RE:RE:RE:RE:Pathetic!Hilbertk wrote: I am fully aware of Pyro filings, I’ve read them all. If Q3 2019 is what bothers you then perhaps your DD was not good enough. Pyro has always needed to raise to cover operating expenses. Perhaps go back a little further to 2011 filings and read through.
You highlight last financials as bothersome and yet it’s been this way for a long time. So why invest in a company which concerns you so much? Why post if you’re not invested? There are countless opportunities for making money on the markets why waste your time here? I highly doubt you’re out here to warn off unsuspecting investors. Something tells me your personality type is more concernedwith your own image than helping others.
I wonder, Glen, is that you? Nah couldn’t be. If you’re looking for cash flow positive companies; perhaps the venture, where companies come to raise public dollars to remain a going concern, isn’t for you.
If you have any other evidence as to why Pyro isn’t a good investment, I’d be more than happy to debate with you.
HK
i love a debate; especially when facts are available to substantiate positions. I am fully aware the Venture exchange is populated with companies in their development stages and it may take time for them, if at all, to become profitable or even cash flow positive. In the case of PYR this has been a decades long journey. With any company, on any exchange, credibility is critical. Management may not be able to articulate contracts or orders for competitive reasons but, when they do, investors rely on these disclosures. Of specific note was the announcement of the major Drosrite contract signing and expectations of $6.4mm expected in 2-4 weeks. Investors relied on this information; the payment wasn't received. After months of due diligence the largest contract in PYR's history was prepared and signed (apparently) by the parties involved. It would be unusual for a contract, especially one of this importance, not to contain payment criteria; benchmarks, amounts, dates... So, when the ra ra Pom Pom gang refers to misinformation of sceptics and tries to cloud the facts, with projections of huge potential in the future, they intentionally ignore material press releases by management of events that have not come to pass. The revised press release, of a new understanding of a Letter of Credit, delayed by translations, time zones, holidays... is unreasonable on its face. Lawyers familiar with international contracts, including the requirements for translation, local payment standards etc., were, or should have been, involved in the initial contract preparation rendering the need for an alternate payment method moot. These same lawyers should have been able to make the necessary changes to the payment method, now vs L/C, promptly. If the client was prepared to make the $6.4mm payment in 2-4 weeks under the contract the payment method adjustment should have been made promptly and the funds should have been received by now. By the way, I'm not Glen. There always seems to be a reason (excuse) to explain why things don't happen as originally disclosed.