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.
Key,
Do you work with engineers who you have discussed our technologies with, and who confirm (not that they work, b/c how would they know?)....but that if they do what they are purported to do, that there would be considerable value?
I'm not a mechanical engineer, and I'm not certain that I have a complete and 100% confident grasp, at a level of specificity, on what PrintRite is purported to be able to do, but following what I believe I understand to be the claim -- I suspect that if you asked an engineer whether there is value to a product that can identify design deviations within a production run -- where they are occurring, and the nature of the deviation, they would tell you that there is clearly value, therein, assuming that the product works reliably.
Now, if you asked the engineer if there would be added value to a quality control program that goes beyond monitoring to correcting, my assumption would be that the answer would be "YES!"
An automobile can get you most places a lot more efficiently than walking. But an airplane can get you further, faster, of course.
The first functional automobiles produced weren't without value because they didn't enable you to fly.
Clarification to my earlier post -- I didn't mean to suggest that all of the additional shares likely to be authorized will be offered for sale. The number of any add'l authorized shares to be publicly offered could certainly be less than the number of additional authorized shares.
However many shares -- after additional shares are authorized, will be publicly offered for sale, thus bringing in millions of dollars. (Assuming that more shares are indeed issued). In other words, they don't magically appear, causing dilution without compensation, (cash coming in, for sale of those shares). That's my understanding. Does anyone have a different understanding?
Of course management will receive share compensation in connection with any offering of additional shares, which is customary, and in my opinion is important to vesting and insuring the ongoing interest of management. And in the case of Sigma we know that we have a substantially new group of leadership at management, (ie CEO change), and BOD levels.
However many shares -- after additional shares are authorized, will be publicly offered for sale, thus bringing in millions of dollars. (Assuming that more shares are indeed issued). In other words, they don't magically appear, causing dilution without compensation, (cash coming in, for sale of those shares). That's my understanding. Does anyone have a different understanding?
Of course management will receive share compensation in connection with any offering of additional shares, which is customary, and in my opinion is important to vesting and insuring the ongoing interest of management. And in the case of Sigma we know that we have a substantially new group of leadership at management, (ie CEO change), and BOD levels.
Jeff - Any take on implications/ significance of this for Sigma?
The Siemens delivery seemed to serve as a catalyst for the move. In my opinion.
Yes, and the small volume once again illustrates that it doesn't take much to move such a small low-volume stock... The thing is that the same is true in the other direction. It doesn't take all that much buying interest to push the stock meaningfully higher, which is what we experienced last week. (Though the volume and the degree of the move were somewhat larger, I believe, on some of those recent up days).
"AMC" ? "Additive Manufacturing -----?"
Hey Alan, is that your profession? Are you an accountant?
I agree. We certainly cannot know that the GE partnership is dead. In my opinion it just looks like there came a point where our interests divided and perhaps became competitive to some degree.
I would add though, in my opinion, that based upon the GE patent app filing one day after Sigma, wouldn't it appear that there were earlier instances and indicators of less than completely harmonious cooperation?
Jeff, as a former GE guy, what do you think? This, to me, sounds like an unknowable, but also like an interesting and not unreasonable point of speculation.
This sounds right to me as well. So, let's say we know nothing more re the identity of the European OEM... Still, how many European OEMs could be our European OEM? Are they basically all large industrial behemoths?
Jackie - Would you expect any type of transcript or other report on Mark's presentation on Sigma's website, or most likely there won't be anything published until a comprehensive document is published, comparable to the document that has been posted here from the initial launch year event.
Jackie - The document associated with this set of meetings and presentations looks to have been published in June of 2016 and the event itself took place in Aug-Sept 2015. Would you figure on a similar lag between the current year event and its associated publication?
So, let's say the unnamed European OEM is Trumpf -- hate to be dense here -- but is Trumpf somehow an especially big deal OEM? I know they are a large firm -- would that be the reason for excitement?
Whatever the case I kind of doubt a short caught this and got the info that timely to Sigma mgmt. Maybe Sigma monitors the board as well?
Key -
Thanks for the add'l info, but my head is mud at this late hour. What is the significance, if this wasn't a coincidence, and why would a short's calling attention to this to management be a reason that it would be taken down???
What does this mean?
If you're concerned that I'm paying for the possible merger, then why would you omit any mention of the merger in your earlier post in which you discuss your opinion about Sigma Mgmt' rationale for the authorized share increase?
We all know that companies buy out other companies all the time. Of course they don't come free. In my opinion this merger, should it come to fruition, is a worthwhile purchase that justifies associated dilution.
Anyone who is studying Sigma knows that the most likely explanation for the vote to significantly increase the authorized shares is to make the merger that has been contemplated and worked towards for a while now, possible.
Should significant additional shares actually be issued, (not authorized, but issued), in my opinion this will be in conjunction with a merger that will involve shareholders coming to own another company or two that management believes will add real value, brought together with Sigma.
This is not troubling to me. IMO -- This is reason to add to my excitement re the possibilities for my investment as a Sigma shareholder.
Have a look at this article featuring Melissa Orme, Chief Technology Officer of Morf 3D. She makes reference to the value of in-process monitoring... This woman is a deeply credentialed scientist/technologist Phd. While she doesn't reference Sigma, or any other company for that matter...Morf, we know, is closely aligned with Sigma and may well come under Sigma's, (and our) ownership.
https://womenin3dprinting.com/2017/07/17/industry-insider-melissa-orme-on-3d-printing-in-aerospace-and-defense/
Anyone can simply look for him/herself at what the last publicly reported short interest figures are for Sigma, as of 8/15/17... which predates the recent sell-off in the stock price, to see that indeed there is shorting occurring in Sigma.
The reduction in the stock price likely reflects an increased amount of short activity following 8/15. Is the shorting so heavy as to be the obvious, exclusive factor for Sigma's price decline? Probably not. But is carefully timed shorting of this thinly traded equity a factor? -- In my opinion -- YES.
As far as buyout possibilities. Could be. I don't think the recent reduction in share price lifts the likelihood much because the difference is small dollars, (at least for large firms...Could possibly be a persuasive factor for a small suitor) -- and there could be an AM firm or two out there watching Sigma with takeover interest. Not impossible. But what's more likely in my opinion is that the highly credential new leadership -- Harvard and MIT educations -- seasoned business executives -- could execute a meaningful revenue emergence for little Sigma, with the benefit of the growing/ strengthening/developing market for industrial 3D printing.
Look at the Credentials of this member of the Board....
Of course we can't know for certain that the new leadership will be successful and their involvement doesn't mean that Sigma isn't still speculative, but these are the sort of credentials that make me think Sigma's got a far better shot than they did before the recent additions to the BOD and the replacement Interim-CEO came on board...
re Board Member Frank Garofalo --
Mr. Garofalo is the founder and Managing Partner of Garofalo & Associates, a strategic consulting and financial advisory firm primarily dedicated to technology growth companies. Prior to founding the firm in 2000, he served for 15 years at PaineWebber (now UBS), where he rose to become Vice President within the company’s investment banking division. Mr. Garofalo has also worked at Arthur D. Little as well as been involved in several technology-related startups. He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from MIT, a M.S. in Computer Control Engineering from the University of Michigan, and an MBA from Harvard University.
Much as I am a long investor in Sigma, and believe that the odds of success have improved notably, I can't say I agree with your point here. Any large entity inclined to own Sigma would not be daunted by an 8.5 million dollar valuation and inspired by a 7 or 8 million dollar valuation.
There could be a modest possibility of a buyout in my opinion, but the odds of this would change little based upon a few hundred thousand or even a million dollars in valuation, here or there, (at least when you're talking about large firms).
And I don't agree that current leadership, CEO and BOD, has been given any meaningful opportunity to show what they can do.
When tiny, thinly traded Sigma is down it seems reasonable to figure that short-selling may well be a contributing factor, especially when accompanied by sharply negative posts proclaiming that the company has no chance and that all will be lost.
But, when tiny Sigma has a healthy day it's likely a sign of relatively little short-selling, even if the proclamations that all will surely be lost appear.
Yes, and while the Avg Daily Share Volume has picked up somewhat, I suspect, per the stock's performance since the 8-15 reporting date that the number of shares short is likely higher, perhaps considerably.
Settlement Date Short Interest Avg Daily Share Volume Days To Cover
8/15/2017 78,822 11,831 6.662328
Yes, I think that understanding the Short Dynamic and the Pressure it can bring to bear on a thinly traded, tiny equity like this is very important if you're long. Thanks for your focus on the short-selling pressures.
The specifics are interesting. A couple particular observations include.... (Thanks for this)
1. The significant number of positions they are advertising to fill.
2. The geography of the positions.... (including both US coasts).
Key - Good to have you back. Not to get personal...but your sudden departure was a bit mysterious??? Whatever the case, glad to have your input and contributions to the board restored. And specifically, with regard to your DD and catches here in this material -- thanks for your attention to these details.
A "long-term" result or observation of the performance of Sigma has not occurred yet because not enough time has elapsed. What we've observed in terms of losses for shareholders has played out over a medium-term, seems to me. Sigma may or may not be successful, but to say that it's been poor for shareholders "long-term" requires a defining of "long-term" speculative investing in tiny, emerging companies.
I think a positive turn could come soon, but I don't know that it will. We may be pleased with news tomorrow, or still be in a similar place in 6 - 12 months. What I do know is that 4,5 years is not "long-term" in this context and that the leadership team recently attracted to Sigma for its prospects, and now guiding the company, suggests progress.
A side note -- Our experience of time is relative, of course, and underwater positions can begin to feel eternal in almost no time!
Mark is an engineer by way of his education, training and most of his work experience. He stepped into a technologist's role, appropriately, as CTO of Sigma, Chief Technology Officer, and has brought aboard seasoned business professionals to guide the company's business growth initiatives.
If Mark were abandoning the corporate offices and selling his stock that would be a different story.
I disagree that there is any real reason for a sense of Sigma's appearance as bleak... But notice that he's talking about an appearance, and not saying that this is his impression, as things stand. If anything he seems to be cautiously looking beyond today's move in the stock.
Personally, I see the company's odds at success as having recently improved, at least somewhat, and I appreciate Alan's perspective on the depth of experience and education among the new leadership at Sigma. (Therein lies the reason for my sense of recently improved odds). I also appreciate that there is no appearance of an attempt at persuasion for self-serving purposes. His analysis and the points he offers, whether others agree or disagree with him, in my opinion, appears to be above-board.
When we talk about "the market," not that "the market" always gets it right in the short-run in respect to mach larger companies, but here with a tiny, thinly traded company without any professional analyst involvement, moves in "the market," percentage moves, can be enormous, (such as we saw today), and can be determined, or at least ignited, by small transactions and in some instances with fear-mongering underlying those modest transactions.
Just my opinion, but I don't put much stake in "the market" for an equity like this, in the short-run.
Yes, they are a distinguished bunch, aren't they? And personally I think the fact that they are not young is not a negative. It goes hand-in-hand with their depth of experience and also may contribute to their collective pool of wisdom and judgement.
On another note, I don't like to speak in absolutes about matters of which I'm not certain, but let me just point out as a matter of opinion that a little bit of shorting at an inopportune time, (or opportune, depending on your position), could have broken the $2.00 threshold, and then simple fear set in from there.
Look, an investment in Sigma is speculative in nature. There's no question about it. BUT... by any reasonable measure, whatever Sigma's odds of success were in the past they are far better under the current leadership regime. Everyone will have to make up his/ her mind, individually, and there's no question that risk remains....but I believe in Sigma's odds and that an investment in Sigma is a worthwhile SPECULATION as strongly as ever and have added to an already significant investment over the past 2 -3 days, on weakness.
GLTA Longs.
Jeff,
Yes, right. Meanwhile, has Key dropped off the board? Very prolific poster gone quiet. Have I overlooked some posts from him?
Jeff,
What do you think are the likely implications of this?
Maxin -
What is the implication of your point, please?
Jackie,
This is a good point. And to your point, I'd add that for much of this period of years that Sigma mgmt has held onto their shares, the shares were worth quite a bit more than they are currently.
Personally though, I'm most compelled by the fresh talent and their seeming confidence in Sigma's potential at this juncture-- most notably John RIce -- the man seems to have some impressive credentials... I think I recall seeing that he's Harvard educated and his business background looks solid.
I do hope to see that the lion's share of equity compensation is tied to performance and duration on the job. I'm all for incentivizing management and in my opinion the structure of the compensation package is more important than whether mgmt purchases additional shares out of pocket.