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.
Very encouraging communication from CEO--and the price hits a new low a week later. Looks like a good buying point but hate to catch a falling knife Eager to see some actual revenue numbers and know more about their customers and business
A year or more ago there was talk of some sort of collaboration between Sigma and IIOT-Oxys (ITOX), a small company in "Edge" applications. Does anyone know what may be going on there? The latest news release from ITOX was optimistic about greatly increased revenues (though I am sure from a very small base), stock invesment by CEO, and important partnerships. Like SGLB their stock price has declined, from about $3 to $0.15. Never easy to invest successfully in something new and cutting edge!
In retirment I do substitute teaching at a number of high schools, and one of the schools has at least two 3D printers (plastic) that students work with and have designed and built some quite intricate items. The tech is gradually catching on, but I agree that it is at the level of acceptance and understanding that computers were 20+ years ago.
Our "partner?" (?)Materialise up about 40% over last 2-3 weeks. Anyone know why, and whether we have any meaningful partnership with them right now?
This appears to stretch the timeline for military implementation of something like IPQA(r) out even farther than most earlier comments have suggested, if I read it right on a quick browse-through. Hope the oil and gas business comes through quicker. It's quite a challenge to be invested for five years or so in a company that is almost all R&D, but nothing I have seen yet cancels out the future prospects. Still waiting for payoff!
Thanks for link to a very interesting and encouraging article.
No major concern about Morf. Just the shock at hearing on that call three months ago that what many thought was a major relationship for Sigma had seemingly fallen apart, and the Sigma CEO had not even found time to sit down with them and talk about any possible new options. Maybe Morf was not significant enough to worry about, but it seemed very odd to me at the time.
One might hope so. I still remember that revelation--of not getting around to further contact w/Morf--as the most shocking takeaway from last call, even as other positives were shared.
I heard only the last 15-20 minutes, talking about steadily improving technical aspects, solid confidence in patent protection, fuller implementation of "Contour" soon. Lots of talk of good things happening during "2019." If there was any discussion of actual new contracts signed NOW, it would have been before I signed on, so I assume not, as I have seen nothing in news feeds yet. Waiting game continues, but Rice sounds confident. That's all I was able to gather. Sure would like for SOME kind of announcement of contract to emerge from FormNext, but it seems like these meetings are more for sharing info and cultivating relationships, not a time when much new business is done. Holding and hoping.
The investment banker definitely had more insight into current status of company. I don't know relative level of education of others on the call. The others asked legitimate questions, based on their painful experience with the stock so far, and the abysmal revenue and expense numbers. If the investment banker had not come forward as the call was about to end and pushed Mr. Rice to share some more positive info (or reiterate previous info with more positive spin), the call would have been a disaster. As it is, I continue to feel as though the company will not fade into oblivion in the next three months, but I have trouble believing that the surprising (to me) after-hours uptick in the stock price will hold for long, unless some really positive results come out fast from some of the EAP people.
Most disappointing thing on the call, for me, was the explanation about relationship with Morf3D: apparently he has just been too busy to get around to making an appointment to sit down and talk with this potential major collaborator! Boggles the mind, if what I heard was what was said.
I expect the price to tank tomorrow, but the (panicked?) remarks from their investment banker, coaxing reassurance, later in the call, give some hope for survival long term, if the company responses were accurate.
I think you may have misread it the same way I did the first time. Look at it again: "to acquire additional software and customer support personnel" I think the meaning is: to acquire a) additional software personnel and b) additional customer support personnel.
Looking again at the wording of the private placement filing:
"to make additional hires with metallurgical and software expertise for the purpose of accelerating and completing the development of tools with Signature/Solution libraries and artificial intelligence facets that are designed to enable sophisticated closed loop control of additive manufacturing machines for real time quality assurance or rescue"
seems to me this indicates a few steps beyond what they have indicated before, with some new wording. Not sure how close they are to this "closed loop." I agree with some of the skeptics that it may indicate that they are not as far along as we have thought toward being able to work with high volume production, but whatever shortcomings they may have noted, it appears they have a strategy for overcoming them.
they go on to mention "acquiring software" which could mean buying a smaller company with some missing piece they need, or perhaps licensing something from others they have mentioned working with.
At any rate, this indicates movement but still doesn't tell us what we would all like to know, about how close they are to major deployment.
Please help me understand where I stand with my investment, formerly entirely with REGRF:
It appears I still have all 6700 shares of REGRF, though they are not actively trading and have almost no current market value. Efforts are being made to clarify financial statements so the stock charter can be marketed as a "clean shell."
REGRF has distributed to me 7370 shares of RGUS, most recently trading at 12-15 cents. RGUS now has all former assets and liabilities of REGRF.
It is up to me and/or tax advisor to determine whether: the new shares of RGUS have a $0 cost basis, and long-term gain or loss on REGFRF will depend on whether a successful buyer can be found for the shell; OR my price paid for REGRF can be attributed to the new shares of RGUS, and any subsequent gains on REGRF (re-purposed) would be calculated from a zero cost basis. (One of these scenarious may be unambiguously correct, but I am assuming it is a matter of interpretation.)
Please correct any errors in my assumptions outlined above. THANKD!
I do hope for a successful long-term outcome after having been invested for around 30 years!!
I may have missed something, but I don't recall any previous discussion of Sintavia on this board, or any indication that they are a partner/customer of ours. But we apparently have an ogoing relationship of some sort with Honeywell. Anyone want to discuss the implications of this?
Come on guys!!! Both of you have posted some helpful material here, but this current argument over words is patently absurd. It is clear that ANSYS owns 100% of 3DSM. 100% of 3DSM employs still employed by the company work for ANSYS! No one outside ANSYS knows what percent of 3DSM employees were retained. Logic would suggest that those who add the most value were retained. If you think the cooperation with Sigma adds value, those most closely linked with Sigma cooperation were probably retained. What else is relevant??
A blessed Christmas to all, and don't think too much about Sigma until Tuesday!! But I think we all are wondering what kind of follow-through we will see from yesterday's big move, and what kind of follow-up will come from yesterday's announcement and how soon.
My questions: Is this new contract another "research and evaluation" contract that will take months or years more to show results? Will it bring any significant amount of cash to Sigma in the fourth quarter? Is it possible that it is a contract for Sigma to pay this other company to assist them in perfecting the software?
At least we know that Sigma continues to deal with established, reputable companies in the industry, rather than only unknowns, but beyond that I see little to help predict when Sigma can see a significant and ongoing revenue stream.
Even with my questions, I continue to hold shares and added a few warrants yesterday.
I suggest that whoever first posted the article mentioning DEFORM contact the source of the article to clarify--or contact SGLB. We are not talking about divulging "trade secrets"if the brand name of the software being used is mentioned in the article in reference to a user. Right?
KMey--What is the date of the document you quoted here?
KMey--What is the date on the Cola/Dave paper referenced?
Also, I see that the Siemens site referenced in your earlier post mentions "IPQA" but without the trademark notation. Is it generally assumed that whenever IPQA is mentioned, it refers to the Sigma product? If so, Sigma's attorneys should be giving reminders to their customers/partners.
Fascinating graph. Note that in the time frame pictured in the Gartner graph, the peak never equaled the peak of inflated expectations. If the technology proves viable,however, there should be slower but sustained growth over a fairly long period. Still hopeful
I, too, hope for a good explanation from MC.
What it looks like now, to me, is that the PR3D did not work as well as hoped, but perhaps better than anything else currently available. That means there may still be a market, though perhaps at a lower price and with fewer customers. It also means more intensive work required by Sigma, perhaps together with OXYS and others, to improve the system. And, of course, a recognition that others will be trying to catch up and and pass Sigma in the race to be the standard.
So, as investors, we appear to be left with what is primarily a R&D company with a service bureau, and an unknown number of potential customers for its early tech offerings. I don't expect to be a millionaire on this very soon.
Come on, MC, give us something to let us know if I am right!
The activity with OXYS makes me wonder whether Sigma's research and development phase is expanding and the commercial phase is being pushed farther to the future. Both companies have smart people and good connections, but it does sound like a couple of start-ups cooperating with each other.
By the way, it will be interesting to know whether OXYS uses any of IPO proceeds to buy shares of SGLB, or whether SGLB uses some of its newly generated funding to buy part of OXYS. (I am assuming that the shell company Gotham Capital will change name to OXYS--If I remember right, SGLB went public by converting shares of a shell from a defunct oil and gas company, but that was before I was an investor in it)
The plot thickens.
Thanks to you and others for reviewing previous materials to help put the latest PR in context. Looks like no significant amount of new $s, but confirmation of continuing progress. It's apparently going to be a long slog to profitability, but there is still hope.
I have read yesterday's announcements a number of times to try to understand what is really new. This seems to be an installation at one central place, apparently a Honeywell engineering center, as part of a DARPA-sponsored project. (I assume they mean Honeywell-led rather than Honeywell lead!!) Is this the installation of new features on a previously announced installation? Is it for commercial production or only for further testing or demonstration? Did Honeywell pay something new for this, and agree to pay regularly as it is used?, or is it just part of what we were told earlier they were doing with Honeywell? I want to believe it is another step forward, but it is really hard to tell!
All this discussion would be unnecessary with a minimum amount of transparency from the company. How many "thousands" of dollars in sales? 2 or 200 or 2000? (no need to break it down per customer) What is current share count? How is Bret taking his royalties on Flat-Pack sales: cash or new shares? Are these thousands of dollars in sales in any way profitable? Answers to none of these questions would compromise any confidentiality agreement I can imagine. If we had the most basic info that almost any company releases quarterly or more often, there would be no need for anyone to "harass" any other entity with whom NNLX does business. I cannot explain the hostile tone of the press release as anything but defensiveness over the long-term failure to release basic data. What is it, 5 years, more?
I've been meaning to ask this for a while after the repeated mentions of lack of profitability. Have you checked the records to see how many years Amazon was unprofitable before beginning to show positives? I recall not having purchased shares of Amazon back in 1999 because they were trading at a very high price and had yet to show profitability. Your answer might be that they at least had impressive revenues, but I think there is some relevance to the issue that a start-up company in a disruptive industry does not expect to show profit for a number of years in most cases.
1. this explains the need for authorizing new shares.
2. This demonstrates the need for CEO with strong business background, not just tech.
3. This will require some very good legal help to figure out how to integrate these companies and keep them friendly and coordinated with each other, and how to allocate the financials.
4.(not totally serious, but heh) How long until Trump decides this is "unfair" to all the machinists and tool/die people and tries to build a wall around it?
Looks good. Hope they plan on using PrintRite for QA.
Is it possible that "GE Edge" is a proprietary combination of Sigma software with something else of GE's own? I remain optimistic--hope not grasping at straws.
This statement helps me understand why the price has not responded upward after the latest announcement:
"There still remains the step of an independent time and sensitivity study for NanoLogix prior to marketing and sales for clinical use of the N-Assay. Personnel at a number of hospitals are reviewing potential study participation."
The timing of steady income for this company seems to keep stretching forward!
This update implies that the tests are being produced. It would be nice to have some report on whether they are being sold!
Did you hear ANYTHING at all that gave any encouragement that things are on the right track though moving?
We need to know the projected path to sales, if any, related to this positive article. What are the additional hoops that need to be jumped before then!
How long til we get a news release that one of their products is being configured to detect Zika? When sales figures are announced we may be able to see how much we made on the Ebola test plans that caused a little share price spike a couple of years ago . . .
Looks to me like the background of the new directors matches very well with the needs pointed out so strongly by a number of folks on this board over the past few months.
The new CFO certainly sounds enthusiastic about the company and seems to have grasped the basics of its mission and potential. From the other documents reference later on this board, I see that he is working about half-time, and I wonder how much of that will be on-site. This is a step in the right direction. We all wish the progress could be faster--except for those determined to keep on buying shares at low prices.
I also like this quote from near the end of the article:
"Over time, as we grow this business, we’ll have the opportunity to go after the millions of devices that are already out there today that use ot.her technologies.”
This reinforces the idea that they consider themselves capable not just of developing software for a limited range of AM machines, but for manufacturing processes across a wider area. If they can get an early round of AM adoption to develop cash flow, the concept is scalable to other industries as they hire more software folks,
But first, show us the money!
I don't see the date of Rent Max acquisition, but I hope they will move quickly to upgrade the operation of the acquired company. I looked up reviews and they are the most consistently negative I have ever seen, mostly regarding deceptive add-on fees that are not disclosed in advertising and are almost impossible to avoid. I am quite pleased with the recent stock performance, but I am really eager to hear from management as to what their plans are for bringing this acquisition up to what seems to be decent quality standards of BestWay.
can you give your reasons for selling? Are you convinced that their technology advances are being ripped off by those who are "testing" them?