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.
Are you referring to the bell ringing ceremony, or something that followed? The bell ringing video is accessible online for anyone who wants to see.
If there was an interview that followed would be helpful to have any search terms you might suggest.
Thanks
j
pi - I tried the link but it appears not to be working.
Jeff,
Interesting re the panel discussion,
"...the panel included Mark Benedict who serves as the chief technical advisor for the America Makes National Innovation Institute. He gave a positive implication towards research that was to be completed soon, but did not speak directly. I thought of the America Makes 4027 presentation in El Paso next week, but I had my PR3D colored glasses on...."
And thanks for qualifying your excitement with admission of wearing PR3D colored glasses! And I very much want to believe also, admittedly. With that acknowledged, I'll mention that I read Mark Benedict's bio within the link that you supplied on the panel and his expertise does sound notably on point and in common with Sigma's product, process and mission. I'm not an engineer and my understanding of the technology is superficial -- but the language/description between his bio and Sigma's spiel, some of it sounds almost identical.
Would it be the case as Chief Technical Advisor that he'd be involved with any number of -- about to be completed/announced research initiatives? Still, given his background Sigma's work with GE Aviation could possibly be of special interest/excitement to him, you think?
Interesting to speculate about!
Hey Wick,
So the people in the SGLB booth who you looked in the eye... were there several representatives of the company there? Were there any specific points of discussion that you had with them that you would relay?
Thank you!
Jeff,
Thanks for your response. Is your background with GE in an engineering capacity? Sorry if that's a bit forward a question. It's just interesting to understand what background each of us has.
Thank you
Hey Jeff,
Did you also speak to the EOS people? Any other impressions?
Others asking any questions, showing interest at SGLB's booth?
Thanks
Hawks,
Not sure I'm following. Wouldn't the registered buyers of the offering, Sabby, etc, be considered institutional owners? If so, we to think that they sold their interest? Perhaps the 2% figure is a mistake. Anybody want to weigh in with an opinion?
Thanks
Wick,
What did you find impressive, specifically? Any discussions with SGLB or EOS reps or others with any perspective on SGLB?
Thank you
KMey,
Thank you again for your DD. Your observations/discussions were at the AeroDef Show in TX? Also, your work "...steel production and finishing including quality..." could it be described as metal fabricating work?
And your knowledge, has it been obtained from work experience or formal engineering education? Just curious -- either is more than I bring to the discussion!
KMey,
Thank you for your hard work and DD out in the field. Are you an engineer? Just wondering. No matter your background, your hard work and careful observations are most appreciated!
Ted -
Thanks for the streamlining. Okay, so it appears that the lockup is limited to Sigma's officers and directors, if I'm not missing anything.
And as a related aside -- just my opinion, of course -- the stock price seems to have held up pretty well so far, considering that there appears to be no lockup period for non-officer/ director shareholders.
Of course disappointing news re GE Aviation/ America Makes could depress the stock price, (or positive news, lift it). I wonder how much importance the institutional investors are placing on GE's announcement. Of course every long investor wants a favorable outcome there, but I wonder if the large purchasers in the offering might not be considering other Sigma company/ partner statuses and not calling this strictly on the basis of GE's response.
Who knows, I admit that I may be rationalizing, but in my opinion to have thrown a couple or few million at Sigma, these guys may not be putting their full determination re Sigma on the outcome with GE.
Anyone share or disagree with my speculation/opinion?
Thanks
Ted - I have been through their filings, perhaps not in a patient enough fashion to have plucked out all details. I don't recall seeing any lock-up language, but presumably it's there. Do you know?
Alan et al -- Could anyone indicate exactly what was paid in the offering per share, (got it that this included a warrant, per each share).
Also, does anyone know if there is a lock-up period, and if so what the expiration of the lock-up period is?
Thank you
Hawks,
There have been several posts with links, recently. Not recalling reading a linked piece with Morris' comments that you reference. If you could please provide the link that would be appreciated.
In re to the earnings release and CC, my guess would be that they are looking to schedule the release around the schedule for other info that will be released shortly. Either they'll perhaps have the release/CC just after AM Makes announcement, if they know that's favorable, or perhaps they'll schedule it just following some other piece of news.
so, just my opinion, but I think they may be waiting for an opportunity to deliver some news of some significance, close in time. For the sake of discussion/ speculation let's say the AM Makes report is positive news -- would there still need to be a deal hashed out to define a next step forward between GEA and Sigma?
In other words, one would think Sigma would have to know if GEA is essentially going to say positive things or neutral/ not so positive things re the concluding phase of testing by now, but would Sigma also know, assuming GEA wants to move forward with support from Sigma, what the next deal step/phase will look like, such that they are prepared to make an announcement on the CC?
Of course we can only speculate, but as long as mgmt is within the regulatory schedule for reporting, which someone had commented would run until the end of March, perhaps add'l days and weeks into March enables more potentially supportive developments/ news to be released and thus they might want to keep the release date open for now? Do you think that may explain earnings date not yet having been released?
Would like to have a look at Morris' comments that you reference, please.
Thank you
In my opinion GE would have been capable, at various junctures and likely at any time, to persuade a majority of shareholders to sell their interests -- whether at 5 million dollars or 50 million -- GE could afford to persuade, such that this would not have effectively been mgmt's decision, whether to sell or hold on in hopes of larger dollars in time.
However, GE could believe in the merits of Sigma's technology and just not wish to acquire the company for one reason or another. Or, perhaps they might wish to purchase Sigma but for one reason or another have chosen to wait for a different juncture to pursue. I speculated in my earlier post about some potential reasons that occurred to me, in re to theoretical concerns re timing -- ie with America Makes not yet completed.
Meanwhile, do we know what Vivek's holdings are in SGLB? I've not seen any filings. Also, does he have an official position with SGLB at this point? I'm aware that he was consulting and was referred to as a "scientific advisor," or some such title. He's not been present in recent conference calls. Anybody know anything re his current status with Sigma?
Thanks, Go Sigma, and GLTA
Mason and Jackie,
Thank you for your thoughtful back and forth discussion and speculation re Sigma's status with GE. Mason, I've grappled and struggled with the same point that is among the points you cite -- ie, why did GE not simply pick Sigma up for what would have been relative pennies within the enormity of GE's resources. In fact, there's a question regarding this consideration posted by me a few weeks back.
Among my thoughts that I put out there for others' consideration -- and I truly and absolutely can only speculate on this point, -- but isn't America Makes a public/private partnership organization? I really have not researched the program and I'm not certain of its basis, but if it is public/private and if, from a scientific standpoint the research protocol is not complete, do you think maybe GE would have been looked on unfavorably, from a corporate "good citizen" standpoint, a legal standpoint and/or a scientific standpoint, IF they did feel favorably about Sigma's technology, within the ongoing research project phases, if they had used their corporate wealth to scoop up their tiny partner?
None of the above speculation is possibly provable by us at this point and I absolutely cannot say what the odds of Sigma being on track with GE are. I'm merely putting these thoughts out there for discussion and look forward to your response and Jackie's and anyone else interested in SPECULATING about these points.
Thanks and GLTA
I'm wondering the same re the Q4 earnings report. Q3 was released on Nov 14th, I believe. So, 3 months forward would have been mid-February. You'd think by mid-March they'd release. I haven't been able to find a specific date. Presumably they haven't set/ announced the release date.
Has anyone heard anything more re the release date?
All - Has the specific date for the earnings call been set?
Duffy -
I agree, though I do think that the exposure associated with ringing the bell for a very small and newly up listed company such as Sigma could be of significance.
Thanks for your response earlier re your husband's engineering background. You asked if there is anything in particular that I'm trying to understand and am facing limitations due to a lack of understanding of engineering.
I don't know that there is any one question at this time -- it's more an overall sense of personal limitation in fully evaluating Sigma's position in the industry from a technology point of view.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thank you
GLTA
Engineer Inquiry -- Does any current contributor have any form of engineering training and experience? I don't know about you all, but for me there are some limitations to my understanding of some of the technical information - links posted here.
I find most of the material of a technical nature understandable in a broad strokes sort of fashion, but the finer points I'm not so sure about.
Just would be interesting to know if currently anyone recalls a contributor identifying him/herself as an engineer or if anyone reading this has an engineering background him/herself.
Thank you and GLTA
As far as another 13G, wouldn't any institutional buyers at this point have been buyers of the offering? Hard to imagine an inst. investor piecing together a sizable position -- a few shares here and a few there. Also, wouldn't this mean buying w/o the warrants which were part of the bargain for institutional buyers? Not certain, but would tend to think that a 13G purchaser of the offering would have reported by now, like the others who have reported, last week. Not sure though --
Opinions on this, appreciated!
Thanks, Driftin and Jeff
What is the "underlying connection" and in regard to the CTO of Morf3D, what are the connecting dots?
Thank you
What is the "underlying connection" and in regard to the CTO of Morf3D, what are the connecting dots?
Thank you
Could you list the 4 Institutional Investors, please? I see the Heights Capital filing here, but which are the others?
Thank you
Most of the focus ought to be on recent developments and positive trajectory, we would hope. When is the 10k due to be filed?
Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff.
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for the explanation. It does help clarify somewhat, but I suppose what remains a concern -- and I don't know whether it ought to be or not -- is that Greg Morris, in the quote that is published on the other company's site....(copied below)... makes the Materialise software sound somewhat comprehensive and all-encompassing -- Or at least that interpretation seems possible and not altogether unreasonable from the quote. I don't claim to know the answer here myself. Not at all. Just trying to figure this out and without any engineering background, it's certainly a challenge.
How do we know that Materialise's software, in addition to ensuring in regard to the items you attributed to it, is not also providing the functions that you indicate for PrintRite3D? "... mechanical and metallurgical properties, etc of the material..." (w/i quotes, excerpted from your email)
(From Materialise's site)
"As we ramp up to production on the LEAP fuel nozzle, Materialise Streamics will be our production control software for Additive Manufacturing. It will be an invaluable tool to help us save time and eliminate manual processes."
Greg Morris, Additive Technology Leader, GE Aviation
Jeff,
Could you give us a bit more specifics on the differences, please?
Silver et al - Is the market cap of approx 11 million and shares outstanding of 3.1 million accurate? That's what I'm seeing on Ameritrade as of this morning. Yet the offering alone was for more than 3.1 million shares, wasn't it?
Driftin -
I don't disagree re the difficulty calculating expected revenues but I don't think that this is unusual for a company that is in an emerging, (we hope), stage. Some of management's thinking and projections may be based on an increase in their technology, (potentially a large increase), but that is nearly impossible FOR THEM to quantify at this point. Ie...how many of their potential customers will buy how many systems ? at what negotiated price, ? before December 31st 2017? etc .... But still, if the volume and degree of interest are increasing, management could be sincerely excited and reasonably responding to increasing potential in a way that can't fairly, or legally have numbers attached to it.
Let's hope this is the case.
GLTA
"Greater certainty allows for more reasonable inferences. At the current moment, SGLB is giving signs of moving in the right business direction but it is still impossible to determine a fact based calculation for expected revenues, thus pricing the stock for future business is like reading tea leaves at this point in time. Entertaining at times but of very limited value."
3DPrintingInvestor or Silver or Other - Could one of you guys take a crack at answers to these questions that were posted by another member earlier in the day, please? I've offered my perspective. Would be interesting to hear yours.
Thanks
"Can anyone speculate why the OEM that signed an agreement with Sigma would want to remain anonymous?
It's also confusing to me why GE has been so tight lipped about PrintRite3D, yet they are open about using Materialize's software/products"
I agree that MC has motivations that relate to being a part of the realization of a groundbreaking technology and its hopefully successful debut. This doesn't mean that he can't/doesn't also have financial motivation. Of course he does!
It's not uncommon at all to be motivated both by financial and intellectual/ pride of contribution/ developmental factors. Consider scientists and developers in every field -- both factors -- both motivators generally apply to most people.
Now a separate, but related point and I'm both stating something that I think may be a meaningful indication re MC in regard to Sigma's history of a few years ago and asking others' recollection and opinion on the same point. --
MC could have sold out or sold down his position at far higher prices 2 or 3 years ago if money was his only, or his primary, motivation and if he did not earnestly believe in the technology and Sigma's potential within this groundbreaking industry, right?
I suppose if he'd been selling on the open market, the limited liquidity of the OTC SGLB stock could have forced prices down, but still, he could have cashed out or down for many millions, it would seem, right?
Others' opinions genuinely sought.
Thank you GLTA
These are fair questions and I encourage others to answer additionally. Totally agree that we can only speculate.
1. From the OEM's standpoint even if they're comfortable with the value they are paying for in purchasing Sigma's software, because Sigma is a very small upstart of a company and isn't by any means a household name, why would the OEM perceive any added value in advertising a third party provider of QA technology. This isn't like a computer manufacturer who entices with "Intel...Inside"
Perhaps they view it as more positive just to indicate without attribution to Sigma that their process/equipment utilizes QAssurance technology. (Certainly that's a speculative answer, as you requested). Also, not sure about the following either -- but if the customer, the OEM, isn't demanding disclosure rights re the QA software developer, maybe Sigma mgmt would rather keep competitors guessing as to the OEM they've put under contract. (Not claiming certainty on this answer either).
Re GE question, again a speculative answer -- if an industrial behemoth is in a partnership with a tiny company and their work together is still in a developmental phase and the nature of the work regards quality assurance of high importance and the partnership also involves a government program, what reason really would GE have to say much? Sigma of course stands to gain re the PR and connotation of association with GE, but the reverse isn't necessarily the case.
This all said, I think your questions are reasonable and I encourage others to add their perspectives.
Are the 1.621,500 shares additional? Notice in the paragraph of the 8-k that I've excerpted and copy/pasted below the reference to the Series A Preferred as a "component" of the Class B Units...
"The Company's board of directors designated 1,621,500 authorized shares of preferred stock as Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. On February 15, 2017, the Company filed a Certificate of Designation of Rights, Preferences and Privileges of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designation”) with the Nevada Secretary of State. The Certificate of Designation creates the Series A Preferred and fixes the rights, preferences, powers, restrictions and limitations of the Series A Preferred. The Series A Preferred is a component of the Class B Units being offered pursuant to the Offering described above."
All - It would be helpful to discuss the preferred shares and the 8k. Does the larger number of shares on the one hand reflect greater subscription interest and on the other, additional dilution?
Thanks
Certainly, and just to add to the point...
1. The share allotments look quite reasonable to the investor/shareholders in terms of the number of shares. These are not excessive or greedy rewards.
2. The share allotments not only incentivize officers, they also may reflect a measure of confidence in the future
All - Shouldn't there be some "lock-up period" preventing the institutional buyers who are the original purchasers of the newly released shares from selling them for a while?
Also, we retail investors do not receive any warrants, right? The shares and warrants become unattached after initial release, such that we would need to purchase warrants if we're so inclined, but can't expect any to make a surprise appearance in our brokerage accounts, right?
Thanks for your response. So as far as Sabby's purchase of Sigma shares goes -- below is an excerpt I pulled from an SEC Cease and Desist Order on Sabby... We certainly can't say that they were shorting Sigma in the days leading up to Sigma's up-listing of today, but if by chance they had, it seems this would reflect that they see value in Sigma and wanted to maneuver to get the best price they could. I'm neither alleging that they were shorting Sigma, (because I cannot know, either way), or excusing their meddling -- IF they did short the stock to reduce its launch price. But either way, wouldn't their substantial purchase of Sigma shares reflect Sabby's perception of value in Sigma?
AND now that the uplisting/ offer has been consummated, what reason would there be for concern about their substantial ownership of Sigma shares? Perhaps I'm missing something, but at least at this point, their ownership interest in Sigma and their DD that led them to make the purchase seem more positive signs than otherwise, no?
EXCERPT...
"On two occasions between December 2014 and February 2015, Sabby bought
offering shares from an underwriter or broker or dealer participating in a follow-on public offering
after having sold short the same security during the Rule 105 restricted period. The violations
resulted in profits of $184,747.10..."
Hi AAjetfixr - What is your area of work within aviation, please?
Also, what do you mean by the below?
"My worry now is Sabby Management they are vultures and company destroyers,I hope MC can navigate these next steps because it's make or break time now.."
Hedge funds and activist investors -- while these folks aren't always friends of company management their interests tend to align with other shareholders. They might help to unlock value here. What are the reasons you have this view of Sabby?
Thank you