Watts et all,
Here is the running question list that I have so far. Anyone, please feel free to add/remove or comment on any of them if someone knows the answer(s)
- I see you are going to release/add more shares (insert exact number here, I think it was 100,000,000). With the current amount of shares available now, is there a specific reason for this?
- Are you concerned at all with the current share price?
- Is there anything in the works that you can share with the Share Holders?
- Any update on possible govt contracts that have been in the works for the past couple of years?
- Any update on new uses of the technology that someone may be interested in utilizing?
- Anything you can add in regards to Apple using the technology?
- Do you think we may be back to the share price above $10, as it was years ago? Are you looking to get out of the OTC and back into NASDAQ? (probably a stupid question, but just thought I would add it anyways. Feel free to remove or reword differently).
- Are there any plans of expansion?
- Are you looking to start producing anything with liquid metal, or only interested in selling the rights to other companies that have the ability to mass produce? (e.g. Apple)
- The revenue for this 2012 year so far has been one of the lowest in years. Should share holders be concern with this, or are there deals in the works to be able to match the previous years revenue. In addition, any idea on possible profits? (this may be answered from one of the previous questions, so this may need to be moved towards the top, or may be answered)
Why does a company the size of LQMT have to have a CEO and an Executive VP? Such a redundancy could be justified for the first 6 months that a new CEO is on board, learning the inner workings of the company, the strategic relationships, and understanding the intricacies and status of various existing contractual situations the company is committed to. But now, almost two years into the CEOs tenure, why is it necessary to have an Executive Vice President? This seems like a luxury that a developmental company of this size and financial resources can ill afford.
At the last conference you discussed the long term game of prototype testing by manufacturers before they commit to your technology... Is that end game occurring and if so can you comment on the sales outlook for the next quarter/s and expected revenues?
-How does LiquidMetal market itself to potential customers?
-How much of LiquidMetals assets are dedicated to Marketing?
Of the 4 companies that were sent prototypes, one was not impressed. What problems did they have with the product, and what if anything is LQMT doing to win that company back?
At the last conference call you quoted the cadence of global inquires to be on the decline... has this reversed or is the rate continuing to decline?
- status update on the railgun project? with the new DDG-1000 destroyer (equipped with railguns) being delivered by 2014, is production by then feasible?
- as of right now what is the company's most promising industry going forward?
- are you in serious talks with any potential NEW customers? Are we in the process of developing molds and/or prototypes for any prospective clients?
Of the 4 companies that were sent prototypes, one was not impressed. What problems did they have, or can you elaborate on it?
Also, can you mention of the ones that do like the prototypes, when do you expect to ship off full production parts for revenue?
I wonder why Management has seen fit not to make public the MTA's of the other partners in the chain:
1) Engel
2) Materion
AAPL is public and the LQMT-AAPL MTA has been released
VPC is private and the LQMT-VPC MTA is made public.
Therefore, it would follow that
ENGEL, also private like VPC, should have a public MTA as well.
MTRN, also public like AAPL, should have their MTA with LQMT made public as well.
This is another part of our Management's INCONSISTENCIES.
Engel and Materion were the very first MTA's MADE.
But they are the last to be publicly disclosed.
Why are the MTA agreements of LQMT-AAPL and LQMT-VPC open to the public, but the MTA agreements of LQMT-MTRN and LQMT-ENGEL not made public?
When I asked this to MTRN directly, they said it is LQMT's call to make, not theirs....which implies there is no problem from MTRN's side. Strange, isn't it.
Such information would be a clincher about revenue streams, which even today, the about which the Company still obfuscates, leaving them a lots of waggle without really saying anything.
Please show me the public information which states precisely how LQMT is making money.......say in an SEC Filing, the ones of which I have read are still not written with clarity. The Company is very picky about iots and tittles.
