Oh my!!!  All they're talking about is alternative asset managers; i.e. hedge funds. These aren't buy and holders. Proto, stick to what you know best - the science. When you venture beyond your wheelhouse you sound like a moron. 

At an absolute minimum, Lebby should be removed as BOD Chair and replace him with someone who will ensure that the BOD actually does its job as overseer of shareholder interests. With the current setup, there's absolutely no accountability. 

As my fantasy bonus, fire Marcelli out of a cannon back to Florida where he belongs. No one has unjustly profited more from this company than that gross incompetent. 400k salary! What a misuse of shareholder funds. 

Of course, agree completely: fire MZ immediately and hire Proto as a relacement (assuming that he's not already on the payroll). 

Then, to cap it all off, some freakin honesty from the CEO about commercialization status, checking the NDA trope at the door. 

It's curious that you refer to the shorts as "grifters."  Shorting is a legitimate trading strategy, which is successful only when shorts identify correctly overvalued companies whose metrics can't possibly support the stock price. That has been the case here. From $20 to the low 2s. The problem has never been the shorts. The problem instead has always been the grifting BOD and CEO, who primed and pumped this POS company, getting rich in the process, and leaving patient and gullible longs holding the bag. 

Of course, it's preposterous. There was no MZ leak; and there are no cloak and dagger NDAs. It is exactly what it seems: a disruptive technology that no one is ready to adopt PLUS an inept management team ensuring that adoption is further out than necessary. 

I’ll agree on your last point. Never understood how Lebby had so much free time to devote to speaking engagements given the lean sales-side staffing at the company. Maybe he’s actually engaged in some commercial activity, for a change.

No. It wouldn’t be logical. The market is telling us that we’ve got a long way to go, yet. I’m not happy about it, but it’s a bit childish to believe that, if LWLG were up to its eyeballs in Tier One collaborations - as we’re made to believe - the stock would be so heavily shorted and that it would be struggling mightily to stay in the 3s.

If none of what we’re hearing from the pumpers is reflected in the stock price or other real world indicia is suggesting that we’re sitting on a goldmine, maybe the fact is we’re not.

It is very interesting, including this nugget:

“[w]hile Silicon Valley startup Lightmatter recently raised $400 million for its photonic technology, pushing the firm's value to $4.4 billion.”

Why the F isn’t LWLG the entity raising 400m and being talked about in the press?

Being “ready” and having it actually occur, are two very different things.

Steven, patience! It’s only been just about 11 months since Lebby announced two imminent deals. Lots of necessary backs and forths between the lawyers, I assume.

Exactly! Terrified of rampant, factually absurd, delusional speculation!

I can’t imagine #5 is true. That would be the very dangerous disclosure of inside information to a shareholder who could, or have his/her friends, family, associates, trade on that information, all of which would be illegal. MZ, as bad as they are, would understand this.

So, sadly, I think we have to reasonably conclude that #5 is false.

I really hope you’re right, Abig. I want this company to succeed. However, I’m not blind to the problems, and am simply trying to point out things that many posters rely on - institutional ownership, ndas etc. - that shouldn’t be relied upon. No one wants a f**king deal signed more than me. Then I can finally stop reading this board! (-:

I’m exhausted by this conversation, but I do think it’s important, and there is clearly a disconnect with the facts and opinions on this board, so I’ll try again. First, the details of LWLG’s institutional ownership are easily found. If you take the time to do your research, you will see that the vast majority of institutional ownership is passive index funds. As Ted and I have pointed out, LWLG’s ownership by these funds is simply to replicate the Russell 3000 for investors - the index LWLG belongs to. The remaining institutional owners of LWLG need to be examined closely. They are mostly alternative investment vehicles (hedge funds) which employ many strategies for their investors, particularly and especially on the short side. There is little to no indication that any actively managed long funds hold LWLG. That’s just a fact. So crowing about institutional ownership is silly unless you know the components of that institutional ownership.

Your point being???? The stupidity of this group continues to amaze.

There’s no problem, rikkie, EXCEPT posters like Ruud use the institutional numbers to imply that smart money is buying up LWLG stock - meaning that these “institutions” must have confidence in LWLG. That implication is false. The overwhelming majority of LWLG shares held by institutions are held in passive index funds, meaning that they are purchased to replicate the Russell 2000 index - of which LWLG is a member - so investors can “buy the index” without buying every stock in the index.

In other words, “institutional ownership” of LWLG is NOT a vote of confidence by institutions in LWLG. It’s really simple, but apparently too complicated for some.

Gosh, Ruud, you’re just putting your ignorance on display. Dig into the numbers , instead of your half-baked analysis, and you’ll see that the vast, vast majority of “institutional” holdings are programmed buying for index funds.

And let me add, pray that LWLG never gets dropped from the Russell, because we’ll immediately see that institutional ownership percentage go from 28% to 4%, overnight.

I get it, AB. But my question isn’t about TFLN it’s about why, if everything Proto writes is true - and I’ll assume it is - why LWLG is at $3 and can’t generate revenue after 21 years of conferences, test results, white papers, and endless interviews?

Passive index funds, Ruud. It’s nothing to get excited about EXCEPT if it weren’t for those index funds, we’d be below $2. The “institutional holdings” narrative is a straw man.

It’s getting harder to maintain the faith that this company will ever amount to anything. Endless disappointment.

Ok, Proto, I’m assuming that everything you wrote about TFLN is absolutely true; and that all the advantages of Perkinamine versus TFLN are also true (I have no reason to doubt either). Assuming the forgoing, what is the explanation for why LWLG sits in the mid 3s and why LWLG is struggling to monetize Perkinamine? Especially, given your certainty about the advantages of Perkinamine, others in the world of technology and investing must know these things, too. So, why, after 21 years of possessing a technology that solves a universal problem more cheaply and efficiently than other competing solutions , is LWLG a $3 stock and a company with no business?

No investor cares, Proto. Sign a f**ing contract and prove that you’re a legitimate commercial enterprise.

I said the company has “failed.” Two very different things, as I’ve written repeatedly.

I really wouldn’t be surprised if LPC was behind the move. They are bottom feeders. It says a lot that we have to keep going back to the LPC well to stay afloat. If LWLG had any other choice, I think we can all agree that LPC would be out. On the other hand, it does say a lot about what the capital markets think about LWLG if its only financing option is the market equivalent of a loan shark.

Your post suggests that one way or another, monetization of LWLG’s polymers is an inevitability. That, for lack of a better term, is incredibly naive. It’s similar to the constant refrain we read day in and day out on this board: that LWLG simply cannot fail. Yet, strangely, they appear to be doing just that.

On what basis can you or anyone else write with certainty that LWLG is the only company currently possessing a solution to this universal problem? Or that LWLG is and/or will be the only company to offer a solution to this problem in the near future?
Or that, in the incredibly fluid world of technology, a better or equivalent solution will arise from a more nimble, global, and trusted name? If it was, we wouldn’t be sitting in the mid $3s after 21 years.

The longer LWLG hobbles along, diluting shareholders to stay afloat, the odds increase that other solutions by better run companies will emerge. That is simply how innovation works.

No surprise, vein. It was entirely predictable, and predicted. Too bad I’m not a trader. One could make a fortune trading the spikes and dips in this perennial failure of a company. Lebby, Marcelli, and the rest of the BOD Bozos, have a lot to answer for. Maybe in court, if this thing does a floater (which seems highly probable).

NVIDIA could not give two shits about LWLG. You’re living in a fantasy world. We’re at sub $4 for a reason: these incompetents cannot close a deal. Nothing. Not a Tier One, Two, Three, or Four. Jim Marcelli. President of LWLG! What a f-ing joke. But, by all means, take another hit of the pipe and imagine that Intel, NVIDIA, Nokia, Broadcom, Oracle, Alphabet etc. are all under NDAs with little ol’ LWLG.

Intelligence and objectivity are in short supply on this Board.

I’m sorry, did he mention “silicon photonics”? Or did he just not mention “polymers.” Not entirely clear from your post.

Exactly, Proto. Price action has nothing at all to do with the fact that company can’t sign a deal or generate revenue. Total BS!

What a shock! Same BS pattern playing out, yet again. The Garbage Barge that is LWLG, with no revenue, no deals, no prospects, no analysts, no projections, no guidance, is plummeting back to earth, where it belongs.

“Prospects,” “Leads,” “Ideal Customers,” are all terms of aspiration not conviction, Proto.

It will be real when we read the words “LWLG Customer.”

RS, where do you get that information from? I’d love it to be true, but I’m not aware of a single company “in negotiations” with LWLG. Could there be? Of course. But I couldn’t say with certainty that there are any.

Prove me wrong, MM. Now, of course, at the end of they day I’d like the company to succeed; but it’s this daily, ridiculous, and endless fantasy speculation that’s “insufferable.” If you have facts, let’s hear them. Otherwise, we’ll just have to wait and see if this two decade plus non-revenue producing company has an ace up its sleeve.

Put down the crack pipes, fellas. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before with this non-revenue producing company and its trades. There’s no buyout. There’s no Tier One deal. There’s no Tier Two or Three deal. All we’ve got is exactly what we know: a struggling company barely surviving through massive dilution. If you have any actual facts to counter that narrative, I’m all ears.

Why would it? It’s the same old non-revenue, no-deal, no guidance, no revenue projection, garbage barge that it’s been for twenty plus years. We occasionally see these volume/price spikes, which always plummet back to the inescapable reality - that this is a company that cannot generate revenue. Lots of speaking engagements and awards, but no contracts and no revenue. But don’t despair!! I’m sure Lebby’s absence from his latest booked speaking engagement means he’s busy signing one or more major Tier One deals! Any day now, right Proto?!

Scope, I don’t pretend to be an expert on the science, because I’m not. What I do have is 35 years experience representing public tech companies, including extensive experience with NDAs, corporate governance, Qs and Ks. I honestly wish for a great outcome for all shareholders - and that includes me. What I cannot feel good about is the bad management I see, including poor staffing decisions, ill advised public statements, misleading guidance, conflicts of interest, bonuses, insider selling. These problems impact us all. What my simplistic hope is that rational investors begin to understand that great science will not win the day when there are structural problems on the management side. I would like to a critical mass of large retail shareholders to collaborate to affect change at the company. That would include, at a minimum, fire JM; fire MZ, move Lebby to CTO and hire a competent CEO or, at a minimum, remove Lebby as BOD Chair. I have a slew of other changes I would like to see. Happy to discuss those as well.

If the word fits, rikkie……

What a nonsensical post, Jeunke. The market is “forward looking” based on current earnings multiples, revenue projections, and company guidance. It can’t “look forward” based on no earnings, no customers, no contracts, no revenue projections, and no guidance. And your “market cap” analysis is exactly why this stock is shorted to the tune of 20 plus million shares. The only reason this garbage barge sits where it does today is because it’s in a Russell index. If it’s ever dropped, watch the market cap evaporate overnight.

You guys live in a LWLG fantasy world.

Same here, Ted.

Ted, I’m not sure why you’re trying to explain yourself to these guys. By any normal assessment, LWLG has failed as a company, TO DATE. People who are blind to the facts cannot be reasoned with or convinced. Their reality is based on faith, which is fine, but it’s impervious to reason. Criticism is unthinkable with these people. Even a slam-dunk conflict of interest where Lebby is both BOD Chair and CEO seems ok with these “investors.” Their code is uncrackable.

Like you, I hope for the best with this company, but the red flags are everywhere. Great line from a TV show I once saw: “When you look at the world through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags.”