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: AriKirA who wrote (4377)	8/17/1999 11:57:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Ari, James, Ed You guys have stated the case very eloquently. I was glad to see Mr. Jacobs respond to the thread (Ed). I agree wholeheartedly with all of your comments. I can not see why Mr. Jacobs still does not get it. We all have said that we support the use of stock options used as an incentive based on targeted company performance measured by the appreciation in stock price. The only complaint I have as you said Ari is if stock options are going to be repriced to what ever level is necessary in order to keep them in the money there is no incentive and they are bascially being used as "base compensation". Which is not what they are meant to be. I agree with James in saying pay the employees a just salary and set the stock option price at the market when issued and never ever reprice them. The argument of setting a uniform expiration date and price is unique but bull. Are they not ever going to issue stock options again, if so will the former options be repriced (hopefully up) to make the playing field level because they have to be issued at market value. And the spector of people leaving is also a smoke screen, people would be idiots to leave now we are "so close" to commerical sales only 4 months away. Who would be that stupid with all this potential. I do not have any problem with the new employees getting options priced at the current market price with a 2 year expiration date as they have not participated in the decisions made so far which have delayed the introduction of the FAST 1 which has depressed the stock price or the promotion that resulted in many investors purchasing the stock at an inflated price. Pyng must have thought in April of 1998 that 4.97 was a fair price or they would not have issued the options. Ari I also think the stock option issues were a contract that should be honored as agreed since it was an arms length transaction. Repricing is a give away plain and simple which primarily benefits the company directors and senior management. It would be nice to know how many of the options have been issued to the non-managers, just in total so this point could really be evaluated for the potential number of employees that may leave. Certainly none of the top executive will bolt. I am sure that Ms. Findlay and Dr. Johnson have not each received the 300,000 stock options contained in their contracts. I would be surprised if more than 100K each of the original 600,000 options were isssued to them. The statement from the 1998 annual report states 180,000 granted to two directors ( Lukowski? and Turner?), and 350,000 granted to directors, officers of subsidaries of the Company (we know the Jacobs got 150,000). This leaves 70,000 (original issue) and 137,000 ( of the 750,000 to be priced at $1.30) for all the other employees and/or service providers (is this some sort of barter payment). As you can see the people making the decisions for the last year are the real ones to benfit from the repricing. The first repricing cost the company/shareholders potentially $1,728,000 (4.97-2.09=2.88x600,000) of "internal financing". And the second repricing will cost us another $474,000 (2.09-1.30=.79x600,000). I know that both of these assumptions are base on the fact that PYT must be over $4.97 by April 2000 which is a long shot but could happen. If the company needs money, I would be interested in Ari's idea of 1 stock right per share priced at $1.35 that would be the fair way of raising "internal investment".