Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Now THAT got my attention, Torvecian. EOM
Thanks for the fresh input.
You knew what was coming after didn't you?
Yes, BOTH things have to happen,
and that is the point I and others have consistently made: The company has a problem (a) or it would not be the target of shorts (b). The shorts are not the only reason the stock is depressed; just one, and not insignificant. And could become a very telling one indeed for all of our investments if people panic. The incessant critics constantly insist it is not the shorts, as if that were the only reason; and no one is saying that. It is a dodge used by the negative posters to cover the effects of (their?) shorting, and further...what end do we suppose?
BTW, this could be a pleasant board again if people would just learn to use their Ignore filter as I do.)
I was also interested by your comment that they will be just fine. Do you know something?
I am intrigued.
You don't need revenue to justify a good man in Finance. They are not bean-counters; they deal in the financial aspect of everything, including sales.
Transferring this technology is not just a matter of how much but of how. If we are dealing with a number of prospects about a number of products, and there is give and take going on about the structure of the deal(s), the close involvement of Finance is essential. This would be especially key if a transfer will require Torvec to fund some manufacture as someone will have had to have thought about how that is paid for.
I do not know what he has done, but no one can say it is nothing just because there is not revenue.
Honestly, it is so hard to listen in silence to some of these criticisms.
Fire away some of you. My Ignore setting is working beautifully.
"If I were to start pointing fingers"...
You left yourself out.
No Gleasman prevented you from your own due diligence. And Keith's enthusiasm, while no doubt infectious, was and is also totally honest
Sorry if you had a bad day.
An excellent post Sammy B,
and with more authority and experience than I was able to bring to the subject when I said something of the sort.
A lot of quality posters have quit.
I feel sure many out there agree with that. Without naming names, we had, in the past, input from people who added value to the thinking/worry/gratification of us all whether it be product-technical or market or otherwise. Now, it seems mostly poisonous. Just heckling...venting. In my own view...people talking more about themselves, obliquely, than the company.
I have checked with the Ihub administration and they have responded that moderators cannot impose their own rules, but they have considerable latitude in interpreting Ihub rules, the main test being that they are even-handed about what they enforce.
Here are the TOS rules as they relate to this issue in my opinion--
“Moderators of stock-specific boards are allowed to immediately remove any post that falls into the following categories: ***, Off-Topic, Vulgarity, Privacy Violation, ***, Spam, Personal Attack, or Duplicate.
***
By posting information in or otherwise using any communications service, chat room, message board, *** you agree that you will not upload *** information...that: B. Attacks, verbally or otherwise, any other user, the website, any non-public figure, or any agents or employees of iHub;”
insert-text-here:
If these rules were strictly enforced by some moderator (they are not now, IMO)--including the current--would more people feel inclined to contribute to the chat room, or are they just not interested in this place as a source/exchange of information. (If the current moderator--Dread--did not wish to go on he must resign, and Ihub would appoint another volunteer)
Those who would like to have a forum to discuss Torvec without the petty stuff, would you please reply?
Nor do I.
Look, there is no legitimate reason to continue this criticism of the man now that Torvec has new management for months now, and he gone these many months. Anyone with any class should call it done. Anyone who continues should be treated as beyond the TOS, if not decency.
END IT!
Yes indeed, what is the problem?
So we should have a talent search nation-wide to find successful business people; but from somewhere else--Des Moines, or Dallas, or wherever. But not Rochester, however excellent their record. This is so absurd.
Something dawned on me lately reading some if this junk. I used to think many of the posters were negative for the purpose of gain. And I still think that goes on. Some folks are walking the stock down quite deliberately, and why in the world would they not also post here.
But also then I asked myself, what kind of person would do these incessant posts of virtually the same content, if it were not for gain? Answer is, people who are not, um, interesting people. And those are usually people who are not, um, very challenging in, um, conversation. I mean it. Once I realized that was part of it, I got less resentful and more understanding.
Torvec has a new lease on life. I am very proud of those who brought about this pivot in our corporate direction. Moreover,I believe that the newcomers are driven not only by the money they can earn. People, like these are described, are driven by ego. In the best sense. And just as much as money, they want their friends to say to them some time soon, "Well, Sam, you did it again. Fantastic job." And conversely, I believe they would never ever have signed on if they thought they would fail.
You people disgust me
Thanks for that post, Allnumbers EOM
So long Sulax. We will miss you
Does anyone have a thoughtful opinion on
why Dr. Destler did join up? The visible picture just does not seem to explain it. So, other than the usual spam, what it doing on?
For the record, not I, and not anyone posting anything similar, IMO, thinks that the shorts are the MAIN reason for the stock price. That is due to the fundamentals. But the shorts are not wasting their effort; and without their input the price would have not gone this low, and would have broken out to somewhat higher--how much no one knows.
(This, in part, the deleted post which did not offend)
You say "selling pressure from some of the old investors here." And you speak as if it is independent of the short sales.
This is not my field of expertise, but logically, especially if you look at the patten today of immediate sells upon any buy--are not the shorts creating the drive to sell by your (hypothetical) longs--again, if they are there? If the shorts were not holding the price down, fewer of your (hypothetical) shareholders would sell. You dismiss the role of the shorts as creating the best possible market for the longs to sell. That is not credible to me. Again, look at the pattern today. Were those immediate sales by longs, and if so, why, why at wait til then to sell at the BID?
Thanks for that post, Artguy. You
put some time into it and I am impressed with the results.
I am also impressed by the deafening silence from the critics who always react immediately, within hours if not minutes. Nothing. They can try now but the delay says it all.
I do not have your solid input but I think it is reasonable to suppose we would have done a deal a year ago but for the economy and the tremendous pressure it puts on management to conserve rather than try to break out. The risk of a wrong decision is always hard on corporate leadership, but in a recession??? Sit tight. Don't try to be a standout. Keep your job.
I understand Knot...
I was asking into the implications. Keep it up though.
I do wish that the posters who know more
than I about such matters--I am myself a psychiatrist/attorney/physicist--but not a regular trader so I feel sooo inadequate; would some of you cut the smug inside talk? That includes people I agree with on the issues and do not wish to name.
I have noticed the fewer short trades, the higher the bid; and now the ask; and especially the spread. Is that related? Could you cut the jargon?
I do not invite fadaway to answer b/c he is a newcomer and feels he was cheated so his view is tainted and getting so tiresome. (this next will be his umpteenth, just look)
I must confess to be a little perplexed
at how the good senator could not know, even after a tour with our president, that we did not already have our hat in the ring when it comes to grants/loans/or handouts.
Could someone tell me how that could be the case?
This company
Has valuable patents and many of them. Even detractors of management, and newcomers, acknowledge it.
Most detractors would allow that this company has subsisted, survived, without incurring the debt that leads other like companies into a death spiral—and those graves are unmarked! Mark that.
Its principals could have sold out years ago as millionaires many times over. Even detractors know that is so, at least it was so many years ago even at $5 a share. But they persisted.
This company has protected, and improved its patents, to retain their value. Nothing has been lost.
It has moved its operations from a living room coffee table to a manufacturing facility while surviving a typhoon of not-invented-here, and we-can-wait-you-out, adversaries with colossal clout.
It has continued to attract people in business, and even academia, who, for heavens sake—have NO interest, monetary or otherwise, in associating themselves with failure.
It has seriously interested parties like the USAF. If this company was in decline…after all these years… (so many, I know), would it have the attention of ANYONE, anyone at all? Would it not be shop worn? Seen that? But it is not.
It has survived; it still possesses all its intrinsic value. And when that is finally realized…
You will thank Jim Gleasman, under your breath I expect, or I hope aloud…that we still have all the things that just got sold.
And you will thank Keith, and a lot of others. Or, curse them, because you were short, and bet wrong.
Blue heron
This argument has been made before, and
it has not improved with time. In what other companies is it expected that the board and executives continue to buy shares to show confidence, or convey a lack thereof? And if they do, when are they allowed to stop? Some of them need cash, you know, for mortgages and tuition and braces and groceries. There are no executives expected to continually invest in their respective companies.
The simple answer is they wanted to buy
because of the so-called watershed event which they all believed in and were disappointed, I am sure, when it did not materialize. But it was inside information, so they could not act on it.
In response to your first query...
This was the timeline of what took place with the USAF--
April 22, 2008: the USAF evaluated the FTV at Mr. Reed and expressed a desire to develop it for their use. (CEO memo 5/1)
May 31, 2008: Torvec received a purchase order for a vehicle for $106,000. This included a "sole source justification" memo stating that after extensive research it concluded Torvec had the only tracked vehicle that met its specifications. (CEO memo 6/16)
In the same memo it states the USAF invited Torvec to demonstrate the vehicle to the Dept of Homeland Security, FEMA, Dept of Interior, and others.
(--At the time I remarked that for a government department this is breath-taking speed--)
Oct 7, 2008: USAF "purchased and took delivery" of the vehicle.(CEO memo 8/6)
The time spent on evaluation is totally reasonable. Their interest is demonstrated by a mere 40-day gap between seeing and ordering. This is the military??
That is possibly the most disingenuous
post I have ever seen on this board. And that is saying a LOT! You cannot have been reading this site. But of course you have. And you are part of the team.
Knot Bad would you please post
your rather intriguing information again in a format that our masters here find acceptable, making frequest reference to Torvec and Jimbo and stuff like that. And fill it in please.
Blue
Ditto, Artguy. Thanks. Part
of this is talk by shorts IMO, and part is bitterness at the disappointments, and the rest is the commonplace attitude that cynicism makes you look wise in the ways of the world.
Its true. Someone was in dire need
of about $39
oops typo, rest of US...EOM
Why don't you guys exchange email addresses
and save all the rest of this your self-inflated chatter?
...empty lives, I mean, jonups posts and,
wham, where they are. And Dread, I mean, what DO YOU GET OUT OF IT??
Knot Bad, you are optimistic. More than I. But, I do not tear down your investment. I do still think we can win.
I disagree Knot,
These critics of Torvec (a sop to our masters at Ihub) have either what you say, or, amazingly emty
What do you guys get out of this???
I will regret this (trucker, you told me) but I have
to say, this is ABSURD! And it shows to all reading these posters' posts just how shallow and out-of-touch they are.
So Torvec gets exposure, right? Human misery like has not been seen in recent memory, and the AP decides to cover one, one tracked vehicle that--well performs like a tracked vehicle.
There are thousands of tracked vehicles. The press would not care nor dare to advertise, in the midst of this misery, that this one steers like a car!!! (and can go 60 mph on paved roads!!! of which there are about 1000 feet there--now.) Our vehicle does not travel over non-roads any better than many other tracked-vehicles sent there now--it is just far more versatile--it serves a broader market, remember that?--forestry, border patrol, etc.
So this, Dear Readers, you have received from the posters who think Torvec is badly managed!
And I also think there must be
lots of companies with excess capacity and working capital who would just love the job.
It goes like this I think.
A patent holder has the exclusive right to "make, use, and sell" the invention. These can be assigned. You can hire a company (license it) to make. The product is delivered to the end user who pays Torvec who pays the manufacturer.
Amen trucker. I thought the same. EOM
Thanks, Artguy. Very interesting. EOM
Neither did I.
The word got out to the people we want to see it. Through the publications; the auto show. The car folks.
Dreads post cuts both ways: How does a Torvec press release ignite the marketplace?
I have to tell you and without any rancor
that the reason Torvec posted nothing is IMO probably because it has seen the reaction whenever it posts positive news. The response among posters here, not stockholders generally, is to discount it, that it is just more hype, we have heard this stuff before, and any other negative fix they can give it.
IMO Torvec made the deliberate and correct decision to let the word come from elsewhere.
This is good stuff though. I do not know, perhaps Artguy does, whether people purchase this kind of car and then cut corners with the so-called options and especiadlly this one that so affects performance. Is this a marketing technique to hold down the base price in the expectation the wealthy will not hold back on the Corinthian leather, etc. I do not know, and am asking.