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: Bernard Elbaum who wrote (4185)	7/15/1999 12:26:00 PM
From: Grant MacMillan	Respond to of 8117

I hear you, but I happen to think it takes less time and effort to be straight forward than it does to be mysterious and elusive. I don't trust PYNG management. Why? Trust is something that I give freely until someone gives me reason not to, at which point they must "earn" my trust. PYNG management has lost my trust, and done NOTHING to earn it back. It also seems quite obvious that they don't care either. So here we are, I don't like them, they don't like me, and everybody is complaining. Reality is that PYNG created this mess with investors and only they can clean it up. They've instead chosen to sweep it aside. GM

To: Bernard Elbaum who wrote (4185)	7/15/1999 2:01:00 PM
From: Edward W. Richmond	Respond to of 8117

Bernard, I do agree with you that the problem is perception and emphasis. Having spent considerable time touring the Pyng operation and speaking with Michael Jacobs and David Johnson, I came to several conclusions which I still hold. 1. Management has a strong commitment and focus in getting to mass production and to market. They, along with shareholders, will be rewarded, when the profits begin to flow. 2. The product, now in it's modified version, has tremendous potential for market share, revenue and profit. I doubt that management would permit a 'cheap' takeover. 3. Michael, David and Judy work well as a team. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think that Michael Jacobs can get this thing successfully to market, but the TEAM certainly will be able to do it. 4. Management reminds me of an octopus trying to hold 10 balls at one time. Not enough arms! I think they may be trying to do too much with too few people. Of course, management has tried to keep the burn rate to a minimum. 5. Clearly, investor relations contracts have not produced what many of us had expected. I know that shareholders were concerned about Mr Lenoski's (sp) accessiblity and what he was doing for the company. I suspect that his departure may indicate that management's expectations were not met as well. Management is once again saddled with this additional responsibility. No, I don't think it is a good way to operate. Management should focus on the product and getting to market, not investor relations. 6. Management getting involved in internet forums is exceedingly rare and, in my opinion and observation, usually doesn't last. I won't speculate on the reasons. Certainly there have been disappointments, missed targets and a lack of timely corrections. I was concerned when the end of May came and the Final, final version of FAST1 had not been determined. It took an extra 4 to 5 weeks. Now that it is done, we move to the molds and dies for mass production. There may be likes and dislikes, personalities and management styles that create conflict. So be it! I have no intention of rehashing the past missteps, miscommunication or errors. I am very optimistic about the product and the company's future. We are now in the process of moving to mass production and the negotiating/signing of manufacturing contracts. I hope we have mass production by the projected year-end. If we don't meet that target, and at this point I don't see any reason why we won't, I am prepared to simply wait until it does happen. In my opinion, management wants their profits as much as I do and they will move as quickly as possible to get the show on the road. When we FINALLY do get to market and the revenue begins to flow, I suspect that we will think that Michael and David aren't so bad after all. I am not prepared to slam management or SI posters. We all have our own perceptions and motivations. I, as an old guy, will be happy to be just a little bit older when I reap the rewards. Best regards to all Pyng investors, whether you agree with me or not. Ed

To: Bernard Elbaum who wrote (4185)	7/15/1999 11:37:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Bernard and Ed I am glad to see someone add alittle balance to the content of the thread. Although I agree with most of what you are saying especially the point about IR duties being delegated. I do not understand why an outside firm can not handle all the Corporate Communications on a contract basis, which would certainly be cheaper than hiring someone and would provide a dedicated resource for this critical function. There is one key point that I must make a counter argument to that both of you seemed to be making. Bernard:"The company management feels it is guilty of no more than mistaken over-optimism in its public projections. Critics seem to be implying that the company could or should have known enough, to modify its projections sooner than was publicly acknowledged........Which is your view of reality here is a matter of shading, emphasis, and interpretation--all of which can be influenced by standpoint--not a matter of black and white." Ed: "Certainly there have been disappointments, missed targets and a lack of timely corrections." Both of you seem to be saying that Pyng has corrected it projections just not in a timely manner. This is where we disagree. I still think they have not made any public corrections. The only possible correction that I can find is their change of the website statement on "commercial sales in 1998" to "commercial sales in 4th quarter 1999" in June of 1999. I guess that you could say that if you read the news releases broadly enough they implied that things were taking longer than expected and that all previous statements were null and void. I do not think either of these serve as a correction. The first promotional piece put together by Frontline that I received in a Pyng investor kit (Jan 1998) gave estimates but it presented them in a format with no dates the column headers were Year 1, Year 2, Year 3...... Although these projections made in 1997 would have lead most to believe Year 1 was 1998 when viewed with the website statement. This maybe gray for some. But the April 98 projection mailed out with investor kits included dates that I am sure some people used in making an investment decision. This is black and white in my opinion. Once dates were used in promotional material then it is my opinion that Pyng had an obligation to update the information and give revised dates based on current circumstances or publicly state that the prior projection should not be relied on, ideally with some explanation of what the significant reasons for the timeframe slippage was. There is no doubt in my mind that the intent of these projections was to promote the stock and whether it was an honest mistake we must decide for ourselves. This mistake has never been admitted or corrected. I am curious why both of you think the stock price has been declining or stagant for over a year? I think that Pyng is in a far superior position today than they were in April of last year. The news released in my mind has been very significant- Acceptable by the military, field test complete with better than expected results, design complete with reduced cost. I think the only thing holding Pyng back is "credibility" which will never be restored until the projections are revised with dates or Pyng admits they can not reasonably predict dates and explains why. I am with Grant on this "Reality is that PYNG created this mess with investors and only they can clean it up. They've instead chosen to sweep it aside." I agree with both of you that Pyng has some incredible positives- superior product with a large market that will absolutely save lives. I have complete faith in the FAST 1's eventual huge success. But all of this great news is being completely discounted because of Pyng's complete refusal to take responsiblity for their statements. This problem could be solved by honest open communciation. And even when the product is on the market this lack of credibility will remain for several quarters until they establish a trend of higher sales and profits. Maybe both of you are content to wait for Pyng to produce numbers so great that they in and of themself make credibility a non- issue. Although I personally do not think that credibility ever becomes a non-issue. I would prefer for management to step up and update the projections or make it clear that no estimates can be made and all previous estimates should be ignored. Though I do not see why the projections could not be updated as we are so far along in the commercialization process that surely the timeframe has become much clearer than it was in April 98 when they were confident enough to include them in investor kits. I appreciate both of you providing the counter point to the discussion. After all that is what a thread is meant to be a discussion which seldom occurs when all party have the same prospective.