![]() UK funding I believe hits the Balance Sheet. There is Other Income Net in the P&L and in the balance sheet, grants receivable, accounts receivable, pre-paids, and deferred revenue. The true scope will eventually be revealed in development revenue in the quarter’s to come and more specifically 2022 3rd quarter when they should be hitting their stride.Īlso when looking at financials, you need to look at all the line items. It would be an oversight of any investor to rule out Samsung. Revenues may be collected as products are procured. Samsung due to the volume of units they would sell, they might have manufacturing and materials where they are incurring that cost at their manufacturing site but paying MMAT royalties. We also do not know revenue of licensing model will generate. It cannot be dismissed that Samsung is a partner though just because the logo is not on the site. It is perfectly fine to have that opinion because it is not that easy for people to see so I don’t blame them. It is my belief that partnerships are not listed on the main site because they have licensing model and their partners are the OEM who have ownership of the product with underlying tech that is MMAT and paid on royalty / licensing method. It is easy to say it is outdated, but the fact of the matter is, MMAT has an IP portfolio that secures their place as the leader in this industry. Covestro is another company that people should be paying attention to as they are co-developing product with MMAT. That is the indication that was provided during ER that I am paying attention for the future. We will only be able to notice revenue in the P&L during earnings under the development revenue. Any Google implementation of of Samsung co-developed tech would go through Samsung. I believe that there will be no announcement of MMAT tech in Samsung products. ![]() The partnership would be a licensing model, and Samsung would more than likely take lead in ownership of how it is applied to products. It is impossible for Samsung to get around IP without including MMAT in co-development of products. That partnership is still there or that doc would not be still accessible on their website. That is where the DD gets to be difficult. They are the only one that I know that has the depth of knowledge spanning across multiple disciplines in metamaterial science.ĭD is difficult because white papers are not for normal investors and hard to understand and they are all over as public accessible. When you say there are hundreds, that gives the impression they are 1 in 100 companies. I do wish people that are long would be more careful on how they pose their questions here. MMAT will be bashed because it is easy for shorts to do so. Their movements that I see, with metaphotonics research with Samsung which many people do not see. The DD is difficult to decipher with MMAT, but I am quite confident whether most people realize or not, they have a bunch of contracts that are backlogged. I share your concern about the difference between “s” and no “s”, it is confusing, but the tone of your post does heavily favor that they do not have many partnerships. In the end, I really don't care what other companies are using meta materials, I have 110,000 combined shares of common and preferred Meta Materials Inc shares, (MMAT/George Palikaras) and I am all in and waiting for the hedge funds to stop shorting this or at-least be forced to cover so I can get what I came here for. It wasn’t until I started doing my DD that I realized that there are hundreds of other companies using metamaterials.Īnyway, I’m just trying to bring clarity to those who may be confused like I was at first. So every time I heard someone was using or planning to use a metamaterial, I too thought it was George’s Company. (MMAT/ George Palikaras) was behind all of the metamaterials in aerospace, imaging, lens etc. To be honest, before doing my DD, I actually thought Meta Materials inc. George naming the company meta materials is a little misleading but good marketing. The definition of Metamaterials is, “any material engineered to have a property that is not found in a naturally occurring material” ![]() In reading many of the posts here and on Twitter, I can understand why so many will read that Samsung or another company is using a metamaterial and immediately think it’s George’s Company Meta Materials, when it may not be. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |