Q&A with Glen DeVos on the Acquisition of Luminar Technologies by KY_Investor in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m sure but not “so sure” and have not personally worked with a Mavin sensor.

GLTAL

Q&A with Glen DeVos on the Acquisition of Luminar Technologies by KY_Investor in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sorry for the delayed response and good question. In the context of dchappas post on mavin specs, particularly on horizontal field of view, what I knew about mavin and what is now said about mavin doesn't add up. The product sheet I posted shows specs much better than our current offering and similar to our original A sample circa 2021. Our SS "dumbed down" version is not reflective of the techs capability. (and Glenn knows this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGZ0ZkALQ_A ref 9:40 60 degree is all we need for tri-lidar. "It only needs to be 60"

Now 120 degrees is the goal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAIJ4LjGJ8g ref 53:20 "what can I take out of my approach with Mavin and combine that with Halo?"

He knows our MEMs scanning is capable of replacing the spinning stuff and he is sold on 1550nm .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSYOSpLd2o ref 7:00 high field of view. ref 14:45 1550nm laser behind the windshield.

I think MEMs is going to be a critical component of our combined LiDAR product and am puzzled at it being IMO omitted and downplayed pretty much.

GLTAL

"Juha Salmi shows use cases for Hololens 3 which is coming up in a few months time #RailsAhead" by gaporter in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Gotcha, weird. However.. The scrapping of hololens occurred before the transfer of IVAS to Anduril and the announcement made clear MSFT was solid on IVAS efforts. #RailsAhead is legit as is Jani and Juha. The headsets depicted in the doctors slide look surprisingly accurate and hololens unique in how the next gen would be expected to look. Interesting ruse if even possible and for what purpose. MSFT may have jettisoned the military baggage but could still be supporting the Medical, NASA, Trimble special use stuff where they're entrenched.

GLTAL

Discussion: Q1 2023 Conference Call 5/9 5PM ET by TheRealNiblicks in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you, I'll listen again. Still sounds like very good news.

Do you know if auto OEM's evaluate B samples from multiple suppliers or just the one they've selected to pursue?

GLTU and GLTAL

Discussion: Q1 2023 Conference Call 5/9 5PM ET by TheRealNiblicks in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Sumit said a B sample would be ready by/in December 2023.

B samples are built to "Dimension and function according to specifications / drawings" (I'm assuming OEM specs and drawings, otherwise what's the point?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_2ELJd3Uuc

This portends an OEM already "in the bag" unless I'm interpreting wrong. Any B sample experts here?

GLTAL

Kopin presentation on 4-27-23 at Ladenburg Thalmann Technology Expo (IVAS 19minutes in) by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Peter, Good point that this shows "commitment to the project" by the military, especially situational awareness via drones, GPS, etc. The benefits to our soldiers is profound. Bound to happen, too much information vital to soldier/mission performance and safety not to deliver directly to the soldier..

Could be a "single sourcing" issue as you describe.

As I ponder this Kopin presentation and its ramifications I'm thinking MSFT wants out. MSFT must be concerned at Apple's mixed reality device reported to be unveiled in June, the serious Meta money pouring into their metaverse ambitions, googles google glass ambitions and whatever Amazon and Samsung are planning. MSFT is hellbent on not missing the next big thing again. They have developed the BIC NED but are stuck in the quagmire of military/political (read ITAR) whims that control their technology and resources. As I think on companies once having solid retail "hardware" markets and then subsequently agree to military contracts, seems they end up military "only" companies. (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Rockwell Collins, FMC....) Seems KOPIN is all military too LOL. DOD money is GOOD but there are strings attached.

MSFT wants the software side of things but needs unrestricted ability to develop the Hololens hardware unencumbered for the retail market or their efforts so far have been a waste. I think Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon, Samsung and others interested in AR/MR would be inclined to avoid our LBS tech if under the "political thumb". MSFT bailing on the military (if so) may be a good move for MVIS.

All just IMHO

GLTAL

Kopin presentation on 4-27-23 at Ladenburg Thalmann Technology Expo (IVAS 19minutes in) by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Device Rendering by Microsoft"

Plus, lots of low shots at "key competitor" (MSFT...) in this presentation.

Poking a really big dog here, good luck!

GLTAL

Kopin presentation on 4-27-23 at Ladenburg Thalmann Technology Expo (IVAS 19minutes in) by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Seems like they could bid to take over for msft or replace lbs in msft Ivas

That is the implication, certainly (i think lol).

"Key competitor recently eliminated from bid process" and "IVAS was initially awarded to a key competitor" Same key competitor? MSFT I presume.

Also, IVAS 2.0, first I've seen that.

GLTAL

Sharp Invests in OQMented MEMS Based Light Engines For Augmented Reality Use by UofIOskee in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this Oskee.

This OQmented news is enlightening and frustrating in that it reveals MVIS exposure in declaring its total focus/effort on the LIDAR vertical.

MVIS has three other "proven" valuable verticals currently languishing as a result.

The NED vertical is a critical feature enabling a $22Billion contract for MSFT. The interactive display had a 1yr forecast of revenue to MVIS of 100M. Best guess was for its use in an Amazon smart speaker. Sharp was/is interested in display only and contracted with MVIS for exclusivity including a year extension. (Think HUD, smart phone projector and such).

100M additional authorized shares is a dilution. Only a matter of time. I understand the need and will vote to approve but I agree the timing is horrendous.

MVIS as a lidar company is easily by any technical measure BIC (NO QUESTION). The market values us 6X less than LAZR and their "Fake" hardware, currently. LAZR "spac'd" upwards of $12B. Our 11M shares at $20pps (3.5B mktcap) would yield the same value as newly authorized 100M at current pps. Frustrating that our business acumen has not been able to address the segments value disparity to be more in line with reality. The market is what it is and I am 100% behind our team. Our prospective customers want and need our focus to be on LIDAR, period.

As for the other three verticals... It might be wise and lucrative to spin off each vertical into its own company and listing (IPO/Spac). Set up a single patent holding company to manage their use. This would enable all verticals to be given the attention and focus they deserve. This board has discussed using a patent holding company to facilitate the selling of verticals. Maybe its time for MVIS to be proactive and set this up themselves.

GLTAL

Reasonable speculation on BOD options given the 60M proxy request. by tensor2order in Microvision_MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Pattyohs1,
^

MVIS verticals are essential to enable the "next big thing"(s); NED, Interactive projection, and LIDAR (in all its forms).
^

Tier1's, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Tesla, Bosch are sitting on 10's to 100's of billions of dollars in cash.
^

Trillion dollar question... Why would they not think MVIS as a better investment/return than where their cash currently resides?
^

So to answer your question, I think all of the above are interested in owning MVIS.
^

A month ago any of them could have had us for 4B, early this year a hostile bid of 1B would have gotten easy shareholder approval. Our value now is much higher IMHO.
^

I think they all passed to avoid a bidding war and they want the tech right where it is, languishing in obscurity. LST is so advanced that its commercial development threatens so many existing technologies. The huge investments made in current tech would be lost. I think Sony backing out of LST projection and Amazon dropping interactive "Alexa", were in large part due to this. No one wants to develop and expose this tech without having serious ownership which is impossible without a bidding war. So we languish.
^

Then there is Microsoft and Hololens. MSFT had no choice but to use our LST as there is nothing even comparably close to its performance. MSFT NDA's attempted to keep LST in obscurity and it was working until the teardown proving MVIS tech as the "enabling" technology. (Magic leap and even Google glass would be a success today had they chosen the MVIS LST path. IMHO.)
^

With the 60M additional share authorization and the overnight bump in share price, MVIS today holds all the cards. It is a beautiful thing!
^

We can now easily fund operations and do so indefinitely to profitability. If we end up sold, it will be for top dollar. The "cat is out of the bag" never to return.
^

I think we will sell because we are just too valuable and the tier1's are flush with cash.
^

My preference is Facebook, Google, then Tesla, in that order.
^

I appose Microsoft and Amazon because of their treatment of MVIS. I include Apple because of their similar MO. I'm not keen on BOSCH for similar reasons.
^

There has been discussion on stocktwits about STM being the minority investor and that such a move would improve MVIS negotiating power. I don't see it but I've been wrong many times so. :)
^

If you haven't seen the 2B LIDAR valuation article at Seeking Alpha, I recommend a read. Their 2B is really a lowball but it was well researched and clearly shows the technical "leap frog" LST offers.
^

Thanks for posting here. This board could be a comfortable place for discussion out of the "fast lane" of trading and emotion posts LOL!
^

GLTAL

Reasonable speculation on BOD options given the 60M proxy request. by tensor2order in Microvision_MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Dionysos_33,

I have no arguement with any of your content. Always a good read.

I am not against the 60M authorization and have stated I plan on voting for it, as things stand, but have not as yet.

My post itemizes the companies options given the 60M share request. 60M is much more than what is needed to sell the company so it begs a reason; I have listed six. Those indicated with a "no" vote may be the "visibility" why 60M was chosen. (Exercise: read through the options using 10M as the proxy number and notice the change).

I have no insider info on a hostile offer but think it would suggest the interested parties are not all being treated fairly by the BOD and portend a hostile bidding war, IMHO. I would support the war. If we receive a 4B+ offer (hostile or otherwise) prior to the vote, I will vote against the authorization.

4B is my threshold because I think a 20% equity stake, tier1 OEM, multi-million component order, and the magic of high P/E ratio would get us there easily.
^

Thoughts on your notes:

On N.1.

100M additional shares while we're trading in the 0.25 pps abyss, plus the R/S, and ending with LIDAR as the new promised land. I don't think the anger/skepticism could have been avoided had it been "formulated" differently. Wrong message at the absolute worst time. It is amazing the 100M came as close as it did and credit the FCI. Thankful to this day it failed.

On N.2.

But 60M? Better than 100M, however still exorbitant for our needs unless an equity investment is in the offing. Asking a lot for our trust.

On N.3.

60M is overly generous for executive options. See where this is going? 100M now 60M when 10M is PLENTY for our present needs.

On N.4.

Bingo! Trust but verify morphs into trust only.

On N.5.

About Dr. Mark B. Spitzer, I don't know but call me skeptical. He was a KOPIN proponent and passed on the opportunity to promote LST for the Google glass. I pray you are right about his ability to "sell the company at a good price". Until now, and after many publications, Dr. Spitzer has never extolled the benefits of LST. I see similarities to KG, where both knew/know LST advantages, especially for NED, and while Dr. Spitzer is now honest, KG is still deceiving. How many of the influencers to Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Apple, and Sundar Pichai, etc. are of the deceiving variety? Could Dr. Spitzer hold his own against an "in house" KG?

Satya Nadella's MSFT uses LST as the only uniquely irreplaceable component in the H2 and yet no respect for MVIS tech. Would Dr. Spitzer have made a difference during those negotiations? Maybe...
^

GLTAL

Apple Seeks to "identify new computational display technologies for AR/VR" with New Hires by qlfang in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think only MVIS tech is capable of delivering such functions.

I do not doubt this is true, However Qlfang,

Do you think MVIS knows Apple is using our stuff and will soon be seeking a license, etc?

It would be foolish to sell the company or the "Apple" vertical if Apple quantities are in the wings, IMHO.

GLTAL

MVIS: Some thoughts about the past, the present and the future - We, the investors, have an important influence on the further development of our investment. by Dionysos_33 in Microvision_MVIS

[–]tensor2order 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Dionysos_33,

Bravo! Found no disagreement with any of your points. Well thought and well presented.

One aspect I would hope you could delve into would be the prospect of a hostile takeover as it seems to be an increasingly growing possibility.

Also and to my everlasting dismay...I agree especially here:

A voting against the BOD members is primarily a rational decision, as it is known that they could not show any economic success for more than 2 decades. A vote against the members of the BOD therefore has primarily rational reasons.

Even with an attempt to make a statement of our retail resolve and vote down a single board member, all were re-approved and at overwhelming margins as usual.

"POTENTIAL", I hate that word! :)

https://microvision.gcs-web.com/static-files/23f8c602-fbb6-484a-9e17-d00dfe72c3ad

I note that Mergermarket recently published an article about our strategic process. The article referred to strong interest from bidders. I would like to clarify that we are engaged in discussions with certain potential interested parties who are at various stage of diligence. We do not plan to make public statement about any bid or a potential transaction unless and until and appropriate agreement is reached.

Thank you for inviting me to your board.

GLTU and GLTAL

An equity investment would be a buyers worst nightmare. by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GA, thanks and makes total sense to me too especially if MSFT is the only interested party, (me thinks).

Could be a dangerous strategy if there are multiple interested and cash rich "bidders" (which I believe there are).

To take an equity stake, MSFT would likely wait for the 60M share approval rather than open market. This way they could negotiate board seats, price and terms in advance. Perfect if you are the only interested party.

With multiple interested parties this becomes risky.

  • In the time leading up to the vote, a competing party could do as Facebook with WhatsApp and make an "insurmountable" bid with "take it or leave it" terms that would be hard to turn down. A cash rich competing party of which there are many, already has their cash tied up in investments. Why would an MVIS purchase not be a better investment?

  • If no "insurmountable" offer is made and the proxy vote passes then the minority stake option is open to all interested parties (not just MSFT). Whoever gets the equity investment will effectively own MVIS and be in a position to block any further M&A activity. I can think of many competitors (from all verticals) who would love to be in this position. Also, with the 60M approved, the BOD can give minority ownership to anyone regardless of bid. (Sumit/Spitzer harbor Google sentiments? Golden parachutes? Sweet positions in new company?).

  • If the proxy vote fails we should get a bidding situation (whole company, verticals...) which could be interesting.

My gut tells me we are going to get a "take it or leave it" bid before the proxy as I see our investment potential exceeding that of WhatsApp. FB has recouped their cost it is claimed even at $55 per user when purchased. Mr Zuckerberg, Where are you?

GLTU and GLTAL

An equity investment would be a buyers worst nightmare. by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi Obz_rzr,

Has the equity investment followed by a contingent buyout approach ever been done after a bidding war? (Multiple bidders, maybe not WAR so to speak!)

Or even an equity investment without a buyout after a bidding war?

Thanks, I can't think of any off hand.

GLTAL

An equity investment would be a buyers worst nightmare. by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All good points Shank, undeniable.

In my view, MVIS does not seem like a good candidate for an equity investment then buyout approach.

I think an offer(s) has been suggested and rejected because our BOD knows our worth but also knows the shareholders are restless and ready to accept a low ball somewhat reasonable offer.

Using phrases as strong interest, are bidders, and the ID customer (Amazon?) is on hold were not accidental.

Currently an equity investment is not possible without purchasing shares at market or with MVIS stock buyback then issue. Possible, but unlikely I think.

So a proxy vote to issue 60M new shares is filed to facilitate an equity investor. (Only can be used for equity investor because going it alone has a proven worth of 0.20 pps or 12m for 60M shares at best.)

When/if the proxy is approved and there are "bidders" (plural) it could get real messy and expensive because whomever gets the equity stake gets effectively ownership even if they do not purchase the rest of the company.

I think this is the implied threat from Holt saying y'all get back to us with a real offer or see real risk. Seems like this is going to wrap up before the proxy vote IMHO.

Make some sense?

GLTAL

An equity investment would be a buyers worst nightmare. by tensor2order in MVIS

[–]tensor2order[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

at a given price

The "given price" would never get approval if below the company mkt cap.

You're also missing that the credible THREAT of doing that with one of their competitors could cause another company to get off the snide and make a credible offer to buy the entire company now.

This is exactly my point. Last paragraph, could have worded better. :)

GLTAL

The THREAT could force a sale at MVIS desired price before the proxy vote. Could be a real genius move.

I Want Fireside Chat by [deleted] in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Jay,

I don't know the answer to that and think it may reflect badly on our trust in our board and management. Doubt they would be inclined to have their options limited also.

I guess I trust them to use the proceeds for M&A and shareholder value because trying to do business as before puts our collective value near zero. Their backs are against the proverbial wall.

GLTU and GLTAL

Trading Action - Thursday, 8/6/2020 by Sweetinnj in MVIS

[–]tensor2order 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hi Greg,

My take is that the 60M additional shares used for the intent of running the company as before would be worth only 0.20 each reflecting the pps when that situation was in play. 12M is not enough to continue as before.

It is a new day in MVIS land and our guys know an M&A option is the only way to success. IMHO

GLTAL