Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (4157)	7/13/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: HotShot1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

So where does that leave us? We're still waiting for realistic forecasts for the next few years, hopefully ones you're willing to stand by (LOR). Are you planning on posting them on your website, or is the market to uncertain for you to put together a proper pro forma?

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (4157)	7/13/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: LOR	Respond to of 8117

Well Dave, I applaud your decision to turn tail and creep back into the lab. You are quite correct that investors believe that PR's should be factual and realistic as opposed to the gush which has flowed from PYNG's doorstep for years now. As far as any books co-authored by yourself on how to handle a "new medical device" I doubt that it [ much like the PYNG FAST-1 ] shows up on any "best seller's" list. However, to be fair, I will have my 14 year old student son track it down and give me his opinion [ I doubt that I need find a more qualified reviewer ]. In the meantime, rest assured that the walls have ears. Just as we were able to monitor PYNG's supposed "Best IO Device" victory at Walter Reed [ and KNEW long before PYNG grudging admitted that the FAST-1 was NOT chosen as being superior to other IO devices for the intended use ] we will continue to keep in touch with our many sources ALL who have been far more accurate then PYNG when it comes to objectively looking at PYNG's tortured and slow progress. Should you wish to author more books in the future I suggest that your many years of experience at PYNG have helped you develop your skills for works of "FICTION". All the best, LOR

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (4157)	7/14/1999 12:18:00 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Dr. Johnson I have to admit that I have never worked for a medical startup company or been involved with bringing a medical device to market. I am just a mid level Divisional Controller with Fortune 100 company responsible for Financial Reporting and Planning. In my position I am charged with providing timely, accurate, useful financial data and analysis of that data. The cardinal rules are never promise more than you can deliver and when you make a mistake own up to it and correct it immediately. I review the plan for our division each month and since it is my job when my division does not make the plan I have the privelge of explaining why. I mistakenly thought that these basic business principals applied to all companys (especially public ones) even medical device startups. I do not think anyone here expects infallible data or proprietary information, I certainly do not. But I do expect explanations when statements made publicly or in company produced materials prove false. I have reread all your posts to this forum and there was some very good information communicated in them, which I think was duly recognized and appreciated by the thread members. As a member of the "hardcore minority" I apologize for depriving the thread of your participation. I will publicly post my apologies to any member who feels my posts are unduly harsh except for Stubbs (I w will wait until all the realistic people post so as not to take up valuable thread space). But, I think that you are grossly overestimating the number of "those of you who ARE taking a realistic view of our progress." The reason that the thread has turned so negative is because the members you consider to be realistic I think are just sheep too timid to post/question or just do not care. I am sorry that your response is to quit posting rather than provide clarification and realism to the realistic members. Now I guess all the posts will be made by the "hardcore" segment which is unfortunate because believe it or not most investors check SI before investing I really hate for them to get such a onesided view of things. The real shame is that it has come to this name calling stage, when all this "hardcore" poster wanted was for management to take responsibility for their own statements. I for one would be willing to promise not to post on this main thread if management would step up and correct past statements, explain the delays and provide some guidance for the future. This seems fair to me as I would gain from reading the clarification and realism you provide and Pyng would gain by having one less "hardcore negative poster". I have always considered the main purpose of my posts to be to further the discussion and call it like I see it, but I can certainly see why you would regard them as negative as I certainly do not like what I have seen lately.

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (4157)	7/14/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Stephen Krupa	Respond to of 8117

Dr. Johnson, "We have been free, perhaps too free, with providing some insight into our estimates of market size, penetration, production timelines, factors affecting and determining the anticipated market, etc. Numbers we have provided as estimates or best guesses have been treated as hard facts, compared with other estimates made in earlier times, and discrepancies pointed to as evidence of lack of management skills and lack of credibility. This kind of thing is nonsense." One item which is nonsense to me is that Pyng has made public estimates and best guesses and avoids its responsibility to correct those statements when time and events have proved them to be in error. The investment community, aka shareholders, expect that management will provide estimates and best guesses which will be used by these persons to determine the level of credence to place on the information. Management credibility can only be maintained by said management correcting earlier statements on a timely basis. I ask you to review earnings estimates, occurring now, and the pummeling a company suffers when the President has misled the investment community. If you desire a specific example, I cite First Union Corp and the class action lawsuits multiplying faster than rabbits. It is reasonable to assume that any public statement by any company, via news release, company literature or TV/radio/video interview, forces investors to accept the information as accurate and to be relied upon in the absence of a correction or update. And such misinformation is tantamount to the company shooting itself in the foot. Pyng has stated, on its website, its calculation of market size. I have not found where Pyng commented on market penetration. There have been many posts on this thread requesting this data but management has refused/avoided/ignored any response. Also, management appears to have acknowledged that the sales projections of April, 1998, which called for real sales by July 31, 1998, are no longer accurate, yet the company has not stated this unequivocally. How can Pyng claim that providing corrections to its prior statements is not permitted by the regulations of the SEC and VSE, as well as being in violation of ongoing negotiations for production, distribution, etc?