Sigma Labs Inc (SASI)

[Jackle]

Hi Guyver12

I understand what you are saying but if I may respond to a few bits

In the early days Mark commented that while Sigma’s big two accounts were GE and Honeywell. He said GE were very tight lipped by nature and not that comfortable being touted around, whereas Honeywell was a lot more comfortable with it as a company. That was about 3 years ago and the way exposure has panned out that looks about right. We see Honeywell writing blogs and jointly presenting with Sigma, whereas GE has been low key. Not just on Sigma I might add, they are very tight lipped generally about their new leap production, journos have very little to go on full stop and we see the same fuel nozzle article re-hashed over and over. That doesn’t mean GE are not working with Sigma, and my post over the weekend indicates there are still many connections behind the scenes. As Jeffxtrade mentions from experience, GE are likely to keep it this way until they are fully committed. Apologies I can’t drag up the interview where Mark talked about this but it was about 3 years ago, I have posted it before once upon a time. That being said, they still mention Development of Technology with GEA in the April 2016 shareholder report.

Regarding road blocks, Sigma does have quarterly conference calls where you, and others can bring up these questions and Mark does touch on them from time to time. They are hardly going to release PR on them, but in the confines of a conference call they are legitimate discussion points. Perhaps you can specifically address this at the next one. In the past Mark has been open about how the paradigm shift of mindset from traditional QA creates a slow adoption, as well as the influence of CAPEX cycles etc etc. At the end of the day this new technology is, as you point out, moving slowly, and Sigma’s main role is in production runs, so common sense suggests that’s where a lot of the delay is.. but it’s coming. Anyways, ask away, that’s what CC’s are for. I compliment Sigma for having them regularly.

With regards to the small lot production on their own machine, I think they have taken a smart route in terms of not just being a contract manufacturer per se, but they are using their machine for small lot manufacturing whilst building a reliance on PrintRite3D for their customers. An example would be Parabilis Space Technology. They used Sigma in order to create a part for their Phase II NASA
Contract, which they successfully won. These kind of projects will a) keep clients coming back, b) as Mark pointed out, encourage the end users to insist on PrintRite3D for others who may make parts for them. Printrite3D will thus start to prove itself invaluable in the supply chain, and spread virally from there. Sigma’s focus is selling PrintRite3D, That will gain the earliest rewards for the least capital. Launching full on into a contract manufacturing business would be a lot more capital intensive and potentially take longer. It may be something for the future but they are right to focus for now on selling Printrite3D either outright or through small lot production experiences on their EOS machine.
http://parabilis-space.com/?p=303
pictures of the part can be seen a few times in the rotating pictures on the right
and here on the Sigma Labs data sheet
https://www.sigmalabsinc.com/sites/default/files/SigmaLabs-3DPrinting_0.pdf
So, I do think the Small lot is starting to come along, and building PrintRite3d’s reputation, which sets the tone for high adoption. There was no PR about Parabilis, perhaps they didn’t want it, but it was happening, as I am confident others are too. We will see in the next couple of Q reports.

As for Arete, I admit I don’t really understand exactly what is going on there, again, maybe a more direct question to Mark is needed at the next call if people really want to dig deeper. On a personal level I am not too upset, I don’t mind them focusing on their large EAP and OEM program list for now. To an extent they are doing the same directly now on the EOS machine, but perhaps more focused on highlighting PrintRite3D’s ability more than just printing parts willy nilly. Again, focusing more on the sale of PrintRite3D

As for other ‘roadblocks’ and ‘testing’ etc. Well what I see is this

Sigma bought in a development manager in August 2015 to set up an EAP and OEM program, which he duly did. In April 2016 they release to us a list of those who were in various stages of signing up with these programs. 7 odd on the OEM side, 20 odd on the EAP side. Testing and integration evaluation will obviously have been going on throughout 2016 with these companies in preparation for their production runs that will eventually come, or may already be in process. I suggest most of these will follow Jeffxtrade’s point that nothing will be committed until all I’s are dotted and t’s crossed..and of course production run assembly for newly designed products are online and producing relevant volume.

These evaluation periods take time. It’s as simple as that. Bar this particular roadblock I do not see too many others. I do not see people saying, this doesn’t work, I see companies signing up for testing it. I see one of Europe’s newest and most impressive new machine entrants promoting its inclusion on their website (Additive Industries) I have spoken to industry insiders who admit it’s a useful tool whose time will come with production. I see the likes of Honeywell publishing blogs discussing how well the technology works. I see Sigma in a hiring pattern that suggests sales are incoming.

I think people should look at this in terms of an ecosystem being built. There are many factors and interests in this ecosystem. End users, Service Providers, Early adopters, Hardware OEM’s, software providers etc etc. For a large proportion quality inspection tools are only a means to an end. They want to produce parts, new parts, new designs, they want to revolutionize their product lines. They can only do this however if the parts being made are reliable and of consistent quality, something that machine providers are struggling to provide, and certainly an independent measurer of quality is needed to ensure compliance. So what is needed in this eco system is a tool, just like PrintRite3D that can provide this quality inspection technology that will then allow end users to feel confident about the machine quality and focus on their real challenge which is improving on, or redesigning their products. Presently PrintRite3D is the only independent, machine agnostic, commercially available tool that does this, and it has been well showcased to many of these users, as well as military research offices through the likes of EWI and America Makes. Sigma’s staff have a high end reputation and a long history with many top players in the industry. So PrintRite3D has an exceptional chance to allow that ecosystem to bloom. It is what will allow the users of metal AM to use it to its full potential and I suggest that the customer list agrees. That’s an impressive list in terms of big players in the ecosystems.

But it takes time for evaluation for integration for adoption. Not just on Sigma’s side, but from end users, from factory assembly, from production assembly, from hiring and training of engineers. But things are moving ever forward. Yes, Sigma need to be aware of their burn rate, but as long as I have followed them they have been. Their present ramping up of staff suggests sales are coming, it would defy logic not to be the case. Personally, and this is my own gut feeling, is there is something big brewing. Will have to wait and see.