Replies to post #147214 on PCT Ltd (PCTL)

[namtae]

Yes, it was absolutely necessary

Namtae was this necessary at some point to get rid of the toxic funding?

Were the RBC deals a better way to do it? Put it this way:

Toxic loans are the equivalent to tying a person between 2 cars pointed in different directions and flooring the gas pedals

RBC deals are more like running the victim over 2 or 3 times. Not as bad as toxic, but still bad

[thegreencandle]

This latest loan wasn't used for toxic debt repayment, it was used in large part to fund the manufacturing of a few machines. If you fill in the missing pieces with the most likely info based on what we know, it's somewhat likely that the safe assumption is that pct simply doesn't have the funds to operate without this type of funding. In a bubble, that's fine, but when taken into context, that's when it becomes a problem. It leads me to the conclusion that pct greatly missed revenue projections, greatly over stated demand for its products, and is much closer to failure than they are to noteworthy and sustainable profitability. If they are unable to fund building 4 machines on their own, that's troubling. If they are unable to fund simple things like web site development and paying the marketing firm they "partnered with" that is troubling. I realize the systems will bring in month over month revenues, and that they will pay for themselves at some point, but it's very very troubling that pct requires this type of funding to essentially keep their lights on, especially given the events of this past year. It just wreaks of missed opportunities and mismanagement and that's been at the heart of every single legitimate criticism leveled against pct.