Replies to post #40698 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Surfint]

To me, this speaks volumes.

Because LQMT has targeted large companies with complex assemblies ( aerospace, etc.) it is a considerable undertaking to redesign around LMT superior properties ( note that this type of redesign probably didn't occur n the original golf clubs; the reason the weaker shaft would crack).

It seems to me that LQMT might be better off if they targeted parts for customers that don't have such a strong dependency on a requirement for extensive redesign and testing of other assembly parts, and maybe this is why there is Swatch today ( simpler assembly in terms of actual parts that bond ( not watch mechanics).

By being greedy and going for the big fish ( complex to fit into it); LQMT has pushed out return on investment for long term investors and in the meanwhile has diluted shareholder value.

Maybe VPC has some "simpler" customers in terms of parts that could be produced; and maybe LQMT doesn't want them because it might require changing their agreement.

Any insights?

[edburns]

This post was very insightful in regards to the importance of VPC's ISO certification in securing contracts for production parts in the medical and aerospace fields. How much business is being blocked because of VPC's lack of ISO?

From Glenton's blog:
http://info.liquidmetal.com/blog/bid/327621/Liquidmetal-Chess-Reworked#Comments

Our contract manufacturer has now been running the same process for a year, and they tell us they are going to finalize their ISO certification soon. This means that the medical and aerospace engineers will be able to rely on our production parts being consistently the same as the prototypes that they've been testing.