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: Edward W. Richmond who wrote (3831)	5/23/1999 11:21:00 AM
From: LOR	Respond to of 8117

PYNG SHARES -- BUYER's Beware !!! Ed, I truly appreciate the time and trouble you have gone through "sharing" your observations and opinions about PYNG. While I agree with you about the future "potential" value of the company based upon a super product "concept" my personal observations indicate that there is a distinct possibility that PYNG may well be dangerous for any investor's financial health. Specifically: 1) A CEO, who I believe said in one of his 1998 posts "Go PYNG go" when the stock was heading north of $ 5.00 but who subsequently implied that the share price is no big deal when it fell from it's high down towards the gutter does not appear to have a consistent viewpoint as to the importance of the perceived value of his company by investors [ one might even conclude that he shows a certain contempt in this area ], 2) A CEO, who after much badgering finally posts to this forum that he recognizes that investor capital was helpful in fueling PYNG's evolution and seems to promise that the investors [ who in good faith ] provided that "fuel" would be better informed of the company's progress [ out of respect for their contribution ] and then proceeds to [ IMHO ] ignore his own commitment for months can not [ again IMHO ] be trusted to provide investors with a clear view of the company's position and game plan. This might be understandable if PYNG was worried about "competitors", however, this same CEO has many times implied that there is no serious competition for the IO market PYNG is aiming for. I maintain that much of the information you are now providing after your visit to PYNG should have been provided by PYNG during the past several months. On the plus side, even though somebody told me personally [ you can guess who ] last winter that the FAST-1 was the outright winner of the Walter Reed Tests and I subsequently talked to WR personnel and determined that the FAST-1 was NOT the clear winner by a country mile or even an inch [ which I have posted previously to this forum many moons ago ] I must admit that none of the folks I have talked to who have used the FAST-1 have had anything bad to say about it except in certain specific "military-combat" situations. I have no doubt that it is the perfect IO device for 99% of all ambulance and hospital environments. That said, I suspect Mr. Jacob's doesn't perhaps realize that a number of folks may have been hurt by PYNG's "fantasy" forecasts which implied significant commercial orders in 1998. While management may hide behind the suggestion that they did receive such orders in 1998 only a fool would accept that viewpoint as their website propaganda certainly led many investor's to believe that significant sales of high volume production devices would be achieved in 1998 as opposed to to orders for "evaluation and limited use". I also believe that only a fool would think that management was not aware of how many investors would interpret PYNG's propaganda. PYNG now sits in the bottom 5% of my personal investments and although I have no plans to sell off the shares I hold [ because I believe in the 'product' but definitely NOT the management ] I won't be adding to my PYNG investment PERIOD. Fortunately for me [ perhaps unlike some honest folk who may have over-extended themselves listening to MJ's BS and then had to sell at a loss ] I can hold out until the cows come home ...... and they don't appear to be in any hurry!! However, I still think PYNG will have a significant order in hand by June 1 .... of the year 2001 that is. Best of luck to all, LOR

To: Edward W. Richmond who wrote (3831)	5/23/1999 9:34:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Respond to of 8117

Ed: Kudos for your thorough report all the questions I forwarded you were answered surprisingly well. When I talked to Pyng late last year and found out they were planning to make a new training video/CD/DVD. One of the reasons I was given for the new media was that the device had changed since the original one was made and the new media would be much better quality and translatable into 5 languages. Did you get the impression that the training video would be delayed until all the final design changes were made? If so this presents another problem as I understood that most of the training new video content would be based on the field test uses, so if further changes are made then it seems obvious that more uses will be needed to get the changes included in the video and the pilot production has been discontinued. I do not understand how the newly design devices based on the final final design will be produced. With 6-7 months before orders will be taken there is plenty of time to finish the video if there is sufficent product inventory to get the necessary footage. Any comments. One other small point the FAST 1 will be the last to market the B.I.G has been marketed for over a year in Israel and has received FDA approval in the US, the SurFast and Jamshidi needle have been marketed for several years. Granted SurFast and Jamshidi needle are not being currently marketed in the adult intraosseous infusion market but given their acceptability for this purpose as evidenced in the WR report I am sure this option will be considered immediately by Baxter and Cook which already have other products being used by the target audience. I definitely think FAST 1 has the superior product and I think the WR report proves that even though the endorsement was not total. But 6-7 months is along time especially for outfits as large as Baxter and Cook to make in roads. Maybe they will decide that the FAST 1 is so effective they will just pass on this potentially $250MM market. I sure hope so. I sure am glad we have an "air tight" patent on the depth control mechanism included in the FAST 1 as that seems to be the one thing that keeps the other device makers from developing a sternal site version of their products. I am glad that management is striving for the perfect and most cost effective product. But it sure seems to me that 5 years worth of research should have brought the product pretty close to a final design with only minor changes based on live patient/actual use field test results. And I can not understand why potential parts manufacturing vendors were not lined up during the year of testing which would have potentially pointed out alternative materials which could be used to reduce the cost. Or specifically if the surgical steel extraction rod and threaded catheter tip were such a large part of the total cost why were alternatives not examined initially as surely the cost of each component was known before pilot production was initiated. Anyway Ed thanks for you incredibly informative report. I know you can not answer these questions, but I would be interested in any thoughts you have based on your recent conversations with Pyng management. One final note, I hope you are right in your assessment that the company will not sell out to a J&J type company. Because I do not think that J&J would pay more than 20 times next year's earnings (next 12 months) which now we know can not be much if the first 7 months have no sales and I want alot more for my shares.