developbc wrote: Dear Alien Landing,
You seem to be a…first time poster.
Welcome to the Pyro family.
Allow me to thank you for your comments and note that you seem to wrongly assume a number of things which I will get into shortly.
Allow me to introduce myself to you. You can imagine I am very busy every day communicating/ negotiating/ presenting and, from time to time, I may get things wrong…facts, as well as grammatical errors. I also have a bad habit of mispronouncing certain words like “vegetables” ( people in the office tease me about it and, I hope, find it endearing) which I am sure you would go to town on. I also swear from time to time (to time to time to time) and I am to this day surprised at how autocorrect doesn’t realize how much I do swear and how little I care about ducks. I am sure a day with me would be torture to your virgin ears.
Let me now address your first comment which you thought was pedantic (btw: did you know that pedantic people are sticklers for details, very concerned about precise minutiae. Typically, they are portrayed as dull or joyless; They are also described as someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter...it’s true, look it up.).
In truth, I found your comment to be more...thoughtless? unappreciative? ...than pedantic but, bottom line: You were right. (Please do not tell my mother, she will beat me with a broom).
I wish I could blame autocorrect but cannot. I wish I could blame a colleague but cannot again. I wish I had met you earlier on Agoracom because then I could say I was just trying to give you purpose in life, but I cannot to that either. Bottom line: you caught me out…but…I am ecstatic. If implying vs inferring is my biggest mistake with all I am writing, then I would take that any day. My anal retentive grade school English teacher would probably have insisted that I double and triple check everything, as I am pretty sure you would agree with given you want the CEO of companies you invest in to not only get everything right but they have to look like they are getting everything right as well. Now I am not here to give you a lesson in business but there is the principle of diminishing returns you should consider. At some point it is not worth the time…even if it means losing an alien here or there.
Now with respect to your next matter (it was actually two matters), allow me to address each on its own:
Matter A:
It seems that you do not get it at all. My previous posts did not seem to resonate with you. Let me break it down for you (I do not know why I bother with the likes of you…anyways)
Your assumptions:
Straight sale: Customer 1 + Pyro = Sale
Lease situation: Customer 2 + Pyro + leasing company = Slower negotiations
Bad assumption re: leasing situation Alien Landing. You assumed Customer 1 and Customer 2 are similar.
Here it is:
Customer 2 (no capex budget) + Pyro = no deal
Customer 2 (no capex budget) + Pyro + leasing company = deal in discussion.
Also
Customer 3 (has capexp budget but likes the idea of freeing it up for something else) + Pyro + Leasing company = deal in discussion
In the Customer 3 example you think there may be a delay because the leasing company “…might be gingerly feeling its way forward..”? Seriously? Gingerly? What is that? You think that GE Capital goes around gingerly? I am not implying (see that...fast learner here !!!) that we are in contact with GE Capital by the way...just an example. Leasing companies put together an offering only once they are committed and have all the issues addressed. To borrow a take on your wish in your post: “…Please don't start sounding like the internet illiterates who pollute social media with their lack of financial/business understanding. Please please please…” Lets be clear: nobody commits gingerly in finance…pedantic Aliens aside.
Now on to part 2 of your second matter:
I did not imply that Client A may be changing to a lease situation. Nor did you infer it as I would have had to imply it for that to happen. I am not saying it is and I am not saying it is not, all I am saying is that I did not imply it. What happened was you simply asss-umed it without checking. Which may make you out to be not only someone who does not get it right but someone who cannot even look like he is. There is no fix for that type of stupidity my friend. At least you implied that I got things right but just did not look like I did because of some grammatical errors…lmao now buddy…at least I can fix grammatical errors.
In closing, I do Hope that Helped even if you are the internet version of a has-been bully.
Happy landing,
Hi Peter. Thanks for taking the time.
This first one might seem pedantic but I'd rather see a CEO of a company I'm pretty heavily invested in (for me) get everything right and look like he's getting everything right. You said: Now I am not inferring that leasing has anything to do with current negotiations...
The word is implying not inferring. When something comes from you, you are implying (or not implying as in this case). When you hear or read something and form an opinion from that, you are inferring. Please don't start sounding like the internet illiterates who pollute social media. Please please please.
Now to matter two. You said: And I have been very clear that leasing by a third party does not affect how we account for the revenues.
I can see that and understand that, and I can also see how a leasing option increases the number of customers you can entertain. I can also see how leasing might complicate a negotiation. In a straight sale there are two parties involved in negotiations -- you and the customer. In a lease situation, there are three -- you, the customer, and the leasing company. I can see how this could slow things down, particularly in the earliest situations (like now) where no three-party routines have been established and the leasing company in particular might be gingerly feeling its way forward, despite its expertise and experience with other products and industries. This might be particularly noteworthy to investors (for good and not so good reasons) in a situation like the one PYR is in where indications were that Client A looked headed for a sale, but you implied in the recent Q-and-A PR (and we inferred) that this might now be changing to a lease situation. Can you comment at all on the relative speed of a sale situation vs. a lease situation in the context of this paragraph?
Slow might be fast, but time is still time and one can never get it back.
Anyway, many thanks for your time. Greatly appreciated.
Alien Landing