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.
Jackie,
At minute 8:03 of video, what is it that you see?
Thank you
I certainly see the buyout by Sigma of these potentially complementary firms as positive and am hopeful that Sigma can execute and manage the combined entity such that the whole will prove to be of greater value than the sum of its parts, but in regard to your post I don't quite follow your line of thinking that these firms are demonstrating a preference for purchase by Sigma and coming under Sigma's umbrella vs GE.
If GE were knocking on their doors, something tells me they wouldn't run for cover.
I suspect we'll start to see some firms begin to follow Sigma and assign analysts, perhaps even prior to the buyouts.
As far as dilution -- certainly there will be dilution -- but if there is good reason for the bringing together of these entities, as there appears to be, prospectively, then shareholders will have a smaller share of a larger and more valuable company.
Execution of the mergers and operation of the larger, combined entity is another question. At least we may have the benefit of analyst and more significant investor's voices who may not be easily silenced or redirected.
Sigma management may find itself waking up to the need to be a bit more accountable and responsive to shareholder concerns or face consequences, which could potentially include a buyout/ outster of management.
Once the entity is much larger, (combined), and the outcome more consequential to more people and more financially sophisticated people, (no offense intended...I'm lumping myself in the less sophisticated group here),
there will be less allowance for decisions that can't be well justified.
That's what I hope and suspect, at least.
Jackie,
I appreciate your thoughts here. If you don't mind my asking, for context, what is your line of work? Does your work touch on engineering or product development in some respect?
Hey Jeff,
I've been a bit less focused on the board of late. Where I left off I thought that your thinking -- I didn't have the sense that you felt confident in GE's ongoing involvement with Sigma and a ramp up.
Has your confidence level increased some, or was I misunderstanding, earlier or now? Also, I've excerpted below from the article you linked to -- are we to think that GE has created its own monitoring software?
Appreciate your thoughts, as I've indicated before, given your background. Thank you
"The Munich CRE will feature up to 10 metal 3D printers from Arcam and Concept Laser and use, “GE’s cloud-based Predix operating platform to enable industrial-scale analytics and GE Edge devices, which provide real-time control and monitoring.”
Jeff et al -- Can anyone comment on the excerpt pasted below from the article posted and discussed here earlier this evening? Specifically, Harting's product -- what is meant by "open hardware and software system?"
This means that it's constructed to work agnostically, ie it's compatible with most any system, or something different?
Also, any speculation about Harting's Vivek Dave bringing Harting's product together with Sigma's I would welcome discussion in regard to...
Thank you
"For example, the Modular Industry Computing Architecture (MICA) released last year by Harting is an open hardware and software system that temporarily saves, evaluates, and processes data close to the machine or at the edge of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). Sigma uses Edge computing devices to locally process the mass of data from the photo-thermal sensors to verify that the weld pool and part are operating within the processing window. SoC, FGPA, and products like the MICA will become more important as more manufacturers move to an in-line inspection or expand the IIoT. "
How to access the proxy that was discussed earlier this week?
Z - How did you access this PR? I used to receive PR's in my inbox as I was subscribed to the IR Press Release email distribution list for Sigma. Now with Witty gone I seem not to be receiving the PR's, (at least not this one).
Thanks for your response, Alan. Did you become aware of the company as a resident of Santa Fe? I also believe that odds are rather high that SGLB will couple together with another firm and Morf3D, based on a variety of indications, is an obvious, most likely candidate.
And Morf does have a CTO, Melissa Orme, with a seemingly impressive background among other appearances of value points about Morf.
As a shareholder of Sigma with both interest in Sigma's potential and several uncertainties about Sigma, I believe that odds of best results may favor these cos combining.
I'll not be able to attend the annual meeting. Your suggestion that shareholders available to attend, do so, and ask any/all questions they feel should be asked -- is a good suggestion.
I'll offer that at this time I would be happy to cooperate with other shareholders in composing a letter to MC with questions, concerns, suggestions...
Thanks, Alan and GL to You and All
Alan,
It's a bit of a challenge to assimilate your recent comments. Which position are you embracing, that of earlier today -- copied here -- or the position in the post of this evening that I'm responding to?
"Zero sum perhaps. But just how much longer to you give Mark to actually produce on the promises, projections, and predictions he has made over the past five years which have yet to produce meaningful revenue. Is this a process without end? Does the faith remain intact indefinitely, or is there a point where reasonable people say this simply is not going to fly?"
Not trying to be critical here, rather I'm interested in your thinking -- if you had to say whether, in your opinion, something will come together for Sigma, say during this year, or not, which would you say, yay or nay?
In other words, which is your 51% likelihood position?
Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings -
This may be mostly of academic interest, but I found a list of expert contributors associated with a SFF symposium that took place in 1995 and among the experts whose names were associated, (and presumably may have been presenting at the symposium), were both Vivek Dave and Melissa Orme.
Melissa Orme, CTO of Morf3d, (don't know how many of you have read her bio on Morf's site and perhaps further researched her, but her credentials appear to be very impressive).
Interesting that her path and Vivek Dave's appear perhaps to have crossed professionally and that they appear to have similar credentials and expertise, (at least their credentials appear similar to a lay person).
Here's the link and for efficiency you'll want to identify page 64 on the right of the index for the Vivek Dave reference and page 88 for the Melissa Orme. Her credentials, in addition to other considerations, in my opinion make Sigma's alliance with Morf3d and a potential merger, interesting.
http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/193297124.pdf
Thoughts?
Thoughts on Likelihood of Merger with Morf3D --
MC was noncommittal regarding plans to merge, but it appeared quite clear that the strongest consideration is being given to the possibility of coming together, formally. He referenced the complimentary nature of the co's focuses, etc.
Just my opinion, but I think the odds are quite strong that Sigma and Morf will come together -- consider the plans to work together, Sigma's loan to facilitate acquisition or leasing of another 3D printer for Morf, etc and it would seem to be quite likely.
Also just my opinion, but I would think definitive news of a merger would likely cause a problem for any shorts as there would be much reason, in my opinion, to see how the companies come together and the possibilities of what they might achieve, together.
Thoughts?
Pisd and Jeff,
Yes Pisd, that is what I'm wondering, if Beta tested software in Alpha version makes sense. Jeff, as an engineer/product manager what do you think? Does it make sense in your opinion that Beta tested software can then appropriately be released in Alpha version, or does this not seem right to you?
Thanks
Jeff et al - Regarding the release of the "Alpha version"
"SIGMA LABS RELEASES ALPHA VERSION OF ITS OEM DEVELOPER’S KIT FOR PRINTRITE3D®" -- Just wondering Jeff, (as an engineer), and any others out there, can you shed any light on the terminology here? ie Sigma is referring to its developers' kit as an "Alpha" version and the testing that has occurred for a length of time was referenced as "Beta Testing" -- Not to get overly hung up on terminology, but I'm a bit confused on the transition from "Beta testing" to "Alpha version"
If the context were the same -- and I understand that it may not be and that's where I'm seeking clarification -- of course Alpha comes before Beta.
Thank you
Market Cap, according to TD Ameritrade records...
Is adjusted upward to approx 13m. Had been at 9.9m last week, I believe. Does anyone have a possible explanation? Likely an error?
Alan,
Can you cite some examples of MC's pompous behavior? In reflecting on the CC's I've listened to, while I haven't had the impression of MC having done a bang-up job of conducting the calls, I wouldn't say that he's struck me as pompous.
Silver et al,
Maybe I'm dense -- but I'm not getting what necessarily is big news for Sigma re Aerojet Rocketdyne's successful testing of this 3D printed part. It certainly sounds like further validation of 3D printing for critical aviation parts, but if the reference here to the test doesn't mention Sigma's in-situ testing of the part and instead regards the use testing "firing up," I think was the term used in the article, why does this excite us as shareholders of Sigma?
I didn't read over the mention of Sigma and I was glad to see the author note Sigma's involvement with AR again here, but the context of the reference seemed to be something of an aside to the thrust/focus of the news report.
I'm all about better times for Sigma and welcome an explanation of what I may be missing in this piece.
Thanks and GLTA
I wouldn't think most investors would be pinning hopes on a significant revenue jump in Q1. Frankly, I'm not all that concerned with Q2 either. As long as I have the impression that management is making progress and there are signs of managerial and product traction beginning, that will be what I'm looking out for.
If this company is doing anything right and if its technology continues to show signs of value in others' estimation, even if their market may not have come around to writing large checks yet, the market cap is so tiny, the stock could and should move on a display of reasonable potential and any increasing credibility. (In my opinion!)
Patent Holders - The patents that exist for Sigma's technology...are they registered in the individuals' names, (the inventors), or are they registered in Sigma's name?
If memory serves, Vivek Dave's name is associated with some of the patents, but he's no longer an officer of the corporation, right? (Though there has been some indication that he remains connected to Sigma in an advisory capacity, right?)
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of IP protection/patents can confirm these basic details? Are the patents owned in Sigma's name but the individual inventors named as a matter of protocol, (w/o conferring the ownership rights to the individuals?)
Jeff,
Any take on this?
Thank you
Sigma's burn rate has been approximately 2 million per year. There are many small companies in development/ emerging phases with far higher burn rates.
Based upon the several contracts that have been reported, albeit without a lot of financial detail thus far, Sigma could soon begin bringing in revenues that are in the vicinity of its development and overhead expenses.
We'll have to see what add'l details are made available on the year-end CC and where first quarter 2017 revenues come in when Q1 numbers are released.
Jeff,
Appreciate your opinion re GE, particularly given your having been with GE. Based upon your sense that GE isn't doing any favors in terms of putting out information that's helpful to partners and others and perhaps their preference for operating quietly, is it your opinion that whatever the chances were before Wednesday's closing report on the America Mskes project headed by GEA with Sigma as a partner, that the odds of some further follow-up involvement for Sigma with GE have not changed?
In other words, do you continue to be of the opinion that Sigma may have an ongoing role with GEA and just isn't allowed to say so?
Thanks
Just my opinion, but I don't see what's unusual about an emerging company whose CEO takes a salary and options and continues to do so without money pouring in. If we believe that Cola is indeed a highly educated and experienced and intelligent individual and who's clearly working very very hard to demonstrate the value of Sigma's technology and grow the business, what else can we expect?
He isn't a billionaire and as far as we can reasonably assume he can't afford to say "forget about my compensation this year because I know there are stockholders whose investment has declined to date."
There are lots of different ways to look at things of course. Another perspective might be based around an observation that Cola probably could have sold a bunch of his shares a few years back for millions and have moved on. And not having done so we would suppose reflects his sense of confidence in the future opportunities for Sigma.
These are only my opinions, of course and it would be interesting to hear others' responses. Is there a reason that perhaps others' see that would have prevented him from selling shares at higher prices and moving on?
Does anyone here plan to ask questions on the call?
Ted, Jeff -
Thanks for the research and number crunching.
Jeff,
So your understanding is that figure includes the warrants?
Thanks
Jeff -- There are indications re A and B classes of shares in the offering docs. In terms of the total shares outstanding currently, is it your understanding that there are 3.1 million, with a market cap of approximately 11.1 million dollars? (Per Ameritrade)
And, the warrants, which there are a total of 1.4 million, exercisable at $4 per share, in the underlying stock? (Per offering docs). So, if the 3.1 and 1.4 are correct, then we should look at Sigma's share count essentially as the sum of the two numbers = 4.5 million, right? (Because a profitable Sigma, and even a Sigma with significant revenue growth ought to support a $4 share price at which time the warrants would become exercisable, right?)
Thanks
Do you expect that Sigma will post a video of the panel discussion at America Makes, or unlike a trade show presentation are these discussions kept private? If video is not shared, do you expect any notes or indications at all posted on Sigma's site or emailed as a press release? Or, would you expect we'll have to wait for the earnings call -- which ought to be forthcoming soon -- to receive any details of today's America Makes discussion?
Not sure. I suspect today's reduced trading volume may have been a result of people having made up their minds before today re whether to be in or out before the America Makes meeting/report of tomorrow.
Can only speculate of course, but I would tend to think trading volume will bounce back to its recent average range tomorrow or as soon as we get some indication re the report.
Expectations for release of info tomorrow? Is there any indication that there will be any info posted to Sigma's site or otherwise/ elsewhere in regard to the report/discussion tomorrow about GE/ Sigma's research project?
Or, might we need to wait for the CC Q & A? I'm guessing that they'll release a date for earnings tomorrow. Seems they've been waiting for whatever comes forward informationally associated with America Makes to set/ advertise a day for the release and call.
Kanya - Can you elaborate? Are you saying that it wouldn't surprise you if tomorrow's report is silent on the question of a potential next step between agreement between Sigma and GEA?
Is that what you mean?
Thanks - It seems like IP protections and corporate good citizenship/reputation may be of significance here. I also have no on-point or formal expertise here, but since we're speculating about all kinds of things -- kind of forced to, aren't we? -- it seems to me that a corporate behemoth like GE working with a tiny company whose developers may have developed a brilliant technology -- perhaps would give some care to avoid an appearance of having effectively taken over a technology that they were exposed to as a result of a development/ refinement partnership, particularly a partnership that's a public or quasi-public partnership like America Makes.
On the other hand, if this type of technology can be effectively developed a bunch of different ways then maybe GE would know they are on safe legal and reputational ground. Here, my lack of engineering know-how places me completely in the dark. Any further thoughts?
Thank you
Jeff,
Lots of well-reasoned points here, though I wish I couldn't say the same about Hawk's points. Very interesting back and forth. Jeff, are you able to take a stab at discussing Sigma's patents? So, they've been working within this Joint Technology Development Agreement within the Context of America Makes, a government sponsored or public/private sort of entity, as I understand it.
While GE has tremendous resources and thus presumably could find a way to develop in-process monitoring that works a little differently than Sigma's PR3D, particularly with the benefit of Sigma's technology and technologists on display in front of their faces. Do you think Sigma's patents and/or language within the JTDA effectively protect Sigma's technology? Have you reviewed the patents? (I know you're an engineer, not an IP atty...but just asking if you have a general sense.
Thank you
Hawks - Neither agreeing or disagreeing with your thinking re the possibility of parting ways with GEA. But inquiring about your reasoning, please... ?
Jackie,
Thanks. Unrelatedly, wondering your professional focus. Do you work in the engineering field? Just wondering.
Thanks
Jackie,
So yes, probably best not to read too much meaning into it, but you do feel pretty confident that it is the GE nozzle shown on the screen in the presentation?
Z-
I see what you mean. After reading your post I opened the link on my phone and took a screen shot then spread the image and compared to photos that I brought up on my computer, searching for "new GE Aeronautics fuel nozzle photos"
The quality of the photo on my phone isn't great, though I'm able to view it in larger size than the original by spreading it... Not certain, but it sure looks like it might be. If anyone does the same as I did and perhaps has a magnifying glass -- the wording is really illegible without magnification. Or, if anyone has any other ideas for a means of obtaining a better view of that item and its associated caption?
If in fact it is the fuel nozzle do you think MC's choice to show it would reflect his knowledge of a positive outcome with GEA/ America Makes? Hmm...It's interesting to speculate.
Mark Cola of @Sigmalabsinc kicks off the #additive #mfg conference session on the last day of #AeroDef 2017. pic.twitter.com/U6xU5e31Q9
— AeroDef Manufacturing (@AeroDefMfg) March 9, 2017
Jeff -
Got it. And thanks again for your DD.
Yes, it's rather a different context than the earnings calls and of course video is also much different than listening to someone speak, just by phone. I found him to be poised, articulate and seemingly earnest.
Re the interview with MC which followed the bell-ringing ceremony, I was able to access the video using part of your original link -- NASDAQ/videos/10154976542312429
Thank you for posting about this. I found the interview to be interesting and a worthwhile view.