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.
A good number of these evaluation sites have had the software for years now. It simply does not make sense to me that given the claimed benefits of the package and the extensive testing that has taken place that more sales have not occurred. There is a disconnect somewhere in your knowledge and beliefs in my opinion.
Kmey You respond to Driftin's inquiry here that you are even more confident of Sigma's IPQA based upon the reasons cited in your post and your access to America Makes reports on this matter. You also said in an earlier post that you believed our customers and potential customers fully understood the benefits to be obtained by utilizing the package. The final release of the America Makes Report speaks to benefits obtained in "low volume production". The rationale always given in the past was that the market was not mature enough to take advantage of the benefits the Sigma IPQA had to offer. Now there are over two dozen pilot/test sites or OEM partners utilizing the software, in addition to a full time internal sales staff promoting the product. Yet.....there have been no significant revenue generating orders to date. While I am certainly not doubting your word, nor your analysis this simply does not add up to me. How would you explain this disconnect between apparently proven benefit, comprehension of those benefits by our potential customer base, yet the absense of significant orders?
Mason you make excellent points about clarity of communications. I suspect that if Printrite's capabilities are confusing to shareholders that many potential customers are befuddled as well. If you are going to sell something the customer needs to clearly understand the benefits in terms relevant to their situation. If you can't clearly communicate those benefits then no one is going to buy your product. Mark has always gone out of his way to spin things in a positive manner which led me early on to mistrust many of his statements. John Rice, if he does nothing else in his conference call needs to come across as a straight shooter. There are a number of areas besides the obvious America Makes confusion that need to be discussed in an open and frank manner: My list would include the potential partnerships/mergers. With whom, what benefits, what costs, and timeline. Reason for annual meeting delay and new timeline. Progress toward filling Board vacancies. His rationale for management reorganization and direction. The need for additional financing (if any) and potential dilution (they have a 1.1 million loan repayment due in October). Most importantly he needs to convey a clear believable path forward for the company that is devoid of hype and provides an early path to profitability.
"Say it ain't so". OK, It ain't so. This is not a sale this is an agreement for them to represent SGLB as a sales representative. Joining a long list of others.....none of which have yet to make a meaningfrl sale.
They have very little to hold them here other than a lingering relationship with the Lab. No facilities, small staff. It would make sense to relocate with one of their potential larger "future partners", and California would be ideal if they could swing it. New Mexico is not exactly a hot bed of technology innovation.
"He was not forced to resign" So a co-founder of the company resigned his Board seat willingly? I'm interested in your "theory" of how this took place.
Kmey says: "So to state sigma is in disarray in purely false." Yes, everything at SGLB is just peachy. The co-founder of the company was forced to resign from the Board of Directors and replaced as CEO. The Board lacks two independent directors required by NASDAQ. An unexplained delay in holding the Annual Meeting. Devastating Q-1 losses...likely to be replicated when Q-2 is announced. Unexplained plans for partnership/merger/acquistion of multiple partners and the financial impact of the planned actions. An unflattering America Makes Report. Hopefully our new interim CEO can turn things around but to say that Sigma is not in a state of disarray is to simply be blind to the facts.
Driftin. I doubt we will ever know for sure but I think that the Board tired of Mark's over-promising and under delivering record. The America Makes Report may have also been a catalyst in the decision. Whatever the reason Rice certainly has the background to take charge and make things happen. While he is rearranging positions I'm hopeful he will question why this little company needs a VP of Finance that makes $171,000 a year AND a CFO who is a CPA and quite clearly handles the accounting functions. With a dozen full-time employees or so it's also curious why they need both a CEO and a President (my assumption is that this was left with Mark as a face-saving gesture). At any rate it is a new day at SGLB. This action may be too little, too late, but it restores my confidence that rationality has returned and progress, while far from guaranteed is once again possible.
Finally!! A BOD with some cojones. Guess they got tired of Mark's dismal performance as CEO and decided to step in. Hopefully Rice will draw in some independent directors that will contribute as well. This is ridiculously overdue, but welcome news never the less.
OT Wrigley: any current thoughts on BRFH?
This is very close to the kind of test that I hoped they would conduct and publish results from. While the Headline speaks to a successful test, it would appear that success was limited and that the software still has a ways to go to do everything that has been claimed for it. This may very well be the reason that the test and evaluation sites have been slow to place additional orders.
Ted:
It's not the $1,000 deposit, it's the firm order. SGLB may get an occassional $100,000 for software that is under evaluation, but clearly this does not happen often enough to make a dent in the bottom line. None, not a one of these evaluations have resulted in a volume order. That speaks volumes to me. You can talk all you want about the market not being mature enough, etc. If things continue as they are they won't even be around when/if the market matures.
They are booking pre-orders going out to 2018 with a required $1,000 deposit. That's cash in the bank before they ship their first order and represents real demand...not laundry lists of evaluation sites that have yet to pony up enough cash to keep the company afloat.
What leads you to believe they are evaluating SGLB's software? Because they accepted some for a trial basis? All that could have been over months or in several cases years ago. None have placed a substantial order. Guess the evaluations were not all that impressive. Just nonsense that makes you feel better. Perhaps it won't feel so good when SGLB runs out of funds again and dilutes.
Driftin:
I guess it's all a matter of degrees. The purchase of a single additional system hardly constitutes affirmation. It could be for further testing for all we know. Why would it not be in SGLB's best interest to gain that industry wide acceptance as soon as possible? While you may believe you are getting a bargain in the stock price at this point I can see no valid reaspon why SGLB would not want to capitalize on wide spread validated test results to boost their bottom line. If they continue to stumble along as they are currently they may never have the opportunity to do so.
Jackie: In response to your query "Still waiting for anyone to bring up a competitor for what sigmas niche is... especially one that is commercially viable or has been in an evaluation program collecting data with the big AM players in anticipation of their coming needs"
Here is a thought that I think would be worth exploring for Mark. There has been, and continues to be, a number of test sites that Sigma Labs is active in. I am unaware of any of these sites publishing the results of their experiences with the software. What we have is largely Sigma's own statement of capabilities and reliability of the Printrite suite of software. Let's assume that Mark is 100% confident in the software's ability to perform reliably and consistently as advertised. One of the stumbling blocks to gaining recognition for the softwares capabilities is it's performance in a mass production environment. What if Mark went to a well respected industry testing and evaluation company and said " I would like you to fully test and evaluate Printrite in a production environment of your choosing with a metal part of your choosing" and publish the results in a respected industry journal of your choosing. The testing company might approach one of the larger aerospace companies and ask them to select a part that is currently being produced on a metal printer but is undergoing only partial in-process evaluation or simply post process evaluation. The test would consist of producing a large number (200/500/1000) of the parts using the current printer hardware and printer production software but utilizing the most advanced version of Printrite for in-process validation and correction. All parts undergoing in-process correction by the Printrite software would be flagged for post production inspection and testing as well as a random sampling of all the parts produced. The testing firm could independently verify the effectiveness of the Pritrite software as well as the savings accrued from the in-process corrections. These results would be published and would serve as an independent benchmark to the benefts to be obtained. Were this sort of test to be performed and published I would be among the first in line to purchase share.
As we have seen their "hard earned dollars" are mighty sparse as they don't seem to be showing up on the bottom line. The evaluation part seems to be a tad slow as well. Lots and lots of evaluating but no orders written. What does that tell you smart guy?
The R&D is what Mark excels at. Just never seems to get to the point where anyone wants to buy anything. As far as "some purchases" being made. It's going to take a whole lot more than "some" to begin to approach the break-even point. I know the make-believe world you live in will have this all straightened out in no time. I can hardly wait.
Here are a few facts that illustrate pretty plainly what the "relationship payoff" has been with your illustrious list of companies:
SGLB Net Losses by Year
2010 $422,000
2011 $ 910,000
2012 $ 686,000
2013 $ 734,000
2014 $3,116,000
2015 $1,696,000
2016 $2,197,000
Q-1 2017 $944,000
Cumulative Losses Since Inception: $10,705,000
But, but, but, I've been told by Mark that profitability is just around the corner just as soon as the metal printing market matures and everyone recognizes the superiority of our solution. Seems I've heard that more than a few times in the past, yet the record speaks for itself.
Hey!! I think that you overlooked all of the companies that Mark waved to out the window or passed on the street. Absolutely meaningless list. You can have contacts/evaluations/ joint ventures etc. etc. with hundreds of companie but if those relationships don't produce any meaningful revenue it is downright embarrassing. As to your assertion that you continue to invest in SGLB you certainly have a very light hand as the volume has virtually dried up to nothing awaiting news. Or not.
Akin to predicting the next record snowfall in July.
Enough is enough!! Is Q-2 results going to pull this out of the doldrums??
Driftin. I certainly respect your opinion. It would seem to me that the transition is already in process however. Early stages, I would agree, but in process. I have never bought in to the theory that when the transition is complete and SGLB technology has not been accepted as a major player the ballgame is over.The decision to accept or reject SGLB is going to be made long before that point is reached. I can't help but believe that during this transition period that the major players will be vigorously testing their process control solutions "in volume"....not one or two test units. SGLB should be seeing significant revenue soon or they are simply not going to be a player. I could be totally wrong but I continue to believe that SGLB will also have a difficult time competing against other competitors that may have a somewhat weaker solution but have a more established history and a more certain future. No one wants to have the quality control of a multi million-dollar manufacturing facility totally dependent upon a company with a shaky financial history that may not be around to maintain and upgrade their product over time. Time will tell. You are far more patient than I am which may be a virtue....... or not.
Driftin. You have to consider how many times over the past three years he has made similar statements. We're still waiting.
"All hat and no cattle" is the response to that statement that you would likely get in New Mexico.
Nonsense. The dollar value of these orders would not sustain a business.....which is abundantly obvious from where the stock price sits today.
Please provide evidence of a single "follow-up order of substance". You can't seem to get away from making mountains out of mole-hills.
Most here have no argument with your projections for exponential growth in the AM industry. Where we quibble is your assumption that "if SGLB continues to follow their business model" that they will achieve the same success. SGLB's business model seems to be to put their software in as many hands as possible and hope for follow-up orders. So far there have been no follow-up orders of substance and to project that is going to change overnight is simply outright speculation. It seems probable at this point that Q-2 was yet another quarter without benefit of the revenue projected by Mark. It's going to be a long tough summer for SGLB unless things turn around in a hurry
You are really amazing. You rant about others on this board expressing personal opinions based upon absolute nonsense yet that is exactly what you do yourself. You talk about Sigma having the "key" seemingly ignoring the fact that they have yet to execute a meaningful sale despite having their technology in evaluation with multiple customers over a period of years at this point. The premise you base this all on is the claims made by SGLB of how their software performs. The fact that no one to date has stepped up to buy it does not seem to give you pause in the least. I am unaware of no validation by any of the numerous test sites that fully endorses SGLB's claims for their software. Maybe it really does not perform all of the functions claimed. Maybe it does not do so in a reliable and consistent manner. Maybe there are still bugs in the software. And the major hurdle of all: What major corporation (Honeywell, et.al.) is going to make their entire quality control process dependent upon a start-up software company that has never earned a dime, with only a dozen employess, operating out of a technology incubator facility, who may go out of business entirely in the next 18 months? You need to do some serious introspection yourself before accusing others of spreading absolute nonsense. You seem to have mastered the technique to perfection yourself.
SGLB has mastered the art of making press releases that are factual and create a desired impression without providing all thefacts for readers to draw their own conclusions.
Kmey. I rarely agreed with our outlook, but never doubted your sincerity. Good luck.
As best I can tell Mr. Williams is still employed by SGLB. He works part time (25 hours a month) and fulfills the functions of Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Principle Accounting Officer, and principle financial officer. Williams is paid $200 an hour, (that’s $60,000 a year for part-time work) received a grant of 15,500 shares of restricted stock and an option to purchase an additional 31,500 shares of stock. In addition to his part-time work at SGLB and his new Media Marketplace venture, Mr. Williams is the president & CEO at FA Corp., the Chief Financial Officer at GTX California and the Chief Financial Officer at LOCIMOBILE, Inc. Quite a busy fellow. I believe I would be shopping for a new CFO who could pay more attention to my business.
This link decribes benefits for the three levels of membership:
https://www.americamakes.us/membership/become-a-member/item/465-membership-benefits
Driftin:
Not surprisingly, i beg to disagree. No industry investment analyst who studies the industry and who achieved even luke-warm agreement with KMeys analysis would pass up the chance to promote this company. It's a sure 15-20 bagger if all the hype were to be believed.
The number of joint ventures, collaborations, etc. SGLB has been involved in (some over several years) without generating a single substantive order says volumes to me. They have bent over backwards to put Printrite in the hands of everyone who would accept it yet not a single meaningful order. In my opinion this is not something to brag about as many here seem to like to do.
Well....they have certainly signed contracts, collaborated, and evaluated SGLB in depth. The purchase orders signed as a result of all this collaboration tell a very different story however.
KMey. Doesn't it strike you as strange that given the clear-cut leadership that you believe SGLB possesses, that respected industry analysts (discounting Gary Anderson for the moment) have not picked up on the same facts and started touting SGLB as the bargain-buy of a lifetime. There are a number of respected analysts who do nothing but follow this market. Surely a few of them would have noticed the same factors that you believe to be true and would have begun to promote the stock. Have I missed these sorts of reports? If so, could you point some out please?
Likely because it costs $50,000 to join as a "gold member" and $200,000 to become a "platinum member".
There is no global presence until they actually sell something. Otherwise, simply more of the same....additional outlets but no sales.
Gross margins in the software industry are totally meaningless. They include only cost of goods sold, which is negligible, and direct labor, which is also minimal. A "strong margins" statement when you are referring to gross margins provides no meaningfull information.
If he actually said that it is simply nonsense. I suppose it's possible he was referring to gross profit margin, but that is a whole different kettle of fish as there are a host of other costs that must come out before it hits the bottom line. They would be doing exceptionally well to hit the industry average of 20% for their net profit.
Yup. Lot's of baited hooks but no significant fish. I hear tell that all the big fish are waiting for the triennial fish-fry scheduled to occur in late 2020 by which time the fisherman will have likely expired.