Always learning
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.
My comments were directly related to the impact I see this ruling having on the future of LQMT. If you can't see that, please re-read my post.
You sure wouldn't know there is an Annual Shareholders Meeting today by looking at the company website. On the home page of the Investors tab there is no mention of it being today. Not even a mention of it on the Events/Conferences page. In the upcoming events section of the Events/Conferences page it says "There are currently no events scheduled". You have to drill down to the Annual Meeting Materials page to find any mention of it.
Looks like they are indeed just trying to get the votes done quietly and get this thing over with. I must admit, I don't like the looks of this. For something that should be a rah-rah session to get shareholders excited about what the company is doing, this has a eerie, stealthy feel to it going in.
No, I don't think you are way off base with that line of thinking Jimmy777. They could put out a PR either after hours or possibly before the market opens tomorrow morning if they do in fact have something positive to report. And one would think they would want a positive environment tomorrow, although they may not be thinking along those lines so much given the lack of shareholder turnout at past ASHMs.
thanks chris ... point well taken
Not if they don't make that information public beforehand or simultaneously they won't.
You summed it up very well tmleads. I don't know about $1 per share already given all of the uncertainty still out there but I totally agree there are lots of positives out there right now that may not be getting fully reflected in the share price.
Plus there are some negatives that need to be factored in including but not limited to:
1. LQMT has yet to announce their first revenue generating customer. Prototypes have been sent to 4 and last we heard they are being tested by 3 ... but no orders yet. This has many potential and existing investors concerned.
2. The company history is horrendous. The Kang Gang practically bilked this company out of existence and many investors are concerned that they still may be pulling the strings. I am not one of those investors.
3. Recent quarterly earnings conference call was less than impressive and has many questioning whether Steipp is the right man for the CEO job. Again, I am not one of those people.
4. Fear of dilution (my bet is that it is already priced into our current stock price)
As you detailed in your post, a lot has been accomplished and a lot of strong prospects are lining up to create a positive perfect storm of activity and results for LQMT. My opinion is that Steipp is doing a great job and I am glad he is leading the charge and not some frustrated poster from our message board.
Thanks for your excellent summation.
whoever it was who posted earlier that the shorts might be covering today, I think you hit the nail on the head! It is amazing watching the trading today. On many occasions you can see a small trade bring the price down .8 cents and even a full cent followed by a big buy order that hardly moves the price. Seems to me this is a perfect pattern indicating MM manipulation to enable short covering.
That's my 2 cent observation of the day!
I don't know about resistance levels for LQMT nor do I care. But one thing for sure, there will be no news coming out of the ASHM that has not already been made public through a PR or an SEC filing. Unless we have some execs that want to spend some time behind bars for SEC insider trading rules violations.
Stocksgreen ... thank you very much for being the voice of reason about LQMT here this morning. GREAT POST!!! I have been trying to post a similar message myself but kept getting wound around the axle.
So again, thank you. I hope everyone marks your post and whenever they start hyperventilating or feeling the next emotional rush they can refer back to it and come back to the reality around LQMT that you so succinctly capture in your post.
Kind of like the weather in Chicago, if you don't like the weather ... wait a few minutes and it will be completely different ... Here, if you don't like what you're reading from a certain poster about LQMT, wait a few minutes and you will get a completely different opinion on the opposite end of the bull/bear continuum. lol
That is strange ... I am also signed up for alerts but I only received the one email for the 100k gifting of shares. But when I go to the website, I also see all three the way you accessed them.
Well, here is the only drawback to having a frequent poster on ignore ... I am not sure what people might be responding to. Oh well, it is definitely worth it.
As far as TA goes, my thoughts about that for a small company with light and/or intermittent volume like LQMT has been clearly stated ... not useful.
Anyone who has held a long position for a period of the last 5 to 10 years in LQMT has clearly done so based on their DD and the fundamentals of the company as they interpret them. Although, how someone would have interpreted the fundamentals over this time frame to be positive and worthy of buying or holding, up until very recently, is a huge head scratcher.
Memory is a funny thing ...
AAPL has never traded at a price below $5 per share, unless you are talking on a split adjusted basis. I have owned AAPL shares since the day after the IPO back in 1981. There have been only 3 stock splits since 1981, all two for one, but the actual quoted price per share has never been below $5.
But the point you make is still a very good one ... it is very exciting to be a part of something big from an early on stage and stick with it through all of the trials and tribulations, and Lord knows AAPL had their share of those over the years.
I too hope LQMT will follow a similar path ... although hopefully not as many trials and tribulations!
Your PS has me ROTFLMAO!!! That would be quite a dinner conversation to remember I am sure. To say we have a dynamic group of posters here on the LQMT message board would be the understatement of the century!
Right Watts ... nice call!
Given enough darts, even a baboon gets a bulls-eye once in a while!
Have a great weekend everyone. Next week should be interesting.
No responses required! lol
Question for you Full ...
I saw a reference in here a day or two ago by another poster about suspecting there may be a lurker in here that is reporting back to Steipp about what is discussed about LQMT in here but I passed it off to the typical paranoia that seems to pervade that particular posters comments. But now I see a similar comment from you, whom I consider to be one of the most rationale and level headed posters in here and it gets me to wondering.
Why do you suspect this? And if there is a mole in here, would that necessarily be a bad thing? There seems to be a lot of good thoughts bounced around in here that I would love for Steipp and company to give some thought to ... if they aren't already.
Thanks
100% agree with you Full4God! I was busy writing a similar post and am just now seeing this. You are right on the mark in my opinion and we need to let Steipp continue on his strategy without mucking up the works by voting down what is recommended in the proxy. Don't know if you agree with that. But buy if you believe and don't if you don't ... we are totally on the same page.
thanks for the post!
I know this post will run counter to what some of the most respected experts on this board are espousing and it is merely my opinion based on what I observe and drawing from my 30+ years of experience in corporate finance with Fortune 100 companies.
As of today, and I doubt this will change in the coming days, I plan to vote "YES" on all proxy items. My basis for this decision is as follows:
I have confidence that Thomas Steipp is doing the job he was put in place in August 2010 to do. We have all of the partnerships firmly in place to commercialize LQMT's intellectual property. He started in a huge hole, knew what he was dealing with, set a course and timeline and has done what I think is an excellent job of executing the strategies to drive the company forward. Yes, there may be some lag on some fronts, but that is to be expected when you are dealing with a situation as dire and complex as the one he started out with. Hindsight is 20/20 and unfortunately, Steipp and company did not have the benefit of hindsight as many of the critics after the fact have had.
The criticism of Steipp and the BOD that I have read in here is kind of like a good fictional movie ... 10% based on fact, 90% based on fiction (or in our case, speculation, rumor, misinterpretation etc).
I personally think it is too soon to start a shareholder revolt. The BOD and executive team have made recommendations in the proxy materials that they think are appropriate and necessary to continue moving the strategies along the timeline. Steipp has not even been the CEO for two full years yet. He has earned the confidence of shareholders through his performance to date to trust that he knows what he is doing. True, we have no customer revenue to speak of through the 1st two quarters of 2012 but that is not inconsistent with what he has been saying. We should expect break-even levels by the end of 2012 is what I have understood. Even if we lag some from there, I am still OK with how this is unfolding.
We have a very vocal and what I hope is a minority in here that would like to be shareholders functioning as the CEO. Many negative assumptions about intent have been repeated in here to the extent that some might even now just be accepting these assumptions as fact. I hope not ... but it happens. We all need to formulate our own opinions based on the FACTS that we see before us ... not on the strong opinions of a few self proclaimed experts who frequently criticize the efforts of a CEO and BOD who I observe have been working diligently since August 2010 to fix what was broken and build a sound company, with strong relationships with credible strategic partners.
Sorry for the length of the post but I couldn't figure out a way to say what I had to say any more concisely.
Good luck to all and here's to a bright future for LQMT!
I gotta say, I love reading your posts.
Seeing a short this panic stricken that he/she has to post so many dark cloud posts about every piece of DD that is shared here is truly encouraging and refreshing for us longs.
Just another indication that good times are not too far in front of us. I hope you don't get too hurt.
GL
An old article from back in 2010 about Kang and his securities fraud conviction. Maybe some of the newer posters have not seen this so I thought it worth posting.
The comments at the end of the article are rather interesting as well. It seems that some things don't change.
http://ocbiz.ocregister.com/2010/03/02/oc-exec-convicted-of-securities-fraud/17199/
My last quote, I must admit I was getting sloppy. What I meant by "LQMT and any other company like LQMT" was merely an attempt to say ... "not just LQMT but any publicly traded company".
Thanks for calling me out on that ... I wasn't very clear with my choice of words.
I don't have private messaging with my account.
But to all of you responding with your support to my post tonight, thank you.
And to the one poster who asked me a question ... sadly, yes, I think so.
Where to begin ...
First of all, are you assuming that because you or any other shareholder has not gone through the vetting process of Barney Visser and his companies that LQMT management has not? That is a huge ASSumption and I would hazard to guess a very bad one at that.
For as excellent as you are at breaking down technical and operational issues and digging up DD on LQMT, the industry, the players, etc ... you seem to be totally out in left field in terms of understanding corporate governance and what a shareholder of a publicly traded company should be able to expect and demand in terms of shareholder rights.
It is definitely up to management to do exhaustive vetting of strategic partners, suppliers, and even customers before moving forward on entering contracts and relationships with them ... especially when assigning something as invaluable as intellectual property. The CEO is accountable and responsible to the BOD to assure such steps are taken and that the vision and mission as approved by the BOD is being properly focused on in the implementation of strategic plans and commitment in contracts.
Management cannot and should not be expected to be updating shareholders on milestone attainment and action plan execution every step of the way. Sorry, but the shareholders are just not in the loop on things like this on a day to day, week to week, or even month to month basis. I would expect that the CEO is communicating with the BOD as necessary and expected according to his agreement of requirements of performance of his role as CEO.
Shareholders find out what is going on when the company decides to make information publicly available, and not a moment sooner. We have no more right to knowing what is going on than someone who does not own a single share of LQMT stock.
As shareholders of the company, if we don't like how the company is being managed, our recourse is through the BOD ... not management. If we don't feel the BOD is doing the job they should in performance management of the CEO, then we need to let them know. If they don't provide satisfaction, we need to try to get them replaced. If we cannot succeed at that, then we need to sell our shares.
But expecting and demanding the company to provide more transparency ad nauseum and do more PRs and conference calls etc ... to hold our hands and make us feel all warm and fuzzy about our investment is ludicrous.
Of course we would all like to know everything that is going on behind the scenes, in front of the scenes and everywhere else but that just is not reality. And add to that how many NDAs we are involved in and that just adds to the information void. But that's the way it is and the way it always will be with LQMT and any other company like LQMT ... no matter how much we scream for more.
p.s. by the way, wasn't it you who said right around the close today that you think you are more bullish on LQMT now than you ever have been? And wasn't it also you who told me in one of our first exchanges that doing solid DD and assuring good management is in place is the biggest factor in evaluating a company before investing? Yet you are invested here and launching on management time and again on this message board. Seems to be some inconsistency here.
No ... and where would you get a crazy idea like that? There were fewer than 3 million shares of LQMT traded today.
Thanks Watts, for the historical perspective and insight.
Excellent encapsulation of what this board is all about Jimmy777!
Wake up eggs ... watts was merely responding to a previous posters question with an example of what "Getting Kanged" meant.
Well, that looks like a white flag of surrender in your conversation with poop!
Its a decision we all have to make. Buy now and deal with the ups and downs but know you have your entry point where you do. Wait until LQMT starts producing revenue and get in at a much, much higher price and not have to deal with what we are dealing with here. The choice is yours.
You make a good point here bradclaw. There are many on the message boards that are very anxious and require a lot of hand holding. They think that somehow corporate management should be putting out PRs all the time explaining what is transpiring in the day to day operation of the business. That is both naive and unrealistic. I much prefer that the CEO and anyone else on staff stay focused on executing the plan and doing the deals necessary to further the strategies that have been put in place to make LQMT successful.
I don't want management wasting their time putting out PRs about every little thing that anxious investors want information on. They would have no time to run the business and many of the anxious are unsatisfiable (if that is a word ... haha).
I compare small investors to the political media at a presidential press conference. No matter how many questions you answer, there will always be ten more questions thrown out there ... and most of them are stupid questions.
Reading this message board reminds me of a time around 12 or 13 years ago when I was heavily researching the telecommunications industry. There was a guy out there (in fact, he is still out there) named George Gilder. Phenomenal writer, very knowledgeable about the telecom industry and all of the cutting edge technology behind it. He had a newsletter that was widely followed called the Gilder Report. Fascinating stuff too read. The guy really new his technology. But when he tried to bridge that knowledge to the financial world and stock recommendations, he was a disaster.
I guess my point is, we all need to be careful to keep separate and understand that there are huge differences between experts in operational and technical information and experts in financial due diligence. It is easy to get lured into and fascinated by the smooth and articulate musings and expressions of operational knowledge and then assume that these same people somehow have a clue about the factors that impact financial markets and individual stock (like LQMT) prospects.
The beauty of this board is we do seem to have experts in the operational / technical areas and then we also have experts in the financial areas. I constantly have to remind myself who is expert in which and be careful not to put too much emphasis on comments made by the ops experts about financial stuff.
But most of all ... as many have said here before ... rely only on your own DD.
GLTA
We can both continue to evaluate what is going on in our own ways, Watts, without going on the attack ("use you head", "glued to your saddle", etc).
You also post very definitively as if you know how I have voted my shares ... you don't know. I have expressed some opinions but I am not so rash as to put my vote in before I absolutely have to. I prefer gaining as much knowledge about what is going on before casting such an important vote (unlike the alternative knee jerk reaction approach that a certain someone prefers to take).
So seriously Watts ... lighten up a lot. You don't have to attack people when they express an opinion on something that doesn't fall exactly in line with your latest assessment.
And by the way ... your post really doesn't respond to what I clarified to you in very specific terms. Instead, you launch into how I need to use my head to realize obvious things that everyone realizes ... including myself. I never said anything about an agreement not being made. Perhaps you should reread my response to you, digest it, and then try again with a reasoned, rationale, and non-attacking response. Your "bullying" is getting real old.
Thank you.
WOW ... slow down Watts.
Apple can insist LQMT keep quiet about certain aspects of a contract as you well know. They just build it into the NDA. But there are certain SEC requirements that a powerhouse company as a party to a contract cannot enforce on the weaker party. If the SEC requires that certain financial details be disclosed in the subsequent 10Q then they have to be disclosed. Apple cannot supercede the SEC filing requirements.
So yes, it is possible that AAPL is contractually requiring LQMT to not disclose certain terms of the agreement until they are legally required to do so.
NO BULLSHEET!!!! lol
p.s. this was one of your more poor posts. :)
"However, if that were the case, there is no need to wait until Aug 15 to tell the shareholders".
They may have to wait until Aug 15 to tell the shareholders because AAPL insisted that they do. Any more details about this agreement right now could lessen the level of secrecy that AAPL likes to maintain about all that they do.
As a wholly owned subsidiary, yes they would.
yeah ... I can't imagine they would just extend the term for two years without getting something in return. Guess we will have to wait for the next 10Q to find out.
We are all guessing Frank. No one here KNOWS anything. Anyone saying that they think Steipp is doing a great job or a horrible job is merely expressing an uninformed opinion. We may like or dislike what we see in the pps and in some of the limited information we can see but we know nothing of what is behind what is driving the results (or lack of results).
Anyone who is invested in LQMT with an expectation that something will pop real soon, in my opinion, will be sorely disappointed and probably sell out of their position before Steipp's plans run their course. This is probably a lot of the selling we have been seeing in the last few weeks. A small part of the selling may also be due to AAPL WWDC disappointment ... but those expectations were built on speculation as well.
There are tons of ADD speculators in the penny markets and most of what we are seeing in trading volume of late, again ... just my opinion, is knee jerk reaction trading of people that do not have any kind of time horizon or understanding of what the corporate vision or strategy is.
I don't remember who it was that said Steipp has not broken any promises yet, but I agree with that statement. Investors need to remain patient with Steipp & Co. and see how his plan plays out. If he can execute, we will all do well. If he doesn't ... then all the cards get thrown up in the air and another mad scramble begins. If that comes to pass, I will cut my losses and leave. But that will take a while I think.
Obviously for those that have been here for 8 years, they probably read what I am saying and think ... "have patience??? are you kidding me?" But unfortunately, I think that is the case for them as well. They have been holding all this time. To bail out on this deal now, I think would be a mistake.
Steipp started with a total mess in August 2010 and does have the company set up with strategic partners to take LQMT to a place it probably would have been years ago had the Kang Gang not abused it.
If we do not see substantial progress on the revenue front (and I mean real, purchase order driven revenue)by Q4 this year, my assessment will probably be a lot different. But the timeline has always been for Q3 and Q4 to be when we start seeing something material happening.
Until then, let the day traders and faint of heart continue their buying and selling and the pps will drift where it will. But it is all noise until we see Q4 results, IN MY OPINION.
You know what I think about TA with a stock like this Watts, so I won't beat a dead horse. Personally, I don't see any meaningful upward movement in this stock until we get some meaningful positive news ... and of course, that does not mean unsubstantiated rumors. So as much as I hope I am wrong, I think we will languish around this level, and maybe even drift some until Q4 at the earliest. Maybe even another quarter out from there.
Of course, the company could always surprise us and generate some positive results before then but I just don't see that as being realistic.
And with the impending authorization of shares, even though I do not think it will have all that much of a dilutive effect, many will over react and we could get some major buying opportunity on the horizon.
Those are my thoughts ... for what they're worth (about what everyone is paying for them, haha).
Gotta say ... if this 625k share dump in the last few minutes is anyone remotely connected to an insider, it has got to give Barney Visser cause to perk up and ask himself ... "have I been had"?
When he answers that question for himself, we can only hope that he comes to the obvious conclusion that he needs to take this thing over himself and get the ball rolling. He cannot let the baggage at LQMT hold him back ... and he does not seem like the sort that would.
To me, it is time for Visser to take off the gloves and start kicking butt and taking names. Until he does, LQMT will flounder. And if he waits too long, it will flounder into oblivion.
Just my opinion of course.
I agree oracle, the more that can get to the ASHM the better. Unfortunately, I will not be one of them. As for your suggestion that golong try to make it ... that is one I strongly disagree with. More of a distraction and disruption if anything at all. Best that he spend time on yahoo and keep supporting his position, whatever it might be on any given day, with his extreme hyping or trashing.