RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Please stop comparing to TSLAI doubt that roll out will be anything but ASAP. They modelled it and want to implement it fast to have bragging rights. The torches will be installed as fast as they are built. I'd even bet Peter already started a small production of torch parts to be ready to install them quickly when the contract is signed. We'll see who is right in time but exciting anyways.
BCdude wrote: You make a good point. But that is actually related to why I believe it's going to take years to roll out all of these product lines. Until the work is actually done, they can't recognize a job as revenue. You have to use a NPV calculation to value future sales.
This means that even if they sell 500 torches to Client A, I would imagine the revenue would be recognized over a longer period of time. I've tried to read everything I can on this contract possibility, and I don't think Peter has said anything about roll out -- ie. what kind of timeline the customer wants, which is different than how fast they could potentially manufacture the torches.
Pitpitcolisse wrote: You have to know that there also about only 1.2M from the 7M paiements received from Drosrite considered as revenue. The rest was liability, as they could not count it as revenue based on % of execution of project. Future guranteed revenues they are in fact.. So yes they are profitable with income as we speak.
BCdude wrote: Dude, go and check the latest income statement. They are only "profitable" because of the increase in their INVESTMENTS. That doesn't mean a large torch deal won't make them profitable in terms of INCOME by yearend. In fact, I would expect it. But you need to be able to look at financial statements and differentiate between various types of "earnings." I don't think they are planning to sell those investments, so they are "earnings" of a different kind. They had a net LOSS from OPERATIONS of $1.9 million.
I'm not a PYR basher. I own shares and am looking forward to being a longtime shareholder -- assuming the share price doesn't get into crazy territory. Which I hope it doesn't, because I really don't want to sell.
kingscorpion wrote: BCdude wrote: I should add here that profitability is also a bit of a misnomer. If you look at the Q2 financial statements, the only reason PYR was profitable was because of an increase in their INVESTMENT holdings, which are not the same as income or cash flow.
In the first six months of 2020 the company's net LOSS from OPERATIONS was $1.9 million.
If they sign this large torch deal I would of course expect profitability by all measures, but as of yet they are not profitable in terms of INCOME.
vers1demainvert wrote: LOL... Quite right CndBacon, and PYR will become ever more profitable very soon. I agree we should compare with better than TSLA.
CndnBacon wrote: Absolutely agree with you.....PYR is actually profitable, terrible comparrison....
Ahlavanthan wrote:
Anyone using TSLA as a comparison to value PYR should first declare that they know nothing and then go ahead and post their nonsense. Please and thank you.
Another stupid E/S 2ND QUARTER WAS .07C YEAR END PROFITABILITY IS EXPECTED TO BE OVER .11C /SHARE