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.
A month ago we had daily updates regarding the buy\sell ratios and how the short interest was ballooning.
Still LQQKing for a 30 day price prediction.
Not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing. You seem rather confident in it's meaning though. Here's a challenge - take that confidence and memorialize a prediction based on the indicators you are seeing. "I, proto, think the share price will be $$ by *date*." Don't throw out some prediction that is years out. Tell us where you think it will be in 30 days time based on these indicators.
It's a pre-revenue company. A scam insinuates some sort of fraud is at play. Maybe there's other issues and maybe there aren't. I don't agree with the permabulls that speak as if there is no way this thing could fall flat on it's face but I am quite content investing my money here for the chance at outsized returns.
If you had any proof management was making material misstatements of fact you'd be filing reports with the SEC and sitting back and waiting for the 10-30% finders fee to show up in your bank account.
Quite possible. I admittedly don't know much about "poling" but was simply providing a logical counterpoint to the argument.
Patents don't get issued in a matter of minutes. My take would be that a poling issue existed at some point, they researched and developed a novel way to mitigate said issue, and subsequently patented the mitigation process.
I'll give you that. Problem is some of these NDAs could have been executed 1,2,3+ years ago. Is it possible that at the time the NDAs had no consideration for marketing opportunities because they were simply trying to figure out if the product was commercially viable?
With respect to the NDAs - the common theme seems to be it is the partners that are demanding the secrecy. It's also quite possible that Lightwave is demanding the secrecy of their partners. They are developing a new product which requires untested pricing. Lightwave may simply be unaware of what the market may bear for their product. NDAs benefit them as well because they likely start the negotiation at X and then get whittled down by the partner. It's in Lightwave's best interest to keep pricing discussions obfuscated until they have a better understanding of what the market will actually accept re: pricing.
If the pricing for deal #1 gets out then all of the other partners are in a better position to have that as a target and\or starting point. It's quite possible that as more deals come in Lightwave realizes the market will support higher prices than their first deal.
What exactly are you defending here? I didn't indicate I have any issue with him selling. Simply setting the record straight on Proto's erroneous interpretation of a form 4.
Proto - You are simply incorrect. The Form 4 lists two separate transactions for the exercise of 50k tranches of options expiring later this year. El Ahmadi has 555,000 options remaining at unknown exercise prices unless someone pieces all of the other Form 4s where they were awarded. He also has ~29k actual shares. He had 655k at the start of the day, sold first tranche and had 605k remaining, sold second tranche and is left with 555k options.
We can obtain any answer we want if you frame the question properly.
1 - Why would you choose the S&P as your reference when we are a NASDAQ listed stock?
2 - This stock, any single stock really, is way too volatile for you to make such a broad characterization.
Below are overlays of LWLGs performance against the NASDAQ 100
June 1, 2007 to present shows LWLG outperforming the NDQ100 by 300%
April 1, 2008 - Present shows LWLG underperfoming the NDQ100 by 500%
Well - You got me to challenge my beliefs which is part of the reason for discourse. Not sure why everyone in here defaults to being so confrontational out of the gate vs just saying "I disagree and here's why."
Please show me where I said there isn't a need for 400\800G+. What I said is that there will not be a need for 400\800G+ in the individual servers. I think every rack in the data center could have a handful of 200\400\800G+ transceivers. There will not be a need, in the near\mid term for 50+ in each rack.
AI is compute heavy not network heavy. Lebby himself said there will be more traffic but he didn't say how much or even begin to approximate it.
I'll change my previous statement to "unlikely" so I'm not speaking in absolutes. Is it possible that everything needs to be connected with 400G? Sure why not, but it's highly unlikely.
I haven't ignored the power savings. It's why I bought this stock.
Edit: More Receipts
A NIC with a passive copper cable is likely to be lower power draw than an optical NIC\Transceiver that needs to take the 1's and 0's and turn it into light rather than passing the traffic. Not only that, it is likely to be a more expensive device than a simple copper NIC.
Also - Everyone wants to talk "power savings" but there are other extrinsic and intrinsic costs that factor into a decision. Power draw doesn't exist in a vacuum. All else being equal (cost, throughput, powerdraw) a DC might elect to remain with copper because it's more resilient than a fiber patch cable. Sliding a server in and out of the rack, connecting\disconnecting a NIC, these all present opportunities for a glass strand to get broken in a patch cable and introduce new issues and expenses to the equation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but LWLG's own documentation states that 400G+ is where they are going to become competitive over todays optical transceivers. Widespread adoption of 400G in a node\endpoint\device won't happen anytime in the next 10 years.
Since I'm a fan of receipts.....
ASM Question about "Forklift Upgrade"
The question isn't framed well and Lebby's response is "That could very well be the case."
To me he's basically saying "I don't have a clue" and that's perfectly fine because he's not a datacenter or network engineer. Everyone wants to talk "millions of transceivers" in a data center because it means more sales. I would wager Facebook and Google are still connecting nodes (servers) to the network with copper. A QSFP+ NIC can deliver 40G in a passive fashion. All else being equal, passive, I imagine, would be more desirable because there is less that can go wrong.
As a thought experiment - a single 52U server rack, populated with 48 1U servers, pushing a sustained 30Gbit of traffic is unlikely to exist. That traffic would equate to 180GBytes\sec ((48 servers * 30GBit) / 8Bits\Byte) which is insane. All of that traffic would need to terminate somewhere and most of it would likely terminate at a storage array at some point. Even with an entire rack of storage comprised solely of flash arrays I would be hard pressed to think it could handle 180GBytes\second (This is hyperbolic - it might be possible but I don't have a clue). At 180GB\second a PetaByte could be read or written in 92 minutes and that doesn't even account for storage overhead such as error correction or parity operations. The thought of 1 rack pushing that much traffic doesn't hold water, imo.
Someone needs to ask "When do you anticipate recognizing revenue from this deal?"
EDIT: Didn't intend for this to be a reply
I agree
I hear you. I bought in on the promise of power savings and how that would get gobbled up by data centers. It has been tough to hold at times and I've thought a lot of things you have.
Doesn't change the fact that this is positive news of guaranteed revenue that will hit the books.
Everyone has their own biases at play. Your initial reaction is to presume this announcement is merely snake oil meant to pacify retail shareholders. The opposite is also a very possible - This is an intentionally timed release to maximize excitement and visibility as we head into a number of positive catalysts in the weeks and months ahead. It's a coin flip, nothing more, nothing less.
Good business rarely happens by accident.
I think you've said some valid and rational things in the past to critique the organization based on available information. This post, however, is classic "moving the goal posts." They just announced a deal that is guaranteeing revenue.
Is it monumental revenue? Could be, but probably not.
It is, however, a deal and revenue. Part of the bear thesis is that this stock is a scam and they would never generate revenue. That has just been disproven.
What kind of longevity are you looking for?
Hardware refresh cycles at the enterprise\ISP\HyperScale DC are likely only 4-6 years. These things don't need to run for a century.
Lightwaves tech could be on a 2 year replacement schedule and no one would care if it still resulted in a net profit over incumbent technologies at the end of the day.
I like this.....
What exactly are they supposed to say?
How did you justify the run up to $20?
Nothing has materially changed about the company. If you didn't question the run to $20 how can you question the subsequent dump?
This is a broad over-generalization. Watch "The China Hustle" if you would like to see some shorts going to extraordinary lengths to perform DD to inform their short position.
At the end of the day longs go long because they think the stock will appreciate and shorts go short because they believe the inverse. People can go long on a whim just as easily as people can go short on a whim. It doesn't mean that everyone in either camp does.
I don't necessarily know that it's "Favorites" per se. They capitulated to all of the states attorneys general that sent in a letter Mid-August(?) saying "you need to ban flavors"
Snarky answer: https://bfy.tw/S2zg
Direct answer: Yes
Could you provide some additional context? I don't recall that particular phrase. Curious if I missed an 8K or something.
Warning: lengthy - Some positive (IMO) minutia and musings
We can plainly see that R&D expenses are going up which I believe is a positive indicator at this stage so long as they burn the cash wisely; which the company seems to be doing.
Heading into 2021 Lightwave had $118k in prepaid expenses for prototype devices. I looked at a couple 2020 !0-Qs and the 10-K and did not see any "Prototype" expenses listed.
Q1'21 had significant expenses associated with prototype devices.
Q2'21 had a drop off in QoQ prototype device development expenses. It did however have significant expenditures for "Lab and wafer materials and supplies." This is the first time I noted this line items presence in a report. The description for the PolymerStack Ridge Waveguide also dropped the word "will" as emphasized below.
Q3'21 saw prototype expenses rebound and another significant expenditure in wafer supplies.
Based on the information that I am looking at I believe Lightwave began prototyping their PolymerStack product in early 2021. I also believe the first prototype was sent out for field testing in Q2'21 if dropping the word "will" from the emphasized sentences has any significance.
Does anyone know if the Polariton news announced at ECOC can be directly attributed to the PolymerStack product line?
My opinion - Things are progressing nicely. I don't know much about the product testing cycle and the length of time needed to fully test and qualify the device for prime time; I'm assuming it's more than a couple months. Please let me know if you believe this assumption to be wrong. My belief is that we don't see a revenue generating announcement until the end of 2022. Plenty of positive steps\announcements on the way to revenue that will benefit shareholders though.
2020 - 10-K
~$118k prepaid expense for "prototype devices"
1Q'21 - 10-Q -
Just saw that. Thank you! I was expecting a motion\event to be added not the hearing to be updated.
Out of curiosity.... what app do you use? Would have been very interested in paying for something like that months ago. Not so sure now with the SEC rule changes.
Where did you see it? I'm looking at the docket on Clark County site and don't see it. Are you using a different source?
Where'd you see that?
Guess the Adderall is hitting hard today.
Feel free to enlighten me with objective information about the costs.
I read you're post where they wouldn't let you sell..... if that's a part of the "lending" program than sure.... it's a big NOGO if I can't move out of a position freely.
I get what you're saying. I just don't understand why people are seemingly opposed to free money.
It's another way to make your money work for you. Maybe Frobinso is correct and it attributes to short term stagnation in share price via increased shorting. I'd argue it's going to be difficult to find any empirical evidence to support or disprove that position.
Maybe PPS was going to stagnate and trade sideways anyway. Loaning them out is nothing but another revenue stream. I don't think anyone would take issue with people writing covered calls on their shares (I'd never do it with LWLG)..... why is this any different?
Why not?
Your shares are still your shares.... why not earn an extra couple points\year to do reinvest or do whatever you want with?
Pennies are great if you're dealing with dollars. % returned is the only thing that matters at the end of the day because it's the only thing that isn't affected by your starting point.
Whatevs..... The markets going to do what it's going to do. I'd rather give myself every available chance of putting all the dollars I can into my pocket. On a long enough time horizon shorts don't matter and fundamentals prevail.
If I can realize short-term gains all while my shares mature to long-term positions then why not?
Disclosure Inquiry - Would Lightwave staff even be allowed to disclose material information at a conference if it wasn't blasted out as part of a PR right at the start? I would have to imagine it's a NOGO type of situation because it would disadvantage anyone not at the event.