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.

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!

Snippet from the BREWING RESEARCH iNSTITUTE.
===================================================

The talk on PDX technology caused quite a stir on day two. Members of the Network quickly identified several good reasons why use of this technology in the malting industry could have a beneficial effect on the quality of the malt produced. Consequently a series of trials have been agreed to test the theories and if encouraging results are obtained, then funding will be sought for a major development project. If you would like to know more about the Barley and Malt network then please contact Robert Muller at r.muller@brewingresearch.co.uk

Something is up with PDX...is a deal about to be announced?? Going up quickly this morning...we could be in for a rebound back to 230...much more if a new contract is announced. Here's hoping.
Di

Dynnamite,

Well we are now up 6p, on decent volume (600,000+), so somebody thinks they know something!

Of course the other possibility could be shorters closing after the recent bear raid.

Di is it worth getting in again? Just looking to move some of my SEO profit around?