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.
Woah.
Must be the discussion here as there wasn't much volume at all the preceding week.
Yep, well explained. The advantage to buying warrants is better seen by looking at how much of each you get for a given $.
Thank you for sharing what you heard.
So that part of the conference just proved SGLB is ahead of the game or at least tied for first as there's many companies catching up by now.
Would you go into a bit more detail on this? Mark has claimed that Sigma is ahead of the pack and its position is protected by patents.
The 4Q-2015 earnings call transcript addresses this. See the half dozen or so paragraphs starting with "Okay. So it does appear that our in-situ sensor-based inspection for printing machines is going to be the way that things go."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3959042-sigma-labs-sglb-ceo-mark-cola-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Sigma's software provides sufficient data to make a decision on part quality while the competitor's products monitor some of the process parameters, but the data they provide is not actionable with respect to qualifying a built part.
This is not a disclaimer, or boilerplate language imo, but a serious concern.
Why can't it be both? Intellectual property litigation would be expensive and there is always risk in initiating or defending a lawsuit. And at the same time other companies with similar business models have faced the same risks and the same kind of language is likely used in their writings to their shareholders.
I don't see anything unique to Sigma Labs here.
I found that interesting as well. Perhaps Mark in one of the upcoming conference calls will go into a little more detail in how he intends to do it. Some time ago he and Vivek explained that his potential customers were less interested in SGLB implementing closed loop control as it would reduce the value of their ability to verify build quality, since the quality control system would no longer be independent of the process controller. It's a good point and I'm curious to learn how they think they can provide both process control and independent verification of build quality, and even more curious as to whether any potential customers have expressed interest in that feature.
He's not listed under "owners of more than 5% of common stock", nor anywhere else in the 10-K. Mark Cola has around 33M for 5.4%. Didn't Vivek Dave have about the same amount? If so, he wouldn't have had to sell much to get under that 5% threshold.
Still I can't imagine that anyone would be pleased that he apparently thought it would be worth trading in his shares at any point over the last few months.
Got it. This was before my time and I appreciate the explanation.
Thanks kanya, that reworking of the sentence helps.
A couple of interesting comments were posted to this article today. Here are the Google translations:
Interesting article but I don't see how it gives any additional evidence to support Sigma Labs being "high risk" above and beyond it being a penny stock, a startup in a developing technology field, etc.
In my reading, it suggests that if Sigma Labs is successful, a buyout by some larger company headquartered in a different state is more likely than some may have anticipated.
SGLB will not attempt to sell it? What? There really must be something I don't understand.
The press release says Deform is shipping to Honeywell in October and other future customer sites "as appropriate". I strongly suspect this means that they will be doing what they can to sell it.
But the point is that Deform is available for sale now. No doubt modifications will need to be made as the software is used, or "tested" if you prefer, with an increasing number of systems, and in a variety of manufacturing environments, that still doesn't justify such a gloomy projection on sales revenue.
This seems like picking holes to me as well. How is this not a release when it is "available for customers within the Company's Early Adopter Program"?
I'm very skeptical that revenue generation is dead for "many months". Many months sounds like a lot. Is that even more than "several"?
My tentative plan is to hold until the standards are released, and then evaluate. What is the competition like? Is additive manufacturing proving profitable for production? Are other companies following GE and Honeywell's lead? Will any of them be needing Sigma Labs' services? I don't see too much risk right now in sticking with Sigma Labs until those standards are released since I expect Sigma Labs to meet those standards. That shouldn't cause any drop in the price, but the competition's ability to meet those standards will certainly say something about future demand for Inspect and Deform.
Is that all from a payment on the 500K GE contract?
While I agree that GE's substitute could be one that involves extensive post-production inspection, this quote from Greg Morris, last July, suggests that the backup GE has for Sigma Labs would more likely be providing an in-process solution. See message # 20470 for the full quote.
"So I believe there was an announcement in the public domain a while back where we have teamed up with a company called Beyond 6 Sigma and working with some of their technology and we're working with them and some others to try and develop that in process quality monitoring and assurance."
All indicators are actually okay.
I maintained and added to my position during the six month, or so, downturn without any second guessing. Now, you're making me nervous.
You said,
Action appears to be exclusively on the bid today minus a few opening trades
What? Price has gone up. How does that happen when action is "exclusively on the bid"?
And that's not the only one! Check it out:
# 1629415
Which was followed by this curious sequel:
# 1629445
Looks like there's some serious SGLB well wishers on the "Stockgoodies Plays of the Week" IH board.
The Los Alamos white paper on Small Lot Manufacturing has been posted here before, but newcomers may find it to be an interesting read. Mark Cola and Vivek Dave are two of the co-authors.
Link
According to this paper, there is demand for small production runs of components for nuclear weapons. As one might expect, quality control is an issue. Having largely completed the work on the software, the M290 now ready for production, their contacts with LANL, not to mention having written the LANL published paper devising a solution to this manufacturing issue, Sigma Labs appears to be as well positioned as possible to pick up any such manufacturing contracts.
Perhaps this would be a relatively insignificant source of revenue, or not, but it isn't one I've seen mentioned here. I also wonder whether such a manufacturing contract would be announced when signed or if the investors would only see the income in the quarterly reports after the payments were made.
Great, glad to hear it. However it has not been posted to the website, or at least I was not able to find it in the main, business or Santa Fe sections.
I think it's a flag of the faintest pink, and that more likely than not, Sigma Labs has retained an IR firm that has chosen to not maintain an official bricks and mortar location, and which has a couple of employees in four separate locations. But I also think that presenting it on the site as a suite address makes it into a topic of conversation, and that doesn't seem too smart.
This is my last allotted post, so I'll also say that the 'Ste.' portion of the address is probably a post box, and not a Google Maps error. Some folks (e.g. homelesss, RVers) have been able to use UPS mailboxes as addresses.
You have a point, it's not a good look.
On Darrow Associates website, under 'Career Opportunities' it reads, "If your passion is to work for your clients and not on commuting..." They may all work from home and not have any need for the overhead of a physical office. That said, with nine employees I would have expected one such office, or, since they list four cities on their 'Contact Us' page, more.
While I don't see this as a major issue, I appreciate your bringing it up, and I would also like to hear why you pointed to what the business does. Is that a questionable combination?
Here's the address of the Yellow Pages page on Darrow Associates:
http://www.yellowpages.com/huntington-station-ny/mip/darrow-associates-inc-475888755
The categories under which the business is listed: Financial Planning Consultants, Financial Planners, Mutual Funds, Accounting Services, Investment Management.
I'm not understanding how or why this has an effect on evaluating Sigma Labs. Perhaps another hint?