Prodeco Tech Acquired by PayMeOn

George S.

Well-Known Member
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...o-acquire-prodeco-technologies-283392921.html

I didn't see this anywhere, and it is quite old news at this point. I doubt it makes any difference to people like me, owners, since the original team is still in place.

I think they plan a huge ramp in production, and I like their new bikes a lot. It's mostly that they are getting away from the rear battery pack. Real world, though, I've had no problems with the heavy rear pack as a battery, and the LiFePo4 is a pretty safe way to go.

Right now they list the X3 as "16AH battery out of stock". Not sure what that means. I go on the assumption I will never replace the battery that came with the bike, but I wonder what the "end of life' strategy is for the X3 versus the new battery pack on the new but similar model.

If you want a throttle based bike, these are pretty solid. I wonder if the rear wheels are any easier to remove and replace, changing a tire?

Edit --- Looking around, you really do get a feel for how totally marginal this business is. The Prodeco people got around 50 million shares for their interest in the company. PT had $5M in sales in '13. The whole company is worth maybe $25M at todays price for PAYM.
 
Last edited:

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
This appears to be a sort of RTO (reverse takeover) meant to allow ProdecoTech to list its shares publicly on the Over-The-Counter/Pink Sheets stock marketplace but without having to go through the normal process of filing for an initial public offering.

Essentially, PayMeOn is a either a holding company *or* shell company that does no actual business but has a coveted public stock ticker symbol on OTCMKTS, whereas ProdecoTech has a real business with real revenue from real customers but did not have publicly-listed shares available. By engineering a buyout of the legitimate business by a listed shell company, ProdecoTech will be able to issue shares to investors.

Why am I so sure? PayMeOn is essentially worthless. It had $30,000 in revenue in 2014, and it booked only $10,000 of gross profit in 2014. It spent about $1,000,000 keeping the business running in 2014, so after all was said and done, the business lost *more* than $1,000,000 in 2014 and only generated $30,000 in revenue. Their only significant financial activities over the last few years seem to be taking out some loans in 2013 and 2014. It's possible that those loans were taken out in order to invest money in ProdecoTech.

Either this was a reverse takeover, or PayMeOn is simply an investment vehicle (as opposed to a revenue-generating business).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRA

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
I should also mention that the stock marketplace that PayMeOn (and now ProdecoTech, by extension) is listed on is basically a den of thieves who tend to be small companies with small amounts of revenue that often make a big P.R. splash by touting their "revolutionary" products and technology, thus convincing the idiotic public to buy shares of the company, driving up the share price, which allows the company to either make acquisitions using their valuable shares as payment OR (more likely) their officers sell the shares at inflated prices driven up by their superfluous press releases, the business later implodes because it never had any revolutionary technology to begin with (it was an elaborate "pump-and-dump" stock-swindling scam), and maybe one out of every 100 times this scam occurs, the regulators/law enforcement get involved and file charges. 99% of the time, ordinary investors get nothing and the perpetrators get away.

Now, I'm not implying that ProdecoTech is going to do anything like this. First of all, ProdecoTech is a respected business with real operations and real revenue. However, it is kind of scary to see a respected player end up with a penny stock listing on the OTC market, because there really is a lot of pump-and-dump stock fraud on there, and though we apparently can trust ProdecoTech, it's not clear that we can trust its new owner, PayMeOn.

Also, Florida.
 

George S.

Well-Known Member
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/150520/paym10-q.html

I found the 10-Q. The deal may not be done, and no numbers from PT are listed. The numbers for PAYM don't suggest any reason PT would fold into PAYM.

Anyone who thinks they are going to make money in ebikes should take a long look at the public financials.

You can't have an industry that consists entirely of Accel. People are going along with what Accel wants in California, which worries me. PT is a throttle company, by and large.
 

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
BH is a pretty legitimate competitor. And a big part of the market is composed of after-market kits. But you're right though, that Accel's influence is leading bike advocacy and bike lobbying dollars toward supporting product families that Accel serves. ProdecoTech has really gotten hosed, lobbying-wise, because their throttle bikes are getting disadvantaged by state ebike laws relative to how pedelecs are being treated.
 

stevenast

Well-Known Member
BH is a pretty legitimate competitor. And a big part of the market is composed of after-market kits. But you're right though, that Accel's influence is leading bike advocacy and bike lobbying dollars toward supporting product families that Accel serves. ProdecoTech has really gotten hosed, lobbying-wise, because their throttle bikes are getting disadvantaged by state ebike laws relative to how pedelecs are being treated.
The BPSA e-bike committee is more than Accel. Other companies with committee membership include:

- Pedego
- Trek
- Specialized
- Giant
- Felt
- Shimano
- Bosch
- SRAM

I mention this because Accel gets a lot of "credit" for pending legislation regarding e-bikes. It's a pretty representative industry group. Small companies are not on the list, probably because not everyone can be included.
 

JRA

Well-Known Member
Accel immediately got in touch with IMBA in order to try and work a way to get e mtb's recognized for use off road. Their agenda is pretty transparent. Let's work to establish the market in the US to reflect what we have to sell. If it puts the hurt on a few competing companies or angers established user groups so be it. Currie sold plenty of throttle bikes over the years and now that it is no longer in their interest to do so no one should I guess. It is going to take probably 5 years for Accel's efforts to bear fruit but I am afraid that in the end they will prevail.
 

George S.

Well-Known Member
Let's remember what they want. S Ped or Class 3 is a European standard. We are adopting the European standards which don't include throttles. Fine.

You understand that S Ped is a motorbike standard? In Utah that means a motorcycle standard. Don't forget your license and registration, insurance card, helmet.

They say these will be world standards, but if that is true these 28 mph ebikes are EU motorcycles. I don't think they thought it through. Most states will treat these S Peds as motorcycles, with no access to multipurpose paths. Look at what the European Union requires.

S Ped is like giving up everything when the CPSC was more or less wide open. The high speed is not a bicycle speed. At least that 'industry' group admits that. These are not bikes.

People need to decide what is an ebike with the basic rights of bikes. Their Cal 3 speed is not a bike speed so S Ped is not a bike. You can't have it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRA

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Accell is a PR machine! Everything they do is to sell ebikes and that's fine. I believe in capitalism and the free-market system. It's dangerous to think a for-profit company is only out for our best interest though. Read the history of Studebaker, it can be argued WWII could not have been won without Studebaker. It took less than 20 years for an "industry group" to drive one of the best automobile and light truck manufacturers out of business. For that we have less choices. I hope collusion doesn't take over the ebike industry, we will all be worse off for it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRA

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
Let's remember what they want. S Ped or Class 3 is a European standard. We are adopting the European standards which don't include throttles. Fine.

You understand that S Ped is a motorbike standard? In Utah that means a motorcycle standard. Don't forget your license and registration, insurance card, helmet.

They say these will be world standards, but if that is true these 28 mph ebikes are EU motorcycles. I don't think they thought it through. Most states will treat these S Peds as motorcycles, with no access to multipurpose paths. Look at what the European Union requires.

S Ped is like giving up everything when the CPSC was more or less wide open. The high speed is not a bicycle speed. At least that 'industry' group admits that. These are not bikes.

People need to decide what is an ebike with the basic rights of bikes. Their Cal 3 speed is not a bike speed so S Ped is not a bike. You can't have it all.
Agreed. I ride an S-pedelec and I love it, however, I think that S-pedelecs should require helmet use in all 50 states. I don't see why you should be able to ride more than 50% faster and increase your risk of high-speed collisions and/or falls without requiring a corresponding increase in safety standards (not that wearing a helmet would help you much in a 30mph collision, as you'd likely die with or without a helmet).

I do think, however, that ebikes (including S-pedelecs) should be allowed to ride on all bike paths as long as they keep their speed under 20mph on flat pavement and/or ride at reasonable speeds with due regard to the safety of all users of the bike path. I think that the real differentiator for bicycle regulations should be traveling speed and not top speed. I feel that if S-pedelecs are allowed on bike paths and signs are posted every half-mile or so with clear rules for top speed for all bicycles, both conventional and electric, and if there is occasional speed enforcement to discourage speeding, then we could be reasonably sure that we'd be minimizing the potential for dangerous high-speed collisions involving e-bikes, and I think that it would strike a good balance between a hands-off regulatory approach and an effective legal/regulatory framework to improve safety for all bike path users. I imagine, though, that regulations will end up being be more strict than those that I've imagined here, but since there is little enforcement, we'll consider to see ebikes on bike paths.
 

George S.

Well-Known Member
Apparently all ebikes are denied access to bike paths right now in California. There is a video of The Wave CF bike where he rides 28mph on beach bike paths. OK, hope that sends the right message.

The revisions would let 20 mph bikes go on bike paths. The Speed Pedelecs could go in bike lanes on streets, not separate paths. It would tough to translate this into state law here. Since CPSC lets the Pedal Assist bike go up to 28, a lot seems to pivot around the bike path access in California. It's easy to see why this is a hopeless muddle, especially if other states aren't that interested in what Cal does. Apparently ebikes can go on paths in Utah, but the paths are not signed that way (no motor vehicles).

It's almost comical to create a class for throttle bikes and then say that's because they shouldn't be allowed on unpaved paths. I kept trying to think of where there is an unpaved path, and why it would make a difference. The explanation, from a manufacturer, that these regs are a way to align our regs with Europe makes a lot more sense. The throttles will just disappear, I guess.

It's clear that most of the ebikes people are buying, people showing up on EBR, are faster than 20mph. There are threads about how to overcome any speed limitations. Basic bikes seem to reach speeds in the upper 20's with some assist. It was a fairly rapid and dramatic shift. That's what people want. Batteries are getting much cheaper. The problem of more speed requiring a lot more watts is being overcome. You can give people a big, relatively light battery on almost any bike. Witness the 48v 12AH battery on the $500 CF bike.

It may have been unrealistic to ever classify ebikes as non-powered bikes, and the more power people want, the sooner that fiction will fall apart. It's just too easy to build a bike that pushes 30 mph. The US market is still way on the fringes of power and speed, but I gather Accel would really like to get into that 45 kph segment in Europe.

Everything this year seems to be about massive doses of change.
 

George S.

Well-Known Member
The Minnesota laws are pretty straightforward. They give you a category and let you do what you want with it. No question that these newer, faster bikes are moving up, away from that lower speed ebike. But if they will just let people make that decision, it makes more sense to me.

Even if California goes with their new system, I see no reason Minn. would change anything.
 

pxpaulx

Well-Known Member
The Minnesota laws are pretty straightforward. They give you a category and let you do what you want with it. No question that these newer, faster bikes are moving up, away from that lower speed ebike. But if they will just let people make that decision, it makes more sense to me.

Even if California goes with their new system, I see no reason Minn. would change anything.
I don't either, and I like my state law (MN) just the way it is!
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Apparently all ebikes are denied access to bike paths right now in California. There is a video of The Wave CF bike where he rides 28mph on beach bike paths. OK, hope that sends the right message.

The revisions would let 20 mph bikes go on bike paths. The Speed Pedelecs could go in bike lanes on streets, not separate paths. It would tough to translate this into state law here. Since CPSC lets the Pedal Assist bike go up to 28, a lot seems to pivot around the bike path access in California. It's easy to see why this is a hopeless muddle, especially if other states aren't that interested in what Cal does. Apparently ebikes can go on paths in Utah, but the paths are not signed that way (no motor vehicles).

It's almost comical to create a class for throttle bikes and then say that's because they shouldn't be allowed on unpaved paths. I kept trying to think of where there is an unpaved path, and why it would make a difference. The explanation, from a manufacturer, that these regs are a way to align our regs with Europe makes a lot more sense. The throttles will just disappear, I guess.

It's clear that most of the ebikes people are buying, people showing up on EBR, are faster than 20mph. There are threads about how to overcome any speed limitations. Basic bikes seem to reach speeds in the upper 20's with some assist. It was a fairly rapid and dramatic shift. That's what people want. Batteries are getting much cheaper. The problem of more speed requiring a lot more watts is being overcome. You can give people a big, relatively light battery on almost any bike. Witness the 48v 12AH battery on the $500 CF bike.

It may have been unrealistic to ever classify ebikes as non-powered bikes, and the more power people want, the sooner that fiction will fall apart. It's just too easy to build a bike that pushes 30 mph. The US market is still way on the fringes of power and speed, but I gather Accel would really like to get into that 45 kph segment in Europe.

Everything this year seems to be about massive doses of change.
Accell and s-peds see growth of 250% in the Netherlands. There is 0% chance Accell is going back to throttles. With this kind of s-ped growth and the heavy-handed regulation the end-user has to abide by in Europe; is it any wonder there is such a push for profit in the US under the guise of access regulation here?

http://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends...sale-accelerating-in-the-netherlands-10124020