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.
Does anyone know how much a machine like that costs?
Or wherever they are, lol.
The real question: do high-tech, silicon valley, CEOs watch sitcom in the break room for lunch or they do work on company business 24-7; re: LQMT.
Maybe Steipp has a son (or "younger man") that he is planning on gifting his shares to ???? Hmmmmmm. A long term holder.
Who still thinks GDX will move closer to 22 before making a significant move up?
One CC comment that left me wondering was the generic use of the word "ramp" without mention of a specific plan to achieve it yet. I could have missed something about the licensing strategy or something that someone would know from prior public meetings, etc.
Maybe some readers of posts are pipes with investments in LQMT. I don't know any, or any pipe terms, and don't discuss anything with consideration. if there are any pumps planned to support investors, etc., I'm unaware of it. i missed the mid summer pump so you definitely would not want to look to me or my comments as any kind of indicator of when something might happen, like stock appreciation based on nothing.
Who still thinks GDX will move closer to 22 before making a significant move up?
Maybe, Steipp, et al, would like for price to be lower if there is a better chance of a bigger payoff later, etc. Who knows.
Tony Chung buying shares at a lower price seems positive to me. He might be early career by some peoples standards but he seems really sharp.
Steipp to me seems strategic for sure and their plan ( which he doesn't really speak to broadly in CCs ( unless asked)), could be pretty elaborate and extensive.
The Engel development sounds potentially positive and significant (tbd) depending on what terms are negotiated.
It all sounds good except for how LQMT will potentially generate growing revenues and earnings from it which is yet to prove out.
But, Chung did mention an anticipation of growing margins in the near term and it was mentioned that the canard activity was seen as a stepping stone.
After some thought and reading some other posts on this board about unattractive margin splits in agreements with VPC, I think that it could be positive for investors if LQMT were able to second source potential customers directly ( without VPC) if that truly is a reason that their revenue is or could be lower than expected in the future.
So the outcome of their arbitration could have a positive or negative impact on expectations, it seems to me, that could potentially weigh on what investors might expect.
I tend to think that LQMT can come out of this ahead if they can negotiate favorable terms for the company going forward, but until that happens .........
As for there potentially being crappy days, etc., and how a CEO might sound, etc. ( your question); with their having a financial solution to continue operations, etc. that probably takes some pressure off so that they can focus on actual work.
And as for his large number of shares that you pointed out, well, since the company under his watch seems to be making steady calculated progress, it seems to me that he would be someone that would hold out for the biggest payoff vs. a quick gain if he was in a position to do it.
I can't speak for him, but a strategically oriented person would tend to wait for the maximum potential vs. go for a quick gain if there were more positive developments to come.
As for his vesting timeline (5 years?) and/or the potential to be acquired, and if he can still vest later, even if he is terminated ( standard executive contract stuff, etc. according to him), I really couldn't comment unless they were acquired by a company that had a definite known and significant application, customer, etc. that was known to have business or future business that could justify a significant stock price appreciation).
So, as for giving you a simple response as to whether or not he would be motivated to sell his shares within 2 years ( especially if he tells someone at an ASHM that this is a young man's stock), I really can't do it.
I thought about your question. It seems to me that if Tom ( in CCs, I don't know him) has something not so positive to say that the conference calls are short and he doesn't have that much to say at all.
As far as what he said in the most recent CC, it sounded positive.
As for longs wanting to apply a specific timeframe to anticipated developments with an expectation that the share price will increase accordingly, I personally would not assume that if there is a chance of dilution.
I think he was being appropriately honest in the CC. As for the outcome of negotiations with VPC and Engel, it's hard to say to what extent it could be to company/investor benefit based on how it sounds like some prior agreements have been negotiated.
Since Tom mentioned an objective to increase shareholder benefit, this implies that terms n contracts would be negotiated to support that goal.
As for the ones that had previously been negotiated that haven't necessarily, or at least mot yet, it's hard to tell what the actual effect will be on shareholder value and if there is further dilution.
I personally would wait to see what is being negotiated with Engel before making investment decisions ( only speaking for myself here).
But I felt like the conference call overall had a positive tone and implied that progress was being made.
I'd vote for their doing manufacturing again if they can get back it for the following reasons:
1) they ( Steipp ) have emphasized quality
2) they need the margin
3) it might make them look more attractive for second sourcing
4) they done it before, they could do a,better job of it now.
Maybe they are beginning to believe that they can do manufacturing themselves, again?...in which case, they might not need VPC.
Perhaps they are making arrangement with Engel for a machine, swap ( another negotiation tradeoff?).
If the primary way to create margin/earnings is to do it yourself and you see or think you can potentially get to that point, then maybe they are reconsidering. ??
It seems like their best option could be to get things to a point ( revenue and margin) with some forecasts that can be valued into an attractive valuation that a larger company would want to merge/acquire and then execute on the golden parachute and maybe that could happen within months, sooner, or a year.
It sounds like more information will be forthcoming about the arrangement with Engel and their full license offering for future potential licensees.
Until then, their primary prospects are AAPL, Lockheed, and an iGolf related company.
Because they (LQMT) seem to taking a strategic, big company, long term approach to things, the rollout/growth might be gradual, slow, but eventually significant if they can get into the high margin side of things with a partner and terms they can live with.
They are forecasting and speaking to improving margins. It sounds too preliminary to share a revenue forecast.
Charity project.
If LQMT finally has a shot at some high margin business, maybe they want to work with a different manufacturing subcontractor. Wonder who it might be?
Dilution seems addictive. Someday, someday, it could all work out. When that big contract or several add on agreements that build the multiple revenue streams materializes, they could do a buy back program then. It could take a long time.
In the CCs and press releases, etc., you hardly hear about LQMTs global activities, but if you do a search on linkedin, you can read where people in different countries working on projects.
It seems to me that Steipp would probably answer some questions about it if asked n the CCs.
We probably won't be asking. Since he is know talking "shareholder value", hopefully what ever can increase it will be discussed.
The main thing: it can be a slow process developing LMT. Really slow. In the meanwhile, they have ppl, points of presence as placeholders, etc.
It could work out, just maybe not within a timeframe some would like to see.
But if it's really great stuff, and can eventually be mass marketed, it would take some time to build out the business infrastructure on a limited budget.
It seems like the bigger challenge is increasing shareholder value.
For sure, this company will keep you hanging on a string.
Giving the company the benefit of doubt, the technology apparently really wasn't ready for prime time when Steipp joined and AAPL was needed to help take it to the next level; this has taken some time; and it seems that there is a riff between LQMT and VPC over some lost business.
It seems like I read somewhere in an earlier annual report that a Barney was involved in some factories in Asia that were being shut down.
Does anyone know how long he has been involved with LQMT, pre-AAPL?
Unless a bigger company/organization buys them out to further scale and they can retain their shares then why not sellout/merge and go hang out at the beach.
It's not satisfying to just hang out for scientifcally oriented people; it seems to me that there can be a lot of satisfaction in meeting the challenge.
At some point it could be draining, etc.
But they still have to have something to do after they leave this assignment, so ......
They aren't really ready for retirement it seems to me and they have the business prowess to contribute, etc.
If it were me, I would want to hang in there and see the project through to the point of a satisfying exit, meaning a project that can be successful in the market and create value for investors.
Maybe they are closer to this point if a larger organization can help them to get to that level sooner. Who knows.
So, it's looking better, dependent on when AAPL and Engel can start producing using LMT.
Even if AAPL is using LMT soon, it sounds like the % to LQMT through MTRN is probably small. They really need to scale on non-CE fronts at the same time.
If the LQMT guys want the really big money, it seems to me that they need to hold in there for a while longer (vs. buy out/merger).
I hope that Steipp can stick it out a while longer and isn't just motivated to sell on a pump....the reason being...he/they could become hugely wealthy beyond imagination if they can scale globally, even based on a small royalty percentage.
To Jollyman's earlier question, it seems to me that there could be enough potential, still, to weather the storm of a few crappy days.
Personally, I am more interested in this company when they have sustainable growth ( vs. penny stock pump and dump approach to things). In that case, with multiple entry point potential, it can be less havoc on investors ( real ones vs penny stock pump and dump).
I'm glad that LQMT seems to be shifting into the next phase of things.
An issue that I have had was the earlier suggestion that they were "on the cusp" of a significant contract ( about a year ago), and they went silent in the middle of things and that never developed. I feel like that was misleading to general investors.
Ok! I got it.
The key it seems is the royalty %/$ amount and margin splits that they negotiate in contracts and how long it takes to scale.
It could still take a long time to scale to a level to significantly grow financially and they know how to get through those times....and it may or may not be to shareholder benefit near term but in the conference call they mentioned that they expect margins to grow, etc. ( positive ).
It seems to me, provided that they negotiate attractive royalties and margins, that they are on a positive track and could grow the business over time...and that the timeframe might or might not meet a long term investor's investment timeframe depending on their personal circumstances.
(Self talk).
I think ( or hope ) that LQMT can grow into a sustainable growth business and if they could, there could be future investment entry points beyond the pump and dump approach to things.
Dumb question: per the Watts post that you provided a link to dated 5/2012; it implies that when AAPL starts using LMT, that LQMT will financially benefit through MTRN's sale of LMT to AAPL. Correct?
If it were just about selling the shares, he would want the stock price as high as possible and would be motivated to work to that end whether it be through real project development, inflated acquisition target price, pumps, etc.
My gut feel is that development will/can come with the Engel solution because now prospects have a place to go to start experimenting, etc.....LQMT can scale through this solution.
it could still take some time.
There is no such thing as "really crappy" on leading edge, high tech, yet to be commercialized, etc...as long as something is progressing even if it takes years.
There are no crappy days in a think tank, or a lab, or anywhere that any level of advancement is being made for scientifically oriented people as long as they think the lights will be on for some time or if the leadership in particular thinks there is a way out, e,g, take over, acquisition, etc.
It's all about money at the top. Even if a buyout resulted in everyone being terminated, it's still considered a success ( as far as they are concerned), if they secured a golden parachute, etc.
No, I do not believe he would say things are really crappy because a strategic thinker on leading edge, mew tech, etc. projects, never takes that position as long as things stand a chance of panning out, even if it takes years.
I still don't completely follow your train of thought...because....well, let me put it this way...they aren't necessarily short term thinkers only....I don't really...and I don't know them .....but as soon as one turn around is over, done, etc....they have to find another one....so....it's either stay where you are or start looking....it seems to me that internally, they are looking out for each other...all f them....I could be wrong because I don't have the full history.
I'll continue anyway and probably run out of posts.
it seems to me that LQMT and VPC feel like they have something to fight over.
in terms of anything panning out, ( sorry for typos, laxk of caps, etc....I'm on an ipad....I type fast....and I don't care what anyone thinks about it)
....back to the topic at hand....I don't have visibility to LQMTs meetings with prospects, etc....but last Feb, they sounded close to something (Ross conference), and then oddly everything went quiet.
As for the past financing, etc....dilution, etc....I really do not have a good feel about what was going on.
But I do believe that these guys are motivated by money...and it seems to me that their internal relationships are not clear/clear cut...in terms of how an outsider might expect to see it, e.g. Past leadership, etc.
I could comment more and at length about new venture development and how they can go over time ...... i might run out of posts.....if you want to chat fuether, PM contact info...
Allow me to rephrase, answer, etc. I've worked on many early stage high tech projects, totally new tech, competitive market, etc., etc.....( this is background info to give you an idea od how I might interpret someone's statements coming from a similar environment)... My projects often involved building a market also...leading edge...yada yada yada.
Anybody in a similar situation that believes in something tends to remain optimistic well before anything is fill proven out, etc.....all it takes is one substantial contract, and it can be a go....e.g. Home run.
I feel like based on the posturing in conference calls that they are making progress......if I have more msgs, I'll continue this train of thought...if you reply and want to hear more.
Can you be more specific? Your question is too general for me to answer.
My guess is that LQMT might never get to the point of HUGE before they are acquired or whatever, but they could use a projection ( forecast ) to support a valuation ( target purchase price ) is they negotiated those kinds of royalty/license agreements for process patents.
....unless they dilute again....yikes.
My impression is that guys/gals with big company experience can be very sophisticated in what and how they negotiate having dealt with some very large and sophisticated customers. I wouldn't sell them short even if they seem laid back relative to an entreprenurial shark.
My impression is that LQMT holds a lot of "process" patents.
A license that could be negotiated ( not saying that it has or will be) could be a royalty payment every time that a process is used to produce a part which could potentially be HUGE.
P.s. the reason I call it "revenue" sharing vs. profit sharing ( with VPC) is because it is my professional experience that lawyers (contract negotiation) prefer to call it revenue ( I suppose it depends on the attorney).
I haven't seen the general contract between LQMT and VPC, so I really don't know what they are "calling" the margin splits but it's my experience that what gets negotiated is generally "component/part" specific ( vs. a general split %) but I don't really know what they started with or assume.
For LQMT shareholders, I hope that the terms are favorable to LQMT to better meet their stated business objective to increase shareholder value.
Bravo.
CORRECTION:
We just listened to a replay of the LQMT earnings conference call and notice that they did mention a goal of "increase shareholder value" as soon as possible or something to that effect and they also implied almost a double digit growth in revenue for the quarter (year-over- years). This is hugely positive, right.
For this stock to move into an IBD kind of category (where a stock can have accelerating price appreciation) , e.g. accelerating earnings and accelerating revenues, both would need to grow.
An attendee asked about a potential large contract (in the works or on the near term horizon) in the conference call. It sounded to me like the company kind of dodged the question ( implying not so huge right away).
Based on these two reported positions, and a prior stated position of " taking it slow(ly) to get it right", it sounds to me like things are improving but not necessarily accelerating until more periods are reported that can demonstrate an accelerating trend.
Because a customer was not mentioned in connection with the revenue growth, it most likely either came from a strategic (confidential) customer (e.g. defense), or a prospect ( vs. iGolf related we assume even though work could be in progress before an actual contract).
I thought it was positive that Steipp emphasized a business strategy objective that included (once again), a goal to produce and deliver parts (implying that they still want to be more than just an IP house, but get into the high margin side of manufacturing).
Based on a prior post and these comments, I would think that some of the issues with VPC ( already stated by someone else), might have to do with % margin split between VPC and LQMT.
Based on my professional experience, I would imagine that negotiations on revenue and/profit sharing, between VPC and LQMT, would occur on a part per part per customer basis.
Because LQMT controls the customer interface ( vs. VPC, a subcontractor), I would think that they could have the upper hand in margin negotiation, especially if they could renegotiate the "exclusivity" clause (which could give LQMT more options to negotiate more favorable revenue-sharing terms, etc.).
Anyway, the conference call sounded more positive to me than prior calls and Steipp sounded more optimistic.
Because the question about a large potential contract was kind of dodged, it seems to me that it is still "steady wins the race" ( vs. rapid growth in the near term).
Given new financial/credit arrangement to borrow money and use shares to pay/swap and potential payment to BV ( another posters comments) based on a potential future settlement, it sounds to me like there is still dilution risk with this company/stock that could potentially weigh on the stock price in the future.
It seems to me ( also stated earlier by other posters), that 2014 will be the year for LQMT to really "prove out" and that if they really do hold another ASHM soon to approve more shares (to payoff BV or whom/what ever), that dilution, etc. could potentially offset near/intermediate share price appreciation, at some point.
Personally, I'd like to see more proof of performance in 2014, but overall the conference call sounded positive ( would seem positive for long term longs investors with patience).