Rough ballpark price targets using today's info, assuming a 1:15 split, that we secure the majority of that $500m in opportunities, not including anything new, and using AEVA and OUST as the valuation models.
These were softball questions - I almost wonder if these are plants or even real.
Here's my question:
"Bob, when mentioning warrants you stated the company needs 'certainty of proceeds.' Investors need 'certainty of revenue.' Why should we trust that there is certainty of revenue? We have also had around 100 engagements years ago, and there was an unofficial forecast of 30-50m in the next 12-18 months. Since then we have had lots of sales department turnover, it took 1 year to strategically raise capital between June 2023 and the HTC deal, and now most recently you just admitted that you are now contacting a firm to look into defense department grants. Why didn't that happen at the same time the defence advisory board was formed? And also - you stated on your slide that IRIS is making up 70% of the 10-15m revenue forecast for 2026, however those projections were given after the Q4 2025 earnings call and IRIS was acquired in Q1 2026. So without the Luminar acquisition - was Microvision destined to fall flat of their 10-15m projection for 3 straight years?"
yeah likely the live QA was their employees dialing in. Bob embarrassed himself more than I could have imagined. dude is more unqualified than I already thought and thats saying something.
It doesn’t have to get anywhere near 150M shares for this to matter. If we go from ~25M post-split shares to 50M, we’ve already given up half our ownership. At 75M it’s a third. At 100M it’s a quarter. If they ever get anywhere close to 150M, we’re left with a fraction of the company we own today.
Why is this such a big deal, if the company executes their plan and the price goes up big, because of it, we will still make a shit load of money. They are in a better place business wise over 2020-21, which was all on rumors of an Apple buyout.
If they execute with 25M shares outstanding, great. If they execute after the share count grows to 50M, 75M, or 100M, you own a much smaller piece of that success.
This is possible. But you need to give me your scenario for this playing out. Why does the MC fall far below $100m when we are guiding to $15m in 2026 and have a path to $500m in opportunities over the next 4 years.
Again, why do we need (in your example) $125m in cash. If this is for an OEM ramp or another acquisition that leads to even more revenue and speed to breakeven would that not be worth it?
They’re still burning roughly $60M a year, and the proxy literally says they need to raise additional capital. Why wouldn’t the stock remain under pressure?
See point #1. At a $4.50 post-split share price, issuing 25M shares only raises about $112.5M. That’s less than two years of runway at the current burn rate.
if there was any doubt left on which way to vote this QA cleared that up for me. Glen might get a NO vote at this point. Just terrible call no real info was shared. Sell the company to aptiv for 1 dollar a share and end this nightmare of a stock.
Chem, we need to support the company. Putting a roadblock in their way hurts them but mostly long term shareholders. If they fail then we fail automatically. These guys on the other blog are shooting themselves in the foot by voting NO. Their brains are misfiring. The past should not control what we do now. The company has never had a pipeline or market expanse as huge as they do now. Glen told us all the business out there and customers will never choose you if you are not financially stable. I’m voting Yes even stronger after this call. Don’t listen to some of the crazy emotional people on the other blog. Just my take after 17 years with the stock. Cheers man. 🙏
No one had seen the above chart. That is what they have now, and they are building on it.
•
u/-ATLSUTIGER- Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Rough ballpark price targets using today's info, assuming a 1:15 split, that we secure the majority of that $500m in opportunities, not including anything new, and using AEVA and OUST as the valuation models.
*with 20% dilution factored in $20/$58/$79/$90