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.
I long ago gave up having any faith in projections/predictions that came out of Mark's or Witty's mouth. Until they come out with a release that states "we have signed a firm contract with X to deliver Y Printrite 3D systems for Multiple million dollars over X years" the stock is going nowhere. Just my opinion.
Driftin:
Did you receive a response of any kind to your appeal to the new Board members to be more open and communicative with shareholders?
EZJ, you say: "Mark Cola at the Helm is what I prefer even at the cost of shareholder value." I thought creating shareholder value was what we were all here for? We see Mark through different lenses. I see a competent scientist and an incompetent manager. He continues to operate the company as his private research lab rather than a money making going concern. Publications, presentations, and relationships continue to carry more weight than profits. I lost confidence in him some time ago.
I think we are all hoping that our new Board will be more responsive to shareholder interests than the last crew was. They certainly come into the job with strong qualifications to contribute, should they choose to do so. A big red flag, to me however, is the very stringent provisions outlined in the recent 8K regarding Board membership. These provisions, basically restrict common shareholders from adding or replacing Board members, changing management, or having any real say in the operation of the business. I don't ever recall a set of Board provisions that were so shareholder unfriendly. One has to wonder what they were worried about and raises my concerns that the company will continue to be operated as a Mark Cola sole proprietorship.
Driftin: I had not picked up on insiders buying shares. That would be a major positive for me. Can you fill me in please.
Driftin: That's what makes a market. Your outlook is just as valid as mine. I certainly have no crystal ball, I'm just calling it as I see it.
Jeff: Glad you are happy with the NASDAQ results. All those "sophisticated investors are certainly making an impact on the share price.
Duffy, your projections for the share price are similar to my thinking. I would consider doing my purchasing in stages however. Barring some major news the new starry-eyed NASDAQ owners are going to get a rude wakeup call when the 10K is released in March and they realize what they have bought into.. I would expect the share price to take a hit at that time.
Hopefully this year will see some analyst coverage of the annual meeting with tough questions for Mark, I would expect that to have an effect on the share price as well. You may also want to tuck away some money for the time when the "good news" actually arrives and can be assessed. The idea that the share price is going to double or triple overnight is nonsense.
You can buy the warrant today for .75. The warrant gives the right (basically an option) to buy a share of SGLB for $4.00 any time in the next five years. Your total cost for the share of SGLB will be $4.75 so the stock has to trade higher than that to make any money. You can sell the "naked" warrant at any time for whatever the market price is at the time. If you had enormous faith that SGLB would be a $10 stock in five years you would be better off investing in the warrants than in the stock. Of course if the price never went above $4.75 you would lose your entire investment.
SEC Charges Six Firms for Short Selling Violations in Advance of Stock Offerings
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2015-239
Washington D.C., Oct. 14, 2015 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced enforcement actions against six firms, including more than $2.5 million in monetary sanctions and, in the case of one previously sanctioned firm, an order barring the firm from participating in stock offerings for a period of one year as part of its ongoing enforcement initiative focused on violations of Rule 105 of Regulation M.
Intended to preserve the independent pricing mechanisms of the securities markets and prevent stock price manipulation, Rule 105 prohibits firms from participating in public stock offerings after selling short those same stocks.
Through its Rule 105 Initiative, which was first announced in 2013 as an effort to address violations of the rule in an expedited and streamlined way, the Division of Enforcement has taken action on every Rule 105 violation over a de minimis amount that has come to its attention—promoting a message of zero tolerance for these offenses. As a result, based on available information, the SEC has seen a dramatic decrease in Rule 105 violations since the Initiative began. In the first fiscal year after the Initiative was announced, Rule 105 violations, detected through various means available to the SEC, decreased by approximately 90 percent over the previous six years. Rule 105 violations in fiscal year 2015 were similarly lower than before the Initiative.
“This highly successful program of streamlined investigations and resolutions of Rule 105 violations has clearly had an important deterrent impact on the market while expending a fraction of the resources that we have dedicated in the past,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “We will continue to target important violations that we see repeatedly with multiple actions that send important messages of deterrence.”
Rule 105 typically prohibits short selling a stock within five business days of participating in an offering for that same stock. Such dual activity typically results in illicit profits for the trader while reducing the offering proceeds for a company by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices the stock. The SEC’s investigations in the current round found that 6 firms engaged in short selling of particular stocks shortly before they bought shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on public offering. Each firm has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay a combined total of more than $2.5 million in disgorgement, interest, and penalties.
The six settlements announced today involved the following entities:
Auriga Global Investors, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. – The Spain-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $436,940.52, prejudgment interest of $2,184.70, and a penalty of $179,277.28.
Harvest Capital Strategies LLC – The California-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $18,835, prejudgment interest of $619.28, and a penalty of $65,000.
J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $662,763, prejudgment interest of $56,758.40, and a penalty of $364,689.
Omega Advisors, Inc. – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $68,340, prejudgment interest of $686.58, and a penalty of $65,000.
Sabby Management LLC – New Jersey-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $184,747.10, prejudgment interest of $2,331.51, and a penalty of $91,669.95.
War Chest Capital Partners LLC – The New York-based firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $179,516, prejudgment interest of $22,302.02, and a penalty of $150,000.
In the initiative’s initial round in 2013, enforcement actions were brought against 23 firms and resulted in more than $14.4 million in monetary sanctions. In a second round of sanctions announced in 2014, enforcement actions were brought against 19 firms and one individual trader and resulted in more than $9 million in monetary sanctions.
This third round of the initiative also demonstrates the benefits of cooperation. In contrast to nearly every other firm subject to the Initiative, War Chest Capital Partners LLC, a respondent in the SEC’s first sweep in 2013, refused at that time to review its past trading to determine whether additional violations not identified by the Division of Enforcement had occurred. The division subsequently found seven additional Rule 105 violations by War Chest, and, as a result, has today brought a second action against War Chest with increased sanctions. Under today’s order against War Chest, the firm is now subject to a censure, a significant penalty, and conduct-based order prohibiting it from participating in secondary offerings for a period of one year.
The SEC’s investigations were conducted by Lauren B. Poper, Allen A. Flood, and Christina M. Adams and supervised by Anita B. Bandy. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
No, I have not bought. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary nothing has changed except that shareholder values have been diminished. The timing of the reverse split and upgrade was forced upon the company because they simply ran out of money. Ideally, these actions would have been taken in conjunction with a major contract announcement or other positive news. Some believe that the company was waiting to upgrade to release good news so that they could benefit from the added volume and exposure. If that does occur the stock price will recover. If there is no news of significant contracts I expect the price to continue to decline.
NASDAQ reporting requires more transparency than OTC, but I don't know the details of how much additional burden this places on the company.
If there ever was a time it is now "today" for the new Board members to get actively involved in the oversight of the company. In my opinion it is extremely important that they lend the expertise that they bring to the table in making decisions on how the proceeds from this offering will be expended and that Mark is not allowed to continue to operate the company as a sole proprietorship. They likely will not be given another opportunity to raise funds without showing significant bottom line results. They have the expertise on the Board to make this a success. I certainly hope they have the motivation to utilize that expertise wisely.
Yup. Just think, if they had done a 3 for 1 reverse they might have even speeded up the process. It looks like all of those "sophisticated NASDAQ Traders" that Silver is always talking about are coming out in strength this morning. They are clearly recognizing the value here.
Badly blindside by Willis and not in the least appreciated. Makes me wonder what else he is up to that is detrimental to shareholder values. He can clearly talk the talk, but I'm beginning to doubt his ability to walk the walk.
Silver, you say: "Cola wouldn't have to release information that is an intimation of a potential customers actions" Yes, I can buy that. Webster defines "intimation" as a hint or an indirect suggestion. So we are back to the old bullshit put out by Mark that they are in "lockstep" with GE and that Sigma's sales are going to soar in the coming year, etc. etc. If the subscribers buy into that nonsense they will deserve to lose every penny they put up. He is not divulging hard information. He is divulging opinions...and his have not proven to be worth a great deal.
Silver, you say " He could be telling them that Honeywell or GE Aviation has indicated to SGLB that they will be announcing in early March that they will be going with PR3D for all their AM printer operations."
Not that I believe this is even remotely possible but assuming for a moment that it is factual. This would clearly be a material event and would have to be disclosed to all shareholders within five business days of Mark gaining that knowledge. The idea that SGLB could sandbag information that would cause the stock price to soar keeping the information secret from current investors so that subscribers to the offering would benefit simply does not make sense. As I understand the rules they can disclose the information but the new investors cannot act upon it. It would seem to be that they are "clearly acting upon" the disclosed information when they subscribe for shares. How do the rules get around that?
In other words they can provide the same sort of "hopeful" outlooks that they have provided on a regular basis in the past, but no material inside information that would give an unfair advantage. Just how helpful/beneficial do you think that would be based upon Mark's past record in this regard?
Institutional investors have to subscribe to the offering in advance. I can't imagine that the SEC would allow them an unfair advantage over other investors by allowing them to place their orders based upon inside information. That simply does not ring true. Can you provide a reference please.
I'm trying to get my head around how the reverse split and new share offering are going to unfold. I'm going to take a stab at how I understand it but would certainly welcome corrections/clarifications.
SGLB has indicated how they would expend the proceeds from an offering based upon an estimated offering price of $5.50. If they will require this level of funding for future operations the number of shares offered will have to be adjusted up or down depending upon the actual offering price. As I understand it the investment banker sets the offering price based upon the demand that they have from institutional investors that subscribe to the offering. The investment banker guarantees that they will purchase all of the shares in the offering at the offering price that the banker has set for a fee of 5-7% of the total amount raised. When the investment banker is sure of selling all his shares to his clients the deal closes and the investment banker buys all the shares from the company at the IPO price and resells them to his clients. Once the shares are in the clients accounts they can begin selling on the open market. With a stock like SGLB whose price fluctuates so much it would appear difficult for an investment banker to get a firm commitment from institutions on an offering price. Some here believe that once institutions are able to buy and sell on the NASDAQ they will bid the share price up based upon the perceived potential. If I were an institutional buyer I would want to buy my offering shares at a reasonable discount to the stocks closing price the previous day (otherwise I would have been buying my shares prior to the offering). The offering price also gets tricky as SGLB needs a $4.00 stock price to qualify for upgrading. A few more days like today could put attaining that at risk. It's going to be an interesting next few weeks. Please correct my thinking/assumptions at will.
Silver:
With all due respect I believe that you, Jeff, GR1D, and others who have high expectations for the stock price following uplisting are dead wrong. It won't be long now before we all find out.
Jeff: You would be so disappointed if you didn't have someone to argue with. I am in total agreement with Mark's 2/1 reverse split. He did just enough to qualify for the NASDAQ and no more. He had no choice but to do it when he did...the money had run dry. Whether there is a major contract waiting to be announced once they upgrade we'll have to wait and see. I don't think so, but then I don't know anymore than anyone else.
a point of clarification please: I would appreciate you explaining your rational in a bit more detail the theme that both you and Silver seem to be promoting that once this hits the NASDAQ the sophisticated investors will recognize the underlying value here and drive the share price up. To me the "sophisticated" investors will look at a stock that has never had a profitable quarter, has been forced to do two reverse splits to keep the lights on, and whose sales have been anemic at best and go on to more promising prospects. To me, at least, the more knowledgeable investor you are the more you would be turned off by the prospects here. We'll soon see for ourselves, but I truly do not follow your thinking here.
Certainly agree regarding the expectations and intentions. The history of "execution" has been pretty dismal to date.
Silver: Is it a "stretch" that they are out of money? I don't think so, how could they not be? Is it a stretch that they were forced to dilute now, rather than later? Once again all evidence would point to this being a necessity. Is there any reason at all to believe that a significant order will be announced in conjunction with the offering? I've seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. You can hope/dream conjecture all you wish and you may even turn out top be correct. I wouldn't bet any serious money on that coming to pass however.
Sergio, there is a much simpler answer than the answer silver provided. They are out of money. Flat broke, and the share offering was necessary to keep the blights on. The timing was not of their choice and for that reason I have serious doubts that there is going to be any significant contract announcements associated with the offering. We'll soon know.
Agreed, they do qualify but I wonder who in the world is going to be willing to pay $5.50 a share after the reverse split. If Silver's reasoning is valid it should be no problem. I'm having a hard time imagining it happening but a lot will depend upon whether they have a major contract announcement to go along with the offering. I have my doubts about the announcement because they were really forced into doing the offering now (announcement or not). They simply ran out of money.
I'm with you Duffy, I don't understand a lot of it either. By my calculations they don't meet the $750,000 net income threshold to qualify for the Capital Markets, nor do they meet the tangible assets threshold of two million dollars. Their plans for the use of the proceeds is also questionable. After buying manufacturing equipment and tools, as well as repaying the loan they will be left with only 2.4 million for operating expenses. That does not seem like a great deal of cushion. I'm not sure exactly how they arrived at the expected offering price of $5.50. That also seems terribly optimistic in my opinion. Driftin hit the nail on the head however with his observation that a very major contract needs to be waiting in the wings or the share price is going to be decimated. Silver's optimistic belief that somehow NASDAQ investors are going to see gold at the end of this rainbow not withstanding. It ain't going to happen.
Jeff, you are really a lot of fun. They don't meet three of seven basic qualifications in the least restrictive category of NASDAQ to qualify for listing. Call it anything that suits you.
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe SGLB meets the Capital Markets requirement for net income ($750,000); tangible assets (2 million) mortgaged IP would be deducted; or the $3 closing price requirement. All could change quickly, but they do not appear eligible at the moment.
I bought a small position prior to the April 2016 Board meeting and sold almost all of it (at a loss) following the meeting after listening to Mark.
I could agree with "unimaginative".
Silver:
"I actually kind of like (in that I see a current benefit from) the fact that OTC flippers and naysayers, and the fear-based-timid are still a big ball and chain on the stock,".........in other words realists and not dreamers.
Your memory is spot on Duffy. Wonder where he was when the price was 75 cents a few weeks back?
"are you just attempting negative sensationalism as usual".
SGLB has one more "evaluation contract" to add to those already in existence (which have yet to produce any orders), and an OEM order that is "expected" to generate a few million dollars over a seven year period. The stock price has reacted to the news positively (more than doubled as a matter of fact) but to claim this is the beginning of a huge new expansion in business is far from justified. You seem to keep forgetting the fact that the company is very rapidly running out of money and will have to dilute in order to even keep the lights on. You may view that as negative sensationalism, I view it as facing facts. At some point we should do a fact check on who foresees the future more accurately.
"Big sales ramp coming as we now know" and you base that startling conclusion on what?
Overview - Institutional Sales & Trading
The Institutional Sales & Trading division of Ascendiant Capital Markets LLC provides domestic and foreign equity trading for institutional and accredited investors. Domestic markets include NYSE, NYSE Amex, Nasdaq, and OTC.
The trading operation is equipped with state-of-the art technology and systems, providing clients with efficient execution and service. The trading division is managed and staffed by securities industry professionals with many years of experience at leading investment banks and institutional brokerage firms.
Ascendiant’s Market Maker ID is “ASCM”.
Driftin: I believe if you sent an email to info@sigmalabsinc.com and addressed the body of the email to each of the two gentlemen with a request that it be forwarded to them I believe your message would reach them.
Silver. Your assertion that it is simply "investor buying" that is moving the stock price is incorrect in my opinion.The close on January 18 with no news was eighty cents on minimal volume. On the morning of the 19th the OEM agreement was announced and the stock price reacted closing at $1.15 that day. On Friday as the news spread the price increased again for a $1.35 close. I can agree with you that those moves were all investor generated. On Monday things really got kinky. Immediately the price shot up astronomically on volumes that had not been seen in years closing at $2.44. The same thing happened the following day with a close of $3.16 on Tuesday. On Wednesday suddenly the volume dropped off and the close was $2.15. Thursday there was another evaluation contract announced and the stock price recovered to $3.38. Today, on no further news the price closed at $3.45. In my opinion the prices on Monday and Tuesday were clearly manipulated. It's simply too much of a coincidence that the two new Board members joined the company last week with the stated intention of uplisting, a contract announcement was made the next day, and when the announcement didn't move the stock price sufficiently by Monday a decision was made to intervene. You will never convince me that shareholders simply woke up on Monday morning after knowing about the contract for four days and decided to bid the price up so aggressively. That simply does not compute in my book. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary neither of these "contracts" were game changing. Now that the price has softened a bit on the second announcement it will be interesting to see what is in store for Monday.
Kanya: As I read the S-1 total outright sales and EAP agreements combined total a bit over one million dollars for a two and a half year period through June 2016. It is hard to determine what an EAP agreement brings in because each seems to have different modules involved and also different prices for different customers (a practice that may come back to bite them in the future).
"Do I believe this will cause the lemmings to rush out and push the price up? Yes I do. Do I believe it is sustainable? No I do not." Just how much more specific of an answer do you want? You seem to delight in picking a fight.
Silver: Would appreciate it if you would dig a bit just to humor me. The number of Early Adopters that they have on board and their total revenue figures don't support a $100-150,000 price point assumption. I'd certainly be interested in seeing what you can find.