Replies to post #22046 on Sigma Labs Inc (SASI)

[DriftinWayOfLife]

Alan,

at the risk of sounding merely argumentative, I do not agree with your stating that i agree with as to the problem with Sigma Labs, specifically as regards the focus of Mark Cola and Vivek Dave or the developmental stage of Sigma Labs as a start up and not a growth company.

I see no evidence either way that Cola and Dave are either too concerned with the "other things" (such as academic papers or attendance/presentation at meetings) or that the meetings etc where you seem to see a negative impact are in fact having said impact. I do not see how they have been distracted or delayed in their roles developing a commercially viable version of PrintRite. No evidence that they have nor have not been distracted. As regards things like deadlines, I do not see where the connection is with the observable behaviors. I just do not see more than speculation and emotionally charged accusations masquerading as statements from time to time that address this directly. What is the evidence?

I guess I go back to the idea that Sigma Labs is on the cusp of moving from a scientific development company trying to develop a commercially useful product or service to a start up company trying to package and sell a product or service. Perhaps at this moment we do need the science research type folks on the board. As the transition continues, there will be a need for a greater percentage of more independent members with more of a bean counter and salesman mentality. I just do not agree that Sigma is so badly needing this particular focus at the present point in time. Similarly, I think that if Sigma does not get bought out that there will eventually be a need for other board members whose skill sets are more in the growth company stage rather than the start up phase or even the pre-start up phase.

I do not think that looking at the priorities of Cola and Dave through the eyes of a 30 something investor makes any sense at all. Cola and Dave have a set of priorities because they have worked for virtually all of their professional life in researching and developing knowledge that they now see as being the basis for a commercially important application. Their priorities are the development of this application before all others. They may be concerned with the business aspect, as I believe they are, but they may well not be the most adept at negotiating the various difficulties that Sigma Labs faces today as a business. However, I do believe that this is a priority for them or they would not have left the security and safety of working for LANL where they could continue to focus on their research and the academic rewards rather than having left to form their own company. Success as a company has got to be a priority of these guys or else they are not in good contact with reality. I see nothing to suggest that they live completely in a world of their own. The 30 year old can choose to believe in the potential of the company at this point or not. I do not see how that is a focus of Cola and Dave. If the 30 year old chooses to invest now on belief rather than fundamentals, and if your hypothetical 30 year old invests 50% of his investment dollars in a single company, I fail to see how Cola and Dave get connected. The wisdom of such a weighting can be debated, and in some cases it may be an overweighting and in other cases it may be acceptable risk taking. Give me the real details and I might come up with an opinion.

[MDuffy]

I don't see why everyone thinks you have to have an MBA to be a good businessperson. MBA's are a joke, IMO- degrees for frat boys who already have ready made jobs at dad or best-friend's uncle's company, and sometimes a blue-collar guy trying to get a leg up. The best businesspeople I know [those who have run successful start ups] came from other fields… Restaurant people, an under-thirty mechanical engineer who instead made a business incubator connecting people in our small city with silicon valley big wigs; even the theater and art kids I went to school with have had commercial success, one via a 3D printing lab [he took one class and saw the opportunity], the other running his own children's theater. Some have had no degrees at all. [Not to mention, Bill Gates… another 'geek' who also had business sense lol] Success in business is more dependent on mindset and timing than education, IMO. The ability to see, recognize, and seize opportunity is not something you can teach, nor is the real-life networking and elbow rubbing that goes along with making your company a success. All an MBA degree really does (IF it's from a good school) is connect you with appropriate people and do some of that elbow rubbing for you by association. I'm convinced everything else can be self taught with books and talking to as many people who have achieved what you hope to become as possible. Do you honestly think these guys who have been mastering calculus, programming, partial differential equations and whathaveyou are incapable of learning basic accounting? Their time at Los Alamos was WAY more important to real-life success, as it allowed them to make all these contacts (which they have bragged about 'leveraging' repeatedly) such as with DoD, Honeywell, Boeing, GE, etc as we've been seeing these past years. Leveraging a network like that is pretty darn 'business savvy' if you ask me.