this wait and hope and see business.
Someone on this board tried to convince me that there was accumulation going on with LQMT according to the charts.
My charts don't necessarily show the same trend.
Maybe we use different indicators.
Unless you have inside information, it still looks iffy to me.
John Carter posted a video tonight on how to short NUGT using puts.
Or maybe AAPL/CIP is involved also.
Either way, other manufacturers can't just go around them and start producing LMT based parts using the required processes covered in patents.
LQMT has a lot of recent "process patents."
Without the "process", you can't really produce anything useful from the alloy to today's standards.
To use the "process" you need a license from LQMT.
To use the Engel/LQMT machine, some kind of license will be required.
So, it's not like anyone can just go out there without LQMT permission ( license ) to make LMT parts to the process standards.
.... "We" assume.
It definitely cold go higher in time. The question is "when".
Steipp mentioned in a prior conference call that more detail would be provided on the comprehensive licensee strategy 2H2014.
If that were the soonest that information would be provided then it sounds like nothing significant would happen before then that would require a license which is just about anything for an IP centered company bend consulting fees.
It's ok to have a timeframe in mind for developments yet to prove out, to plan, etc. 2H2014 to plan/anticipate a major development goes beyond a typical trader's timeline.
Consider this potential outcome ( and this is a guess ):
VPC is one (of many potential future) licensees where LQMT could gate their progress based on sharing the "between the lines, must have" nuances associated with IP/patents.
I think that VPC mentioned this in their claims, e.g. Not having sufficient information or something to that effect.
Usually, a licensee has to pay more, e.g. For consulting and more information, or maybe they get hung out to dry.
But it wouldn't be unusual if LQMT would have to commissioned to help a licensee get up to speed or to partner in commercializing a technology just as AAPL has done in the past.
Ask yourself, was BV not in a position to pay for more, did he expect more than what he's paid for?
I guess we'll see the arbitration turns out.
But I will tell you this, if they didn't have the expertise to be a strong partner in commercialization ( of the equipment, etc.), then they may or may not be in a good negotiating experience.
It wouldn't mean that they aren't successful in their own right, it just could mean that they didn't have the expertise on board at a time when it may have been needed.
it's working. I'm good. Hope "you all" have a great day. There doesn't seem to be a lot to talk about that hasn't already been discussed (re:LQMT), pending outcome of arbitration.
Zz
Well, ok everybody. Have a great day. We're calling this stock "inch worm"..... Steady.....slowly......could win.....the race.
One announcement where AAPL fronts a factory for LQMT, could send this stock ( penny stocker verbiage): "to da moon"
That would be the day. If it were to happen, there would be multiple opportunities to "hop on", so I'm not ready to buy this stock back again until .....
GLL
Not until they make the case of LQMT, lol.
My observation also, when an innovator has done most of the original research, etc., and then license their technology, e.g. Patents, etc....it's often not enough; a client/customer usually has to pay for their consulting expertise also to het going.
So, it seems that LQMTs business model at present is focused on consulting (and commercialization) with future potential revenues ( tbd).
Boring is right.
it all depends on terms that LQMT negotiates in contracts as to how much potential revenue they could actually generate or receive. Even if there is business, they may not get their fair share depending on terms and conditions. so far, there's nothing to get excited about other than a major license announcement (e.g. AAPL) and fee that LQMT burned through some time back; they don't get any recurring revenues ( from royalties, etc.) according to them. Also, with Swatch, the revenue is insignificant according to them ( LQMT ). The reason given is that they have been in precarious negotiating positions ( due to financial distress). Now that they have a line of credit, it still remains to be seen what their actual negotiating position will be for future business, especially if they aren't happy with margin splits with VPC, etc.
They want contracts, or some close assurance of one/some before buying more machines.
Clarification: a production prototype is the output of a production process that follows from R&D, engineering, and testing that has already occurred. In other words, it's a trial run on the processes where financial commitments/investments and design have already been made ( vs. a precursor to engineering, etc.)
By the time a production prototype has been produced, the producer is getting close to real manufacturing. it could still take some time to finalize, but production prototypes are getting a lot closer to the real thing, vs. "concept prototypes" that would come before resources are allocated to the point of being able to produce a "production" prototype that would be used to test/confirm the manufacturing processes, etc. on a trial run for nstance.
I guess it was already said/implied.
That would be the day. So it makes sense to follow Engel to the extent that they would/could discuss progress/developments.
I would think that anyone interested in producing LMT products/parts would be talking to Engel directly to get an idea of when their LMT ready machines would be available for non-CE applications ( which they could discuss, or you would hope so if it led to sales, etc.).
Giving LQMT the benefit of doubt, they wouldn't be able to discuss AAPL related project milestones or status.
If AAPL doesn't have a near term aggressive schedule or plan to meet the market, neither would LQMT since they don't have the resources to do it.
If you're just p*tzin' in the lab, you don't have to worry about meeting milestones, etc. if there isn't a project schedule, etc. ( that would come with a serious intent to deliver a product, for instance, to the market).
"Prototypes" implies "early stage". "Production prototype" implies commitment to program.
Steipp expanded his definitions, sure, after some input.
What I would want to hear: "commitment to program" and "meeting established milestones" and "expected delivery timeframe" or "schedule has slipped due to ...."
I would be looking for a company that follows std project management ( the majors do; everybody in big business or from large companies understands the lingo).
If Steipp for instance never managed R&D before, but instead has a history of focusing on operations associated with established or new ( but established) product lines, or if he has primarily been a sales guy (alot of talk, just wants the product delivered, don't waste my time on details guys, yada yada), that might explain the glossed over, "in the midst" descriptions that can make it difficult for investors to figure out what is going on and how long it might take.