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.
Thanks for the DD Zack!
PyroGenesis Announces Signing with Japanese Multi-Billion Dollar Corporation to Jointly Toll with DROSRITE™
Good news, but dont miss the fine print.
Separately, PyroGenesis announces that the TSX Venture Exchange has accepted the Company’s proposal to issue 3,385,715 common shares at a price of $0.70 per share and 3,385,715 warrants, to settle outstanding debts related to accrued interest for a total amount of $2,370,000.50 on outstanding debt of the Company. Each warrant entitles the holder to buy a common share at $0.85 until April 30, 2020. For further information, please refer to the Company’s Press Release dated September 28th, 2018.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pyrogenesis-announces-signing-japanese-multi-133500754.html
Well I suppose if you got into SGLB between 7-12-18 and 8-8-18, you'd be up about 30%, but if you invested in this stock at LITERALLY ANY OTHER TIME, you're down (or you're at zero after 5 years). I suppose we could split hairs about what the definition of a bad long-term investment is, but I'd say SGLB falls under that definition so far, barring the last few months (for now, it could easily dip again).
I'm not saying it's a terrible company, I'm saying, thus far, it has been a terrible long-term investment. If you were trading on the dips & spikes, there was money to be made, sure, as with any stock that hasnt had an absolute free-fall for a stock chart.
Anyway, due to my own user error, network issues, YouTube issues, whatever, I got Mickey Mouse videos to come up. If you've seen the misspellings and other silly errors on many of their previous promo materials, it can make one laugh a bit. Or not.
GLTA
I still have no idea what this stock will do long term, but I enjoy my $0.90 energy drinks that I get on their website, and that pop to $10.00 (sold avg around $7.00 ) has got me well in the green, so I guess NBEV and I are on good terms again. However, I havent forgotten how BW cut his shareholders off at the knees to dilute at shit prices - TWICE. Looking to buy back in around $2.00, or when this $4.00 range stabilizes for at least a month. This CBD drink hype smells like some skunky weed, to me.
I tried your earlier video link, but the video had been removed. Because I have little kids and don't really use YouTube, it just went to Mickey Mouse videos instead. I found it pretty funny, given the discussions about where this company may be headed and how much money I've dumped into this (current) zombie. It's good to get a few giggles when you're down tens of thousands of dollars in a company where the founder, former CEO, and recent CTO just quit. At least we have a new "reputable" (infamous?) brokerage firm giving us the thumbs up!
To not be quite so negative, I still see the need for this product, and I still dont see anything better on the market, so I'll just see if this ship sails into the sunset or goes down in a blaze of glory.
May God Save Us All (GLTA Longs).
I generally respect your commentary, Silversmith, but this time, I think your dismissal of the high percentage of "red flag brokers" is way too careless. Yes, the financial services industry is a dirty pond, but some fish are dirtier than others, which is all Objective was trying to point out. He wasn't pointing out that they had "a blemish" on their record, but rather that they have a habit of retaining employees with blemished records at a rate that is significantly higher than their peers. I'm not dumping my shares because of it, but I don't like the sound of it either. Birds of a feather often stick together, and SGLB's history thus far has been one of siphoning cash out of investors' pockets. SGLB partnering with less than reputable brokers doesn't bolster my confidence.
Sounds like a wonderful suite for PrintRite3D to be a part of...
This is disgusting. What a way to treat your shareholders, buy doing some insider buying at a price 30% lower than market (earlier this week, when they likely set the price internally). I agree with RLee47, how is this legal? Insiders set a price, agree to purchase shares before they go to the public markets, and the common shareholder gets F'd. How does that not fall under insider trading?
I'm not upset at the dilution, I'm pissed that these cowards would only do it at 30% less than market prices.
I'm torn between holding part of this to see if it rises a bit after the initial panic, but long term, I'm out. BW is a crook.
CT Scan limitations - This isnt the study I read before, but here is an article that talks about CT scanning of AM parts, and also has a section where they concede that there are some limitations.
http://www.digitaleng.news/de/ct-scanning-a-new-way-to-look-at-parts/
CT Scan Limitations
While CT scanning provides visual information that is unobtainable via other methods, there are instances where it does not work. For example, there are sheet metal applications that aren’t well suited for CT scanning. “You may need a specific type of machine for that, or you can look inside a section for a specific weld, but it’s very much on a case-by-case basis,” Garant says.
Very large and very dense pieces (an iron casting several feet across, for example) also won’t work. “We don’t want to try to shoot through those parts because it requires too much energy,” Garant says.
Most industrial scanners max out at parts that are a few feet across. And unlike metrology scanners, CT systems are not mobile — they can weigh as much as 20,000 lbs. “Scanning large items is not a mainstream capability,” Gaskell says. “The part has to fit in the box; it’s not like a hospital CT scanner where you can measure a patient however big they are.”
Small 3D-printed parts made of tungsten carbide, silver, gold or other materials are also difficult to scan. “They are small, but if you are trying to image out the internal pores, we need so much energy to shoot through them that it can be difficult to get a good image,” Garant says.
Highly detailed aircraft parts made out of cobalt chrome or Inconel are also challenging. “No CT scanner can measure more than around three inches of Inconel to a metrology standard,” Gaskell says. “You can see through it, but you can’t get accurate measurements. You’d have to combine methods. So you could use a CT scanner to confirm features are in the part, but you’d have to sample the parts and cut them up to measure it.”
Another weakness is scanning parts made of multiple materials. “We had a water pump housing that was made of plastic and brass,” Young says. “We had to put enough power through to scan through the brass, but the image quality on the plastic was heavily artifacted. It looked like a sandstorm, but the brass came out perfectly. The data for the plastic was too noisy to use.”
Instances where CT scanning is ineffective - I wish I had the link handy, but someone sent out a link to a study several months ago (probably Visionary), and it did talk about the areas where CT scanning can prove ineffective. Some really dense alloys and parts with complicated internal geometry requiring tight tolerances & smoothness were a couple of areas that they mentioned as weak points for CT scanning, as ideally these areas and materials would be inspected as the part was being formed, when the internal channel/geometry was still exposed. I guess the main takeaway is there are indeed some materials and parts where CT scanning is inadequate or at least extra difficult, and in-situ monitoring is preferable.
It seems to be the consensus amongst the AM community that in-situ monitoring will be the way to go, and I see no evidence of SGLB having any close competition at this time. I'm just tired of waiting for revenue!!!
GLTA. GO SGLB.
Rice's usage of "my good friend Ivan" during the CC was not at all convincing, to me. I agree with your points, Hawks. I'm still somewhat optimistic about this stock, but I think the Morf3D relationship has gone the way of GE and several others. Rice (wisely) speaks kindly of all potential allies, in hopes that there might still be a spark lingering and maybe something can be rekindled. The way he talked about Morf's innovation center and needing to have dinner with Ivan to see if there's a way that SGLB can get involved tells me that they havent spoken in months, and Rice is not at all involved with Morf3d, nor their innovation center.
I'm really starting to lose faith in this management team and think that they truly have no shame. We have a company that, to anyone on the outside, looks to be circling the drain and they give the CEO a raise. When pressed about their progress at the CC, we get a retaliatory "we have more going on than you know". We continue to pay our main sales guy a $200k salary instead of something structured more around a performance-based commission or stock options (which he also gets). Game on! Double Down! How about this battle cry - Make a Sale! I cant wait to hear the list of excuses and watch them duck every meaningful question at the next conference call. Can someone please press them on the CC about the Morf3D "relationship" and us taking/them giving our product back? I also dont see how revenues are going to start magically coming in when the early-adopter program ends this month. Are companies waiting around for the discount to end before pulling the trigger? Seems unlikely. Maybe the terms of the EAP were too stringent, like requiring renewals, beta-testing, or ongoing collaboration and companies truly are waiting for the EAP to end, but it doesnt make sense to me on the surface. Lord knows we dont have enough details about terms or pricing to be able to make any educated guesses... If I wasnt so far down on this, I would be dumping my shares now, as that appears to be the rational move at this point. Instead I'm just hoping they can get one more spike, where I will relieve myself of some of this dead weight. As far as Q2 revenues go, I think at this point they would be required by the SEC to notify stockholders if they sold some spare office furniture, as that would be a significant new revenue stream for them.
SGLB DOES seem to be the industry leader in their little niche space, but unfortunately there seems to be some kind of root problem here. The Morf3D soured relationship and Ivan Madera's response to Jeff or Ted (my apologies, I cant recall) do not sit well with me.
Here's to hoping that I'm wrong.
GLTA
Thanks for pointing this bit of positive thinking out to me. Now that you mention it, I do buy a Red Bull or Gatorade on about 50% of my trips to Lowes. Hopefully all these outlets will start producing very soon!
Yes, you have a point. I wont pretend to know how much they needed back in April, how much they got ($4.75 million rings a bell), or how much they have returned since then.
I bet you JUSSSTTTT miss him. Have a great weekend, to all the fools like myself who monitor this board. I've already started my first UNHEALTHY beverage, and man does it feel good.
I would imagine that these distribution deals take several months between signing a contract and actually delivering goods. If that's the case, there is time to turn a profit on the inventory they recently bought/manufactured with their "interim" financing, at least in theory. Also, BW drinks so many healthy beverages there is no way you could kick his arse. Even if you did, he'd just spin it into something else when asked about it.
No big news, but here's the latest update...
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/07/19/1539459/0/en/Gen2-PUREVAP-Tests-Restarting-Early-Warrant-Exercise-Program-Results.html
Summer is here, and the crickets are deafening. Not much news yet following the "proof of concept" of closed-loop control. Despite the promise and early mover advantage this stock has and has had, this thing is starting to look like it may never take off. I noticed a post a week or two ago from one of the board members about NASA's study of in-situ monitoring techniques, plus Jeff's note that GE already got their patent to monitor via acoustic waves, and it seems like maybe there are lots of ways to skin this cat, and no one needs or sees the value in Sigma's method. One would think SGLB would be able to sell a license for a working product instead of having everyone looking into their own method, if they had something as ready to go as they indicate. Maybe it's just the difficulty of being a 14-person company trying to market to the whales of industry... I dont know. All I know is it seems like the world is catching up and exploring alternative methods, including getting patents for them, and SGLB is still waiting on its first sale that produces meaningful revenue. It sounds like many of us longs have resorted to trading this stock on the spikes as a way of recovering some long-suffering losses, which is what I did the last two spikes as well. I guess we should all buy in tomorrow, now that it's back to nearly its all-time low. Side note, Materialise has been up lately, so it's not the whole 3D printing software segment that is a falling knife. GLTA, even you flippers. Raising my glass to you, HTRE, Alan, HerringAid, Kanya, etc. I dont like pessimism, but I do appreciate realism, and sometimes there's a fine line between the two. If this thing ever pops big (like 20x+), I'm honestly down for the party that has been mentioned here. Until then, enjoy your summer! Maybe in a few months we'll have something new to cheer about!
Here's a reminder to everyone - unless there is a source listed, EVERYTHING YOU READ HERE IS SPECULATION!
So we're not in "lockstep" with GE? Haha! Or maybe we were a little too much? Yes, regardless of how it happened, I think most of us agree that SGLB & GE Additive are NOT the best of business partners. I think it was "Hawks" on this board who voiced a lot of skepticism regarding how good of a business partner GE is, and whomever I'm agreeing with, I think you're right! Also, Thanks Jeff! Now that I have the board's permission, I will air my thoughts. (I promise to keep it in check after this post.)
IMHO, GE will NEVER be the go-to authority on AM inspection, because companies like Siemens, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, and everyone else will be very reluctant to send their proprietary designs to some division of GE for inspection and approval. The same goes for EOS and other OEMs. GE already has a reputation for being a bully, and this patent filing issue with Sigma only further validates that. Would you send your product to your worst enemy for verification? Probably not. Again, see the "America Makes" report, which America Makes labeled as a "success", but GEA described in some pretty unflattering terms. Mark Cola gracefully dismissed it as "their style" in the CC a year or two ago, and I commend him for his professionalism, but I think there are a lot of bitter politics at play there. Regardless, as many have commented, third-party certification/validation is crucial to any large-scale process, especially in an industry like this, where there are many similar technologies producing a similar end product.
Stratonics seems to be our closest competitor, but they dont seem to have nearly the contacts & connections that we do, nor the limitless financing from suckers like us that SGLB has. They DO have a better website and promotional language. I get pretty excited reading about their products. SGLB, maybe I get a little excited. It's hard to be objective about how effective SGLB marketing materials are after years of DD about SGLB. It doesnt seem to be SGLB's strong suit. Whether it's silence, vague references, or typos, there have been definite hiccups. MC gets a bit of a pass as a technical guy. Our sales and executive staff get much less of a pass, in my opinion. $180k a year for RF to not sell much seems a bit generous... Let's put our man on commission and a light salary, like so many salespeople out there, including many people I personally know. "Double down" is very vague C-level jargon that I dont know what to do with. I appreciate the more direct language in the 10-k and recent CC's where Mr. Rice spoke about targeting customers who are ready for serial production.
The good news is that the 10-k seemed to directly address lots of the concerns on this board. I think they made a very good effort to appease the shareholders, especially in relation to their past indifference to shareholders in general. Also, according to the 10-k, there are only 531 of us shareholders. It's nice to meet so many of you! GLTA!
It is becoming more and more clear to me that SGLB is well-entrenched in one of the most vital areas of AM, if not the very most critical path. Say what you will about revenues (not much to say), working with organizations like Siemens, Pratt & Whitney, NIST, LZN, EOS, etc is not the type of thing that someone with a garbage product is able to do more than once or twice, even in a fantasy world.
The "America Makes" report from GE painted a dismal picture, yet SGLB continues to work with everyone in that circle, with the likely exception of GE. Word gets around, and industries like this tend to be a pretty small circle where people hear a good deal about what others are doing, at least on the surface. I find it telling that SGLB filed their patent application ONE DAY before GE. I am overstepping my bounds with this speculation, but I think there was a professional courtesy from someone at GE with a conscience who let SGLB know that things had gotten less friendly, and that Sigma better move.
It is entirely possible that Sigma wont get their patents and GE Additive, EOS, Stratonics, or someone else will develop some similar technology that gets a greater market share, but that doesnt rule SGLB out by any means. SGLB seems to very much have developed a technology that, at the very least, has a ton of potential. Where are the partnerships between GE, EOS, Stratonics, etc with organizations like NIST and LZN? These organizations set the standards - not the industry - with things that are highly-regulated, like passenger flight. There is room for more than one player in this space, especially if the other major players are groups like GE or EOS, who would be too vertically-integrated to be desirable or trustworthy inspection partners for the rest of the industry.
The fact that they have not had any press release whatsoever trying to smooth over the fact that they got the freaking skull & crossbones designation tells me that something truly bad has happened, and they have nothing positive to say. If this was a misunderstanding, or they didnt know what was going on, they should have come out and said what they knew or that they were disappointed but looking into it. If it was something bad, you'd think they could have a few excuses, a few action items to clear it up, and then note how they have a great product, etc. Silence, in this case, seems an awful lot like an admission that things have gone truly sour. If it's not an admission, it is gross mismanagement, which means this stock will have a very rough future anyway.
I dumped on the second dip day last week and dont regret it, even though it came back up. Until they address this skull and crossbones designation with a well-thought PR, I will not be going anywhere near this stock. The longer they wait, the lower my odds of ever looking at it again. Management cant just sit and watch this fire burn. Wow.
I'm not very familiar with how accurate corporate merger rumors end up being, but I know in pro and particularly college sports, the rumors are true more often than not, whether they are publicly refuted or not. Sometimes organizations just dont like having their private discussions shouted by the media, so they say it never happened, whether it happened or not. Then a month later deals are made and it ends up being true that there were discussions. I would SPECULATE that the WSJ didnt pull the story out of their rear end. I imagine they had some reason for writing that article. Also, the response by Woodward sounds a lot more like "I dont want to talk about it" than "what are you talking about".
“Woodward is not in discussions with Boeing over a possible acquisition of Woodward, and will not provide any further comment on this story”, the company said in a statement.
Dont forget USG in early November and DOT in late October!
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/new-age-beverages-corporation-signs-agreement-with-unified-strategies-group-with-nasdaq-nbev-2239100.htm
"Unified Strategies Group is the leading US purchasing cooperative servicing independently owned vending, office coffee service, micro market, and food service companies. USG consists of about 2,000 member companies operating in all 50 states. USG generates over $5 billion in annual revenue and currently distributes leading brands including Kraft Heinz, Frito Lay, Mars, Nestle, Kellogg's, and others. Their system reaches 75,000 workplace locations a day and will now be offering the New Age Beverages portfolio throughout their system."
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/dot-foods-new-age-beverages-corporation-form-partnership-bring-healthy-beverages-nasdaq-nbev-2237956.htm
Dot Foods is one of America's largest private companies with almost $7 Billion in revenue. They operate 10 major distribution centers to service their customers and distributors throughout all 50 states and 25 countries. Dot Foods manages over 100,000 products across almost 1,000 manufacturers and through their consolidation can supply less than full truckload quantities of a full one-stop-shop portfolio of food and beverages. Dot Foods and their distributors penetrate a full range of channels in a way that few if any other distributors can match including hospitals, offices, restaurants, schools, convenience and multiple other outlet types in which New Age products have never been distributed.
I would think the moon's weaker gravity would throw off our melt pool algorithms...
Oops, Nobahamas beat me to it. But yes, sieve or mesh sizes that describe the allowable gradation.
Tom - I would expect that the -45 is the low-end tolerance, and the +15 is the high-end tolerance. Meaning, it is more acceptable to have particles a bit smaller than the target size than it is to have them a bit larger. The standard notation that you are accustomed to assumes that the high and low end tolerances are the same, which isnt always the case. The target is still placed where it is because that is the desired size. I wouldnt be surprised if the true spec were a gradation spec, listing an allowable percentage for each size of particle. Specs like these are used in sand and gravel fill for road and other construction projects. Hope that helps. I could also be wrong, but that is my guess.
For those skeptical of SGLB's pivot toward contract manufacturing and design consulting, here is a quick article about Materialise and how their business is progressing. I see Materialise as SGLB's peer, in that they have a 3D printing software suite (different use, I know) and provide additive consulting and contract manufacturing. I think, especially in this infancy of 3D printing, there is going to be a very large market for manufacturers who dont have the resources or desire to become 3D printing experts, but still want to utilize the technology. The industry giants will jump in with both feet, but there is still a lot of business to be had by capturing market share from even a portion of the manufacturing industry with a market cap that isnt measured in the billions. To think that everything 3D-printing will fall into some vertical design/manufacturing process where every company designs their own part, runs their own 3D printer, and sells their own parts is silly.
I was getting nervous with the CEO replacement and crappy America Makes project summary, but I'm feeling pretty good again. Hopefully the call will go well on Monday, and SGLB will enter into a new era where they address things like the two items above in a timely and proactive manner...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/materialise-reports-surge-3d-printing-end-part-manufacturing-119926/
Interesting days at SGLB, for sure, no matter how you see the half-full/empty glass. I cant make a definitive interpretation about the cryptic America Makes "report". How does one summarize a $500k study (my numbers might be a little off) into 3-5 sentences? I dont know, but some engineer tried. As a civil engineer, I'd like to reaffirm that the stereotype of engineers being terrible written communicators is very much based on reality. I'd like to note that I appreciate the interpretations of the report from JJ, KMEY, and a few others, even if I may not fully share your optimism.
I personally get the sense that somewhere in the leadership chain, SGLB leaders have realized that IPQA and 3D printing mass production/adoption is still a good distance out or their product isnt quite ready, and as such, they have decided to pivot a bit and focus on using IPQA sensors & technologies on existing production technologies and focus on being a partner to smaller firms looking to 3D print parts - which I dont think is necessarily a bad thing. I think that pivot was made reasonably clear with the Morf3D/others merger, and seems to be continuing with the America Makes report and subsequent leadership changes. I, for one, am still happy about the leadership change, even if John Rice IS coming on as crisis management. I'm not dogging MC, I'm just saying I feel that the corporation is now under better corporate leadership.
The inexcusable thing, to me, is that SGLB leadership wont give any answers to all of these nagging and important questions that their investors keep asking! If the product works, but with limitations, it should be within SGLB power to offer/reiterate their OPINION on the effectiveness of their software. They should be able to clarify what the heck IPQA does, in layperson terms, and what that correlates to as far as production implications. Even if it's just them reiterating the same confident lines, I want to hear that right now. I want someone to stroke my hair and tell me it's going to be alright! It is also prudent to explain the limitations of your product/services, and then touch on where you hope to take things from there. The scariest thing about all of the recent weeks' turmoil is the silence from SGLB. Maybe they need to hire JJ to do some damage control for them. Heck, I'll do it, as long as they can explain it to me. Just give us something besides that crappy executive summary from America Makes. As Hawks keeps asking (paraphrasing), if IPQA can track what is a "digital twin", does that "digital twin" have any relevance to the real world, ie strength parameters. If not, then what is the point? Seemingly, confirming geometry and surface smoothness is good, and it seems rational to think that we can, down the road, correlate a digital twin to strength parameters via lots of testing, but SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME THAT! Explain how useful it is to confirm surface geometry, or correlation to the build model. All that many of us are hearing right now is that IPQA doesn't relate to strength properties, which is not a confidence booster.
I hope SGLB leadership comes out with some kind of clarification very soon. Waiting for the conference call seems like an unnecessary delay. I'm pretty sure they'll wait for the call and then dodge our questions. Most of the questions will also be terrible. This is all I know about SGLB at this point. GLTA Longs.
Oops, meant to include the link to Pyrogenesis interview.
http://www.pyrogenesis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Creation-of-%E2%80%9CPyroGenesis-Additive%E2%80%9D.pdf
Dadx4, I wasnt talking smack with saying you "snuck" it in. I just meant that while I was typing, your post appeared and made mine appear redundant.
Here is an interesting situation analogous to SGLB, in my opinion. It's a Q/A session with Pyrogenesis, who has just started making metal powders for 3D printing. The CEO talks about the implications of GE's acquisition of Arcam/AP&C on the 3D printing powder market. Pyrogenesis' CEO sees that as a very positive thing for Pyrogenesis, as companies in competition with GE are now searching elsewhere for their powder supply. I see a similar situation with SGLB and GE's in-house monitoring solution(s), as well as a good case for SGLB to NOT be acquired by someone like Siemens, Honeywell, etc. I think most of these companies would rather work with an independent supplier (Pyrogenesis) or inspection/design/finishing service (SGLB/Morf3D/Jaguar) than hire it out to their competitor, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about world-changing, top-secret, top-of-the-line parts like metal AM is currently focused on.
Looks Like Dadx4 snuck the link in while I was typing. Still though, the implications are less ominous than the title suggests.
Dont Panic When You See SGLB Delisting Notice -
It looks like we had a director leave, and we have until December 11th to find a new one. I'm sure some of you will read this as an ominous sign for SGLB, but maybe the guy has an illness in the family or something.
https://marketexclusive.com/sigma-labs-inc-otcmktssglb-files-an-8-k-notice-of-delisting-or-failure-to-satisfy-a-continued-listing-rule-or-standard-transfer-of-listing/
Thanks RiskReward1, for your kind words. Thanks TedJ for your great explanation of the IP loan terms, and thanks to all for your input, whether I agree or not. I dont like to surround myself with consenting opinions just to make myself feel smart - it's truly nice to get all the different perspectives and knowledge from others, so that I can feel like I'm making my decisions based on relatively balanced opinions and info.
To answer your question RR, yes, my gut feeling is SGLB is going to make this work into a viable business sometime in the next 3 years, one way or another. I would like to think it's going to be a 10 bagger by the end of 2020, but the past performance of this stock has taught me to temper my expectations. I think we will see some better revenues from the recent OEM/EAP contracts next quarter, but I bet next quarter's numbers are still crap. At this point, I'm skeptical of any profitable quarter in 2017. I like that we have diversified a bit back into a consulting/print shop role. I think this path has better odds of bringing in decent revenues in the near term, and also adds street cred, knowledge of the issues customers have, technical expertise, and model calibration opportunities to the software's brand. I think we're in "lockstep" with too many big companies to not land one or two of them. I think the Caterpillar/solar turbine deal is a big deal. I think the competing software is currently inferior, but is nipping closer to our heels than I'd like. SGLB needs to close some deals that make real money and carve out a market share in this fetus market soon, or we may find ourselves with legitimate, comparable competition very soon, and no early mover advantage or market share to show for it.
I think 2017 is going to be extremely volatile, and I should probably sell tomorrow and look for a lower entry point later on (like autumn), but I will probably just hold on tight and ride it out, attempting to buy on dips and then cursing myself a few months later when I've lost another 20%. However, this thing could double any day with the right news of a big contract with real revenue, so as I said, I will probably just hold. I just recently sold almost all of my DDD & SSYS before their earnings releases with the expectation that earnings would be mediocre, and it seems that they were, but both stocks doubled with me watching from the sidelines after 5 years of cheerleading a losing team, so that is my fear with SGLB. I think worst case scenario (of the reasonably likely scenarios), SGLB's new partnership with Morf, Jaguar, etc will form a confederation of companies that makes a reasonable profit and share prices will double or more from today's price, in the next 3 years. Ideally, IPQA will become the industry standard and then the multiplication from here is hard to estimate. I also think that there will be legit competition in the next year, so I think IPQA will only be able to claim some portion of the pie when the market is fully developed.
Yes, I think it's a good stock, but prepare to lose half your money AGAIN in 2017. But you might also quadruple it. Hopefully quadrupling puts you back in the black/green. GLTA Longs.
PISD - I agree it would be nice to have a better view on the rates, terms, and structure of future revenues, but I think the real answer is every single contract is unique and pricing rates, terms, and structures vary widely. If some major player wants to prototype a part that is scheduled for future serial-run production, and wants SGLB's help getting it right, SGLB is wise to do that work for very cheap in hopes of landing the larger contract down the road. This is similar to our Early Adopter's Program, where (as I understand it) we received feedback from the users to help test and refine the software. The revenues from a program like this are going to be fairly marginal, because you're really just trying to sell them licenses, maintenance, & upgrades down the road, not the trial version you have out (as of several months to a year ago).
It seems to me that we have pretty much excited the trial, beta-testing period, and have now launched the more complete product, although it will obviously be revised throughout time. Mark Cola cant say that a license is $150k, because the price varies, the terms vary, and the intrinsic value that the clients offer varies. Some clients get better prices than others because of the value that their evaluation added to the software, some have bigger plans down the road and are "bigger fish" for SGLB, and some clients are less important and probably receive less friendly pricing. Even Microsoft Office will sell at very different prices between buying a single copy off Amazon and being a major corporation looking to buy 10,000 licenses. The price you get depends on who you are and how well you negotiate with the salesman. The same is true of everything, to varying degrees. In this case, the deals are highly variable, and - at this point - largely speculative.
The OEM package is likely similar, in that I doubt the real goal is to make money on each sale of a 3D printer that has IPQA on it. The real goal is to get printers coming out of the factory with IPQA installed.
Then the end users who buy the 3D printers will play around with it, maybe call SGLB with some questions, then maybe hire them for technical service, maybe like the product, maybe expand their licenses & services.
I would think the main goal is to land a client by having your software come on the device. This is similar to the services & apps that come pre-loaded on your phone or computer. It's worth it for them to give away the software if they can convert that freebie into a paying user. IPQA wont be free, but it will likely be deeply discounted or a trial version, in hopes of landing a customer.
Commenting on projected revenues for this type of business is very difficult to do, which makes this a tough stock to put an accurate valuation on. I hear your concern and frustration, but the way I see it, future revenues are a very tough thing to accurately forecast in this situation. This stock is less about the numbers, technicals, and other standard metrics, and more about your gut feeling of whether or not SGLB has software and staff that the industry is going to need and use in the future.
Conference call starts in 15 minutes. Here's link for those who are interested.
https://services.choruscall.com/links/sglb170515.html
You guys might very well be right. I like the news overall, either way.
Cappy, it looks to be GKN Aerospace.
http://www.gkn.com/en/our-divisions/gkn-aerospace/
Great Find, Jackle! I'm very excited about this!
Now if only SGLB can pay me $80k/year to proofread their presentations! Joking, sort of. (I realize I just ended a sentence with a preposition, but it's how normal people speak.) There were several typos or grammatical errors that honestly looked pretty unprofessional. It would be great if they could work on their polish a bit. That being said, this presentation offers great insight into what the REAL plans for SGLB have been since March.
I also get the impression that SGLB partnering with Materialise is dead for now, and GE isnt a relationship that is going to do us much good for a while, based on slide 12. It sounds to me like GE is planning on becoming the industry leader in-house and "leave the bulk of the industry behind", because the lack of "external integrated solutions..." led them to bring solutions "in-house as captive solutions". It sounds to me like SGLB is saying that GE recognizes the need for the full spectrum of services, and is bringing them on-board through acquisitions and in-house R&D. What SGLB looks to be doing is providing a solution for everyone else, which isnt a bad thing at all. GE might be the leader, but that still might only be 20% of the market. (Feel free to dispute this number.)
I know opinions vary, but I really like the direction SGLB is going. I'm just a dumb civil engineer, but learning design software takes a lot of time, and it goes a hell of a lot faster when you have people to lean on, whether in-office/company, or across the web. A unique software, utilizing "big data", for a burgeoning field like AM, seems like it would require an expert at each office that wanted to use SGLB software. GE, Honeywell, and others can afford to train that person, IF they so choose. Many other firms cant and plenty wont want to, at least not initially, so it makes sense for SGLB to do a lot of the work with their software in-house. It also helps protect their IP. They're combining it with strategic partners and some EOS printers so that a traditional mechanical/aerospace company can just collaborate with them to turn their industry expertise into a prototype or serially-produced part. I think this makes a lot of sense. So there's a break in the vertical chain? This happens all the time. Plenty of places design something and have someone else build it. I dont design civil infrastructure and then go run the excavator. In this case, designers and design/builders can turn to the SGLB umbrella to have AM parts produced, which makes a lot of sense, especially given the infancy of this industry.
This presentation does a lot to clear up the plans of SGLB. I wish they would have sent a notice to us investors, or at least released it to the "Sante Fe stay-at-home mom investor" magazine where we typically get our investor updates, but I guess they probably didnt because they're working out details with the other companies. I wont ask where on the darkweb this was found, but I appreciate the info!
I, for one, really like this revised business plan. Yes, it represents a bit of a pivot from the old position of just developing IPQA software, but I think it fits into the framework of the original vision, and makes for a stronger position in a field that is constantly developing.
Also, I really like Trumpf's logo. It's a blue rectangle. I bet they paid a graphic design company a few grand for that.
Good news, and GLTA! I hope at least one of you enjoyed might late-night (Pacific Time) thoughts.
Hey Flanker - Weird that you're in here talking to yourself as this stock takes off like a rocket. I'm so excited/mad! I have been long on PYRNF since early 2014 (still down 6% on my first purchase), but bought along the way and am now up over 100% overall, on a sizeable investment (for me), so I'm jacked! I'm also so disappointed, because I had just decided last week to dump another chunk of money into Pyrogenesis, but the paperwork took some time to process, so I didnt get it in before the last two jumps. I guess most of us are never fully satisfied with stock investing. I'm not sure if I should still add more right now. I still think this company has a ton of cool revenue streams with massive growth potential and proven concepts, but it's hard to put a valuation on this company given it's massive growth potential and lack of positive earnings. It's also surprising that HPQ Silicon Resources is down 30% off its recent high and didnt get any kind of a bump today, despite the update on its pilot plant progress (expected to be complete this October). There's probably a buying opportunity there right now that I should take advantage of. Anyway, thanks for the updates, and congrats on quadrupling your money since fall 2016!
Warrants - There have been several good responses, and some less rational ones, in my opinion. In general, if you think SGLB is going to skyrocket, buy warrants. If you think it's going to maybe go up a little bit (<100%) buy shares. If it goes down some, you're much better off with shares. If you think it's going in the toilet, it doesnt matter - dont buy either and exit the message board. Obviously all these percentages and the value of the warrants varies with time. I made a little spreadsheet, and I suggest you all do the same if you're on the fence. Crunch a few numbers. The difficulty is in making accurate assumptions about where this stock will go and when, not in running the numbers. If it goes bankrupt, it doesnt matter what you bought.
I own both, and should probably trade a few shares for warrants, but sometimes it's hard to make the sale and admit that you have made a terrible trade. I know emotional investing is stupid, but we're almost all guilty of it on some level. I personally think this thing is either going to expand several times over, or go out of business in the long run. In the next year, it likely has a tighter range between 50% loss and tripling, to keep the range broad.
BTW, I have heard talk of having a celebration party "when" this explodes. Maybe we should plan a get-together for next year either way. We can either pop champagne and high-five and hug, or drink whisky and bitch together. I'll want the companionship either way, with the money I have on the line. My money is nothing compared to some of you, I'm sure, but it's a solid chunk of my "play money", and would make me very happy for a long time if it popped 5x today's price, and pretty mad at myself if I lost it all. Oh well, none of us invested in SGLB because we like a nice, safe stock, did we? GLTA