SI
SI
discoversearch

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: AriKirA who wrote (4173)7/14/1999 2:38:00 PM
From: Bernard Elbaum  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8117
 
I, for one, remain bullish on Pyng and would be buying more shares at current prices if I did already feel fully exposed. My reasoning is as follows. Given the reception to date, there is little reason to doubt that the FAST1 will eventually command at the very least a modest niche market that will suffice to make it profitable and worth a healthy multiple of today's stock price.

The main risk concerns the time to get there and interim losses. That risk is reduced by Pyng's low-cost operation and the prospect of both sizable military orders and wide civilian interest in the product. See Wrayfield's projections in an earlier post on the prospective initial market.

The record certainly suggests that Pyng management has been over-optimistic in past projections, and done a sloppy job with respect to correcting and explaining its errors to investors. But the tenor of SI posts by investors, with due respect to LOR's sense of humor, is often insulting to management, and not calculated to promote a healthy dialogue with executives who are spending most of their time running the company for no pay because of their belief in its promise.



To: AriKirA who wrote (4173)7/14/1999 9:51:00 PM
From: m. jacobs  Respond to of 8117
 
Dear AriKirA, I had at this time supposed that you would have realized that we would still need to go through the process, however, the product would have not been so fully analyzed in a field setting. Perhaps this is typical of the lack of understanding in reading a posting. Perhaps this is why we are debating such issues. Try, at least, to put things on context. Michael