This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk10: Good day, and welcome to the Sigma Labs 3rd Quarter 2020 Financial Results Conference Call and Webcast. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Chris Tyson, Executive Vice President of MZ North America. Please go ahead, sir.
spk00: Thank you all for taking time to join us for Sigma Labs' third quarter 2020 business update and results conference call. Your hosts today are Mark Rupport, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Frank Orszakowski, the company's Chief Financial Officer. A press release detailing these results crossed the wires this afternoon at 4.01 p.m. Eastern today and is available on the company's website, sigmalabsinc.com. Before we begin the formal presentation, I'd like to remind everyone that statements made on the call and webcast including those regarding future financial results and industry prospects, are forward-looking and may be subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the call. Please refer to the company's SEC filings for a list of associated risks, and we would also refer you to the company's website for more supporting industry information. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Stigma Labs President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Ruppert. Mark, the floor is yours.
spk09: Thank you, Chris, and good afternoon, everybody, and thanks for joining our conference call today. Q3 was a very successful quarter for Sigma Labs. We executed on every part of our plan and continue to get great validation from both end users and OEMs for our technology and the need to address the issues of quality, consistency, and standards within additive manufacturing. Additionally, we have expanded our product line and market opportunity. We've strengthened our balance sheet, and we've added sales and marketing resources. We have also entered into global agreements that I believe will generate independent revenue streams for years to come. Not bad for 90 days and 20-some people. In spite of COVID, which has impacted our short-term revenue, we have put the company in a fantastic position for a very successful 2021. Before I go into details on the above, I'll ask Frank Orthakowski, our CFO to review our financial results, and then I'll provide some color and context around the quarter. Frank?
spk06: Thank you, Mark. Our detailed financial results are contained in our Form 10-Q filed with the SEC today, and the press release we issued contains key highlights of our financial results. So for today's call, I will provide a summarized review of our financial results for the third quarter of 2020. Revenue for the third quarter of 2020 totaled $249,000. This compares to revenues of $171,000 for the second quarter of 2019, third quarter of 2019. The increase in revenue was due to increased PrintRight 3D unit sales, including the first sale of our newly released PrintRight 3D light unit during the quarter. Gross profit for the third quarter of 2020 was $150,000. as compared to negative 8,000 in the third quarter of 2019. Our total operating expenses for the third quarter of 2020 were 1.4 million as compared to total operating expenses of 1.6 million for the same period in 2019. The decrease in our operating expenses is primarily due to lower R&D costs during the period, as well as reduced travel expenses as a result of the COVID-19 related pandemic. Cash used in operating activities for the three months ended September 30th, 2020 totaled 1.2 million compared to 1.8 million in the third quarter of 2019, a decrease of 0.6 million. Cash used in operating activities for the nine months ended September 30th, 2020 totaled 3.7 million compared to 4.5 million for the same period in 2019, which represents an 18% decrease primarily as a result of a $967,000 decrease in our net loss. Further note that included in the year-to-date 2020 cash usage is approximately $400,000 related to trade accounts payable carried over from 2019 due to a delay in our financing at the beginning of the year. Our net loss applicable to common shareholders for the third quarter of 2020 was 1.9 million or 42 cents per share as compared to a net loss of $1.6 million or $1.20 per share in the third quarter of 2019. Preferred dividends contributed to $740,000 loss in the quarter. Now turning to our balance sheet, as Mark mentioned, we have strengthened it in several areas since 2019 year end. Our cash balance totaled $4.5 million at September 30, 2020, as compared to $2.5 million at June 30, 2020, and $87,000 at December 31, 2019. The increase in cash during the period was a result of warrant exercises from our January 2020 private placement of convertible preferred stock and warrants. Our working capital was $5.2 million at September 30, 2020, as compared to $2.8 million at June 30, 2020, and a working capital deficit of $98,000 at December 31, 2019. Our trade accounts payable totaled $182,000 at September 30, 2020, as compared to $295,000 at June 30, 2020, and 727,000 at December 31st, 2019, a decrease of 75% from 2019 year end. Our stockholders' equity totaled 6.1 million at September 30th, 2020, as compared to 652,000 at December 31st, 2019. And I would note that our January and April offerings, together with exercises of preferred warrants have contributed net proceeds of $8.4 million to the company during the first nine months of 2020. And with that, I will now turn the call back over to Mark.
spk09: Thanks, Frank. Obviously, some good progress there. All right, let's start with a short review of our value proposition and strategy. Then I'll discuss why we're so pleased and excited about our progress in the quarter and our positioning. We believe, as do many others, that additive manufacturing is will play an increasingly important role globally for decades to come. The need to produce customized mission-critical parts on demand that are lighter, stronger, and more durable and manufactured closer to where they're needed will only increase with time. As we know from our own individual consumer habits, once we get used to instant gratification, ultimate customization, unrestricted availability, we never go back. just look at the number of Amazon packages arriving at your house every day. HP just recently conducted a study, which I have to assume is a little bit more scientific than my Amazon package study, and found that 85% of manufacturing respondents plan to increase their 3D printing investment. And 75% of the respondents said that 3D printing helps their company be more agile and is a viable alternative to traditional manufacturing. So clearly the focus and attention on additive manufacturing continues to accelerate. In order for a metal 3D printing to fulfill its potential, three things must be addressed, quality, consistency, and standards. Our product, PrintWrite 3D, and now our recently introduced PrintWrite 3D Lite and PrintWrite 3D DED address those issues head on. Our patented in-process quality assurance, or IPQA technology, can not only detect and classify defects and anomalies during the printing process, but with the advances that we're making with our machine learning initiatives, we can predict when certain defects are likely to occur. And as many of you know, PrintWrite 3D is agnostic to the type of 3D printer. And because we're agnostic, we're able to ensure a standard level of quality across different printers from different manufacturers. Many of you have heard me in the past make the analogy to systems or security or systems management software running across a heterogeneous computer enterprise. Although every computer manufacturer had their own security and systems management software, the only way to secure the enterprise was with a standards-based third-party independent software application. With 3D metal printing, the only way to assure quality and consistency is with a standards-based, third-party, in-process quality assurance solution like PrintWrite 3D. So what progress have we made and why are we so confident and excited about the future? First, as I mentioned earlier, we've expanded our product line and market opportunity with the introduction of PrintWrite 3D Lite and our initial contract with Coherent OR Laser. and PrintRight 3D, DED, or Direct Energy Deposition, and our partnership with Northwestern University's Advanced Manufacturing Program. Both products increase our market opportunity and will allow us to increase our footprint and extend our brand in the broader additive manufacturing market. Second, we announced that both DMG MORI and Additive Industries have certified their printers as PrintRight 3D ready. This is a significant milestone for the company, and it introduces leverage into our business model. It also dramatically shortens the sales cycle. From a sales perspective, contrast being brought into an opportunity early by a trusted partner, like DMG or Additive, during the initial sales process versus trying to sell to the manufacturer after they've acquired the printer and have been convinced by the printer OEM that quality is not an issue with their systems. Next, we announced a contract with the major oil and gas services company. And as many of you have speculated, after two RTEs, one on a single laser EOS printer and the other on a dual laser SLM printer, the customer, Baker Hughes, purchased their first production system for their additive manufacturing facility in Houston. This is one of several additive manufacturing facilities Baker Hughes operates around the world. And finally, we just announced a strategic alliance with IN4.OS to help ensure a consistent level of quality for their factories of the future. This is particularly exciting to me in that I believe it will put the country on a path towards self-sufficiency to manufacture critical parts in times of crisis. Now I'd like to bring you up to speed on a few other accomplishments. We installed a print write 3D system at Airbus to begin the qualification process on a GE concept laser machine. We also successfully installed the system at Mitsubishi on an SLM 280 3D printer. We did the installation remotely working with their engineers at a significantly lower cost to the company. DMG North America acquired a system to certify their new laser tech dual laser machine. We anticipate the certification process to be completed by the end of the year. We finalized the quad laser in situ process monitoring design and configuration for the Metal Fab I at Additive Industries to become print write 3D ready. We also integrated print write 3D with the MCP control at Materialize, which sets us on the path to closed loop control. And we continue to collaborate with international standards groups. We developed a black-body temperature calibration source in partnership with NIST using the PrintWrite 3D system, again, all in the last 90 days. As you can see, we have a lot to be proud of regarding our accomplishments for the quarter. The question, of course, now becomes how and when do these accomplishments translate into recurring revenue streams and profitability for SGMA? Well, I can't pinpoint the timing, but I believe that it's inevitable and sooner rather than later. Each of the partnerships I mentioned provides leverage to sell multiple systems that are capable of generating significant revenue starting in 2021. DMG alone has approximately 800 salespeople and 100,000 customers worldwide. Our strategic alliance with IN4.OS is a direct result of DMG certifying their printers as print-write 3D ready. In fact, DMG North America had a virtual conference last week, and over 600 attendees listened to a presentation introducing their LaserTek 30 dual SLM printer as being print-write 3D ready. As a matter of fact, the presenter was actually filmed in front of one of their printers, and our system was adjacent to it. Additionally, the large multinational manufacturers that are now going into production with our systems are all expanding their additive manufacturing initiatives, and each one presents a multimillion-dollar opportunity for expansion. We recently submitted a budgetary quote for a 10-system purchase, which we will address with PrintWrite 3D Enterprise. Now, I'm not forecasting that yet. However, I believe it's a clear indication of the intent and that we'll see repeated by all our large users. And as one user said, I can't imagine a production system without PrintWrite 3D. These revenue streams are independent and additive, pun intended. Lay one OEM doing 10 systems a year on top of another doing 15 or 20 on top of a few global end users expanding their additional facilities. Add resellers in Japan and India doing a few systems each. and the numbers for 2021 get very exciting. The difference between a leveraged model versus our two salespeople selling each system by themselves is night and day. The focus now is clearly on leveraging our position and entering 2021 with momentum. I intend to have everything in place on January 1st for Sigma to have an outstanding year and reap the benefits of the investments that we've made, not only in our technology, but more recently in our sales and marketing initiatives. There is no other in-process quality assurance solution on the market with proven patented technology that is positioned as we are to benefit from and grow with additive manufacturing as it takes its place along traditional manufacturing and reaches full industrialization. And as noted from HP's study and other industry studies, the pace of adoption is accelerating. So in conclusion, we're poised, ready, excited, and eager to face the challenges and opportunities in front of us in 20 and 21 and beyond. I think it's going to be a great year for Cigna. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
spk10: Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment please while we poll for questions. Your first question comes from line of David Levine with Trickle Research. Please proceed with your question.
spk07: Hi, Mark. Great information. That was really all very helpful and I think positive. Can you talk a little bit, it seems to me that the last couple announcements, you've alluded to it a lot in the call, but with respect to DEG and coherent, I'm curious if you have, can you give us any sense of how much broader sort of you reaching down and reaching across, I guess, has expanded the addressable market. And I'm also curious whether or not those entrees were things that you sort of came about as a result of kind of customer inquiries or customer discovery or if it's just places you knew you had to go.
spk09: Yeah, good question, and I appreciate it. So the first one, PrintWrite 3D Lite, it was actually my trip in January to Germany when we visited OR Laser, and it became clear that the economics of them incorporating our technology into their printers was not viable for them. And we had other customers ask about what we call TED-only, which is now PrintWrite 3D Lite, And we decided that if we could qualify a version of that and bring it to market with an organization like Coherent working with us, that we would do so. So the first one was clearly out of demand from a customer or a prospect at that time that we visited. If you look at the printers that we operate on today with the full version of PrintRight 3D, those are the higher-end metal printers. And so the mid-market or the mid-lower market of 3D metal printers is about twice the size of the higher-end market. So we think it's a tremendous opportunity. Many more machines, but the cost is much less. For print-write 3D, DED, or direct energy deposition, that was actually a requirement that came out from one of our customers, and we had the opportunity to work with Northwestern and who acquired a system and agreed to help qualify that with us. The DED market is not as big as the powder bed fusion market, but it's a nice addition to our portfolio. And as you see, we expand. We're expanding horizontally and vertically, vertically into lower-end and mid-tier markets, printers and horizontally into different processes. So I don't know if we've quantified the total opportunity, but I would say it's at least the size of the opportunity that we have on the high-end 3D metal printing.
spk07: I have two more questions, but I'll be quick. Did you say that the system you installed for ARAMIS was a GE system?
spk09: We installed it on a GE concept laser machine.
spk07: So that's sort of surprising to me, and maybe just because I've misunderstood this all along, but I've always sort of thought that the relationship with GE, and I don't know if relationship's even the right word, but I've always thought of GE as being a little bit adversarial to things that you're doing, or maybe GE just sort of forging its own path and not thinking that it needed anything that you were doing. I mean, that sort of seems contrary to what I thought in that regard, so I'm wondering if I thought it wrong or if you've kind of created a milestone there.
spk09: No, we're not working with GE. We're working with Airbus, and Airbus has many different types of 3D printers. In their supply chain, they can't control the manufacturer of the printers. So they're a perfect example of why you need an agnostic third-party quality assurance, because when they qualify a part for the FAA and come up with its criteria, they have to be able to meet and certify that criteria regardless of printer. So our installation at Airbus had nothing to do with GE specific. It just happened to be on a GE concept laser machine.
spk07: So, okay, well, I'll talk to you later about that. I've got some other questions about that. Can you tell us how many systems were actually sold in the corridor? I mean, I guess I wasn't thinking that we were actually in print light sales. Is that something you can address?
spk09: There are a couple of regular print light systems and then the print light 3D light system. Great. Thank you. You're welcome.
spk10: As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. Your next question comes from the line of Elliot Levine with Private Investor. Please proceed with your question.
spk03: Hi, this is Elliot Levine. I wonder if you can give me an idea of what would you expect your percentage of sales of revenues in 2021 to be software versus hardware, and then what would you expect it to be two or three years from now?
spk09: Yeah, great question, Elliot. I talked earlier about leverage, and so we're getting leverage in the sales model now. We get real leverage when we move to a software-only relationship with an OEM, because then we're able to move the cost of goods for the hardware to the OEM, and we're just basically selling bits and just transmit them over the wire. So the gross margin goes up to over 90%. So the answer to your question, for 2021, our hardware should be about 50% to 60% of our total revenue, with software 40%. And I'll ask Frank Orszakowski to qualify this if I've said anything incorrect. And then we see the hardware component decreasing in 2022 and beyond, and the software component increasing in 2022 and beyond. Matter of fact, one of the reasons I like PrintWrite 3D Lite is that it's a lot easier for the OEMs to take over the hardware provisioning with the Lite system than it is with the full system. So you'll see us increase the software revenue and decrease the hardware revenue as we get the leverage with the LEMs and the distribution model.
spk03: So you would say, let's say three years from now, 2023, that the percentage of hardware, if your total revenues are, for instance, $20 million, you would say that the hardware would be maybe 20% and the hardware would be 80%? Is that what you're implying?
spk09: The hardware would be 20% to 30% and the software would be 70% to 80%. I see.
spk03: Okay. I have another question. Sure, go ahead. What do you estimate your burn rate is at the present time?
spk09: Well, if you looked at the results, and again, I'll ask Frank just to double-check me here, we're burning, would we burn $1.2 million for the quarter?
spk06: Yeah, $1.2. There's a little over $400,000 a month now, about $415,000, call it, for operating activities.
spk09: Right, and I would expect that to come down in the next couple of quarters, just like we brought it down in the last couple of quarters.
spk03: So you would expect it to go down because of increased revenues? Yeah.
spk06: Increased revenues. It's also, Mark alluded to the Mitsubishi installation and the fact that we did that remotely. And with COVID-19, we have begun to do a lot of our installations now remotely, and that has saved us a turn. We couldn't travel to begin with, but but it has forced us to be more efficient and rethink how we do things. So we expect ongoing savings in the future by some of the efficiencies that we've now built into our processes.
spk03: So that means, assuming that the burn rate is, let's say, a million dollars in the October to December quarter, your cash at the end of the year would be somewhere in the order of around $3 million.
spk06: Between three and three and a half.
spk03: Do you think we're getting dangerously close to the point where we need some kind of an offering?
spk09: Well, you know, there's a lot of things that come into play in trying to answer a question like that. And so, Right now, we don't have any plans to do an offering short term. We always think it's prudent to be prepared and raise capital to fuel growth. But at the current time, we don't have any plans. But we will raise capital when we see the need to in order to fuel our growth and to meet our plans.
spk03: Okay. Thank you.
spk09: You're welcome.
spk10: Your next question comes from the line of Ralph Wheel with R. Wheel Investment Management. Please proceed with your question.
spk02: Hello, Mark and Frank. Nice report. How do you see the aerospace industry unfolding going forward? And what is needed for Airbus to come into fold and to give you the business that you've been working on?
spk09: Thanks, Ralph. One of the reasons that we brought in Steve Immel for business development in the United States was to go after aerospace because we haven't had a focus on it. So we see it contributing revenue and opportunities for us in the future. Also, I think it was noted in the Additive Industries press release that they have a significant foothold within the aerospace community. And we anticipate that they will bring us into more aerospace opportunities. So we see that as an increasing opportunity for us. And the second one on Airbus, you know, Airbus was hit tremendously hard, as were most airplane manufacturers and airlines with COVID. And that slowed them down considerably. They probably lost a half a year on our project. And so that was the first reason for the slowdown. Now that we're installed, we expect them to hopefully certify their first part and begin to go into production early part of next year. It was a combination of macroeconomic events hurting their industry, and then it just took Airbus a little bit of time to react. But now that they're installed, I think they'll be making up time pretty quickly.
spk02: Could you comment a little more on... I'm not sure what it is exactly, the IL4-NF project with the smart factory of the future and how you will fit into that.
spk09: Sure. IN4.OS is a private company. They are contract manufacturing. They do both traditional contract manufacturing and now making a major push into additive manufacturing. They're a DMG customer on the CNC side and now became a DMG customer on the 3D metal printing side. And we were introduced to them because of that relationship and put together a strategic alliance with them. And we'll be ensuring the quality of the components coming out of their additive manufacturing facilities as they begin to build them across the country. And they're not sure, and we're not sure how many they're going to build, but it's going to be more than a couple. And it'll be to complement their other traditional manufacturing contract facilities that they have.
spk02: Thank you.
spk09: You're welcome, Ralph. I appreciate the questions.
spk10: Your next question comes from the line of Anthony Charos with Symmetry. Please proceed with your question.
spk05: Hey, Mark. Great job, guys. I was wondering if you could speak a little bit about the closed loop solution, where we are, and I don't think a lot of people understand exactly the potential of that, and I was hoping you could just comment on that a bit.
spk09: Sure. So when you think about closed loop, you think about the monitoring process, instructing the 3D printer during the process to make certain corrections, and that's important because it saves machine time, it saves material, it reduces cycle time during the manufacturing process. Today, if a monitoring system sees something, we notify through messaging and other things the operators, and they choose what they'd like. In the future, closed-loop will notify the machine's operating system, and the machine will then, let's say, change the laser power on a certain laser in order to correct a defect or anomaly that's in process. So it greatly automates the production cycle and reduces the cycle time. The first installation or instances of us Closing that loop right now is with Materialize, and because we've integrated with their MCP, we're getting close to being able to demonstrate that and bring it to market. It's our plan to do that with all of the 3D printer manufacturers that we develop relationships with. So it's a major step in the evolution of 3D printing. It reduces the cycle time, and it makes the process that much more efficient.
spk05: Excellent. I appreciate that. Thank you.
spk10: Your next question is a follow-up from David Levin with Trickle Research. Please proceed with your question.
spk07: So, Mark, you were talking about just kind of just sort of hypothetically, you know, orders and bits and pieces from, you know, this place and that place and another. But as I'm sort of looking at it now, and we've discussed this before, but I'm having a hard time envisioning maybe, say, additive shipping. If they go ship 30 machines next year, I'm having a hard time understanding the scenario where they would ship a machine without print rights. And I guess maybe as kind of an extension of that, I know we've talked a little bit in the past about even situations where you had OEMs that were maybe potentially voiding warranties if companies were adding print rights. Do we approach a point at some point where the warranty is predicated on print rights?
spk09: Well, there's a lot to unpack there, David, but let me give it a shot. We believe that the end users will demand from printer manufacturers that they do not void warranties if they put a third-party product, whether it be ours or anybody else's, on the printer. And I believe that large end users who have a heterogeneous printer environment who adopt our technology will put the pressure on the printer manufacturers not to void the warranty. And, of course, when the printer manufacturers do that, they hurt their own customers. So I think that's going to be a self-correcting type of situation. As far as additive industries and what they ship, in the past, of course, they've shipped without a monitoring system. And one philosophy is you come up with a process and you lock down that process and you use that process to produce a certain part. That takes a lot of the agility out of the advantages that additive manufacturing or 3D printing brings to the marketplace. So I think that as customers begin to see the ability to manage quality and not have to lock down the process, that you'll see more and more printers being shipped with monitoring systems like ours. And we'll go after both the new sales of our additive and the additive customer base. So we'd love it if they shipped a copy of our product with every printer. And if we take additive aside, the vision we have, is to do an embedded non-optional software-only OEM deal. An embedded non-optional software-only means that every printer that goes out will have our software incorporated into their computing infrastructure, and we then get ultimate leverage both in the sales model and in the financial model.
spk07: Excellent. Thank you.
spk10: Your next question comes from the line of Harold Weber with Aegis. Please proceed with your question.
spk04: Yes, hi, Mike. Good afternoon. I was wondering if you could try and illustrate a little bit some other companies that are out there doing not exactly what we're doing, but that are value-added in these spaces and the type of valuations they have. Because people are asking, it doesn't make sense. The company's worth $10 million. It doesn't make any sense. People say, hey, if it's going to be any good, it would be 10 or 100 times that. So I was hoping you could enlighten us on this, give us comparisons of things that have worked a little bit further down the road and what's developed with them.
spk09: Boy, Harold, I don't have a comparison off the top of my head for a third-party software company that's attached to the additive manufacturing industry.
spk04: Well, not necessarily in the additive manufacturing, but there are many companies that are out there creating manufacturing improvements along many lines that we're trying to cross.
spk09: Yeah, and I apologize. I don't have a good analog for you relative to somebody to compare us to. All I can tell you is that we're at the early stages of the 3D metal printers and the manufacturer's and end users looking across a heterogeneous set of printers and trying to come up with a standard way to be able to manage that infrastructure. There are other large companies that are doing end-to-end digital threads that tie together the design and the simulation all the way to the quality, but those are big initiatives within large organizations. So I don't have a good comparison for you.
spk04: Well, going back to the size of the markets that you're obviously trying to penetrate and increase, we had discussed this a while back. Going out a year or two, you were talking about sales in the space. I forgot what the number was, $5 billion, $6 billion, $10 billion? And then the hardware, so the software side. Like you say, the idea is to have it embedded within OEMs. That's great, right? Yes. Based on the math that I have heard before you talking about, let's say it was about $100,000 a machine for the setup per unit, is that still in the general area? We're talking about a million-dollar machine. You were saying the software package was about $100,000. Is that still about correct?
spk09: The cost of PrintWrite 3D, which is an integrated hardware and software package for a single laser machine, is about $100,000. About $50,000 of that or half of it is hardware. So the software component is $50,000 and the hardware component is about $50,000.
spk04: So one customer who would ultimately want to sell multiple sales to, how many of those pieces of hardware do they need? They have 10 printers. Do they have 10 software programs and 10 hardware or one hardware and software programs?
spk09: It would depend on how many lasers on each machine, but it would be a one-to-many relationship. So we would have one hardware server, a larger server, or a print-write 3D enterprise that could support 10 printers, depending on the number of lasers that the printers have.
spk04: Okay, so with that type of model I'm assuming you're pursuing, that would be 90% of your recurring money would be on the printer. fees on the software rights, which is a 90, 80, 90% profit, right? Is that basically correct?
spk09: I don't know if your math is exactly right, but your direction is 100% correct. You'll see the movement, as we discussed earlier, going more towards software, and the margins go up dramatically as we drop the hardware component. But let me be clear. We'll always have a hardware component for end users where we go after the retrofit market. So we're looking for a balanced model where you have a software only to OEM and then a hardware software to end users and retrofit.
spk04: Is there a different market that you're pursuing that would be more weighted, one side versus the other, or that's agnostic?
spk08: It doesn't matter. Okay.
spk04: Okay. Thank you.
spk08: Thank you for the questions.
spk10: Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of the question and answer session, and I would like to turn the call back to Mr. Mark Rupport for closing remarks.
spk09: Well, everybody, I appreciate your participation today and your interest in what we're doing. What we tried to accomplish in the conference call is tie the milestones and achievements to leverage in the revenue that we expect to see in the future. And I think we've positioned the company to take advantage of the opportunities that are there, and I appreciate your interest. And if you have any follow-up questions, please don't hesitate to follow up with me or MZ or with Stephen Gersten, our IR person. So thank you very much. I appreciate your time and attention, and I look forward to speaking with you in 90 days.
spk10: This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your
Disclaimer