Re: News Release
in response toby
As you probably can appreciate, strategy is often a result of multiple mutually-exclusive considerations and not necessarily resulting from one consideration alone. This case is no exception.
You are right, a very important consideration was exactly what you surmised: Naming the actual global engine manufacturer might impede the quality of discussions with other global engine manufacturers whom we are in NDA discussions with. I can also share with you two other very important considerations that led to this strategy without compromising it, namely:
So, that I hope adds a bit of colour to my previous answer.
I just wanted to take a moment, if I may, to comment on your observation that constant press releases are good to (i) appease nervous nellies and (ii) propping up a stock. While both might be true, I want to assure you that those are not the audiences we target when we write our press releases. While press releases are required for the dissemination of material information, and material information is considered information that may impact the stock price, we write them with two audiences in mind, namely (i) investors (obviously) and (ii) maybe surprisingly; potential clients. The latter often time times (I am sorry to admit, but I am being honest), being the most important target market. The Q&A format was developed in part to bring the neophyte, in both target markets, up to speed quickly in a “fireside chat” environment, with the goal of piquing their interest enough that they will do some further investigating. I do not think I am talking out of school if I share with you the fact that the majority of the interest in our additive manufacturing capabilities is being generated through these very same Press Releases.
Last but not least I cannot sign off without committing on your observation that I did once give guidance that we would be cash flow positive and that did not pan out. You are right. I did…and thank-you for reminding me and keeping me humble…. but did you have to??? Just kidding, but in all seriousness, I would like to put that event in context. We were, in fact, at the time posed to be cash flow positive. We were. Seriously. Hands down. No doubts about it. We were running the balance of a 10-system order, for $12 MM, through our balance sheet. This was a cash flow positive situation … until we decided to get out of the contract and get into powder production because we couldn’t do both at the same time. My pronouncement that we would be cash flow positive came before the decision to get out of the lucrative 10-system contract and into powder production. When you rip a contract like that, out of the heart of a company that is making $5-6MM a year, cash flow is affected. I believe that, given the fact that the decision was made shortly after cash flow positive guidance, it takes a strong board with a solid conviction to make decisions for the benefit of shareholders, to move forward like it did, and not allow that prediction to colour their decision. All that being said I am glad we did what we did, and are here today taking our rightful place within the additive manufacturing community. I hope you agree.
Thank-you again for your post.
P. Peter Pascali, CEO, PyroGenesis Canada Inc.