Pursuit Dynamics plc is a UK based research and development company, which was founded in 2000 to develop and commercialise a revolutionary pumping and propulsion technology. Pursuit Dynamics (symbol: PDX) was listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange in May 2001.



PDX 25 Sonic.

The PDX Technology is a steam-based system that has applications in both pumping and marine propulsion. It is cheap to manufacture, extremely robust, contains no moving parts and is virtually impossible to block. Pursuit Dynamics owns 100% of the Intellectual Property Rights that surround the PDX Technology.



Pursuit Dynamics is now working towards the commercialisation of the technology it has developed.





Corporate website : http://www.pursuitdynamics.com/


Pursuit are rumoured to be close to closing their first deals, which may be in the food processing industry.

Mikeran,

Ok here it is, I'll post it as it's very relevant, although I think he's taken a few liberties personally, and I would dispute some of the conclusions he has drawn about the product, and he's clearly letting his desire for his short to cloud his judgement IMHO.

=================================================================

From ADVFN PDX BB.

Simon Cawkwell - 3 Feb'05 - 15:43 - 24743 of 24758

Gentlemen,

I draw your attention to this carefully developed scrutiny of PDX's claim to commercial possibility:

Simon,

Thank you so much for kindly forwarding me the Pursuit trade article with a supportive broker's note. This further encourages me to stick to my opinion that the company is overvalued.
I see that we have more stories from PDX. The first story was The outboard Motor story: when on 10th September 2001 The Company was pleased with the rate of development of the Pursuit Marine Drive and anticipated that it would remain on track to meet all of its stated key milestones.

They went on to state ‘The marine propulsion industry is mature and has seen few major innovations in the past fifty years. Pursuit believes it has identified a technology that could have a profound impact in this industry. Pursuit believes that an annual, global market of approximately $US6.5 billion would exist for its product on successful attainment of commercialisation.’ They obviously overlooked the advent internal water jets, four stroke outboards, Diesel outboards and fuel injected two stroke engines just to mention a few.

However on 04 September 2002

• Major development milestone reached by Pursuit Dynamics.

• Tests show the 'Pursuit Marine Drive' steam propulsion system is capable of matching 2-stroke outboard engine efficiency levels.

• An advanced steam generator attachment represents the final stage of development for the system. • Presenting advancements to 'The Royal Institution of Naval Architects' this week.

14 May 2002

• Current system efficiencies have now been demonstrated to a level approaching 50% of those available from two stroke outboard motors

• The efficiency of the key propulsive component of the Pursuit Marine Drive system is now twice the level that it was when Pursuit acquired the technology in 2001.

• Pursuit believes that it is on track to meet or exceed existing four stroke outboard operating efficiencies, and to demonstrate these further advances in an integrated system, during 2003.

• Pursuit intends to commence trials of the Pursuit Marine Drive aboard a test vessel by November 2002.

• Pursuit now believes that there may be no upper limit, in terms of vessel size, to the applications of this system used either as a primary propulsion source or in conjunction with any other marine drives.

The advantages we originally cited for the Pursuit Marine Drive have been confirmed as realistically achievable and we believe, in the case of the manufacturing cost advantage, will comfortably exceed our expectations

Now Pursuit has effectively shelved the Marine Drive citing the need for a partner to produce a suitable steam source. (This incidentally was the very question I asked them prior to flotation, and was given, an unequivocal but verbal assurance that there were a number of suppliers able to produce suitable boilers)





Then we had the Pump story:

On 30 October 2002 Pursuit Dynamics plc announces that it has completed initial testing of a novel, steam powered pumping system. Then on 03 February 2003 Pursuit Dynamics plc, signed an agreement with Sonico Ltd, whereby Sonico is to undertake a programme to prove Pursuit's PDX Technology for a number of applications within the water industry.

This also has gone quiet, hardly surprising as steam pumps have been around a long time and competition is fierce. Existing suppliers are unlikely to roll over and ask Pursuit to tickle their tummy!





Which then became the food pump story:

On 01 September 2003 Pursuit announced that it had entered a 90-day exclusive agreement with a leading confectionery manufacturer to trial innovative process technology. But on the 30th April 2004 the exclusive agreement expired today and no licence was agreed between the Company and the manufacturer.

Pursuit are now talking to Coke this is the great hope for revenue in the short term, but how much revenue can be generated here?



Which became the homogeniser story:

11 December 2003 Pursuit Dynamics developed a homogeniser for use in the process industries. They estimate the annual global food processing machinery market alone is currently worth US$18 billion. (Even better than the $6.5bn marine market) 11 March 2004 Pursuit announced the first sale into the prepared food market to Welcome Food Ingredients Ltd

The welcome foods story has now gone quiet there has been no mention on RNS since March and recent trade magazines do not refer to them. However Chester Scrope has put out a sales forecast of 200 units a year.





How about the figures

Two sales have been announced to date. One to a confectionery manufacturer that now does not want the product as it is not suitable for products such as chocolate and another to Welcome foods who have been remarkably quiet.

Sales set to top 200 units a year (Food manufacturing Dec 2004) DC Norris who manufactures the vessel, hoppers and controls currently have a turnover of 4m. Is this old established company going to manage to increase their turnover 2100% in a year? Perhaps there are other distributors that we have not heard of yet. There would have to be at least ten new ones. Can something that is supposedly exclusive be sold ten times?

It will take 84m of pump sales to generate 10m profit for Pursuit Dynamics on a highly optimistic cost base.

Bob Catto from Williams de Broe Plc says ‘In my opinion the company could be making profits of 10 million per annum on an annualised basis within the next 18 months’. This is an interesting calculation since the company releases no figures. Try working it out backwards - say the net profit for manufacturing, distributing and selling a pump is 8%. A pump manufacturer would buy a licence if he were promised a 16% profit as that allows a little leeway for error. Say the pump is so fantastic it makes 32% profit (four times the norm). The profit could then be split 50/50.

Lets be generous and say Pursuits costs only double, to go from sales at zero to sales at 13.5m next year. Pursuit would then only have to sell 13.5m of licences to generate 10m profit. The 13.5m revenue to Pursuit would be matched by 13.5m profit made by the pump companies. This would be made from sales of 84m

This means DC Norris sales would go 4m, 4m, 4m, and then 84m. All this is based on highly optimistic yields. This appears unlikely.

On the subject of figures the company are slow releasing the little financial information that they have to but on

01 December 2003 preliminary results for the year ended 30 September 2003. Overview: • Post-tax loss of 1,512,628 (2002: 1,593,189) • Cash at bank and in hand and short term investments of 1,117,277



Six months

ended

31 March 2004

Unaudited

Turnover 108,746

01 September 2003 Pursuit is pleased to announce that it has entered a 90-day exclusive agreement with a leading confectionery manufacturer

11 November 2003 ‘…In addition to funding the trials, the manufacturer will pay Pursuit 15,000 per month to maintain exclusivity for the trialling of the PDX Technology in confectionery and soft drinks applications’

11 March 2004 Pursuit Dynamics plc ('Pursuit') First sale into the prepared food market Pursuit is pleased to announce it has sold its first unit to Welcome Food Ingredients Ltd

Going on the above information one might assume the ‘confectionery manufacturer’ paid 15,000 for seven months i.e. 105,000. Then the sale announced to Welcome would amount to 3,746. This company might well struggle to reach the sales targets they have set themselves.



FINALLY, I should stress that I am not the author of the above thoughts. But they seem fairly reasonably presented to me.

Andy
the message on second thoughts is very long and is only an analysis of PDX financial /production history. Stuff we all know. But it is clearly designed to Panic people out, probably before results, because like us all he doesnt know if there will be any good news in them. The analysis he has posted is by a friend of his , when I asked for a name to authenticate it. He said the person wished to remain anonymous. So could have been written by anyone, hiself or a colleague at tip.com.
Any way suffice to say it was another one of his get panicking messages.

Mikeran,

After reading the above I think you can see how determined they are to trash PDX, as once again, the derampers are concentrating on the marine propulsion engine, that has been on the back burner (but not forgotten) at PDX for the last TWO YEARS!

Why dedicate quite a large part of your analysis to a product that PDx themselves are not promoting?

Then he refers to "the water pump" which I admit has become a quieter story of late, but I belive they are trialling one, in Sweden I think, not sure about that though.

They then refer to "the food pump" (processing unit to you and I) which the company ARE promoting, and have already gained a (trial) customer, COCA COLA!

Then he refers to the "homogeniser", and goes on to infer that all is not well with the customer, welcome Foods, but cannot support that with any substance, so I am discounting that one totally until he can back up his claim.
Welcome are said (by PDX) to be very satisifed with the results and resultant savings in processing, cleaning time and energy costs.

One would assume they would not allow PDX to put statements like that out into the public domain unless they were true IMHO!

And then to mention " a confectionary producer that does not want the product" is pure conjecture, and again not backed up with any substance. A trial lapsed, and a deal was not done, does NOT mean they didn't want it IMHO.

And he REALLY let's himself down when he uses the "unsuitable for uses with chocolate" as this was the Ashley James style of attack a couple of years ago, and PDX always KNEW it wouldn't work with chocolate as steam and choc don't work together, and this was stated PRIOR to the "confectionary" trial.

The confectioner concerned as runmoured to also process DRINKS, where the PDX came in, not in chocolate. But we already kenw that, and so SHOULD they, if they had done any research.

Still, whenever did they allow facts to spoil a good deramp?

Mikeran,

well it's so obviously biased against PDX, factually wrong in several places, written by someone that does not understand the technology, nor the product, with no attempt at balance, it could well have been written by Ashley James himself!

Wouldn't suprise me!

Thanks for copying Andy I have just popped back and there is a much more constructive analysis by BJ


With KatyLied's last post in mind, please excuse this long-winded response to some of the points raised in Simon's article. It's not perfect, but I don't intend to spend all night on it. Sorry about the length, missus...

First, the author states it is his OPINION. It's not a factual piece, and is just his view. Let's see if he can support all his points?

His initial comments are about the marine drive - which, as most of us oldies know, was the original reason PDX was set up. I concede that if PDX were solely dependant on the narine drive, they would probably have gone under, given that they ended up shelving development of the drive.

However, this is NOT new news. It's old, stale, and being farmed over again, by someone who obviously feels aggrieved that PDX didn't make good on its marine drive promise.

I can cope with someone having a problem with failure to meet promises. But I'm not so sure that I regard PDX a just a 'failed promise' at all.

Why? The author has been very careful to omit the investigations that the PDX engineers were conducting, quite openly, throughout ALL of the development phases of the marine drive, in the fields of PUMPS and Macerators, etc. He paints the picture that PDX has been 'choppy' and all over the place, in terms of what this device is to be used for.

I appreciate that someone who wasn't completely abreast of the situation MIGHT think that - but it'd be wrong. PDX have always made it clear that they had intentions to explore what this technology could do, and, if a BETTER application was found, to exploit THAT using their initial capital, if wise and possible to do so.

And to me, that seems exactly what they did. The issues with marine drives, and the need for mobile or portable steam-drives in particular, was always a known hurdle. It was no secret. From a practical point-of-view, PDX were always taking a risk because they required a partner to create the steam-generator. I would say that by shelving the drive concept until such time as it can be revisited WITH an appropriate partner, and some kind of income from other applications, they've actually made quite a sensible decision. They are concentrating on a more readily exploitable application, which DOESN'T require a portable steam-generator, and DOESN'T require them to be partnered with a company to make such a device. They've chosen instead to go for the application(s) which can be delivered on their own, or with partner companies producing technology that won't have to change much, in order to suit the PDX system.

To me, that's actually smart. Sure, it's a deviation from marine pumps - but I would rather a company's management recognised the quickest, lowest-risk option and took it, rather than resolutely ploughing a furrow into nowhere simply because that's what they said they'd do, and they're going to bloody-mindedly do it come what may, and sink the company. To be flexible is VITAL with this kind of company - especially if you ARE in the privileged position of having a multitude of applications that can be squeezed out of your one chunk of metal.

The author makes much out of the fact that the confectionary trials did not end up in a deal. Again, as most of us know (but this author seems resolute in ignoring) this was deliberate, and at PDX's doing, not because of any lack of interest. The company they were trialling with wanted exclusivity. PDX are smart enough to realise that is NOT going to maximise their profits long-term. They can AFFORD to play hardball and sit on it a little longer, in order to find the deal which doesn't force them to give exclusivity, and which can enable them to grab a much wider market share, in the long run.

The author notes the interest from Coke, but discards it, as if it were a small fish, saying we've got no idea of the revenue it might generate. Fine - that may be the case, but surely, having conceded the existence and interest of such a major player, is it not fair to assume that it COULD well have some benefit, and quite possibly, be a SIZEABLE amount of revenue potentially? If one is true, so is the other. The reality is, WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET, so it's not safe to wholly discount, nor wholly rely on. Given that, it becomes purely an OPINION based on one's hunches about that deal - not a factual analysis at all.

The author notes that Welcome Foods have been very quiet, and immediately ascribes a 'bad rationale' to this. Why? It could be that they are tied up with NDAs and confidentiality agreements up to their eyeballs. If you know that Welcome Foods have a BAD KARMA, pipe up and say it - don't just hint at it, and paint it black. When I tried to speak to them last year, I was told by Welcome that they WERE under tight restrictions. I haven't checked lately, but that could well be the case. I would therefore EXPECT them to remain pretty quiet - especially now.

Regarding the costs of production, the DC Norris turnover examples, and suchlike, I am still struggling to see if I can work out into which end of the equation the author jammed his initial figures. I can't seem to make them stack up. I'll come back to this later, if I can. He seems to make a bunch of statements of fact about the price of the unit, and the margin which PDX would be making (which can't be facts, because he can't yet know), and then he hangs the rest of his argument on those assumptions. Of course it doesn't look great. Anyone can make guesses and spin them good or bad to suit. I'll be honest - if the numbers don't stack up, we'll know next Monday - I sure as hell ain't going to jump ship NOW, on the basis of this author's concoctions. I'll wait for the real ones, thank you.

There are more concoctions with regard to pinning down the price of the pump sold to Welcome Foods. I'm not so sure that PDX DID take seven-months worth of 15k from the trialling company, as it goes. I have a feeling it was nearer three or four, but I cannot remember. I will try and check....

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that the author isn't entitled to his opinion, or that he is 'plain wrong'... but what I AM saying is that the case he makes is either a bad one, or badly put together. I can't quite get my head around his numbers (perhaps it is me that is stupid - if so, I'm here to listen and learn). And the 'historical issues' seem to be overblown, and used against PDX where it could equally be said that they were acting rather smart, and played their strengths well, while minimising their risks.

It MAY well be that this company is overvalued. But if that's the case, let's see some maths that we can follow, where there is less INductive logic, and a bit more DEduction.

And I can't help but notice that NOT ONE of the other applications which we KNOW PDX are examining closely with other companies (like FireMist, Paper, Dairy, etc) are even remotely considered by the author. That's probably a very cautious strategy, but not wholly realistic, perhaps. I appreciate there are a lot of IFs, but if they DO make any headway in any one of those fields, then frankly, the market cap could well end up being acceptable at these levels.

We simply don't know - and in the face of that, the author is discounting EVERY opportunity, in favour of focussing purely on the ancient history and as many downsides as he can induce from some made-up, guessed figures. If that's the basis of a sound financial decision, I think I'll stick with my wing and a prayer, thanks - it's about as accurate.

Pursuit Dynamics, Eliza Tinsley and Setstone
A member wishes to draw attention to the merits of Pursuit Dynamics (PDX).

The company had a 3.5 million injection at 50p in 2001 on making its market debut. The key idea was that of the exploitation of a completely new engineering concept; at that time to be applied to a marine propulsion system. The founder, Alan Burns, believed that his concept would prove to be the superior of the well-established systems already in use in the categories of medium-sized cruisers, small powered boats and water craft that utilise motors of above 40 hp. The idea was that of the design and manufacture of a system with few moving parts and no submerged rotating parts, doing away with the motor, clutch, gearbox, drive shaft, propeller and rudder.

The first unanticipated mutation came in September 2001, when the news came that R&D activities had been transferred to England, and that Mr Burns had resigned. The full-year figures to September 2001 showed a 1.4 million loss, the only news of investment interest being that the Chairman is of the opinion that potential joint-venture partners could be approached by the end of 2002. With the share price having only faded by 10% and with 2.4 million in cash or equivalent still swilling about, it had been a fairly uneventful voyage. But a year later and those shares were taking a real pasting, a situation unchanged by the announcement of the performance characteristics of the latest prototype. But the next 1.6 million full-year loss was accompanied by a statement which heralded a secondary use for the research, an innovatory pump. So now the company was well on its way to its current destination - that of the leading edge of fluid processing technology.

In June last year the company raised 500,000 more at 29p. The shares had more than doubled by the time that a preliminary trial with a confectionary manufacture was announced, in September; and a few days later, the company raised another 250,000 in at 50p. The 2003 final figures - a 1.5 million loss - revealed nothing substantive, nothing vis a vis the justification or otherwise of current hopes vested in the business. But the signs now are that the Pursuit Dynamics board is clearing the deck for some serious action, and a recent pre-close trading update in respect of the year to September told of the targeting of the manufacture of comestibles merely being the quickest route to market. The example given was that of a reduction of the time taken in the processing of liquid foods from one hour to less than five minutes, with equally spectacular results in cost saving. Shortly afterwards the UK arm of Coca Cola signed a licensing agreement.

Today the shares stand at 200p valuing the company at 90 million. It would of course be unwise to expect any meaningful figures when the 2004 results are tabled (early next year) but you can be fairly sure that much will be made of the breakthrough in the soft drinks market, and that there will be plenty of material regarding completely different applications - the aforementioned trading statement for instance brought new fire-fighting technology into the reckoning.

Would I buy? The company is more or less unique inasmuch as the story appears to have substance, whilst a host of other brave ideas have either bitten the dust, or struggle on, apparently interminably. However Pursuit is already valued as though it has a market and is earning. But the runes are good, and it would be a real surprise if progress did not continue. Despite the price, the answer is yes, it looks a quality addition to any portfolio.

The said member was me and I don't think for the moment I will tell you which Tip Board it was as it is a paying one.
However he did seem to think we had a chance.
But then we had all this crap from evil about ASOS.
Once again the buys outweigh the sells.

SO ON YOUR BIKE EVIL GO AND PISS OFF SOMEONE ELSES DAY.

Well the polls have closed and results are due Monday morning, so que sera sera with PDX now.

I hope they pull something out of the bag to squeeze the shorters, but I honestly don't expect too much from these results, and if the price drops back, will top up.

I think it's possible the shorters have exited, and will await results before considering their position, just in case!

good luck to all holders!

Found from the other side and posted.

http://www.pursuitdynamics.com/Pressrelease14.asp

Mikeran,

Good spot, I see no copyright issues here, so here it is;



2 February 2005 PRESS RELEASE



Pursuit Dynamics plc Signs UK Distribution Agreement with BPT (Skerman) Ltd



Fluids handling specialists Pursuit Dynamics plc, has signed its second non-exclusive distribution agreement with BPT (Skerman) Ltd. The agreement licenses BPT (Skerman) Ltd to target the food sector specifically.



BPT (Skerman) Ltd is one of the UK’s leading manufacturers and suppliers of processing plant, equipment and integrated systems. The company offers customised solutions to a range of applications across process industries, in particular the food, pharmaceutical, cosmetics and personal healthcare sectors.



Kester Scrope, Commercial Director comments: “This latest distribution partnership is excellent news for the food processing sector. BPT Skerman Ltd is highly regarded by the industry for its ability to deliver highly innovative, robust and cost effective process systems. Customers will benefit from the combined power of their sector knowledge and the revolutionary qualities of our PDX fluid processing technology.”



Pursuit Dynamics plc is extending its distribution network both across mainland Europe, the USA, and the rest of the world. In addition to direct sales, the company is developing a network of systems integrators with proven expertise in the liquid food area to support, integrate and install the technology.



BPT (Skerman) Ltd: http://www.bptskerman.com/

To Add to the announcment of BPT Skerman, being appointed as a distributor for PDX, they have amongst their clients the following highly rated convenience food manufacturer http://www.noon.co.uk so keep eating the tikka masala.

Is this a stunned silence?

Or a 'I told you so'....I am waiting for PDX to turn around before buying back in. Couldbe as low as 1.60 at this rate. I had said 180 on results but it is still dropping so it is going to be a great buying opportunity once it stops falling.
Di

Well, overall the results didn't look too bad. Still a healthy amount of cash in the bank, contracts in hand, more in the pipeline. No-one expected a profit.

I'm still holding and may top up if it falls further.

Doug

Looks like they're already bouncing back. Hit a low of 166 and didn't stay there very long.

dclinton,

I agree, I didn't expect any better than this, because if they had made any major sales they would have RNS'd them!

THIS year IS important though, looks like they have around 18 months cash left, so they have to become cash flow positive ASAP.

Support around 165, so hopefully a base will appears there, and soon enough the shorters will find another stock to haunt, in the meantime this may be a decent top up opportunity.

Been an interesting day watching the comments on this board. Cheers guys.


Andy PM for you.

cheers GF.

Looks like PDX is going back up now and pretty quick too. I bought back in at 179 this morning and already up to 185. Now what we need is a good bit of news and whooooooooooosh we will be back above 2.00 again.
Di

Another one for the short list once the dcb is out the way

Good to see things come back.

Well done oak apples for sticking with da. - up 40% today after a monster contract win... guess which clown sold yesterday!!!!

I got them at 1.50 and sold at 2.33 in a month, can't complain. Now they are 330 on the bid!!!!

GF,

Thanks!