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.
My responses below to your three opinions you shared.
1. Lightwave has a $100m shelf it said is needed for commercialisation. That hasn't been tapped yet.
The company did not say the shelf is needed for commercialization. Your interpretation.
2. Lightwave has said it still needs to design, test and create several components for the PDK.
The company did not say they still need new components prior to releasing a PDK. Your interpretation.
3. GF mentioned 5 other photonics companies it was collaborating with. It seems like a real stretch to say Lightwave would need to be specially excluded from the press release (especially given that the polymer will treble the speed / half the power requirements of the platform, and so would be absolutely fundamental and transformational).
"Seems like a real stretch". Normative statement.
I would encourage you to return to company statements with a clear mind and reassess. If you're going to quote company statements as fact please use the actual quotes and not your version of their words. The actual wording matters.
I speak with Jeunke offline on a weekly basis. He worked at a high level for a Fortune 150 company so his input has been invaluable. No specific specs have been provided for the GF Fotonix PDK 1.0, yet. Technology changes rapidly and so must our review of it.
All three of your points include normative statements, but is still an attempt to pass it off as facts. If your intent is to maintain only factual information, I would encourage you to self-reflect on your own opinions and bias sneaking their way into your due diligence.
I am not here to convince anyone of my opinion. We all must research and conclude. My research and conclusions show the GF Fotonix PDK 1.0 includes LWLG polymer modulators and MACOM laser components.
GlobalFoundries Fotonix PDK 1.0 dropping next month uses Synopsys design tools. Synopsys design tools include polymers.
From GlobalFoundries:
GF Fotonix solutions will be manufactured at the company’s advanced manufacturing facility in Malta, N.Y., with the PDK 1.0 available in April 2022. EDA partners Ansys, Cadence Design Systems, Inc., and Synopsys provide design tools and flows to support GF’s customers and their solutions.
https://gf.com/press-release/globalfoundries-announces-next-generation-silicon-photonics-solutions-and
From Synopsis:
We support all technologies:
Silicon photonics
InP/III-V
TriPleX
SiO2/SiN technologies, including polymers, silica and more
https://www.synopsys.com/photonic-solutions/optocompiler/process-design-kits.html
LWLG released information last year about spinning polymers onto Silicon Nitride SiN for low loss. Polymers on SiN is extremely specific. They must have been referring to their work with Synopsis. There are too many dots to connect for a message board post.
There were no component or materials companies included in the GF press release. The focus was on the device and network equipment manufacturers.
In other words, the press release from GF only referenced the companies that will be ordering off the menu (PDK) to make new products. They did not release any information pertaining to what was actually on the menu (inside the PDK). That clearly remains protected competitive information for now (under NDA). After some investigation this weekend there is no doubt in my mind that LWLG polymer modulators are one of the photonics components at the epicenter of all of this. Disruptive and ubiquitous.
Is anyone here keeping track of our typical L2 market makers? Have we seen new MMs or ECNs popping up this week?
Amen to that!
My question is: Is this related to the upcoming Roth event or the ending of the OFC event? Maybe the private meetings Lebby, Marcelli, and Leonberger had at OFC went well.
They must have run out of PlusOne coins.
Hi Xena,
I think many of us would be interested to see one of your famous "over 5k" block trade posts from today. Large amount of volume going into the close.
Thanks PG, this could be huge. I definitely don't understand the majority of this. I do understand the underlying potential if this technology is also applied as a semiconductor to replace silicon. That is quite literally a trillion dollar market in less than a decade.
Solid summary AR, thanks for the write-up.
Absolutely! You've led a great example of how a professional startup investor carries himself. In my opinion you've done it all the way right.
Hi Tleprathy,
No I don't have an opinion to share.
“Have to come to the defense of Tleprathy, here.“
That’s a real shocker.
Perhaps you should not invest in tech startups. These things take time. The company’s CEO has continually talked of mass commercialization, disruption, and ubiquitous technology. This only began last year. If all you see is science nerds enjoying lab progress you are (perhaps willfully) ignoring the massive shift towards commercialization only recently. Startup investing is not for everyone and one should keep in mind that the earlier you invest, the higher the upside compared to later financing rounds, but the longer you have to park your money. It’s a trade off. Nothing is free. Your higher upside potential naturally comes with opportunity cost. If you complain of opportunity cost, perhaps startup investing is not for you.
This is an R&D company until the day we wake up to news of mass market adoption. Early investors invested in a research project, the R of R&D. When Lebby took over as CEO there was a clear shift to developing devices based on the polymer research. This was the D of R&D. Lebby is now, in no uncertain terms and very publicly, stating we are ready to bring this R&D company to disrupt the market. The stages seem clear as day. If not, maybe startup investing is not for you.
You are assigning a subjective meaning to a word with a clear definition? That's a rather interesting way to analyze company statements. I believe when the company states they are working with foundry partners they mean they are working with foundry partners.
You took one phrase out of context to conclude they don't have a foundry partner yet. This is incorrect. Please see the below statements to the contrary, within context.
1) Our company has a fabrication facility in Colorado to apply standard fabrication processes to our electro-optic polymers which create modulator devices. While our internal fabrication facility is capable of manufacturing modulator devices, we have partnered with commercial silicon-based fabrication companies that are called foundries who can scale our technology with volume quickly and efficiently. The process recipe for fabrication plants or foundries is called a ‘process development kit’ or PDK. We are currently working with commercial foundries to implement our electro-optic polymers into accepted PDKs by the foundries. Our work with the foundries is being focused with the Polymer Plus™ and the Polymer Slot™ polymer modulators.
2) We partnered with silicon-based foundries in 2021 so that we can scale commercial volumes of electro-optic polymer modulator devices using large silicon wafers, and we are currently working to have our fabrication processes accepted into foundry PDKs (process development kits). These are the recipes that foundries use to manufacture devices in their fabrication plants.
3) We are developing PDKs with commercial silicon-based foundries so that our technology can transfer seamlessly to larger silicon wafer fabrication plants, and scale in volume quickly.
4) In order to effectively manage growth, we must:
Continue to successfully Partner with silicon-based foundries.
This wording has remained constant through every single 10k annual report. It will continue to remain constant on every 10k annual report until the year they produce revenue, which will likely be 2022. The 2022 annual report that will be released in March of 2023 will then have this wording updated.
The 10k is not the format to release news. If an R&D company has not yet provided public revenue guidance, you will not find it in the 10k.
The 10k calculation is based on current burn rate, but as commercialization ramp-up occurs, that burn rate increases accordingly.
Your money/time calculation assumes burn rate will remain unchanged over time. It will not.
The conclusion that more cash on hand results in longer time to market is ludicrous. The opposite is true.
Whoa. That's an eternity. Or a lot of money to ramp.
Also, they've never completed the annual report this early.
I wouldn’t exactly say, “there are zero facts backing any of this up”. There are quite a few facts including MACOMs attempted market penetration using electro-optic polymers from the same intellectual property now owned by LWLG. Secondly, Lebby stated a partnership or collaboration to be announced by May, less than three months away.
Does he wait until a day before the May shareholder meeting or use the world’s largest optical fiber exhibition to release the news? My vote is on the latter.
It must be something to be experiencing new excitement levels at 61 years old. I hope to be breaking old excitement records at that age.
That's a great point. Third point, the annual goals set by Lebby at last year's shareholder meeting included a partnership or cooperation agreement by May 2022.
A March announcement lines up perfectly with this timeline. Lebby has never disappointed.
That's it, thanks X! Posted at dinner time on Valentine's Day 2021. Well this also solves the year long mystery of why my wife was so upset that day.
Hi F2, good to hear from you. I'm primarily referring to the MACOM/Global Foundries connection that many here have discussed. Thanks to theroc66 and others for posting about the MACOM conference call Q&A session that led to this. This message board provides better due diligence than any industry analyst.
Today this is from memory, but I made a post about a year ago spelling out the entire Gigpeak/MACOM/LWLG connection and referenced all source material where I pulled this publicly available information. Maybe I can find it later today.
MACOM and GF have a public development deal. MACOM has two on-record attempts at using electro-optic polymers to develop transceivers. Once was in partnership with Gigpeak. The second attempt was after MACOM hired away Gigpeak's lead technologist. This ultimately ensued a legal battle over the IP. MACOM paid Gigpeak without admitting fault, then ceased development on its polymer devices. It is likely MACOM still has a strong appetite for the polymer platform.
Fast forward, 2017 LWLG acquired the same IP that MACOM battled over.
Fast forward, 2022 MACOM holds an earnings call and states the following:
"And so that's exciting for us. And we're doing -- we're entering programs at 400G. And if we're successful here that will break the dam on moving that as a more adopted technology for broader applications inside the data center. So we're very focused on that as a company where we have very unique technology. We have close relationships with some major companies that are looking at effectively there's different words for it, you can call it direct detect, or direct drive, but the goal would be to eliminate the DSP in certain applications."
They then went on to discuss their plans to introduce their leading edge technology products in March and June at the major industry events.
There is only one company I'm aware of capable of reducing the power level enough to eliminate drivers and digital signal processors for direct detect at high speed. LWLG.
Good, you got the joke. Hope you do get in early on this as many believe the big industry players will make announcements at OFC that involve LWLG's technology platform.
septmike09,
I hope you made a bunch of money when you admittedly shorted Door Dash.
Thanks Rkf. We all go through our personal evolutions I suppose. You've remained pretty consistent. A seemingly honest investor/trader. Or trader/investor depending on the day ;)
Looking at the company through this lens, you can see Lebby going through his own personal evolution quite publicly. He has remained ultimately conservative above all else which gives his words weight as he navigates through this war zone with purpose. I listen to other CEOs sounding like salesmen while Lebby only references what he knows for certain to be true. He is now saying LWLG will be ubiquitous, disruptive, and mass-commercialized.
We must keep these words in the context of who is speaking them. Again, Lebby only references what he knows for certain to be true. He must have only started making these references after LWLG and the industry partners passed the point of no return for incorporating polymers in their short run technology roadmaps, meaning they are locked into place and the partners' daily activities are mapping towards this end.
Haha exactly. The Dr. Enami presentation will do wonders for our share price just the same as when he left LWLG employment 3 months before our epic rise from $1 to $17.
OFC exhibition in San Diego begins March 8 and many companies working on telecom and datacom solutions have marked that date to reveal their next generation products.
The main one that comes to mind is MACOM speaking of driverless transceivers. MACOM has attempted to bring electro-optic polymer transcievers to market twice in the last decade. Third time's the charm.
I disagree. I think we hover around this share price until March 8th. Then we see a HUGE explosion that dwarfs our previous all time high.
And historically, I've been the conservative one.
T-minus 11 trading days.
How many people heard even a whisper of Intel’s intention to spend $6 Billion on a company named Tower Semiconductor? Nobody here did. The news is not released until a deal is signed.
I believe Lebby.
That post was referencing MACOM's conference call, not Global Foundries. Although my belief is that MACOM will be LWLG's first public partnership and hopefully announced at March's OFC in San Diego.
You're doing it again. EUV is not on ANY photonics roadmap. 3nm is not on ANY photonics roadmap. Again, this is a message board for a company in the photonics industry, not the electronics industry.
Enjoy your weekend.
Sure thing. The vast majority of chips manufactured today store and transmit data using electronics. All consumer goods have these types of chips that are made using semiconductors. Everything from your phone, computer, car, and refrigerator have these types of chips. The CPUs and GPUs inside servers also have these types of chips. Think of semiconductor chips as computing power using electronics. The common engineering factors to economically increase performance are size, weight, and power (SWaP).
In order to increase electronic computing performance, the chip makers are decreasing the size of the chips, which require less power and increase compute performance. They are currently working on sub-10nm chips for compute.
For transmission, the most efficient method of transport is to modulate those electronic signals into optical signals. Terms like photonics, light, lasers, fiber optics are all referring this. Light travels a much further distance with a lower power requirement and much faster speeds. The internet backbones were built on fiber optics. As technology progressed over the past 30 years advances were made to make those long distant high bandwidth links economical for use in shorter distances. Fiber optics are now being used inside the data center connecting server racks together over shorter and shorter distances.
To summarize, computing performance is being addressed with electronics while transmission performance is being addressed with photonics.
Computing performance (electronics) using semiconductors are working on sub-10nm chips. Meanwhile, photonics is working on 40nm to 90nm chips.
Electronics is a race to the bottom for size in order to simply extend Moore's Law.
Photonics is creating feature-rich chips on larger standard platforms to essentially reset Moore's Law.
So it is incorrect for someone to discuss the inability of applying photonics to sub-10nm chips. This is not what is happening in the reality of the industry. Nobody is working on this because there are many other methods of increasing performance without the need to reduce size to sub-10nm. Photonics performance is being addressed by increasing speed and decreasing power while holding size constant for now. LWLG has harked on this point and marketed their product offerings as "high-speed, low-power".
This is how I understand it and would love a fact check by Jeunke and PhotonicsGuy.
Yes! Very well stated Jeunke, and a bit humorous as well. God, America, AND nature is on our side.
You're still doing it.
You're conflating microelectronics(semiconductors) and photonics, once again. No company in the photonics industry is looking to apply their technology to 10nm geometries. You attempt to use technical terms to confuse and mislead.
This is a forum about LWLG, a photonics company, and your posts all relate to the microelectronics industry which is either off-topic or on the very edge of being slightly on-topic, at best.
It would be like me posting on the Ford message board about John Deer because tractors also have engines.
septmike is still here. He posted on Friday. He changed his name to Bruinfan4ever.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=90383
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167673313
Thanks and understood. Have a good weekend. If 92024 refers to your zip code, I live in the next zip code up from you.
Thank you for sharing your conversation with MZ Group. I appreciate your efforts. As a fellow shareholder, I want to provide a counterpoint for consideration.
The 10 minute phone call probably cost LWLG $50, if MZ Group uses lawyer rates. I don't personally believe it's in the best interest of shareholders for all of us to call and enable MZ Group to charge billable hours to tell us that they can't tell us anything. I don't believe it will result in LWLG management telling us anything they wouldn't have already told us without those phone calls. To me, it is wasted money.
We paid MZ Group $145,261 in 2020.
https://sec.report/Document/0001553350-21-000261/
Reference the 2020 10k Annual Report:
Item 7.MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.
MACOM (MTSI), one of LWLG's suspected partners, has a P/E of 111. If LWLG can sign one single 100 million dollar deal with a 40% net margin, and a similar P/E of MACOM, 40 million times 111 is 4.44 billion in market cap, or about $40 per share.
This is for one single deal. When this becomes ubiquitous in a 50 billion dollar market by 2025, well, do the math.