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.
I still think LQMT is more like a research contract shop for AAPL/MTRN.
Getting it right takes time; LQMT leadership/CEO seems more into getting it right verses a quick flip on options in my opinion.
Call it engineeringineeze. No engineer ever made a dime without getting a product concept out of the lab and into a viable market.
I think the vacuum add-on prototype verbiage is a mute point. A company like Engel will do what ever is required to meet the market if they are convinced that there is one. The bottom line is that it will take some time regardless of number of prototype nonsense.
Only LQMT talks the prototype verbiage nonsense expecting investors to believe it is the only significance. They should be talking market size and revenue forecasts.
That could require using more than one prototype, then would need UL approvals or other certifications before selling the capability. Each certification entity would need a prototype, etc. There would be international standards bodies involved.
Maybe Watts covered it. I'm not good on getting through long posts even though I sometimes post that way.
Best all.
I kind of doubt that Engel manages prototypes the way that LQMT does, e.g. I doubt that they would rely on the test results of just "one" prototype. I think they would do more rigorous testing than that.
A vacuum sounds tricky.
I'm out of miners at present. Good luck with your positions.
I'm willing to bet that if the past is any indication, licensees will benefit more from LMT than LQMT itself.
Pogo sticks, bicycle rails, you name it ; crank up those LMT factories with the soon to be released/announced comprehensive licenses and Engel/ LMT enabled machines!
Does in mean money in LQMT's pocket; consulting fees at a minimum.
Would they be considered for second sourcing? .... Maybe not any time soon; only the shadows know.
Shake up the place!
If the terms associated with Engel/LQMT future comprehensive licenses are attractive, BV and others could crank up their own LMT parts factories.
Also, RGLD "missed" on earnings recently.
BUT, if you are someone looking to make your own coins, guns, knives, etc., it sounds like the Engel solution is potentially good for you. So, maybe this is soon to be "your moment." GLTA.
If every year it is "in the process of qualifying two parts .... With two new prototypes....or two in process" ..... It could take a LONG TIME to build up revenue from parts manufacturing, ESPECIALLY if the margin splits aren't so great. Consulting revenues could be better.
I don't have an opinion on the outcome of the arbitration. I would just like to see lair lair go away.
Well, we don't so you might want to take what we post with a grain of salt. There are some good posters here, though. GL
But some analyst see a seasonal pop also, so, GL what ever position you take.
I'm moving over to black gold. More deflation is expected, lower interest rates in Europe.
Some think it's p, some thing it's down. Some see a bottom coming before or into Jan'14, some see a seasonal rally.
But oil is looking more and more like it drop further, SCO.
"Minting" shares sounds so, you know, official and credible, lol.
Looks pretty space age/ futuristic...cool.
Ask yourself why the stock didn't pop on the Lockhead annoncement.
Only the outcome might be shared. The rest is private. There might be insurance.
Or ... Not this one, at least not for me....at this point .... Nothing I see here implies that money will/can be made in the near term.
You might have an inside track that implies otherwise but I don't see it.
There are boards that are different based on the nature of the securities being traded, held, etc. Even then, individual posters can have different styles, agendas, etc.
i think you have to find your place/strategy and one shoe doesn't fit all.
For example, I don't short stocks. Use inverse etfs instead that don't apply to LQMT.
Would we want to make money with LQMT, sure, they seem to have the potential....but .....
Not this one.
If you're just penny stock scum, you don't need an explanation.
When I had skin in the game based on what I understood the CEO to say I ended up losing money. Unless you know something that someone else doesn't, it don't pay to be in the game depending on your timeframe.
The big contract, on the cusp, that hasn't developed ( and with no explanation) is a big red flag.
Even if it was just a one time thing, it's never been explained ( to general shareholders).
Does that give anybody confidence in this company?
I agree too that if you are long and not happy you'd want to see constructive change ( and someone shaking up status quo).
It's not smart to have skin in the game if you have little influence over things and aren't happy about it.
I think you need a better reason than hope and hype unless you are playing dips and rips and if it's about dips and rips they are more liquid securities out that move more often ( maybe not 300% in a day but how often does that happen).
Why not hear the other side of the story or a different perspective.
If you're convinced that it will work out, you don't need a board at all; just wait for things to develop, OR, share the information that you know without doubt makes the investment worth while ( vs. hope and hype), e.g. Like timing of pumps with certainty.
Also, if lqmt wanted to get rid of VPC ( greed, etc.), they might not be sharing the whole story on prospects, etc.
I know they are receptive to constructive input. But who has time to do it if you aren't rewarded through it, e.g. Stock price appreciation, etc.
I don't see Steipp stepping down before his employment contract is up if he's liked by both AAPL and MTRN.
They probably are not concerned or influenced by general shareholder opinion unless one contacts them and provides constructive input.
That's why it might be worth it to watch it a couple of more quarters....agree with that ....glad I'm not in it but am willing to watch it.
I guess the 3 years timeframe for the credit line, Steipp's employment contract, and a forecasted timeframe for stock appreciation ( based on real financial performance, etc.) relative to a possibility of dilution could be compared to see what could line up when, etc.
It seems like a wild card is when/how the credit line is used. If it's just used to fund operations ( pay salaries, etc.; implied from Chung's CC comments) vs grow shareholder value through new partnerships, new channels to market, etc., then it doesn't sound very promising.
Ask yourself if the CEO is totally open with CFO on strategic plans, etc. Giving the CEO the benefit of doubt as knowing more than all, he may not be, or Chung might have been tasked to just find a way to keep things going for the next three years independent of other potential ( or no) other developments.
I still believe that more effort should go into convincing general shareholders that LQMT is an investment worth their time. it may not be.
But as for LQMT having crappy day, etc. ( Jollymon's question/comment), I don,t think they have them if the are guaranteed salaries, etc. for next few years).
If things are still slow to develop, maybe Steipp would be motivated to dumb his shares on a pump or what have you.
If Steipp cares about his reputation with AAPL and MTRN, my guess is that he has convinced the latter that things will work out to their timeline ( vs. necessarily general shareholders).
The reason the relationship with Engel is believable: Engel probably wouldn't allow/agree to a bogus press release.
I don't know why Steipp would see see his salary as the maximum payoff ( and not increasing shareholder value, etc.) unless he is doing MTRN or AAPL a favor by slowly and methodically staying with their pace with the promise for them for the biggest payoff ( vs. general shareholders with potentially different investment time lines).
MTRN/AAPL/LQMT could be satisfied with the pace; the only dissatisfied investors might be VPC and general shareholders.
I agree.
To have a believable turn around, change, etc., there would have to be an admission to fault and a specific plan to address it.
No one is going to admit to fault, etc.
So far, and for years, investors have been lured by the potential of the shiny metal/alloy ( your point, I totally agree).
If Steipp stages a convincing turn around (soon), investors could just as easily forget about the past ( could avoid the admission to fault thing, etc.)
It seems to me that most execs are more interested in a big payoff, etc. if it comes at shareholder expense they usually don't care unless they get called out on it.
If an investment community looks and acts like pushovers, accepts what gies on, makes excuses fir co./management, etc. things could continue as usual.
I think Steipp should put a little more effort into convincing investors that shareholder value ( and stock price) are headed up.
There's a saying, when a stock is totally vilified, hated, etc., it might be a good time to buy it.
Good luck to buyers. And especially good luck to ppl interested enough in their investments to take a proactive role in expecting more, attending CCs and asking intelligent questions.
I think the company is open to suggestions; best of luck to ppl motivated enough to ask, etc!
Or maybe some ppl have has positive experiences with the pumps and dumps, etc.
My vote: start a penny stock exchange; move the junk away from the mainstream, or at least separate it out.
I suppose pinks/otc is distinction enough, but I wold much rather see Steipp, et al, step up to the plate and bring the stock and the company up out of penny stock status by consistently complying with ( and striving) for higher standards.
Anyone who has worked at HP(re: Steipp) back in the day, knows standards, setting mission statements, etc. ( and is common MBA knowledge, etc.)
What is LQMT's mission statement; if they have one, shouldn't the following be included:
- increase share holder value
- strive to meet, set and exceed the highest standards
- maintain competitive advantage and industry leadership
- full disclose and transparency to shareholders
- TIMELY disclosure to shareholders
- commitment to meet project deadlines and timeframes
- integrity in partnerships
Etc.
I'm gone after this.
I have to say this. Think this company could have long term success if they did some things differently, and if they can't do it, then maybe someone else could or should.
They have too much penny stock baggage to overcome with investors that settle for less in my opinion because they have been "cheapened" by their negative experience with LQMT pumps, dumps, and dilution.