But it does show, for the math going forward at the moment, there are a total of a tick over 15 million shares either outstanding or earmarked for options. That will make a big difference in your valuation math.

All the best,
Silversmith

You're cherry picking time frames. For a year and a half before that you would have lost. The shorts and flippers and swing traders make the range that the shares move in, but the level of the range is set by what investors value the company at.
Remember Herbalife? Bill Ackerman shorted it huge, then started a giant smear campaign to convince shareholders it was a trash stock. Ackerman had his ass handed to him. Herbalife shareholders held firm to their understanding of what the company's value was.

All the best,
Silversmith

Try shorting Tesla and see what happens.

All the best,
Silversmith

Bullshit back Windbag. How the hell do you think this works?
It is 100% on shareholders to value the market cap of a company. There are only three ways. Either someone buys the company, thereby establishing a value that shareholders agree with, or someone buys into the company for a certain amount of money, thereby establishing a value, or shareholders set the value in the market. That's it. The corporate office either executes to the market level, or higher, or it doesn't and investors lower the market value.
Tesla, Lyft, Uber, Amazon, and on and on have no profits. But the business product is valued by investors. Granted they have revenue and SGLB doesn't, but if the revenue is coming after everyone is convinced that the product is demanded by the world, then the company gets valued by investors accordingly.
It is the same for SGLB. But SGLB's investors are valuing the future revenues at $14.3 million. That is preposterous.
And the reason why there have been no sales so far is that the industry was nowhere near ready to start production. As early as just last year I talked to engineers who told me that when they started a print run they had no idea what was going to come out of the printer.
But things are becoming different now. Now there is a path forward to production. DARPA just showed the world. Now there is a coming revenue stream future possible for SGLB. SO investors have to move to that place in reality.
So bullshit back dude.

All the best,
Silversmith

And that, blinko, is exactly where the injustice and idiocy of SGLB's shareholders lies. SGLB's shareholders are telling the world that they believe the single greatest metal AM enabling IPQA technology for the global metal AM industry is only worth $14.3 million. It is a complete farce. It is so completely shortsighted that it puts their own shareholdings at immense risk.
But I take consolation from the fact that Rice and the SGLB group have spent large amounts of time nailing down the realistic value of the tech. Rice stated so in a conference call some time ago.
SGLB investors are so amateur that they have no idea what they are doing.

All the best,
Silversmith

Most SGLB investors are living their lives out of the rear view mirror. Even in the past they couldn't see far enough down the road to discern what was very likely coming. They didn't have the skill for it. Now they all are waiting for the can't miss, sure thing. But they will be wrong again. Mr Market never lets that happen. The market isn't about the past. Its about the future.

All the best,
Silversmith

Gotta love SGLB investors.
With the stars and the moon and the planets all moving to line up for SGLB, heralding great fortunes in SGLB's future, we have traded less than 11K shares and are down below the price point for the last funding round.
SGLB investors are chronic doubters, disbelievers, and only interested in picking up pennies and a couple nickels , along with a fair heap of haters. What a wonderful place to be.

All the best,
Silversmith

Outstanding. Nice job SGLB and the DARPA group.
And DARPA just made America Makes look really, really bad. So much so that it brings into question the credibility of America Makes. DARPA concludes with part certification, yet America Makes doesn't even come close to it? What's up with that?

All the best,
Silversmith

Hawks,
I read it in its entirety. It is an excellently done white paper. Way and above anything I have seen SGLB capable of writing. It is a professional effort. It is however about two years behind PR3D's current position. And its resolution is over three times less precise than PR3D's 90 microns. And it directly states that it is using Plank black body radiation which is right in the wheel house of SGLB's patent landscape. I still believe that the patents are what is going to make SGLB valuable in a big way. They(DDD) have only come a ways down the road that SGLB has already trod.
None the less, I wish SGLB had these presentation skills. It is an excellent paper.

All the best,
Silversmith

I don't think so johnny. I personally have a business contract in the works. The first that the customer informed me that they were going with our firm was three weeks ago. Many back and forth efforts for nailing down the details ensued. And these weren't details about the tech. It is things like county/state/nation of record for dispute resolution, insurance coverage proof for on site workers, minute wording details for contract termination in case of all kinds of events, and on and on. These things are complicated and take lots of time.

All the best,
Silversmith

You keep thinking that Alan.
I concluded strongly that Cola would be out as CEO the very moment I saw that video clip of him and the family on the day they were at the NASDAQ. Cola was interviewed after ringing the bell. The commentator asked him if it was difficult being the CEO of a startup company. Cola squirmed exactly the way a child does when they are confronted with their shortcoming or wrongdoing. I knew then that he was in over his head.
Body language can fill whole chapters in a story, for sure.
I pay attention to it completely.

All the best,
Silversmith

Amazing how jaded, disbelieving and pessimistic many SGLB investors have become. But the successful launch of ground breaking change is something you have to experience to understand. Otherwise you are destined to agony and despair.
I'll go a few steps further. The group at SGLB is deserving of success. They have lifted the light of IPQA breakthrough ability and industrial ground shaking change, and presented it to and rubbed elbows with the giants of the world. The SGLB group are some very intelligent people. Way beyond most of the rag-tag group of investors here. They have earned it.
And as T&L stated, pictures are worth a thousand words. You don't have a marathon to cover the requirements of someone simply expanding a trial from one machine to three. And the look of the group is one of security, competency, success, and a realization of having 'done it'. I would venture that a big win is coming.

All the best,
Silversmith

JMD, Sapphire has been around for about three years. The software is a 3DSIM competitor, not a PR3D competitor. Sapphire is a design tool used to predict deformation that will naturally occur just due to the geometry of the part being printed. Although SSYS used all the right words, closed-loop, in-situ etc, they have nothing that is actually other than passive visual sensing in the build chamber.

All the best,
Silversmith

I have no idea what the extent of patent issuance is for metal powder qualification across the world, but with this one SGLB will have a footprint in the powder qualification space. This story just keeps getting better and better. I'm loving it.

All the best,
Silversmith

I guess SGLB might make an announcement at AMUG on Monday. Seems to be an interesting confluence of timing for the event and the release of earnings and company update. Apparently many think the same after seeing today's buying. One thing for sure, when buying occurs, this thing moves nicely.

All the best,
Silversmith

FYI

James “Hondo” Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition, has said that the force is seeking $23 million in funding for its 2020 3D printing efforts. According to Inside Defense, Guerts told the House Armed Services Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, that the funds would go toward developing appropriate certification for 3D printed parts, potentially creating a database that groups all the objects together.

“A lot of that is so we can network all of our 3D printed files together, create models […]” he said. “One of the challenges is how to certify a part with a 3D printed technology that’s been certified traditionally. That’s where that research is going.”

Furthermore, Guerts added that the Navy foresees an allocation of $66 million to 3D printing as part of the under the Department of Defense (DOD) Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Updated each year, the FYDP gives a projection of the DOD’s funding, manpower and force structure needs over the next 5 years.

All the best,
Silversmith

No. One can only guess.
It is one of the very most unfortunate circumstances to befall SGLB that it came from the OTC world of deformed investors. It is maybe Cola's largest mistake to have gone that route for founding SGLB as a public company. It is profoundly psychotic that one would back a prize fighter, or buy a purebred race horse, and daily announce to them and the world that they are worthless, incompetent, woefully lacking, and will never amount to anything.
A large number of SGLB investors are for the most part deformed, and the stock is a battle ground stock.

All the best,
Silversmith

Of course that is, I believe, April Fools Day. Lol.

All the best,
Silversmith

This could be interesting Dadx4. SGLB releasing numbers and company update right before market open on a Monday, rather than Friday after the market close. Sounds interesting to me.

All the best,
Silversmith

Yes you are missing a bit. Its the race for market share. This is the third industrial space that I have been involved in that is completely new stuff. It never fails to be a whole lot like the historical American wild west. A plethora of startups and me-too companies get energized over the new business opportunities, all competing for the same space and business dollars. It is a real dust up until the few winners emerge to claim the lion's share of the space. Metal AM is no different.
For EOS, MTU is simply essentially a captive of EOS. They can try whatever they want to try. And EOS can move forward with trying to win market share in IPQA without undue stress of it all being a lost effort because they know if it comes to it, and they have indeed obtained some market share, they can simply license from SGLB and get on with things. It happens all the time in business. Licensing of tech is very common and not the 'game over' event that many on this board think it is. That is why you rarely (or not frequently) hear of litigation among companies suing over breach of patents. It happens, but it is not frequent.
But the real power behind SGLB is something I keep talking about but not many understands or recognizes. It is the patents. If metal AM adopts IPQA for production, and it looks like they are headed there, then regardless of how much market share SGLB has, the patents are the gold mine.
Imagine Siemens buying SGLB for the patents in an all stock deal with their OTC ADR shares. You would immediately then own Siemens shares paying out over $2 bucks a share annually in dividends. I don't know about you, but that's a chunk of change for me with the number of shares I own.

All the best,
Silversmith

'They' don't have ANY IPQA patent. SGLB does. But their tech crosses the SGLB patent position. So they will have to license.

All the best,
Silversmith

This information simply says that SGLB's PR3D is an effective IPQA solution for metal AM. EOS's stuff crosses SGLB's patents. They will be forced to license from SGLB if they want to actually use it. SGLB's patents are crazily undervalued from investor lack of understanding.

All the best,
Silversmith

I had some interesting conversations this week. Metallurgical thermal imagery and signature concepts, and the SGLB white paper about PR3D comparison/union with CT. I was originally floored by the huge contrast in intuitive understanding between the PR3D data map and the CT image. I mean that crack was front and center visible in the CT image. But I saw nothing that looked like a crack in the PR3D data plot. It all looked less than spectacular to me in the PR3D image. Well, the fact is that we aren't born knowing how to interpret PR3D data. I was thankfully enlightened to the fact that the crack wasn't even born yet in the PR3D data image. Duh. Now I get it. The CT image was after the part was already made. The PR3D image was of captured data from a single layer from a point in time that existed BEFORE the layers which will eventually, in the future, contain the crack.
The PR3D image captured the signature of an event that gives rise to the opportunity for a crack to form. PR3D is capturing information about events that have yet to occur in the build. Holy F'n cow. It was the signature of overlapping laser trace paths that PR3D picked up, and this is known to create big localized internal stress at that region of the build that can lead to cracking.
And just for you wick, PR3D works. SGLB has a fully operational IPQA process. Apparently, the issue isn't PR3D. The issue is the engineers getting up to speed about being able to put it through its paces. Apparently we are now at the point where metal AM is genuinely taking a hard look at where and how IPQA will be best used. And there will have to be a kind of leap of faith in using it fully, in placing the heavy weight of reliability, risk and responsibility upon it. Just because anyone, GE and SGLB included, has a product that spits out a certification, doesn't mean an OEM is going to just roll over and accept it at face value. The use of IPQA in metal AM is a gigantic deal with huge consequences for all involved.

All the best,
Silversmith

Bla, Bla, Bla. I have rarely seen such utter ridiculousness. Free warrants, huge dilution, delisting, lining the pockets of everyone in the world except yourself..... that takes amazingly superior intelligence to be able to see in the figures.

But the truth is that it took 10 units to make a whole number of shares available with the warrants. You can't buy a partial share. So you had to buy 10 units to have the opportunity to net 13 shares. And that would have cost you $18.83, yielding an average share cost of $1.45. Doesn't seem free to me. But then again maybe I'm maybe not capable of looking deeply enough to see free.

All the best,
Silversmith

Nice little storm going on here. But the new offering is more benign than many feared. SGLB is still being frugal. I think the timing is good as well. Get this funding done before crunch time or things get ugly in the markets. If we can hold somewhere around $1.40 we should be good to go.

All the best,
Silversmith

I haven't been reading this board very much any more, but my phone dinged with the Seeking Alpha alert so I checked in. Lots of weeping and wailing here. But for some perspective, pretty much the entire global micro and small cap world is being hit hard. It is across the world. Many think this is just the opening act of a much larger global stock market melt down. But SGLB is doing okay as a company. Even if global stock markets crack open, not so many people play in the SGLB sandbox, so things should be mostly okay here. And if SGLB closes any big business in metal AM, it will be a diamond among the chaos and debris. If others are right about a general and significant market malaise, its time to put your big-boy pants on.

All the best,
Silversmith

No, I don't think shorting had much to do with today, though there could have been some as the momentum built. I think someone simply was selling a position, or a portion of a position, and there wasn't enough of a book base to handle it. So it took out some stops, scared some people, took out some more stops, and just generally cascaded. But the net buy and sell balance for MM pricing wasn't anywhere near the low levels. So up it came again when the dust settled. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

All the best,
Silversmith

Days and weeks like this are simply built into the stock. Everyone gets so worked up over a day like today. But in reality it is just volatility. SGLB's very small float, and the very small trading market base, make for many days like today. It's just how it works. I hope it didn't shake too many good people out of their positions. Because the flip side is how hard this thing will run with news of a household-name company announcing they are going with PR3D. In the entire history of SGLB trading, on both the OTC and NASDAQ, we have never seen the kind of run that will take place with that kind of news.

All the best,
Silversmith

Its not hidden information Pisd. Back in April 2018 SGLB issued 1000 series B convertible preferred shares to Shultz and someone else, 500 shares each. Shultz converted and bought a bunch more common relatively soon after. The other holder only converted half of their preferred position. The other half is still on the books as 250 shares of series B convertible preferred. So no, the $50K convertible note is not the 250 convertible preferred.

All the best,
Silversmith

I've been looking into the idea of a European embracing of SGLB. SGLB is noted in many articles in Europe for sure.
This is a long article on the metal AM industry from the UK perspective. SGLB is mentioned.

All the best,
Silversmith

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527318300926

FYI. SGLB mention.

All the best,
Silversmith

https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/carnegie-mellon-university-and-argonne-national-laboratory-unlock-keyhole-phenomenon-in-metal-3d-printing-149728/

Good stuff Windbag. SGLB is getting 20% of the cost per PR3D unit for the rapid program installs. Call it $20K per install. There were some locations with multiple installs. I am ball parking it at about another $140K in cash that came in or is coming in for operations. That will possibly delay somewhat a future cash raise.

All the best,
Silversmith

What is ROW?

SGLB doesn't mount sensors in the build chamber anymore. Rice reported late last year that they are now sensing directly down the laser column. So there is no instrumentation taking up space and impacting gas flow in the build chamber any more.

Now, the only machine impact is going to be for an actual closed loop system. The AM industry will insist that the printer manufacturers comply with this once the ability is finalized. The printer manufacturers will have to play ball in order to sell printers.

All the best,
Silversmith

So, given that IPQA would have to be incorporated into metal AM:

Should SGLB kiss and make up with America Makes? There is a lot of good work being done with that group now, apparently unlike the zoo it was before. SGLB is no longer a member. There is bad blood there. Rightly so in my opinion. It looks to me that SGLB needs to be back in that group. PR3D is very far from what it was when first used in America Makes experiments, and I think everyone knows that. There is a very large amount of PR3D correlation data in the public. They know it.

Will GE resist and try to keep SGLB out of America Makes? Will the metal AM industry let GE keep SGLB out if they tried?

Will IPQA best work with spectral/thermal or with acoustic, or are both needed?

Can SGLB still patent meaningful aspects of acoustic prior to GE, in spite of the two GE patents?

Is Europe embracing SGLB while GE and the USA are not? Will Europe snatch up SGLB for IPQA to compete with GE/USA?

All the best,
Silversmith

Great stuff t&l.
I've gone through the whole thing. It is really remarkable how far the knowledge base has come in 5 short years. It is clear that an enormous amount of work has been done trying to get a handle on metal AM. Some thoughts...

The overall report is about NDE in metal AM. But in this case they are talking almost exclusively about NDE techniques for post process inspection. All the historically available NDE methods have been applied to post printed parts to see how well they paint the actual quality picture of a printed part. They are basically whipping the mules of historical NDE methods to try to get them to get the job done. I would imagine it is very frustrating for the engineers involved, but exciting for the likes of SGLG, in that all the known historical NDE methods are proving to be incapable of giving a high confidence level of inspection results. In short, the metal AM process is simply not lending itself to traditional NDE methods in a high quality way. It truly does look like IPQA is going to have to be married to traditional post process NDE. That is a very heartening realization for me. And I am sure it is the reason why the metal AM industry has turned its eyes toward IPQA in the last six months.

I will say it now, I very strongly, completely see and believe that IPQA will absolutely have to be incorporated into metal AM, married with conventional NDE inspection, in order for the industry to be able to use AM for the critical parts that AM gives the highest returns on. It is staring you straight in the face with this report.

SGLB is implied in slide 21,34,35 and 39. The report is basically flat out saying that they will have to have IPQA.

I really like what I am seeing here. A few new questions arise from this, but those are for a later date.

All the best,
Silversmith

I had to go through it twice to be clear about it but PR3D and CT seem to make a nice union for inspection. One thing for sure, PR3D is not even close to the same as CT for intuitive interpretation. You need to be skilled in CT interpretation, but you really need to be trained in how to interpret PR3D data. CT has been around for many multiple decades. Many people know how to interpret CT. PR3D is brand new and barely known. What a huge contrast. I really like how PR3D is immune to artifact in part cross section. That is pretty important for all sorts of reasons.

All the best,
Silversmith

For those above a hundred dollars share prices I think four things have to happen. But all four things are directly linked together. They follow together naturally. The trigger is that the industry adopts IPQA technologies.
The four things are that IPQA gets adopted by the metal AM industry, and simultaneously, SGLB continues to win 10% market share during the industry ramp up, and the metal AM industry proves that it is fully ramping up by repeating the 10K or so annual global printer sales in a second year of ramp up, and finally that Wall Street sees that metal AM is getting big. I give it three years. I think SGLB will go to the mid $20s right off as soon as sales start ringing in.

All the best,
Silversmith

I haven't seen the new Dawson James report yet, but I'll bet they didn't change any sales forecast numbers. SGLB is so primed that even small changes make big numbers in a hurry. I would love to see another analyst firm give a comparison to Dawson James.
Dawson James used printer manufacturers and the SaaS sector to develop SGLB's comps. From the global printer sales reports at 10,000 printers per year, if SGLB gets 10% of the business, with Dawson's haircut multiple of 5x we get a share price of $63. It would be $126 per share with the full printer group multiple of 10x. Using the SaaS sector at 16x we would get a share price of $201.
Any way you cut it, if PR3D is adopted by the metal AM industry, SGLB's stock is going to go through the roof from these levels.

For those SGLB investors with established positions, when the first sales ring in, buckle up. The ride is going to be big.

All the best,
Silversmith

Just as outlook2020 stated, acoustic has been found to have its limitations. I dug into this late last year. I haven't decided if GE forged the acoustic path because that's all they had available; being that SGLB has a big lead with patents and testing for spectral, or they really think it will be adequate. Peralta and a whole group of people have done lots of acoustic work over the last eight years. None of them found it to be promising for continued advancement in ability. But I didn't know GE had been granted patents for it.
I actually think that GE going with acoustic will spur the likes of a Siemens into buying SGLB for head to head competition with GE.

All the best,
Silversmith