They could certainly go under. Forget about Apple buying it out though in really any scenario. Visser would need it more than they do IMHO. If Apple was to buy it out, Visser could be in a tough position. Would you want to be negotiating with Apple with unlimited dollars over the technology?
There is a LOT of money to lose by the insiders if it goes under and out; that includes the PIPES and Visser. There would be a battle between the PIPES picking at bones trying to hold Visser hostage for value due to their debt priority over Visser's equity stake which is secondary to the debt in any potential doomsday scenario. At a current market cap of 25 mill and the PIPES having loaned 12 mill, I would argue (if I was the PIPES) that the company is worth a LOT more than 12 mill and they wouldn't negotiate in a friendly manner with Visser or anyone else for that matter. And you can bet Apple will want to protect their interests as well. I can't see this going under any time soon if for no other reason than they have cash through end of 2013 and Steipp (or someone close to LQMT) knows how to talk to these PIPES to get their money. Obviously, sooner or later it gets to the point of money talks and bullsheet walks and he (or they) can only spin so many stories without having proof in numbers. Regardless, please know this is NOT a pump. I am just trying to provide some semblance of an objective analysis of a doomsday scenario because it always has to be considered with a penny stock because, as we all know, failure rates greatly exceed success rates.
The pr yesterday doesn't really mean much to me until it's accretive to revenue or earnings. If it is swatch, that's nice, but I don't know that it is a big deal when he has already said that the contribution from that deal is not material. Are people going to look at a watch and translate that immediately to other applications? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. However, Steipp (I think, for the first time on a c.c.) discussed the relevance of LQMT in an Apple product as to its promotion value. I know he has mentioned Apple "Computer" in those investor conferences, but I don't recall that he has said that before in a c.c. and the relevance to LQMT's identity and application to other customers and industries.
Watts, you brought up a few times about if LQMT mgmt sees potential, why the hell aren't they putting their money where their mouth is??? Great point. However, I had to think back to my big firm days and spoke to a few guys still at some of the big firms. I recall a few home runs (2 or 3 in 7 years at the big firms) where the CFO or CEO would get options over the years that were constantly under water and out of the money. One particular company comes to mind. It was trading at 5 to 10 cents, sometimes spike to .25 for a bunch of years (3 or 4). The CFO was a nice guy, but a bit of a shlub (now a shlub worth AT LEAST 15 million) who was from the firm I was at. Lo and behold, the tech caught on and the stock shot to $20.00. You know, not once, during all those years he was there or the CEO was there, did they load up on shares other than what they exercised with their options. I felt the same as you about LQMT mgmt, but then when I started relating it to my own personal work experiences, buying up by insiders I don't think has a lot of relevance. Even with the big board guys, I often don't see a ton of upward movement when they announce insider buying. I think it's just an effort to instill some confidence that I don't think works all that well. JMVVHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
