RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Share priceNo you are wrong. I did not. Someone asked him in an Agoracom interview what is your
operating EPS and he said .02 or .03 for the Q 3.
Read my copy and paste below please
Q 3 2020 results reflect the following highlights:
- Revenues of $8,149,427, an increase of 289% from $2,097,437 over the same period in Q3 2020;
- Comprehensive income of $15,325,996 an increase of 16 times that posted in Q3 2019 - ($965,032);
- Net income from operations before share-based expenses of $3.1MM vs ($1MM) posted over the same period in 2019;
damnyourugly wrote: I believe you have mixed up the 2 companies in your last sentence.
fdfd12 wrote: PYR's profit is about break even. The last few quarters they have done something like .02 this Q that just past and .03 the Q before that. That is what your CEO Peter said.
Now if you are talking about the help with the HPQ profit, that is not operating profit.
That is not torches and drosrites.
You know that when you have a $17.7M with a profit of $41M, you know that is not your company doing it.
If HPQ was not helping PYR, then PYR wouldn't be much now.
RealistDontalkm wrote: revenue is not profit..look at pyrs profit in those 20mil revenue...
fdfd12 wrote: SHOP is tech and so is PYR.
That is the same industry.
Also they have high growth reates so yes, you can compare.
How are you supposed to find another plasma torch company so you can compare PYR to?
Come on get real.
Look what you said, SHOP market cap of $1.6B-$1.8B and revenue of $200M
PYR market cap of $1.4M and revenue of $20M.
If the great SHOP has a market cap nearly the same as PYR back then, then Peter
better deliver some torches fast.
Unfortunately, PYR's price is still overvalued at this level.
LastZaz wrote: How are you trying to compare share price without looking at the market cap and/or outstanding shares? From what I saw, in 2015 SHOP had a market cap of close to $1.6 - $1.8 billion with revenues of U$200 million in 2015.
PYR has a backlog of revenues in the $30+ million range iirc and has paradigm shifting technology in an economic environment that is increasingly seeking environmentally friendly industrial solutions.
So that brings to me to my next point - how are you trying to compare valuations in companies that don't even do the same thing and aren't even in the same realm? This is a mistake people who aren't in finance often make. You need to compare to peers to make a proper relative valuation and assessment. Otherwise your comparison is quite frankly useless, as it doesn't account for the differences in industry and the risks associated in each.
At the end of the day, PYR is one of a kind company, and its valuation is - like most growth tech companies - based on its foreseeable growth potential alongside its current results and financial position. Ultimately, the concept of valuation based on market cap is an imperfect science, so to try to prove a point with this simple math is a fruitless endeavor, that may misdirect or confuse investors.
I am an accountant with a specialty in finance. You are comparing apples and oranges here.