We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : PYCT - Paychest, Inc.
PYCT 0.00Aug 30 4:00 PM EDT

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: mortalmyth11/5/2012 2:25:39 AM
   of 40
Point - Counterpoint on Paychest Activities and Progress

Many interesting points and statements have been made regarding Paychest over the past few months. Most points are worthy of consideration and potential further discussion. Resulting comments and questions were generated to bring to light counterpoints and clarifications.

Statement: PYCT is short

Comment: Agreed, Paychest is "short" of providing verifiable details in most of their PRs, they're "short" of actual product sales, and were "short" for several months of having an active CEO present to work off issues and move the business forward. The one thing Paychest isn't short of is common shares at ~28 billion.

Statement: PYCT has something of great value to protect.

Comment: This assertion is unclear. The company doesn't retain knowledge capital (i.e., no product or process patents granted to Paychest), has no real estate assets (i.e., no office building, and no factory or production machinery as Xinpro owns those - if it even exists), and New management (according to the financials) has continuing concerns over missing documentation regarding the book value of misc. equipment, equity investments and the unrealized loss for prior years. It could be that if someone stretches the idea, the shareholder base could be considered to be of "great value" as Paychest has previously indicated each new shareholder is worth a $300-$500 investment.

Statement: PYCT dealt with 2 fraudulent lawsuits from the shorts

Comment: If the lawsuits were indeed fraudulent as indicate, then why did Paychest settle and pay out? Doing so is a breach of fiduciary responsibility and the company and its officers then would be liable to shareholders for legal action.

Statement: PYCT spent about $35,000 buying back shares

Comment: Yes, Paychest announced and has claimed to implement a 300 million share buyback, while at the same time proceeding to convert preferred shares and issue billions more common shares into the O/S. The DTCC no doubt found this quite "chilling" reading in the 2011 Annual Report and had some pointed questions on just what all was going on. Hopefully, these questions will be cleared up shortly.

Statement: PYCT has spent tens of thousands on market awareness

Comment: It's entertaining to see the term "market awareness" associated with penny stock promotions. Most companies use this term with assessing/obtaining market share and consumer acceptance for their marketed products and services. Regardless of how the term is used, it's enlightening to see Paychest use so much of their time and limited funds on stock promotions while spending nothing on marketing efforts of their feminine products. This doesn't make much sense to many people.

Statement: PYCT has spent over $100,000 on setting up the dividend

Comment: This is undisclosed news and is quite interesting. As nothing to support this large amount of expense in Paychest's financials or issued PRs has been identified, it is requested that the source be identified or a link provided. It is curious though that if the company spent all that alleged money on setting up for the dividend, then why would they allow Paychest (Oregon) to go into DISSOLUTION (NOTICE LATE ANNUAL on 05-11-2012 and ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION on 07-06-2012). This situation doesn't seem to make any sense.

Statement: PYCT has spent money on 2 (perhaps 3) DTCC share audits

Comment: This is good to see and quite warranted to keep their books clean and try and stay on top of share counts attributable to changing shareholders and the preferred share/notes payable conversions. An example benefit from doing these kind of audits was identified on page 26 of the 2011 Annual Report - "In June 2011 the Company completed a stock certificate audit with the Depository Trust Company. The audit identified an increase in the number of shares to be reported and an adjustment increase was made of 124,014,285 common shares, although no new shares were issued."

Statement: Can't find one company in the trips that has NEVER sold paper nor one that has gone this many years without selling any paper. So far as preff shares sold, the buyers of these shares must see a value in the company or they are out of luck ....PYCT has immense value and those buying preff shares know this from the NDA they signed.

Comment: Evidently the buyers of the preferred shares do see some value as Paychest is now even entering into toxic finance arrangements that enable preferreds to be converted at a discount to the current market value. This means instant significant profit IF they can actually get the shares sold into the general market. For those not offered a discount, if preferred shareholders see such a value in the Paychest then why are they converting their preferreds into commons as soon as the waiting periods are over, and by doing so effectively eliminating their priority status in case of company liquidation? By doing these conversions as soon as they are allowed, the financiers are, at a minimum, giving the impression that they are already or intend to sell their newly issued common shares as each new buyer steps forward. However, as has been demonstrated over the past several months, even with having some 6000+ existing PYCT shareholders and various stock promotions funded by either the company or 3rd parties, the financiers are/will have trouble in selling shares of any appreciable quantity. As such, no doubt this situation is of great concern for them.

Good day to all.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext