Replies to post #41485 on Sigma Labs Inc (SASI)

[pgmomni]

Alan!
Definition of a Pessimist?
A Optimist with experience.

I concur, we need a real, professional board.

Pietro

[El_Jefe42]

Alan - I do not disagree at whether or not the current board is best suited to represent shareholders, but do you see them as a stumbling block to uplisting?

My apologies, but I do get a little overheated about this topic. Michael Thacker has been on the inside of the SGLB organization before there even was an SGLB. Look at this quote from his own resume:

"1995 to Present: Partner and Director, Sumner Associates: offering commercial and scientific due-diligence of complex technologies, and new business start-up analysis. A science consulting company with six partners and 120 Associates".

This, of course was the consulting arm of SGLB, now merged into the company. When I attended the SGLB Board meeting two years ago I complained about there being no independent directors (Thacker was clearly considered by Mark and everyone else in attendance at that time as an insider). Now suddenly, he is by some sort of magic, an "independent" director. Whether Nasdaq buys that claim or not he should be replaced. Both he and O'Mara have proven to be rubberstamps for Mark without any consideration of protecting the rights of shareholders. I find it incredible that the large shareholders here have not launched their own lynching party for these two.

[DriftinWayOfLife]

Alan,

the more I think about it, the less pressure I feel at the current time for a change in the BoD IF Thacker and O'Mara are condisered independent under the black letter of the exchange rules, allowing for an uplisting. It is only after uplisting that there will be institutional investors buying this stock. We will not see truly significant pps values until there are the large block holders pushing up the price and sustaining the price.

Institutional investors are going to have percentages of shares which will allow them to control the board. There are no investors other than Rockville Assett and Mark who control a sufficient number of shares to require reporting their ownership to the SEC. Not a single one of the members here controls enough shares to effectively push a position. Even if we (shareholders from this board) were to select and ratify an entirely new board (and I have real doubts about the ability to organize this board's members, let alone find qualified persons for the board at a reasonable cost to the company..but let that go), when the institutional investors show up, they are going to put through a board to their liking, most probably NOT the folks the members of the board or other small shareholders might find.

I look at the progress toward uplisting, and from the criteria I find, I think that the current board has done a reasonably fair job in moving in that direction. If the uplisting does not occur, and there is no group of major shareholders who control a significant % of the vote between them, that will be the time to worry about the board we have. I doubt that given the overall trend for 3D stocks over the past three to four years that a board more friendly to shareholders would have been able to do a whole lot more for shareholder value. (noted exception the 120,000,000 share private placement) It all comes down to uplisting to be available for purchase by institutions. For them to buy, I will return to the milestone I have repeatedly mentioned - earnings which are growing quarter over quarter and year over year. So far, SGLB has made progress on the increasing revenues but not earnings. Mark stated in the cc that there was sufficient cash onhand and cash expected to arrive from currently existing contracts for SGLB to operate through 2016. Hopefully, that is sufficient time to start moving from revenues to earnings and uplisting. Until then, it is going to be all dot connection and opinions.

Does anyone really think that a different board could have taken such drastically different actions that Sigma would have sold already a significant number of software/harware + licensing fee combo packages to industry where the production runs are either just starting to start (as in GE) or are still in the planning and initiation phases? Isn't that what is going to have to happen to support share price and create value for the shareholders?

I am still long and strong on SGLB with about 18 months left on my initial time estimate for this stock when I first bought shares about three and a half years ago.

patience and GLTA