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.
#1 Selling Feature: Compact full-traction "torsen" differential ...
"The Torsen LSD is the main drawcard to the updated IS F"
"the compact Torsen Limited-Slip Differential redistributes torque lost when a wheel loses traction during cornering"
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/43505/2010-lexus-is-f-gets-torsen-lsd-minor-updates/
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6783476.html
Ok;
They are both compact...
They are both limited slip...
They are both mechanical...
They both function the same...
They both come from Vernon's original Torsen Technology...
So, what is the differential difference?
Superb driving, great Torvec Iso-Torque, and some luck...
"As the trio exited Turn Three on lap 10 of the 13-lap, 52-mile contest, Grand’s Mitsubishi lost a wheel and Ott made a lurid slide off course trying to avoid him. Knowles slipped through into the lead and Ott recovered to remain second. From there, Knowles held on for a 2.650-second win."
http://www.scca.com/newsarticle.aspx?hub=1&news=3762
Congratulations Torvec, Nice Job.
If you want to track the government funding...
to see the progress on the passing of the bill; you could monitor this website:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3246
This bill is currently before the Senate and is in one of the Senate committees.
If you were to read the bill, you would find in it numerous ways that grant monies could be directed to Torvec.
Here is a link to the full text of the bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3246
My guess is that it would be directly...
related to the recent news items which could cause existing investors to have renewed optimism and new investors to have optimism for the first time.
Quite appropriate for the anniversary of the inception...
of the company, September 25, 1996.
On the first day of the fourteenth year of the development stage company, the stock trades show lots of activity.
"Also, there have been 14 separate prints of 1730 shares each"; one for each year.
It's not bad & I'll say really refreshing...
to see someone needing to get Torvec shares today before the market opened.
Senator Charles Schumer today announced that a grant...
of $500,000 has been awarded to the Rochester Institute of Technology from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration.
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318002&
"Today" was September 18, 2009
It would seem to me that Torvec could benefit in some way from this funding and, of course, this funding would be in addition and prior to any results from the 2.9 Billion Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009.
I think you are missing the whole point...
It's not about how fast the politicians are working (for Torvec). Are you saying that they are?
It's not about what you thought would happen in the past, or how fast you thought that it would happen.
My point was that even though Congressman Massa was a sponsor of the bill, he saw fit to make a change to it after the group that he was a part of submitted it in the form that they wanted it to be. You know; "dissention".
The change was the important thing. He saw fit to concentrate the funding on FACILITIES, not JOBS. This is so common nowadays. The Politicians figure that they need facilities in order to create jobs; instead of creating jobs to make the demand for the facilities.
Let me suggest that the developers have successfully altered this concept into the backwards thinking that it has become.
Incidentally, the Seneca Army Depot is, in part, a property that is controlled by a Torvec board member, right?, and it would be a mighty fine place to do the NYS School Bus retrofit program. This bill sets the stage to provide the funding for the FACILITY there, and the technology that could be done there.
It does appear that this Seneca Army Depot property is in Massa's territory, and would be a notorious success for him to "put it to use".
Congressman Eric Massa, prior to the final vote,..
added the following amendment (which was approved):
"give consideration to conversion of existing or former vehicle technology development or manufacturing facilities for the purposes of this Act, and support public-private partnerships dedicated to overcoming barriers in commercial
application of transformational vehicle technologies that utilize such industry-led facilities; and"
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr3246/12massa_111_hr3246.pdf
http://www.capitolhillreports.com/091709.htm
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3246eh.txt.pdf
I'm not sure, but I was thinking that Torvec's new location is in (the 29th Congressional) Congressman Eric Massa District.
You're right, it will not be this Monday...
but, on the Monday that it does happen, this mixture of "ingredients" will, IMO, be a big part of the reason that it does happen.
What do you get when you mix together...?
a corporate director (of a company that has 300 patents on the inventions that they want to commercialize) that has been able to
"received more than $40 million in grants and contracts"
with a $2.85 Billion dollar funding source that is specifically set up to
"To provide for a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application in vehicle technologies at the Department of Energy."
along with a signed a memo of understanding to create the Safety and Efficiency in Automobiles Laboratory with an educational institute that is "ranked among the nation’s leading comprehensive universities."
I guess we are just about to see some significant progress and results.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3246eh.txt.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/president/biography.html
http://torvec.com/messagefromceo080609.htm
http://www.rit.edu/news/?r=46936
Speaking of "a possible waste of company time"...
Next Friday, is the 13th anniversary of the Torvec, Inc.
This is approx. 26,000 business hours.
They have burned through approx. $52,000,000.
That calculated to approx $2,000 per business hour.
Assuming that this current nonsense took at least an hour of company time; then that cost us $2,000.
Thanks,
"US House Passes $2.85B Bill for Advanced Technology...
Vehicle R&D from 2010-2014"
"Priorities for the Department of Energy’s vehicle technologies research have shifted drastically in recent years among diesel hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in electric hybrids, with little continuity among them. The integration of vehicle, communication, and infrastructure technologies has great potential for efficiency gains through better management of the total transportation system.
The Federal Government should balance its role in researching longer-term exploratory concepts and developing nearer-term transformational technologies for vehicles.
—H.R. 3246"
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/09/hr3246-20090917.html
Now, there is a $2.85 Billion source of funding for the Safety and Efficiency in Automobiles Laboratory on the RIT campus!
"It is now as "close to [fully] operational...
as possible,"says Michael Gernhardt, an astronaut and manager of the Environmental Physiology Laboratory at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston."
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/23481/page1/
Will manufacture and distribute hydraulic hybrid retrofit systems...
Now, that's an interesting plan.
Next thing you know some company will be announcing a plan to retrofit the nations' school buses.
http://www.reporterherald.com/businessRh/business-briefs.asp?ID=24836
"Koenigsegg believes combining that system with a hydraulic...
hybrid powertrain could potentially result in a 90-percent reduction in total energy consumption and allow the automaker to build a performance-minded hybrid automobile."
http://autoblogtrends.blogspot.com/2009/09/report-koenigsegg-developing-pneumatic.html
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/11/report-koenigsegg-developing-pneumatic-engine-technology-and-hy/
The U.S. DOE awarded a $14.9 million grant...
to a coalition that includes United Parcel Service of America (UPS) in part for the deployment of 20 hydraulic hybrid vehicles.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/carbon-footprint-reduction-plan-earns-dekalb-atlanta-149-million-grant
Roadtec Shuttle Buggy MTV Now Features Hydraulic Drive...
"The upgrade from axles and gears to hydraulic motors makes the Roadtec Shuttle Buggy Material Transfer Vehicle (MTV) even easier to shift and operate. The hydraulic system and motors are easier to work on than the traditional axle arrangement. There will be less wear associated with the hydraulics, making the system more durable. The reliability and life span of the Shuttle Buggy MTV’s transmission will also benefit from the new hydraulic system."
http://www.forconstructionpros.com/online/Equipment-News/Roadtec-Shuttle-Buggy-MTV-Now-Features-Hydraulic-Drive/38FCP13860
Another perfect application for Torvec's technologies!
Michigan Projects Included in Defense Appropriations Bill Announcement...
"$3.5 million for hydraulic hybrid vehicle technology. This research seeks to produce a new line of advanced, highly efficient, hydraulic pump and motor products which will replace conventional automatic transmissions and could significantly improve overall drivetrain efficiency in military ground vehicles. Bosch Rexroth Corporation has been working with the Army for several years on the development of hydraulic hybrid technology."
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/09/11/4365912.htm
"The Chariot features 12 wheels driven by two...
electric motors through a two-speed transmission."
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/07/oh-places-moon/
Dino, What's up with the reference to a "two-speed transmission"?
Sorry, I didn't realize that you were offering...
to do that JUST for my benefit; I thought that you wanted to benefit from that also. As long as you are going to bother them anyway, could you share? If not, I'm content with waiting till the company decides to provide answers in the ordinary course of business.
The other reason that Energy Secretary Stephen Chu...
proposed slashing more than $100 million from the Energy Department's hydrogen program wasn't too complicated.
It has to do with the fact that General Motors is now controlled by the Federal Government (in a major part) and that General Motors was doing a big part of that research; and that the Hydrogen fuel cell method was really inferior to the SOFC technology, and Delphi was a leader in the SOFC technology, and Delphi's research centers that controlled the SOFC development is coming out of bankruptcy by transferring those centers to General Motors (which is owned by the Energy Department by association with the Federal Government).
Have you ever heard of the Black Hole theory?
Well, anyway, since you brought it up, here is an interesting tidbit about SOFC & Delphi.
" -- Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Unit is a high-efficiency electrochemical generator that provides up to 5 kW of reliable, environmentally friendly electrical power for a wide range of transportation and stationary uses. This ultra-clean -- near zero emissions -- power generation source operates independent of the main engine. In addition to its high fuel-efficiency, it also offers fuel flexibility and low noise.
Expected on the roads : This SOFC Power Unit is in development for production in 2012."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-will-the-car-of-the-future-look-like-delphi-highlights-technologies-that-will-help-make-vehicles-greener-2009-09-09
When you get finished with your current research...
(which btw, no one cares about) on the theoretical phenomena of whether or not Torvec shares either are or ever have ever been shorted; could you let us know about the answers you get from HQ when you make your call (that you offered to do) to HQ this week?
I think that most of us would like to hear some news about the technologies, the 300 patents, and the progress on the 17 different concurrent projects that are in the works for private companies, the government and the U.S. military.
Also, what is the patent number for Torvec Power Split Device technology?
Thanks.
Please go ahead and call them if you...
need an answer to these questions that YOU now have; but don't do it on my account. They are busy and you would just be bothering them. They can read and they will answer the questions if they want.
My point, which you are missing, is that YOU should know the answers to these questions before you can be as sure as YOU are.
When the May 18th CEO update mentioned that...
"This past month the government has reduced by 60% funding the fuel cell research in support of hybrid technology."
They failed to be specific to the fact that this was only a proposal. Did it actually happen?
Since when was fuel cell research removed from the arena of being included as a hybrid technology?
Did you notice that they were only speaking about Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, not Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology?
Did you assume that all fuel cell technology was cut?
My DD shows solid oxide fuel cell technology as being superior to hydrogen fuel cell?
Did the government do something with the diverted funds?
I remember that Gov. Patterson being in Rochester this week to award companies funds to purchase alternative fuel vehicles that have technologies from 30 years ago. (Propane powered and natural gas powered vehicles)
I don't think that these 30 year old technologies qualify as Hybrid.
Dino, that speculation does not matter at all...
Please post the link to the Torvec PSD patent.
Thanks for the reminder about Torvec's PSD progress...
Torvec has reported that "Torvec’s Patented PSD has the ability to level the playing field for companies that compete with Toyota and their Prius PSD technology."
What is the patent number for this technology? Why would this patent go on record without any fanfare to the shareholders? I assumed that it was the same patent as the IVT gearing patent, now only with a new description. Are there really two separate and distinct patents (one for the IVT gearing and one for the PSD)?
Toyota mentions their technology in this manner: "power split device that uses a planetary gear set to combine and reallocate power from the engine, electric motor and generator according to operational requirements."
http://www.girlracer.co.uk/motoring/road-tests/1604-toyota-prius-first-drive-.html
Since Toyota's PSD technology is described essentially the same as how Torvec's is described; do you think that we are assured (at this point) that Torvec's technology is unique enough to be void of a claim of an infringement?
Keep in mind that Solomon Technologies, Inc's patent was not upheld in the US ITC courts when they claimed infringement by Toyota for taking their technology.
"Solomon Technologies Inc. of Tarpon Springs, Florida, lost a case in which it claimed its technology for transmission drives was used in Toyota Prius, Highlander, Camry and Lexus vehicles. An appeals court last year upheld the ITC’s decision."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=abn6ZQVtClP4
Allison Transmission Inc. "recognises how IVT could revolutionise...
the commercial vehicle market"
http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/article-269289.html
What do'ya think really happened with this item?...
The RBJ had the opportunity to pick up the release of information just like any of the others and chose not to.
The RBJ apparently sent over a list of questions instead of getting a personal interview?
The RBJ got a "canned" response which they went with; (not sure why).
Is the relationship between the RBJ and Torvec now changed?
I remember the days when they would send a reporter (not a repeater) to the annual meeting and etc for actual news.
Why are they now passing on opportunities to quickly go with the general news (like everyone else) and passing on actual personal interviews (that they use to do) and attempting to get written responses from a list of questions that generate no significant additional news?
You must have some insight here on all of this; after all this was the POINT of most of these comments about this matter on this message board.
Another infinitely variable transmission (IVT) to be commercialized...
"an infinitely variable transmission (IVT) for zero turn radius (ZTR) riding mowers, which pivot rather than turn, as well as other types of mowers, and garden equipment. The IVT transmission, which incudes forward, reverse, and zero output (idling) within its range of gearless input-to-output ratios, enables the mower to move quickly forward and backward without manual shifting."
http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2009/08/31/hydro-gear-licenses-fallbrooks-technology/
Well, actually it isn't really a new commercialization event; it is a new application for a product that has already been commercialized.
On the other hand, they don't have any market share in the commercialization of IVT's for any Lunar Rovers!
While JG is struggling with figuring out how they got this unit to drive in reverse, could someone calculate the potential royalty revenue for the ZTR industry?
Thanks for pointing that out, I was assuming...
that most readers here don't take the time to read all of that which is in the 10-Q's. I had limited my comments about the RBJ article as it compared only to the CEO updates and other news stories that have hit the press.
Could you summarize the rest of the "news from the 10-Q" for all of us so we can all know about the other news that was in the 10-Q; since you are well versed in all of that detail?
Well, at least Velvet was able to get one item of actual news into the article.
I am so relieved to find out that JG thinks that we don't have to wait another five years for the results we expect.
It was an article that Velvet Spicer asked...
JG 4 questions. She tried to make it about Jim, but Jim pretty much made it about Torvec. For the most part it was basically the same information as the CEO update dated July 01, 2009 with three new items mentioned.
The three new items (IMO) were:
1) The FTV is back @ Mt. Read Blvd. and is going to be shipped back to the AF this fall for the final review.
2) Hodges has submitted a highly complementary report to the Naval Research office with respect to the functionality, fuel-efficiency capability and emission reduction potential of Torvec's IVT.
3) The new axle design (being done for one of the world's largest commercial vehicle manufacturers) has been approved and the building of working prototypes is scheduled to begin in early 2010.
........
This part of what he said isn't news or facts, but JG is now predicting that he really doesn't thing that it will take five (more) years.
Very refreshing.....
http://torvec.com/messagefromceo070109.htm
Since your research shows that the payment would...
not be "non-qualified" then why don't you just say that the payment would be qualified”?
My comments were limited to dividends paid to preferred shareholders in the non-liquidation time period (I realize that you are worried about the going concern statement.)
When a “commercialization” event occurs, there are only two main (that have been disclosed) scenarios being considered by the company. One is being a stock swap, and the other is being entering into a manufacturing mode. In either case, the company would not be liquidating which would cause a liquidation dividend to occur causing it to be considered a "return of capital".
So, getting into all of that which you mentioned hopefully is never going to be anything that any of us have to be concerned about. In order for that to not be the case there will of course need to be a commercialization event that has either occurred or one that is being planned by an acquirer.
However if you end up being right about the demise of the company then your explanation of the taxation of the liquidation dividends, I agree, is pretty much right on track.
All of that nonsense is fine, but it...
has no relationship to the point that I was making. That information is totally correct and totally useless.
Thanks for the attempt.
I never tried to imply for sure that...
there would be a tax preference for capital gains or for qualified dividends. Certainly there is likely to be a change in those tax laws that would be associated with raising additional taxes to balance the budget. Heck, we wouldn't even be able to predict what year the "problem" would occur. However, there is likely to be some sort of benefit associated with long term capital gains and less benefit for dividends (qualified or not). Currently there is a huge tax benefit for Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends, while there is regular tax treatment for Non-Qualified Dividends.
Right now if the accumulated dividends were able to be paid they most likely would be paid as non-qualified dividends due to the fact that there are no earnings and profits retained in the company. Therefore the dividend would be paid as a non-qualified dividend.
My point was that if there was a stock swap, like the company has outlined to us a number of times, it would be better for the preferred shareholders to give up the rights to the accumulated dividends in exchange for more shares of the acquiring company. This would give them carryover basis for the taxable gain, the gain would be capital gain, and the holding period would be carryover also (most likely long-term). It would also give them complete liquidity. It would also give them the ability to time the sale to the year that they wanted to pay the tax. It would also give them the ability to do estate and gift tax planning for their families. I can only imagine that most of the preferred shareholders are older and are not counting on that as a source to purchase groceries and make mortgage payments (unlike some of the common shareholders).
Then and only then, if there are any preferred tax laws associated with these kinds of transactions, like there have been for the last 40 or so years; the preferred shareholder would be able to tax advantage of them.
I'm glad you are done with this, thanks...
But, do the math; when you divide the higher equity by the higher number of shares you get exactly the same result as the lower equity divided by the lower number of shares.
Which results in exactly equal value per share.
Of course the value of the cumulative dividends...
would be "paid" in a stock swap situation by providing additional value of shares in the swap.
My point was that there was no need to cancel that liability as it does not have the same problematic cash flow issue that the other cancelled liability had.
Since Torvec has outlined the intention to perform a stock swap in the CEO updates and the SEC filings a number of times in the past, I can only assume that they still have that as an active strategy.
If that is the case, your idea of canceling the debt is not necessary as it would be cancelled automatically once the acquiring company holds the preferred shares in the post swap time period.
If the acquiring company paid the accumulated dividend after the swap, they would be paying it to themselves. Therefore, it would be cancelled after the swap had taken place.
The pre-swap preferred shareholders would benefit in the manner that I outlined earlier which are:
Liquidity,
Capital Gains - vs. - non-qualified dividends,
Carry over basis,
Carryover holding periods.
Well, I finally figured out our difference on...
the dilution point of contention. It seems to simply revolve around a difference in a point of view that is associated with a perspective between the concepts of:
1) Dilution of "Earnings per share"; and
2) Dilution of "Value per share"
It seems that you were thinking of Earnings while I was thinking of Value. I didn't think of it as earnings because, quite simply the company has no earnings; It only has value.
From my perspective, when you eliminate a payable and replace it with equity, there is no decrease or increase in value on a per share basis.
From your perspective, (assuming that the earnings are constant) the new shares would reduce (dilute) the earnings per share. However, that fundamental theory is flawed too because the liability would not have been incurred unless there was an assumption that the purpose of the liability would increase earnings. Thus, the absent the assumption, you would be denied the ability to conclude that the earnings per share would be reduced (because the company issued more shares to provide for the expense that would be necessary to increase the earnings).
The bottom line is that you are wrong about the dilution, and I'm sorry that you can't get it, but for a while, I would like to not have to explain it to you anymore.
The Irony is that under your theory the loss per share is less and that should have made you a happy, but confused, shareholder.
Certainly, the preferred shareholders are not going to...
give up their preferred shares without receiving shares that are of a value that equates to the stock plus the accrued cumulative dividends.
They will just have to get more shares to make up for that extra value.
They should be glad to do that because it will change the prospect of a non-qualified dividend to a capital gain once they acquire the highly liquid shares with a carryover basis that can be sold at will.
This would be a Win - Win situation for the preferred shareholders.
The other advice that you were wondering about is in an earlier post that I sent directly to you. Do you need me to find it and tell you the 16902 post number?
Of course, there is no need to do...
that, as a cumulative preferred stock dividend is automatically cancelled by default upon a stock for stock swap as the acquiring company would just be paying it to themselves.