We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pursuit Dynamic | LSE:PDX | London | Ordinary Share | GB0030310964 | ORD 1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 1.975 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
19/6/2013 08:36 | hippo If you look back, I was also with you on that front! The company was given away then! | hyper al | |
19/6/2013 07:59 | fludde What did Tyco do for PDX? FireMist Launch 4 June 2008 Did Ansul push FireMist ? If so why is PDX in it's current financial position. Would love to see the Ansul sales figures for FireMist over the past 5 years. Big international players can play cat and mouse with small hightechs. Chase the mouse then go in for the kill. Just watch how FireMist takes off now, probably will be in every commercial building withiin a decade and on all aircraft! | hyper al | |
19/6/2013 06:46 | selling IP "with a view to eliminating the Company's remaining liabilities" doesn't exactly sound like it has anything to do with shareholder value, more like there will be no staff, no IP, no liabiities and no share price | fludde | |
19/6/2013 06:37 | Another International company removing the UK of it's developed assets! | hyper al | |
19/6/2013 06:34 | Here we go Millions of £ in development sold for $100k !!! :-( | hyper al | |
07/6/2013 18:11 | flatlined today must be a first! | wrey | |
03/6/2013 12:53 | It appears to be you who has the eye-sight problem! Please show me where the management said that! (The management simply said that PDX intends to clear most of its debts this year, if not all of them. The Net Assets per share is STILL a positive number!) | dncleaver | |
03/6/2013 12:39 | I'd disagree DN. I'd say that when 4 different sets of management, in 8+ years, have failed to get anything in any way substantial sold ( giveaways or a £200k order isn't substantial ) it's the IP / technology's fault. Management has now spelt it out - the sale of the IP MAY NOT COVER LIABILITIES, even for a company with £5m in the bank at the end of last year. The writing is on the wall. Some will be so blind that they can't see the writing. Some will see it, but choose to ignore it. But PDX has been weighed in the balance and has been found wanting ! | outsizeclothes.com | |
01/6/2013 02:56 | corozal: It is not quite correct to say that the IP is "not economically viable", as Shepherde Neame have already illustrated (for want of a better example). The problem has been that PDX has serially failed to commercialise opportunities, which were often seemingly presented to them on a plate. Whether the problem was down to the greed of the management, or simply their stubbornness or even stupidity, it clearly had nothing to do with the usefulness of the technology. With the correct deals on offer, this technology WILL sell! The question now is: WHO will be doing the selling? .... and how much will they pay PDX for the privilege?!! [Edit: Referring to flotogo's post as a pertinent example: With the benefit of hindsight, the contract with Tyco should have maybe included a clause for a minimum sales requirement. The fact that this never happened was either because of PDX management's extreme naivety, or because Tyco would not allow the clause since they knew exactly what they were doing ..... in which case, PDX should have simply walked away. It appears that PDX were so eager to get the deal, they signed it off under whatever terms were presented to them. Ultimately, bad management or bad legal advice, but someone made a very poor decision!!] | dncleaver | |
31/5/2013 17:00 | Tyco obviously thought there was some value in it as they sidelined the system to protect revenue with their own products. | flotogo | |
31/5/2013 09:23 | I've never seen a tax loss sold. I have owned plenty of biodogs that have gone to the wall with huge tax losses - and they were never picked up by a major pharma or other company. | dr biotech | |
31/5/2013 07:32 | The biggest asset if they could use it is the tax losses £50m+ at corporate tax rate £10m plus | suffolk52 | |
30/5/2013 16:27 | The fact is they have not sold the IP! .... not all of it, in any case. The only deal done so far has been for the Food and Drink department, which I personally see as quite a small piece of the pie (even though it was the only part generating any significant revenues). The big question, as far as I am concerned, is what value might someone put on buying the rights for Ethanol Production / Fire Fighting / Water Treatment / Nuclear Decontamination / Manufacture of Cosmetics, plus any other application which is not included in the above? If there is any truth in any of the promises previously made, the numbers COULD be quite large. Incidentally, I am a firm believer that the technology works. It has just been marketed badly .... extremely badly! | dncleaver | |
30/5/2013 15:16 | The question has to be why stay in? With no staff, the IP sold and net assets of less than the share price not sure what extra value remains. It is not exactly a shell that someone would reverse takeover as the net assets belong to the existing shareholders. I will wait and see as it could be an education..... | fludde | |
30/5/2013 13:35 | Yes, you are correct .... and correct again! Of course, this makes outsizeclothes.com's statement even more misleading! (Net Current Assets equate to about 1.4p per share.) | dncleaver | |
30/5/2013 12:20 | dncleaver 30 May'13 - 12:21 - 56520 of 56520 0 0 "The Half-Yearly Report gives the Net Current Assets as £1.6 million.." Not sure you can read a balance sheet either. That looks like figure as of September 2012. The figure for the end of March 2013 is £3.779m or are you looking at something else? | fludde | |
30/5/2013 11:21 | outsizeclothes.com: Do you know how to read a Balance Sheet? No, I didn't think so. The Half-Yearly Report gives the Net Current Assets as £1.6 million, so you are certainly misleading folk by saying that there will be "nothing left for shareholders". Admittedly, that figure is only about 0.6p per share, so you are correct that holders may get less than 2p in the event of an eventual payout. However, I am guessing that most remaining holders consider that there is still at least "some" value to PDX's Intellectual Property. That is presumably why the price is where it is .... and not at 0.6p. | dncleaver | |
29/5/2013 19:45 | outsize - not like you to come and gloat. Are you still holding a short? | swiss paul | |
29/5/2013 12:34 | "The Board continues to work to realise value by selling the rest of the Group's intellectual property portfolio. Alongside the sale of IP, we have now eliminated most of the liabilities associated with PDX and expect most, if not all, liabilities to be eliminated by the end of June." Read and weep - "most, if not all" - There will be nothing left for shareholders - they will have managed to burn through everything, inc. all of Decembers £5m. Probably giving the last of it to themselves in golden parachutes. | outsizeclothes.com | |
21/5/2013 11:02 | The left-hand chart on the previous page doesn't look too bad now that it shows the price having only fallen from about 15p! :-( | dncleaver | |
17/5/2013 16:32 | ^lol. I like the way the last rns referred to future proceeds will be used to meet liabilities. I think you still have shareholders hanging on, hoping they will get something. In my books anyone who goes by several diffent names in life, is a conman, what do you think Dense ? | hippo |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions