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 (3578)	3/27/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: esxtarus	Respond to of 8117

I for one thing you and your staff are doing the right thing I know everybody is in for profit but I understand it has to be done right and who knows better then you people I have been a shareholder for 3 years if it takes another year to do it right so be it keep up the good work im sure we will all benefit when the time is right.

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3578)	3/27/1999 8:19:00 PM
From: 24karat	Respond to of 8117

David, Take your time, most of us that have held on since the $4.00 shares and are still here, have no intention of this being a quick buck. You've done a good job so far. Keep up the good work.Wished I could afford more.

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3578)	3/27/1999 11:48:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Always nice to hear from you Dr. Johnson Your choice is an easy one for me. My personal opinion is I like the double the profit scenario. I am as caring as the next guy but I invested in PYT to make money. But now that the design is final I do not understand the steps necessary to convert the current low volume production manufacturing set up to one that is able to mass produce the product. I share LOR's main concern, I would like to know what steps are involved in the conversion to mass production and a projected timeframe. At this point any estimate should not hurt the stock price as it is already depressed and would probably react favorably to any information in this regard as uncertainty has probably been a major factor in its decline. As a finance person I understand the importance of maximizing gross margin by minimizing product cost. I would rather see Pyng take time to get the cost down as low as possible and sale the product at a huge profit. The huge gross profit potential is what drew me to PYT in the first place. I do not want the product sold at breakeven or worse a loss. I just can not see why it should take more than a month or so to fabricate the metal injection molds to allow high speed production (I know the conversion is not that simple). Understand that I for one admit my ignorance of the process. The lack of any information in this regard is what is frustrating. If the firm that is currently producing the FAST 1 field test units will handle its mass production surely they can estimate the conversion time frame as it is their business. I genuinely admire the job that the Pyng staff has done in getting the product tested and finalizing the design. I know it has taken a Herculean effort on all of your parts. I hope you will be so kind as to enlighten us on the next steps. I am very patient and like esxtarus I am willing to wait as long as it takes within reason but the wait would certainly be easier if some benchmarks were known. An update on the Fort Bragg training would be much appreciated also. Best Regards Jack

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3578)	3/30/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: LOR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

To: David Johnson -- Ref: PYNG's Slow Progress Thanks for your response to my message to Mike Jacobs. Unfortunately, your reply has some sad implications. If PYNG has not after all these years being able to line up suitable sub- contractors for the "mass production" of the FAST-1 then something is terribly wrong. Investors have been led to believe that significant commercial orders would be achieved in 1998 in a multi-million dollar market. If you like I can e-mail or perhaps paste PYNG's 1998 website material into a forum message to help refresh memories. Further, it was implied that the hold up in "mass production" of the FAST- 1 was related to final modest design changes as opposed to having competent sub contractors. I recall discussing whether or not sub- contractors could be a problem with Mike last fall and being told that there are countless sub contractors out there who could take over from PYNG's in-house modest prototype manufacture and boost production "through the roof". Although he didn't say "sub contractors are a dime a dozen" that sure was the impression. This is NOT a subject that a competent organisation would just now be getting around to tackle. As to profit, it seems to me that unless PYNG recognizes having a significant competitor for the IO market then PYNG should be able to command a reasonable price [ including manufacturing costs and margins ] for the FAST-1. Our CEO has gone out of his way to say that there is no comparisson between the FAST-1 and most of the other devices on the IO market and that the FAST-1 is THE ONLY device for sternal use. If his views are shared by PYNG's potential "mass volume" customers then there should be no problem in staying in the black. Therefore, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION .......lets get the FAST-1 on the market while covering our costs and then [ as all competent companies should ] work towards the reduction in production costs which will permit both enhanced value to shareholders and possibly reduced cost to the "mass volume" end users as well. AND AS AN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT .... thousands of folks who might die because the product continues to be held up will be eternally gratEful. WIN --WIN you might say. Of course, I realize that this may not be possible if those "mass volume" users do not accept PYNG's view that the FAST-1 is worth paying a premium for .... in which case PYNG may have real problems !!!! As regards "orchestrating groups", I'm sorry but I don't think that as a shareholder that is within my objectives. My day to day work has already reduced my capability to monitor my investments [ especially speculative ones like PYNG ] to a minimum. I therefore look to the SI PYNG forum for information about PYNG's current status and for information coming from PYNG management and try to limit my "input" to cases where that information appears to be inconsistEnt with other information I have obtained. This in turn should permit PYNG management to clear up any misunderstandings ...... Like they say, "What doesn't kill you [ including the occasional critic ] makes you stronger". However, your message has certainly sparked some interesting comments from forum members. May I suggest that in the interests of the shareholders it might be far more productive if someone at PYNG reviews all the unanswered questions put to yourself and Mike Jacob's on the SI forum say "AT LEAST" on a weekly basis and then attempts to answer same?? ..... Perhaps then we would seeing a growing confidence in PYNG's future which might even start to be reflected in the share price. It is evident that although some PYNG shareholders are prepared to sit tight with limited input "until PYNG "gets it right" that many other shareholders [ and the entire market ] would much prefer to have a more accurate picture of PYNG's progress. LOR

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3578)	4/8/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Dr. Johnson/Mr. Jacobs I understand it is important to take your time to find the most cost effective means of mass production. But I would appreciate it if someone from Pyng could fill us in on the stages of the process and where Pyng is now in the process. Are you interviewing third party manufacturers? If so have you narrowed the field down? How long should the selection process take? Since Pyng was already subcontracting the part machining can the same contractor be used to furnish parts to another company for assembly? Thanks Jack