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.
No. This is used to determine beneficial ownership of a security. Beneficial owners must file a form 13d with the SEC if they exceed 5% ownership of the voting class of the equity. To determine whether or not Bruce Bromage meets the 5% threshold, you need to take the total number of shares Bruce owns or has the right to acquire in the next 60 days through the exercise of an option or warrant, divided by the total shares of the stock.
The "60 days" statement is included anytime the outstanding stock options count is listed so that we as shareholders can determine if he meets that particular criterion for being a beneficial owner.
I would guess our 10,000 parts equate to $280k per quarter, and that we shipped January's shipment before the end of December. This is why December had $558k in revenue. Third quarter had $327k. Had the 10,000 parts shipped after January 1, we would have had a $327k third quarter, $280 fourth and $352K first quarter.
They might have decided that making 2020 as a whole look better was worth the 1st quarter hit.
That is certainly something to aspire to.
The translation from Google says:
"2. Party B shall pay Party A a technology license fee of 40 million yuan (including a payment of 23 million yuan to Yian Technology and a payment of 17 million yuan to Yihao Metal), and the technology license fee will be paid in two installments."
Is that translation of amounts correct?
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, all derivatives of a party’s Trademarks shall be owned exclusively by that party."
If I interpret your answer correctly, the word "exclusively" is the answer for why section 3.1 does not apply.
This is what makes the most sense strategically for LQMT. It matches the need to file changes to the trademark application field.
Thanks for your response.
How does this differ then from any other Trademark that LQMT might own and has granted to Eontec in section 3.1? In other words, the ownership is not shared, it is exclusively LQMT's. However it is granted as part of the Trademark License Grant to Eontec.
Is there language here that I am misinterpreting? We have granted Eon a Trademark license for "Liquidmetal", but LM106c cannot be used by Eon without a royalty because it was co-developed and isn't governed by section 3.1?
60 days from March 5 is Tuesday, May 4. This is likely the day LQMT will report 1st quarter revenue. I doubt that options expiration date is a coincidence.
It should be an interesting 60 days for sure.
I posted Article 5 of the PLA which outlines the JDP.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141240/000143774916027548/ex10-2.htm
ARTICLE 5
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND DERIVATIVES
5.1. Technology Development. The Parties will work together to jointly improve and further develop the Technologies for a period of five (5) years (“Joint Development Period”). The scope and nature of such joint efforts, and the respective responsibilities of the parties in connection therewith, will be set forth in one or more mutually agreeable development agreements or other similar agreements to be entered into by the Parties (“Development Agreements”).
5.2. Improvements and Derivatives. Unless otherwise specified in the applicable Development Agreement, all improvements and further developments of the Technologies by the parties during the Joint Development Period (“Derivative Technologies”) will be owned and licensed as follows: (i) technologies developed solely by one party will be owned by that party, but shall be included as a Licensed Patent or Licensed Technical Information (as the case may be) hereunder, and (ii) technologies developed jointly by the Parties will be jointly owned by the Parties but shall be included as a Licensed Patent or Licensed Technical Information (as the case may be) hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all derivatives of a party’s Trademarks shall be owned exclusively by that party.
I think chipboarder has it right...
"The carbon footprint is a measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life stages of a product."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/carbon-footprint
"A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions."
https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/
"A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that come from the production, use and end-of-life of a product or service. It includes carbon dioxide — the gas most commonly emitted by humans — and others, including methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere, causing global warming. Usually, the bulk of an individual’s carbon footprint will come from transportation, housing and food."
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint
Abstract
A Zr-based bulk metallic glass formed using low purity materials at a low vacuum with a small amount of yttrium addition is provided. A method of improving the glass forming ability, crystallization and melting process without reducing the mechanical and elastic properties, such as hardness and Young's Modulus, of Zr-based alloys by yttrium addition, is also provided.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=31&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%226%92682%92611%22&OS=%226%92682%92611%22&RS=%226%92682%92611%22
This is CIP. Maybe it is also a reason Li invested in LQMT.
Very bad idea.
My assumption is that some or all of the investments are liquid enough to provide cash to the company within a few days if necessary. The $5 million cash on hand gives us at least a year of cushion.
I don't think it is possible to know based upon the information in the 10-Q.
They invested their cash in corporate bonds. They did not issue bonds.
On December 31, 2019, they had:
$1.612 million in US Government Securities
$7.476 million in Corporate Bonds
$2.4 million in Certificates of Deposit
________________
$11.488 million total
On September 30, 2020 they had:
$23.845 million in Corporate Bonds
They sold all of the US Government Securities, all of the CDs for a total of $4 million. They also sold $5.3 million in Corporate Bonds for a total of $9.327 million in sales. They took the $9.3 million and added $12.32 million from cash and reinvested $21.641 million in new Corporate Bonds, bringing their total to $23.803 million in Corporate Bonds.
For context (italics from the 10Q)...
Debt securities are carried at fair value and consist primarily of investments in obligations of the United States Treasury, various U.S. and foreign corporations, and certificates of deposits.
Sometime in the 3rd quarter, LQMT moved $4 million out of US Treasuries and CDs and into "various U.S. and foreign corporations" (process of elimination).
They also added $12 million to long-term debt securities with the latest expiration date occurring in 2025. The full amount of these new investments is considered a "Level 2" instrument when determining fair value. In other words, they aren't publicly traded bonds that have an easily discernable price, but there is a way to accurately value the asset.
Level 2 —
Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities;
649,034
One of the big market makers seems to have been filling a big order all week, and was keeping the price to .0845 while he filled it.
They now look like they are moving the price hard to generate some volume ($$ for them).
Unfortunately, the iFixit pics show the same.
If something is jointly developed, don't both companies own it (even after the JDA)?
That would imply that Eontec has some IP that Apple needs. Apple cannot get to that IP through LQMT because the PLA/JDA excludes CE (to protect Eontec from Apple, and Apple from Eontec). Once the JDA expires things get even harder for Apple unless a new agreement is made. If they go directly to Eontec, they lose the rights to any IP or trademarks that LQMT owns. If they stick with LQMT, they lose access to Eontec IP.
Maybe Li is playing good cop/bad cop to get a better deal out of Apple. Or maybe it is a coincidence.
If they have a solid date in March, maybe they already have a deal hashed out, but don't want to let the Liquidmetal cat out of the bag.
If Apple needed smaller parts in the meantime, and had Yihao make them, would Eontec Licensed Technical Information need to be disclosed?
It's all interesting to think about.
They do...
https://www.apple.com/iphone-12/specs/
Model A2172*
5G NR (Bands n1, n2, n3, n5, n7, n8, n12, n20, n25, n28, n38, n40, n41, n66, n71, n77, n78, n79)
5G NR mmWave (Bands n260, n261)
FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 66, 71)
TD-LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48)
CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz)
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
Model A2176*
5G NR (Bands n1, n2, n3, n5, n7, n8, n12, n20, n25, n28, n38, n40, n41, n66, n71, n77, n78, n79)
5G NR mmWave (Bands n260, n261)
FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 66, 71)
TD-LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48)
CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz)
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
All models
5G (sub-6 GHz and mmWave)
Gigabit LTE with 4x4 MIMO and LAA4
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) with 2x2 MIMO
Bluetooth 5.0 wireless technology
Ultra Wideband chip for spatial awareness5
NFC with reader mode
Yes. All versions are mmwave capable.
It is a current ad on Qmed.com with Daniel McHugh as the author. Click the link he provided.
The original contract for recurring, volume production is the raison d'etre for the machine order by Yihao. I'm saying that if LQMT needs 45 machines to fill their production order beginning July 1, and Eontec need their machines on January 1 for hinges, then it is fair to say that the difference in total assets for Yihao could possibly be attributed to the LQMT contract.
Once there are 100 machines on the floor that never leave, I'm sure they are used interchangeably.
Eontec's report indicates just that limited information from its involvement in the joint venture. There are no complete financials for Yihao.
Eon sold its new subsidiary 10 machines in march for RMB 30.8 million. That translates to $450,000 per machine. The change in Yihao's assets during 1H, (if all attributable to new machines) is 43 new machines if purchased at the same price. This matches the 45 we have been using since last year's press release.
Assuming that the Eontec machines were a higher priority, as the LQMT machines weren't needed until July 1, those 40+ machines could be ours.
It could also mean that we only had the capacity to begin on July 1 due to a constraint on the machines delivered to Yihao.
Yihao's total assets increased by almost $20 million between Jan 1 and today. That should be good for at least 40 new machines.
LQMT manufactures via Yihao. LQMT contract dollars will show up in Yihao financials. Yihao financials will show up (60%) in Eon's financials. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch that we watch these numbers for big changes as a leading indicator of bigger things to come.
It could all be Eontec contracts with no hope for LQMT. But if you believed that, you wouldn't be here.
Stated in Yuan.
As Josh said, that is just the 60% that Eon owns.
My assumption is that Operating Income is after COGS.
Using tab apparently controls the buttons not your text. A little quick on my submission.
From the Eontec 2019 Annual Report
Yihao Metals
Total Assets: 91,408,437.86
Net Assets: 29,861,261.75
Operating Income: 86,548,550.62
Operating Profit: -24,925,153.36
Net Profit: -24,848,165.79
From the Eontec 2020 Semiannual Report
Yihao Metals
Total Assets: 170,970,459.47
Net Assets: 56,794,259.86
Operating Income: 113,530,260.62
Operating Profit: 31,370,199.71
Net Profit: 26,932,998.11
That is quite a change.
Relax. The specific photos and Chinese YouTuber being shown were referring to the tear down of the abandoned AirPower. Whether or not Apple has or has not started it back up, is unknown. Pointing to those parts and that video when the video itself says that this vlogger got hold of the prototype that was cancelled in 2019 is misleading.
https://www.techradar.com/news/apples-canceled-airpower-mat-shown-off-in-a-new-video
https://www.archyde.com/apple-airpower-prototype-disassembly-reveals-why-wireless-charging-station-never-made-it-to-market/
https://www.iclarified.com/77205/watch-this-teardown-of-an-alleged-apple-airpower-wireless-charging-mat-video
This article says these pictures are from the discontinued AirPower. Other articles out there say the same thing.
https://www.macrumors.com/guide/airpower/
Sounds similar to our 2017 trip to .44. Hopefully the event happens this time.
Thank you. I have followed the due diligence on iHop with regard to the battery case. This connection to the JV I understand.
I have done some research on LiFePO4 batteries and the use of amorphous iron in cathodes. https://www.nature.com/articles/am201498. A connection to LQMT to the cathode/anode world is within the realm of possibility. I just don't see the detail.