LWLG….the market has assessed fair value in the stock in this area for 2-3 years - no matter what has transpired economically or otherwise.

Thus, it seems the best way to summarize LWLG currently is to adhere to a quote from the late, great investor and founder of IBD - Bill O’Neill:

O'Neil Quotes. The moral of the story is: never argue with the market. Your health and peace of mind are always more important than any stock. Be completely objective and recognize what the marketplace is telling you, rather than trying to prove that what you said or did yesterday or six weeks ago was right.


Imo…It’s simply no more complicated than that.


Regards,
Tod

Hi JJ8… yes, I would agree, implementing into action these lessons is certainly a relevant part of the equation.

Nothing ever stays the same in the investing world - which is why it’s so mentally stimulating and challenging (always forcing investors to grow and evolve).

Best wishes to you as well…

Cadillacdave… you are welcome… I simply try to learn from my mistakes … not understanding those growth stocks and stories resulted in a lot of missed opportunities.

Every investor is different and has different goals, strategies, and risk tolerances. I make mistakes like everyone - maybe I will be wrong on NVDA. We will see.

Respectfully,
Tod

NVDA… I was working for a brokerage house on October 19th, 1987 - so I’ve been around a long time too, and seen and witnessed a lot of market crises.

I’ve learned many things - one of which is this: trying to guess what markets are going to do in response to any big macro- event is virtually impossible. All one has to do is look at the March 2020 Covid-driven equity market swoon (10k down Dow points in 1-2 weeks), only to see all time record highs in equities within about a year from then - all in the midst of the peak of the pandemic. Nobody I know (including me) - if they are honest - expected that.

Regarding NVDA: in my view, like many of the massive growth stocks of the last three decades, normal 1-2 year p/e applications simply don’t work or apply. For years I kicked and screamed about stocks that traded like NVDA (NFLX AMZN TSLA CMG, just to name a few). They traded at 50-100 p/e’s for years, and in many/most cases still do. And while I stated they were going to crash and were highly overpriced based on my dinosaur-like thinking, they all doubled and tripled, then doubled and tripled again. The point here: markets were discounting these mega growth stocks out 5/10/15 years - not 1-2.

Learning and accepting that I was not smarter than the market, was one of my other best lessons - and has led me to being a a much more successful (financially speaking) investor. In other words, I learned and adapted/changed. I became willing to pay attention to what the market was telling me - even if I thought it was wrong.

What happens to NVDA in next week’s report is irrelevant to me in the longer term, as imo we are in the 2nd or 3rd inning of AI innovation (not unlike where we were with the cloud 10 plus years ago). I fully expect NVDA to double and triple from here in the coming 2-5 years, and very possibly to do that again in the ensuing 10-15 years.


The late, great investor and founder of Investor Business Daily, Bill O’Neill, sums up these investing scenarios very succinctly and accurately imo:


O'Neil Quotes. The moral of the story is: never argue with the market. Your health and peace of mind are always more important than any stock. Be completely objective and recognize what the marketplace is telling you, rather than trying to prove that what you said or did yesterday or six weeks ago was right.


Respectfully and jmo.

Hi Steven…I very much appreciated and relate to this post you just made. I know you read some of my recent posts and comments referring to the very same phenomenon you just described and alluded to: your “a long-term hold - no gain investment of mine.” Even with the credentials of Gilder espousing a huge windfall, it didn’t come to fruition - though I'm uncertain from your remarks if you’re still invested.

As my posts also noted, I mentioned this exact same situation transpiring in many of the quality micro-caps I invested in over the years (though I’m not sure your investment was in the micro-cap category).

Regardless of whether it was or wasn’t [micro-cap], the point is this: in my experience, small-cap or micro-cap companies, though many bare home-run like return potential, often do not end up resulting in such - as in order to exponentially grow to deliver their ground-breaking product to massive companies and markets, they very often don’t have remotely enough capital to meet such demand. Alas, they get bought out - often as you just noted, at no premium. And, as my prior posts have also referenced, I’ve been involved in several micro-caps that resulted in actual “buy-unders” - where the take-out price was below where I originally started my investment. And, just like you, I had waited a very long time for this “thud or dud” of an investment result.

And, yes, I am fully aware that LWLG’s costs to operate are far less intensive than many other micro-cap companies. Nevertheless, I still think the buyout scenario is most likely.

I learned from previous scenarios like these, that home-runs in micro-caps and very small-cap companies, even when they truly have a ground-breaking product, is extremely rare, and thus, consequently, I disciplined myself to always take profits in companies I invest in - no matter what size cap they are (but I learned to be ultra-careful in micro-caps, for what ought to be obvious reasons).

Long before I started reading this board, I always thought and believed that if LWLG ended up getting their technology and product to market (commercialized), that they would be bought out or taken over - and I still believe that. Now, I think it likely - due to the company’s revolutionary technology - that a buyout would, or will, still result in a premium to the current share price. That being said - and I’m well aware a lot of readers of this thread may not like my next remark, and very possibly disagree with it - I do think the buyout, if it does transpire, will be far sooner than expected, and the takeover price much below where the share price might go were the company to remain independent. Unfortunately, I just don’t foresee the latter scenario [remaining independent] happening.


Thanks again for sharing..


Regards,
Tod

Thanks for that information, LutherTiggs. I was very confused as to why that was transpiring for me as well - as it wasn't happening on any other IHUB boards.

Regards,
Tod

Scope… you are very welcome. I’m glad to participate and share when I can. It’s a minor contribution compared to all the other knowledgeable posters here.

Regards,
Tod

As I noted in one of my recent posts, LWLG is absolutely no different than a large majority of the legitimate micro-caps I have followed for about twenty years. Most, in my experience and opinion, never ever had any desire to go public - and only did so because it became the best, and likely only, viable option to raise money (to keep the lights on and the doors open).

As such, I determined after watching 5-10 of these companies trade publicly for a few years, that none of them - being basically and formally "mom and pop" type companies - had any desire to release any more information than was absolutely required by the SEC. Do I necessarily believe this was a good strategy? No, I don't. But my feelings and opinions were not of their concern - in spite of their fiduciary responsibility and accountability to shareholders. I am going to post a snippet from another message board of a micro-cap that I have owned since around 2015 at the bottom of this post - highlighting the same angst that is often posted here regarding lack of information and clarity from the company. Please note the almost identical core theme of the post. This exact same mantra can be seen on almost every legitimate micro-cap message board I have ever owned. Again, my point is this: LWLG is no different than any other micro-cap I have ever owned regarding dissemination of news - in fact, compared to many others, they are far more forthcoming than most of the others I have owned, or still own.

Wonderful and insightful technological information is shared on this board by many posters (too many to credit all of you), and it is greatly appreciated by those - like me - that are less well versed on the company science relating to photonics. I continue to be grateful and appreciative to all of you.

The company progress has led the broader market and investment community to move this company to the Nasdaq organically (without a reverse split), and the share price - originally between .50-$1 - has found a new and stable trading range between $4-6 over the past year, and $4-8 throughout the past two years. This is external confirmation that investors, as a whole, believe that the current fair value of the stock deserves to be where it is - imo expecting that future news and developments from the company will warrant a move higher in price from current levels. I, for one, don't think I am smarter than the market, and thus do not question the market's assessment - especially after this lengthy period of time trading at these prices. Sure, due-diligence and questions are always prudent, welcome, and warranted - as they are by most investors - but when the market is "screaming" at me that the price belongs in this range, and has done so emphatically for two years, I yield to the "market's savvy.'

My experience over forty years of investing, and particularly the last twenty, has taught me, or forced me into becoming a much humbler investor - overturning my arrogance via highlighting my mistakes through a great deal of humbling investment experiences. I admit fully that my humility has morphed as a result of being humiliated - period. That said, I finally learned and accepted that: "I am not smarter than the market," and my success investing has been far greater since then.

Below I am enclosing the snippet from a poster on the other micro-cap board.


Respectfully,
Tod


"But main problem is lack of news, as it was mentioned many times on conference calls. There is no press release, nothing. Why should we wait again for March 10th (10-K Filing) every year to get some news."

There appear to be a lot of comments on this board regarding stating the truth and facts, as opposed to claims of mis-truths and misinformation (lacking factually based evidence).

Whether it be some posters espousing seemingly overly exuberant claims about LWLG, or other posters citing exceedingly negative concerns and doubt about both the company and its officers - suggesting a much more dire outlook - the “real truth” is staring all of us in the face everyday: the stock price.

For me, the simplest and easiest resolution to this conversation is the stock price - period. Obviously, the former believe the price should be, and will be, much higher in the future, while the latter infer that the stock price is very overvalued. I’m not sure why this discussion has to be the overwhelming core of the board’s content.

The market and broader investment community continue to answer this question daily - and have for the past 1-2 years. It believes that fair value for this company is between roughly $4-$6 - meaning, at least for now, that it believes that higher prices are not currently warranted, nor are lower ones. It’s no more complicated than that. Why must the board be inundated with messages that don’t change what was just stated above.

Currently, right now - as is the case each trading day - the price is the truth (until proven otherwise).


Best,
Tod

Hey Scope… I got your PM - and the note was much appreciated. Can only pm during happy hour on Friday…I’ll keep in touch ..

Best,
Tod

Hi LR…thanks for your cogent thoughts, some of which seem to align with microchips response to me earlier this morning. In a nutshell: I strongly agree with what both of you stated regarding LWLG being very unique in its ability to scale into a much larger company without the usual aid from a buyout or bigger partner - for all the reasons you both detailed. Both yours and microchips points are quite prescient, and I am inclined to agree with both of your assessments.

That said, my micro-cap experience has taught me to be exceedingly wary - as the pitfalls and obstacles of this size company evolving to such enormity, and overtaking so many other giants, continues to keep my expectations in check.

In essence, I’m as cautiously optimistic as you and everyone here, and certainly am humble enough to understand that you, microchip, and many others may be right - in fact, I hope you are.


Respectfully,
Tod

Steven and Nrdc92.. Thank you for your replies. It's a very complicated story here - and has been for many years. I agree with some of both of your thoughts regarding this company. The challenges for the company reaching success has been nothing short of daunting, obviously - as has been the patience required as an investor.


Regards,
Tod

Scope and Microchips..You are both very welcome. I don't have any more of a crystal ball than the next person. I simply try to share my experience in as informative, yet neutral, a manner as possible..

Best,
Tod

This post surrounds the topic of public micro-cap companies dissemination of their business news - including, of course, LWLG. It also addresses the issue of LWLG’s timeline inconsistencies.

I found most of my very high quality micro-cap stocks on Gary Grobbel’s Silicon Investor board (The Micro-Cap Kitchen) -on which posters offered multiple different stock suggestions in many different business sectors. Over the many years I followed that board (from 2002-present, though it’s now largely dormant), I believe I only encountered 2 or 3 stocks that I either researched, followed or actually invested in, that were fraudulent in some way - quite an impressive record of recommendations from all those members contributing. That being said - and this is very typical of any small business - even the genuine and honest companies were prone to failing (bankruptcy etc.), due to financing restraint issues, not to mention trying to encroach on much larger, more financially viable, politically connected, and already established in their sector, companies.

Before I address the topic of news releases and investor relations by small micro-cap companies, I would first like to acknowledge the challenged history of LWLG’s forecasts regarding commercialization of their technology and products. Personally, I believe it is an indisputable fact - particularly before Lebby got involved with the company in 2017 - that the company’s history of meeting their goals and timelines were very poor (and that’s putting it extremely nicely). I was willing to withstand these missed timelines because the stock price continued to hold the .60-$1 price range throughout this roughly 10 year period of failing to deliver. It became obvious to me during this time that the very complex nature and process of developing and evolving their technology was far more challenging than management realized at the time.

Alas, whether they [management] knew it was more complicated and they deceived investors is a totally separate question and topic of conversation as far I’m concerned. I for one don’t think they did realize the massive headwinds they were facing at the time they made their forecasts. Moreover, I also fully understood that I was investing in a highly, highly speculative OTC micro-cap, and that massive risk and uncertainty would always be a factor. In the end, for those investors that demand management accountability, I fully understand their dismay, frustration, disappointment, and even disgust surrounding LWLG’s lack of performance in this area. That being said, huge speculation is a core element and factor of micro-cap investing, and missed timelines are part of that speculation.

Having said that, I will openly admit that 10 years of “mis-calculation” is among the most erroneous scenarios I have ever experienced in micro-cap investing, but, again, I never believed it was intentional deception or fraud - once again, the stock price stability and resilience throughout that period reassured me of my conviction in this regard (iow, investors, even back then, believed in the company’s future). Put simply, micro-cap investing is clearly not suited for everyone, and those investors looking for more consistent forecasting of product development, as well as revenue and earnings goals are probably better off looking at stocks higher up the ladder, in more reputable indexes. Just my respectful opinion. I’m not negating or dismissing these investors frustrations, I’m simply providing an alternative perspective to be considered. Hopefully, this is a thesis that other investors here understand with the good intentions that it was made.

What I will say regarding news dissemination is this: I discovered after my first few years of following these type of companies, that all of them were extremely tight-lipped regarding disseminating news - even if they didn’t have a revolutionary and sector “disrupting” type product (as LWLG seems to). In fact, many of these companies released far less news than LWLG does - in reality, much less.

They all released the bare minimum required by the SEC: 10Q’s, the annual 10K, and the required 8-K’s of a material nature (officer hires/appointments/departures, material contract news, etc). Beyond this information, it was essentially “crickets.” I came to the realization after about 5-10 years of this investor type experience - in what was a legitimate micro-cap arena - that most of these companies never ever “wanted” to become a publicly traded company, but they did so purely out of necessity. (Because they simply had no choice, financially.) Imo, it was go public or bankrupt - plain and simple. In essence, for management at these companies, it was never about “should” they go public - in my view most of these companies absolutely did not want to - it was virtually always because they absolutely “had to,” as no other financial options were available (period).

Without trying hard, I can recollect and name 5 companies right off the top of my head (and there are many, many more), from my first years on that Silicon board that behaved exactly as LWLG does informationally - and as I said, most of them provided literally nothing in between quarterly reports. (On rare occasions, you might get a revenue bearing contract between quarterly filings).

As an aside, the end game of these type of companies normally boiled down to a few outcomes: bankruptcy, a buyout far less than their true value had they had the wherewithal to go it alone, or, lastly, a “buy-under” - where the company got taken over below the price it had traded most of the time I followed or invested in it. In the last scenario they [the company] sold out, because bankruptcy eventually would have knocked on their door as well.

My point here: anyone that thinks that LWLG owes investors anything more than they’re getting regarding news etc., might want to consider buying the bigger index companies. I’m sorry if this offends any of you, but it’s a fact and the reality of this type of investment vehicle. Management is obligated to do what the SEC requires - nothing more, nothing less. Do I like it? No.
The difference for me is I long ago accepted this particular reality/side of micro-cap investing. Once I resigned myself to the cards I was dealing with - and remember I chose to invest in these micro-companies, I didn’t have to - it’s made my investment here, and a couple of other micros, far easier to tolerate. My genuine and sincere suggestion to those lacking this acceptance, is to consider striving towards it - because these type of micro-cap companies are not going to give you what you want informationally. Perhaps it’s different for other investors on this board, but in my experience LWLG is far from alone in this kind of investor treatment - the huge majority of companies that I have followed in the micro-cap space have operated in the very same way.

Many of these tiny companies were and are simply “mom and pop“ businesses, and just because they were, essentially, financially forced/cornered into going public, they had no, nor have, any desire whatsoever to appease or cow-tow to investors now that they are - it’s that simple. The fact they are public now doesn’t make these owners any more inclined to hand-hold the investment community - as they never wanted to be publicly traded companies (imo). Like it or not, they are primarily only concerned with their business - in spite of their “fiduciary” obligation to shareholders. Bottom-line, and with all due respect, investors on this board that have a “problem” with management’s style regarding these matters noted above, need to accept this fact about micro-cap stocks - or I would recommend and contemplate looking at other kinds of investment options. I have never in twenty years of micro-cap investing seen a micro-cap company be as forthcoming as the investors wanted - never, and that’s the end of the story.

I have believed for years - long before I ever read this board - that if LWLG finally developed their product to a commercially viable state that they would be bought out. I still believe that. Producing a product that could theoretically be embraced by so much of the behemoth tech sector would require infinitely more resources than LWLG would ever have. I believe the cash resources they have on hand now are simply in place to run the daily operations until it gets them to the day when the buyout offer arrives - again, jmo.

Around 2010, I spoke on the phone to an analyst in NYC that knew of the company, and he said if LWLG ultimately delivered their product to the market, they would definitely be bought out. LWLG and nearly every other micro-cap I’ve ever owned, ultimately ran into this obstacle - not being able to meet the huge demand for their product without a bigger partner. (Truthfully, I can only recall one that made it on its own.) LWLG is, imo, very similar and akin to small/tiny bio-tech startups that ultimately partner or are bought out by larger established and financially stable big-pharma. I’m pretty convinced - after my 17 year wait holding this stock - that the buyout will arrive in the next couple of years. If it doesn’t arrive in this period of time, that would mean to me that LWLG couldn’t get their product to market - but I think the possibility of LWLG failing at this juncture is very low.



Respectfully,
Tod

Sounds good Scope… I don’t have pm privileges except happy hour on Friday’s. If you want you can include your email address in your pm, and I can reply more promptly.

Regards,
Tod

Thanks, Scope… appreciate it.. best to you and everyone here in the new year:)

I rarely read the LWLG board any longer, sadly.

When I do return, though very infrequently, I see the same core messages from the naysayers dominating nearly all the conversation: primarily that LWLG’s stock price is excessively over-priced for an essentially pre-revenue company. I am not a koolaid drinker as I’ve noted many times, but I also have learned to “pay attention” to what the market is signaling, or telling me.

I’ve been investing for 40 years, with the last 20 a period where I researched and invested in many micro-caps from the OTC - thus I have a lot of experience with real companies in this arena, as well as pumping scams.

LWLG’s stock price has traded convincingly between $4-$6 in recent months, and $4-$8/$9 for the past two years. This is not a debatable or an arguable statement - it is fact/truth. It has maintained this trading range in the face of the worst nasdaq bear market since the Great Recession - and doing so with dramatic interest rate hikes not seen in 30/40 years (normally an absolute killer for pre-revenue companies).
In this same time frame, many mega-cap and big caps I own fell 30-50% as well. Thus, LWLG losing 66% of its value from its “genuine” top of $15 should not be construed as some terrible harbinger regarding the company’s future - but some here are using this pullback as one of the legs of their negative thesis. If the likes of Google and MSFT, among many others, can fall 30%-50% during this very same period - which they did - LWLG’s retracement does not seem excessive or ridiculous at all. It’s relative price strength, in fact, is compelling considering what transpired the past two years in the market.

The other cornerstone of the argument by the doubters is the fact that this was an OTC pump and is now being supported by a “naive retail cult.” In my 20 years of extensive OTC investing, I have never ever seen an OTC stock get pumped for more than 3-6 months - and a huge majority of these pumps lasted no more than a few days or weeks at most (one month representing an extended pump).

Consequently, inferring and perpetuating the idea - as is done on this board very frequently - that the naive retail trading community could support a pump of this price magnitude for 2-2 1/2 years is truly grasping at straws in my view. Do these extended pump situations transpire very occasionally, yes, but again in my experience I’ve never seen it at the OTC level.

Lastly, the doubters continue to espouse the current price range as a signal that the market and investment community don’t believe the company is anywhere near commercially viable products or significant revenues. Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion - in fact, the price action validates belief that LWLG is close to meaningful revenue (likely 1-2 years as management has stated). If the market and investment community didn’t believe this to be the case, I believe the stock would have been back below $2 or $1 sometime ago.

The doubters position is well established, as it is repeated almost everyday with a slightly different spin. Perhaps those who believe the stock is significantly overvalued, could simply step aside and wait for the stock to either break to new lows or wait for a break out higher. Is it necessary to hear the same diatribe daily?

Whether the doubters like it or not, the market and investment community are telling them their doubts are unfounded (at least for now) - and the market has been sending this same definitive message for two plus years.

Best,
Tod

In reality, and in spite of claims to the contrary, many opposing views have been made on this board in response to the list of the three warning signals for investors.

Below are two links to recent posts that provide opposing or alternative perspectives (yes, challenge) in regard to two of the three of those premises on the warning list - which, by the way, are largely based on “speculative questions,“ followed by completely “hypothetical scenarios,” and then drawing “potential/possible conclusions” based on all of these.

In essence, this list - as noted by the couple of quoted captions below - are predominantly filled with sentiments, hyperbole, and suggestions that are almost entirely premised on: what if, if, if, if.

The below quotes from this warning list are but a couple examples of those theories that - though certainly points that can be raised - prove absolutely no degree of deceit or fraudulent behavior by management, nor the funding company (and haven’t for the 12-15 years referenced). There are other inconclusive and unprovable implications and inferences in this warning list which can easily be read - if one chooses to.

I’m not certain how this could actually be considered a journey of “truth-seeking” and a quest for “balance,” when core statements from the list - liked the one bolded below - pervade, and are thematic throughout it.

“I do not have evidence that is happening, but it could.”


Best,
Tod


Captions/Quotes from warning list:

?
Have they been stringing investors along with misleading information re the proximity to commercialization all these years in order to keep the funding going? And now that they are claiming to have "commercial acceptance" by the industry, are they once again doing the same thing? Is it really a case of "this time it's different"?
?

Because LPC desires to fund at the lowest price possible and sell at the highest price possible, they benefit from price swings. Retail investors can't track their sales. Timing of company announcements, message board rumors and 'pumping' or 'bashing', shorting, etc.. are all possible mechanisms that could be employed to manipulate the price. “I do not have evidence that is happening, but it could.”

-Quote below stating that no one has challenged-

It's notable that NOBODY has dared to challenge any of the information other than the small paragraph about management's communication with shareholders in December about their expansion which was implied to be immediate but which we later found out took nearly 9 months.

Recent Alternative/Challenging Views

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172804070

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172797411

What is “remarkable” to me is the fact that all the “naive” retail investors are being warned about several issues: Lincoln Park and deceptive management tactics among them. As noted previously, Lincoln Park is not a new source of funding at all (been involved since approximately 2012). In fact, they [Lincoln] have been used extraordinarily skillfully by the same supposedly “deceitful” management that we all continue to hear about.

When I first bought shares in 2007/2008, I believe the o/s count for LWLG was around 35 million. Now, 16 years later, it’s around 115 million. Thus, shareholders have endured about eighty million shares of dilution at very favorable terms (relatively speaking), compared to “death spiral” like financing that many/most OTC companies are forced to accept. And yet, this is one of the main issues “naive“ investors are suppose to “suddenly” be concerned about. Any management team that can navigate 16 years of operation doing R and D as a pre-revenue company (tech, bio-tech, etc) and average only 5 million shares of dilution per year ought to be applauded - not maligned. In the face of this normal/needed dilution, I have never (ever) seen a pre-revenue company manage to maintain its price for a decade as LWLG did - in fact, that’s one factor which helped convince me to keep holding (as it strongly signaled, as it still does currently, the underlying belief by the investor community of eventual success).

Sure, private equity or venture money would, or might have been preferred, but, make no mistake, those entities would have been getting a “discounted” stake as well. So, why myopically and obsessively focus on what didn’t happen - painting an inherently negative picture - and ignore what LWLG’s management achieved (especially as the years progressed), negotiating - by any OTC stock standard - very favorable pricing terms with Lincoln (often very close to the current market price at the time).

Attempting to spin Lincoln Park as another “warning signal” for investors - yet another piece of LWLG’s plot to “string them along” - is possibly as weak a part of the argument as any of the highlighted “warning issues.” Ironically, and essentially in complete contradiction to the nefarious implications alluded to and implied by these warnings, the exceptional adept and savvy actions that management invoked - all of which benefitted shareholders handsomely - is yet another absolute testimony to their dedication and commitment.

In spite of what “alternative” views have been stated on this subject, the above presents a very different, but fair, realistic, and balanced perspective - one that investors might want to consider. I know others have shared similar thoughts and ideas on this subject in the past.


Best,
Tod

Just because someone incessantly and repeatedly points out “missed“ timelines, or raises questions/issues regarding a company’s exact progress - in this case LWLG, and often dealing with subjects/answers that will never be revealed - does not denote them [these issues or the mention of them] as remotely “remarkable” (as a poster noted before), or for that matter helpful in any significant way (as these same raised issues have never ever clearly revealed evidence that impugns the technological progress of the company, nor, up until this point, derailed the extraordinary appreciation in the stock price since 2021).

Regarding the price, and it’s persistent range of $5-$9 over the last 2 years, absent further and more definitive contract news, such a consolidation period is a completely natural and normal stock “consolidation” period - for any stock having made such a substantial price move. Any inference somehow construing this sideways trading action as atypical, negative, or a sign of fundamental weakness in the underlying progress of the company, is completely ignoring a very common market price reaction/response/phenomenon - in the wake of such a price run.

As several others have noted before, not knowing exactly where the company stands in no way refutes the progress that has been made - though it clearly appears that this is the underlying inference of those raising these questions (having on several occasions, and I’m paraphrasing here, that “they believe the company is far further away from commercialization than they claim”). Does such a thought process represent “a refreshingly balanced” stance? - it would seem not. It seems a truly “balanced” perspective surrounding these raised questions would have someone who raised them voicing, and leaning to a far more ambivalent position/conclusion - the end result being that where the company stands exactly is relatively impossible to determine (thus resulting in, at worst, a far more neutral point of view). It’s extremely difficult to consider a person’s view really “balanced” within this backdrop, when the points of view stated lean definitively toward the doubtful/skeptical side of the scale. Yet, in spite of often acknowledging that the company’s status is unknown - that being the source of the qualms/angst these investors have - this lack of knowledge somehow results in a predominantly negative slant (in spite of hopes and claims that they succeed).

Consequently, if those raising these questions find it impossible to conclude precisely where the company progress actually is - thanks to questions/issues they raised that don’t answer this one way or the other (either positively or negatively) - how then can those same people repeatedly postulating the negative skew regarding the company deem themselves “balanced.” It’s simply put, counterintuitive, and, unfortunately, borders on disingenuous.

Tech companies are going to deliver news of “contracts” - not an ongoing list of detailed minutia information that composes the entire layered structure of how their product/technology is put together. Believing that any tech company is going to provide such fact-filled information/answers to the public prior to a product release is beyond naive - it’s a ludicrous expectation imo (and yet it continues to be asked/requested/demanded).

What’s equally incredulous is the perpetuation of the idea by some that a “cult-like group of naive retail investors” is the backbone supporting this stock price in the $5-$9 range for the past two years. This thesis seems as naive a precept as one could imagine, as well as an extraordinarily demeaning, condescending, and arrogant presumption - that infers they [those espousing this reasoning] are smarter than the entire investment community.

Anyone can raise questions. So what? Has doing so lead to a “remarkable” repricing of the stock? - back below $1 to a “fair value” of .60-.70? No, it hasn’t - as it continues to trade in this range (which by the way remains a 10-15 times return from anyone who bought in early 2021 or before).

Can questions/issues be raised? Certainly. Have they helped to reveal, or proven, anything definitively negative regarding the company progress - or uncovered “deceit by management” that is often also alluded to? No. Just because questions are raised - often with the appearance of legitimate research as the goal - does not in any way render them necessarily balanced, nor remotely productive. Being critical is fine, but, again, doing so in no way constitutes or deigns that “critical thinking” as balanced.

Those raising the questions have failed to adequately address the wherewithal of the stock price throughout this barrage of doubts and issues raised over this two year period - other than far-reaching, and stretched theories: most notably, a “cult-like and naive retail base” singled-handedly propping up the stock. I continue to shake my head at this premise, and it’s overt and egregious insult regarding the broader investment community - though often, sadly, these well written notes are expressed with very thinly veiled “politeness.”


Unfortunately, and it’s very sad to say, but what has this constant rancor - “truth-seeking” and “balance” the apparent motivator - actually accomplished? The same issues can continue to be harped on, but, like it or not, for now (and the past two years as well), the supposedly “naive” market/investment community have rendered their decision (level of belief): price.

It is simply no more complicated than that.


Best,
Tod

LWLG… it’s pretty simple to summarize the story here in my view. In spite of the fact that most of the economy (imo) - manufacturing and real estate data highlighting this definitively, and other sectors very close to contraction as well - is clearly in a recession (and has been for 12-18 months, coinciding with the severe Bear stock market of the same length commencing November/December 2021), nevertheless LWLG’s share price has sustained and maintained this tight trading range ($6-$8). Personally, I believe the broader equity market is in the midst of a bull rally within an overall continuing bear market, and yet LWLG has held its ground - which is quite impressive (and again, “making a statement” imo).

This price range represents an approximate 6-10-15 fold return for anyone who who bought in the very accessible .60-$1 range from 2017 up until the burst higher in 2021 - certainly not an ROI that most investors would complain about in such a time-frame. I, myself, first bought in 2007/2008 (can’t recall exactly), and thus waited far longer - but it was still worth it, and I’m not disgruntled for having done so (it was my investment decision).

Aside from this very tough, broader macro-economic backdrop, some investors have scrutinized, raised questions and pointed to issues regarding the company’s progress. While it is always, or at least generally speaking, prudent to be diligent and discerning when researching a company, as I said before, sometimes one has to simply “pay attention” to what the “market is telling you“ as an investor. After too many mistakes to mention in my investing career - believing I was smarter than the market - I’ve learned to be much more humble, and “respect” what the price action is telling me. Being, or becoming more humble - for me a very important life character trait overall - has rewarded me in many ways (including making me a far better investor).

LWLG’s trading over the past couple of years is sending a very definitive message to investors - in reality, really screaming it out loud - that it believes this price area is “fair” value (at least for now). Investors can continue to vehemently, and incessantly, debate this fact - claiming that the stock is overvalued (for a plethora of reasons) - but the “market” is replying back with rather “loud” conviction: that such beliefs are “unwarranted, incorrect, or simply put, wrong.”


Regards,
Tod

Yes, Proto… thanks… I saw your previous statistics on that…appreciate it.

Best
Tod

I do believe “the share price says it all.”

The stock has traded in the $5-$9 range (approximately) for around two years now. In spite of all the items mentioned - regarding timelines, bonuses, and insider sales - the investment community has “looked beyond and through all of those,” and continued to trade in this range.

I’ve learned over time in my investing history to pay attention (ie humility) to what the “market is telling me” (i.e. stock price). To me, the very long and extended trading range here indicates one thing very clearly: “the market is telling investors,” that based on where the company stands in its progress, that this price range is “fair value” (again based on what it [the market] knows currently and where it thinks the company is headed).

If the “market” didn’t believe its future potential, I’m reasonably certain the price would have crumbled long ago.

Investors can dispute the company’s progress, or even choose to not believe the company is real, but the share price is indicating otherwise - and “thus, at least for now, saying it all.”

Best,
Tod

Mdk1… absolutely spectacular and informative article. Thank you for sharing.

Best,
Tod

Ted…

What I’m about to say I do so with the utmost sincerity, with no degree of angst regarding your points of view on the company - you’re entitled to them.

What I am truly more mystified by is the following:

You have stated many times that LWLG could be a big home run. Having said that - and please feel free to correct me if you think I’m wrong in my assessment - your overall sentiments on the company (by leaps and bounds it seems to me), appear overwhelmingly skeptical, doubtful, and less than optimistic that they will ultimately succeed. If my interpretation of your feelings is accurate (feels like 80% or more negative, just to put a number on it) - and again, I’m not saying this is accurate - is LWLG truly a stock that you can really consider investing or playing on the long side even with the home run potential. In all honesty, it seems like your doubt regarding its chance of success are so pervasive that it makes the home-run potential almost a moot point.

This is a very genuine question with no malicious intent behind it.

Regards,
Tod

Ted.. again, with all due respect.. you continue to imply - not just in this post below, but in many others you have written - that the stock could go down, or it could go up. Is this some kind of significant stock market prognostication?

Regards,
Tod

Ted…I totally understand wanting to hear the other side of an investment thesis - I consider this philosophy a “must” to being successful. I guess I just feel that until there are some other “materially” different facts - either positive or negative - this conversation seems, at least to me, to have run it’s course. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Respectfully,
Tod

Hi Ted….

With all due respect, I’m trying to figure out why this multi-month conversation continues. It is clear through your many posts that you have questions, thoughts, and also doubts regarding LWLG’s ability to successfully commercialize their product, while simultaneously expressing were they to do so that the ROI would likely be spectacular - and hence your interest in the company.

Many others have expressed they’re not concerned like you are - and thus we pretty much know where everyone stands in this conversation. This subject has been going back and forth - quite tirelessly, I have to say - for months now. I’m very confident that most, if not all, of the shareholders here fully understand the financial risk involved. Do you think they don’t? Do you think that if you continue to espouse slightly varied versions of the same conversation - possibly adding new thoughts or ideas of yours occasionally - that you will change people’s minds?

My last question is simply this: are you expecting some, most, or all on this board to agree with your concerns, and if so why? Would a large number of members of the board agreeing with your position/concerns result in this conversation concluding?

You have your very definitive view, and therefore why do you care if others disagree.


Respectfully,
Tod

Hello…

The MINM Target news was released Tuesday morning at 830am. Is there some other news today that’s causing the huge price move, or is this a delayed reaction to that [Tuesday] news? Seems kind of odd to me that the reaction would be so late.

Moreover, it sounds to me - based on the way the PR was worded - that this was an additional product they were launching on Target.com - not a completely new arrangement with another huge big box retailer. In other words, aren’t MINM products already sold on the Target platform. Did I misunderstand this?

Any input would be appreciated…

Regards,
Tod

Hello…

The MINM Target news was released Tuesday morning at 830am. Is there some other news today that’s causing the huge price move, or is this a delayed reaction to that [Tuesday] news? Seems kind of odd to me that the reaction would be so late.

Moreover, it sounds to me - based on the way the PR was worded - that this was an additional product they were launching on Target.com - not a completely new arrangement with another huge big box retailer. In other words, aren’t MINM products already sold on the Target platform. Did I misunderstand this?

Any input would be appreciated…

Regards,
Tod

Hi Ted….

Just to be clear, I didn’t misunderstand your point regarding the filings. I was simply adding additional context - which I deem relevant - to your supposition that the fall in price for LWLG was out of line with the market and other stocks, and was primarily a result of the filings.

Maybe you’re correct, maybe you aren’t. What I do know is the Nasdaq peaked almost exactly at the same time that both the filings transpired and LWLG rolled over. So which was truly the cause? Clearly all here know your view. That said, just look at a chart of the Nasdaq and LWLG, and their peaks literally coincide with each other (around 12/10/22 give or take).

Which was truly the cause is quite hard to ascertain - though you appear quite convinced that you are correct. I have no desire to go back and forth on this subject - and not because I’m afraid of facts. I was just iterating and posing some other facts - aside from the filings - that make conclusions regarding the cause and degree of the stocks selloff as far harder to discern with any degree of certainty.

In essence, it was likely a combination of all three elements: the massive run the stock had already had, the beginning of the broader market collapse, as well as the filings.

Good luck….

Respectfully,
Tod

Hi Ted…. I’ve only read a few of your posts.

One post struck me in particular - this one - and that is why I’m choosing to respond to it. You mentioned that one pre-revenue Nasdaq company you follow had only fallen from $1.30 to about $1.10 (15% or so) during the recent bloodbath in the markets over the past 6 months, and that at the time of this post LWLG was down about 60%.

In an effort to perhaps draw an “apples to apples” parallel between your company‘s stock performance and LWLG, do you think it would be reasonable to consider that LWLG was trading around $1 in January 2021, and then moved to a high of $20 over the ensuing 11-12 months, and only then had a 60% significant pullback - though still leaving it at a 7-9 times winner (even with that retracement).

Having established that, I’m just curious if your stock moved from the .05-.07 area to $1.30 during this timeframe? - a percentage that would roughly reflect LWLG’s total move before its pullback. If so, I would deem it’s ability to hold such gains - or keep its losses to 15% - rather admirable in this environment. But, if this was not the case for the stock you’re referencing - or any other stock for that matter - it just seems a bit unrealistic to somehow juxtapose any two companies without what I consider a better correlation regarding their price performance over a similar period of time. We all know the Nasdaq didn’t return 7-9 times in the past 12 months prior to the market top last November.

The overall market has basically been in free fall since November of last year - albeit with some oversold pops back up. Just presenting what I deem some very rational and relevant background points to the example you cited.

Respectfully,
Tod

theroc66..

There are many, many informative technological and scientific posts on this board - all of great value. Having said that, I want to thank you for your exceptional insights of the more - for lack of a better description - behind the scenes story of the "path" of a development stage company and the process. Just an incredible, non-biased and balanced summary. Wow - plain and simple..

Best,
Tod

That link within the article is also confusing/or misleading, as it says the following:

Holiday 2021

New Years Day Friday, January 1


New Years Day, the 1st, is Saturday, and the link cited does not state New Year's Day holiday "observed."

From the first article:

Global financial markets mostly will be closed on Friday, Dec. 31, or Monday, Jan. 3, 2022, in observation of the New Year’s holiday, but U.S. markets won’t.


Best,
Tod

You’re very welcome monocle. And, as Xena pointed out, I may very well be incorrect. Happy holidays to you as well, and everyone on this board.

Best,
Tod

Monocle: See my follow up post. I tried to clarify it for you.

Best,
Tod

Hi Monocle..

As I said, I could very well be wrong. My main two points involved my agreement with Lewrock that there are, in fact (imo), enough shares for these bigger trades to transpire from the current shares available in the float, and that my theory that an order was being "worked" throughout the day is just one of many that others on this board have postulated about. Moreover, I think you are missing my point. The shares that you cited after the bell were simply not revealed during the current trading day, and thus were above and beyond the lower amount you referenced that traded during the regular market hours. In other words, they were separate and just added to the other count after the market closed. I believe this theory is plausible, but there are others that are as well.

Personally, I do not believe this has anything to do with the shelf-registration, because though the shelf-registration prospectus was filed back in June for the entire 100 million dollars, I am of the belief that each additional time the company "tapped" into the shelf an 8K would have to be filed to reflect such an event.


Best,
Tod

Lewrock..

I also absolutely agree with your prior statement below:

Re:Contrary to popular opinion on this message board, I believe individual investors are supplying the shares that are being gobbled up by institutions

I have always felt that as tightly held as everyone here knows LWLG stock is, that there were always enough shares available in the tradable float to accommodate the volume over the past couple of weeks. I also believe what someone else on this board mentioned over the past few days (it may have been you Lewrock, I can't recall) as the likely explanation for these late day "prints" at the market close, or just after the bell: that being that some big orders were given to a broker for x amount of shares, designated not to exceed a "limit" price. These type of orders are then "worked" throughout the day by the broker and whatever amount of shares they were able to execute that day are reflected at the the close, or just after. I feel very confident that this is what has been happening. That being said, the similarity in the size of the trades has been somewhat interesting. As always, I could be wrong.

Lastly, I used to work at a brokerage firm in the mid-1980's as well. In fact, quite ironically, I worked in the same office with Steve Cordovano - the former IR for LWLG. In the 2008-2010 time frame, when I first saw his named name mentioned as the IR at the end of a LWLG press release, I contacted him by email, and then phone, to confirm it was the same guy. It certainly is a small world.

Best,
Tod

F2...Personally, my understanding of material events - which are denoted by the release of a company 8k by any company with "material" news (which includes shelf registrations) - would require LWLG to release an 8K for any additional use of their shelf-registration, just as they did with the original 8K for 3 million with Lincoln. In my view, they legally could not, nor would not, wait until the next 10Q or 10K to do so. Just my understanding and opinion.

Best,
Tod

Thanks MeghanStar…

Your thoughts and input are appreciated. And I did mean to thank Xena for her charts as well. Being basically a fundamental investor, I don’t worry about the charts too much but, like you, utilizing them to increase my comfort level in any stock I own is always a huge plus in my view.

And, as you noted in your more recent chart post, because of the huge increase in volume LWLG is now trading everyday, support and resistance lines are much more meaningful - as lack of volume in any stock generally makes charting with support lines a lot less helpful/reliable.

Personally, if my memory serves me correctly, I’ve been very encouraged by the fact that even on the bigger pullbacks recently, the stock has more or less held the 20 day moving average - at least that’s been my observation over the past few weeks.

Thanks to you two for the charts and for the vast array of posters here laying out the fundamental story of LWLG - there are simply too many to name.

I will say that I’m continually amazed by the posters who come by and tell everyone the stock was a gamble when it was trading at $8-$10, and just recently that it was “grossly” overpriced at around $19.50.

My very best holiday wishes to all here, and thanks for all the incredible information posted here - not only regarding the LWLG science, but other highly correlated photonics stories that help foretell where the chip sector is headed.

Best,
Tod