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.
Good find...I was heading that way myself to find the name...
up 90 cents to 2.20 on 55,900.....the shorts only have to buy about 4.9 million more shares to cover....LOL...
People can't fathom that a stock that can be bought right now for 2 bucks could be worth $100....it's too Disneyworld fantasyland for anyone to comprehend it....but that's what Torvec has the potential of doing with a couple of deals..
Hi Artguy...
The link for the CEO update is on the Torvec home page..
There is also a link to the How Does Stuff Work site that, among other things, includes how the Torsen works...There is also a link on the left side of the CEO update page that says "Coming Attractions"...it's a video of the ZX with I presume the iso-torque in it going around corners of a gravel track like the wheels have glue on them...it says more to come at the end...last year the old Torsen with patents expired was worth 100 million..how much will the lighter, less expensive, improved version of a mainstream automotive product in use for 50 years, owned by Torvec shareholders, be worth ...??
I agree with you Artguy, that if the deal happens as laid out, dread's numbers will be low..and thats just for the FTV and CV joints...
I'm not concerned with what the share price does this week ...
Using the figures from the update, I am doing some math on the numbers and even taking a conservative line on estimates, the number is pretty big..I'll digest it some more .....the big number I'm coming up with doesnot even include the Iso-Torque or the IVT..! The Iso is in the Z running flawlessly (i think that was the word used) ....
What this update tells me is that the types of deals that the company is trying to put together are truly beneficial to the shareholders..They arenot looking to give away anything....I wish them God speed....
Excellent update....!
It reinforces for me, that the current valuation doesnot accuratlely reflect the real value of the Torvec technology owned by us...the Torvec shareholders. As I said a few weeks ago, I predict that Torvec will do more than one deal....
Keith was extremely smart as a todler...
His early exposure to technology allowed him to assist in the sale of the Torsen while still attending grammer school...
Given the open invitation by the G's to have people call and discuss things, you may benefit from giving it a shot and give them a call. It's a healthy discussion albeit somewhat borne out of frustration, but why not try to connect with them..you may get some better answers than you will get here for sure...as you have seen, I obviously don't know what I'm talking about..LOL
Hi artguy....
I enjoy your posts and agree with alot of your thoughts..I will say this...Torvec gets criticized for trying to go in too many directions and it gets criticized for having too narrow a focus...you cant have both....personally, i feel that it is more of reality that Torvec is a company that has had limited resources financially since inception..regardless of how things are communicated by JG or anyone else and also how they are interpreted, i think your comment referencing JG's point on 'we are too small right now to pursue every path' is as much a factor as anything dictating direction...Could some things been done differently..sure..
despite miscues on several fronts, I predict monetization will occur for Torvec shareholders...no one will give a shxt what happened or how many tactical errors were made once that occurs (except the people who sold too soon or didn't buy at $1.50..LOL)....
I predict the CXO side show goes in Torvec's favor and becomes less of a distraction...I think they will do a deal of some type with Peng Pu and I believe that the now ready Iso-Torque will produce another deal....one deal validates it all and the rest falls in place....i have felt from day one that this company will be bought out, miscues and all...it's all about the tech...
I think we will see new ivt test results for the hydro-mechanical for both gas and diesel coming out and would like to think some iso-torque info would be forthcoming....
Say what you will about the personalities involved or tactical manuevers that could have been made which could have played some role in lengthening the time line to date, but some or all of Torvec's technology will be monetized to the benefit of you and I, the long-term shareholders...
thanks for sharing your thoughts...
PS - let's not forget about the short squeeze that goes with it..
glad you brought that up zendo...
somewhere in the filings it says that the iso-torque was being installed in a Nissan 350ZX....can one deduce that given the long history of TOVC talks with the Nissan folks that there are discussions going on re the Iso-Torque...much has been said and spun negatively about the lineage of the Torsen vs. Torvec's envolvement with it....the bottom line is..Vernon redesigned it, it's an improved version of the old Torsen and we, as Torvec shareholders, own it....I am very excited that it it is up and running...
Question..
You two(dyna and invest) have posted about 50 times this week. For a couple of people who claim they dont own this stock any longer, thats alot of posting on a stock board covering an investment you don't own....why would someone do that..not only do it, but do it with the continued manipulation and spinning of everything someone says in support of Torvec...zendo has been very vocal and upfront about his position..he then had the balls to call the company and identify himself and he got some good information to base his opinion on(dyna, i know you did the same) You then proceed to twist his findings and basically tell he what he heard was wrong...
Something strcuk a nerve that brought you two out of the shadows....but good God, you dont own the stock...what gives guys..?
great...!!
Say hello for all of us....are all of you meeting at CXO's office..?
invest..
google naked short selling...2 million entries are found...people can decide for themselves if a company has it's stock shorted to almost zero, if it has been ruined...
say hi to the CXO guys for all of us...
nice work zendo...
invest...you're still here...amazing
It's obvious what you guys are up to...that summary judgement filing seems to have brought everybody back out of their holes...why is that...? You know exactly what a naked short attack or short attack can do to a company..your role here is to deflect every attempt to show people that bulletin board stocks like TOVC get hit by shorts, sometimes naked shorts, and the affect it has on the share price...in your defelection attempts, you point the gun at the Gleasman's every time while trying to make people think that none of this other stuff is possible...
In the mean time, your connection to the CXO guys is so obvious it's not worth noting....please say hello to them for all of us here on ihub...hey, they're not shorting against the box are they..?
I have pasted some additional info for you on shorting and naked shorting...well it's not really for you because you know this stuff..it's for others who have an interest in learning about it...
Regulation SHO Spotlight Suddenly Turns Dim, Sparking Some To Call 'Foul'
Jan 11, 2005 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire) Regulation SHO, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission effort to make a Federal case out of illegal naked short selling, is here, and it is turning a broad spotlight on brokerages' failures to deliver stock certificates purchased from them by investors that appears to be much brighter and more intrusive than either the detractors had expected or perhaps the market makers used to minimal accountability had wanted.
That spotlight is dimming, however, as the over-the-counter list as of yesterday's midnight deadline still inexplicably contained only 29 companies, including BICO, Inc. (BIKO), Freestar Technology (FSRT), and Loral Space & Communications (LRLSQ). At the same time, David Simon of Schimatic Technology (SCTN) asked FinancialWire about the number of "fails to deliver" are associated with its listing.
Apparently, neither the SEC nor NASDAQ are providing the full transparency to the companies and their shareholders that they demand of the companies.
The lists, at http://www.nyse.com/threshold , http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx , http://amex.com/amextrader , and elsewhere, initially showed 73 securities on the NYSE list, only 9 of which are U.S. companies, 70 securities on the AMEX list, 22 individual companies, and 374 stocks on the NASDAQ list, including 96 on the exchange, 29 OTCBB and 254 on the Pink Sheets.
NASDAQ initially missed its Friday night deadline, and Dow Jones' (DJ) Wall Street Journal said the list is "far from complete as it stands." NASDAQ apparently had until noon yesterday to complete the list, but no changes were evident.
"NASDAQ Rule 11830 is identical to SHO except for market making exemptions. This data proves the NASD was not enforcing rule 11830 as the short positions continued to increase on the now 'threshold securities'. Nobody was enforcing the mandatory close-outs," alleged Dave Patch, of the website http://www.investigatethesec.com .
In an email to SEC and NASDAQ executives, Patch called the list so far a "fake."
Regulation SHO was advertised as a solution to what some have said could be the biggest scandal in the history of the securities industry, and regulators have drawn significant fire from both sides of the short selling camp, although "naked" short selling, where short sellers have almost unlimited abilities to sell securities many times over the number of shares outstanding, has long supposed to have been illegal.
The controversy has drawn both legislative and judicial proponents and opponents, and until the Tsunami took over the news, General Electric's (GE) "Dateline" was said to be on the verge of a major expose that will reportedly touch on possible collusion between brokerages that are purportedly impossibly behind in their fails to deliver certificates, the Depository Trust Corporation, whose "Stock Borrow Program" reportedly garners it almost a billion dollars a year in fees for what detractors call "counterfeit trades," and even the vaunted U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission itself, which makes a fee on every stock transaction, whether legitimate or not.
There is even a blog on the subject, at http://nakedshortingforum.blogspot.com/ .
A poster on the Yahoo (YHOO) message boards said that due to the new threshold rules, now being implemented, "the pressure is on the market makers to do what is right because all eyes will be placed on them. There will be many key Federal Authorities, economists, mathematicians, etc. that are already lined up to be performing certain studies for historical purposes. All the MMs have to do to not make matters worse is to do what is right and fix what they had broken for years with any fully reporting company that's a threshold security as soon as possible."
The poster noted that a stock must be fully reporting and considered a threshold security. A threshold security is one where .5% of its outstanding shares (OS) have been proven to have been naked shorted for 5 consecutive trading days and where the MMs have failed to close out those positions for five consecutive trading days.
"Example: If stock ABCD had 2,000,000 shares outstanding and was a fully reporting company as of 3 Jan 05, the MMs would need to fail to close out the open naked shorted position of .5% of 2,000,000 shares which would equate to 10,000 shares not being "completely" covered for 5 consecutive trading days. This means that the MMs would need to make sure they don't allow 5 consecutive days to happen where they leave any balance remaining of the 10,000 naked shorted shares as an open account of stock ABCD. They must 'completely' close all open accounts of naked shorted positions.
"When the supply of shares of a stock is zero, the supply is zero. It doesn't matter how you get there, be it by a naked short position or by the float being absorbed. This is where it all starts as a short squeeze will now be formed and grows as demand to purchase shares increase. This is where the misperception exists with Regulation Sho. People think that a new naked short position has to be created for a stock to be eligible for protection and rectification under Regulation Sho. This is not true. It's even better. All naked short positions of the past will not go away and must be dealt with. The clock begins ticking for covering, and means that any stock that has been naked shorted will automatically start out in a forced short squeeze mode that will only escalate the longer the MMs wait to cover.
"Any buying pressure will cause the increase of the naked shorted position to grow to begin approaching the 5 day consecutive window of not getting covered by the MMs. After the 5 days transpire where the MMs have failed to deliver and close the open naked shorted position, that stock in which they failed to deliver will be placed on a Threshold Security List for the public to view. This is where it starts to get awesome," said the post.
"With no buying pressure, they won't have to cover as soon as one might have hoped as shares are sold exceeding the amount of shares being bought for stock ABCD. Still, if they don't cover the 'entire' naked short position for 5 consecutive days, stock ABCD will show up on the Threshold Security List for the public to view on 10 January.
"After such, the MMs have 13 days to close out the 'entire' naked shorted position or face being suspended and/or shut down from that security and other penalties to possibly put that MM out of business. The end result will still be the supply being zero and the stock would be forced to be traded correctly based on supply and demand with an already dried up supply. This means the creation of an instant short squeeze!"
The poster said that the market makers will need to get the naked shorted shares out of circulation by increasing the bid to entice shareholders to sell. "The problem comes when they allow for the buying to outweigh the selling due to increased demand for the stock. As orders are placed to buy shares, they must be filled by the MMs. This will worsen their problem when nobody is selling. As the MMs make the mistake and allow for any stock to be placed on the Threshold Security List, it will publicly reveal where the MMs are already having a problem in covering. Us as shareholders will see this list and contribute with forcing the short squeezes for every stock on the list."
The recent Securities Industry of America symposium on Regulation SHO, which was supposed to curtail illegal naked short selling, only further deepened the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission divide as a dramatic ' some say startling ' new 22-page working paper, "Strategic Delivery Failures in U.S. Equity Markets," was published.
Moderators at the symposium included Steven Kessler, Associate General Counsel for Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), and Deborah Mittelman, Deputy Director of Global Compliance for Reuters' (RTRSY) Instinet. Panelists included Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Managing Director of Bear Stearns (BSC), and Robert O'Connor, Executive Director of the Law Department for Morgan Stanley (MWD).
The referenced working paper by University of New Mexico Professor Leslie Boni was initiated while the author was visiting financial economist at the SEC.
She termed the "failures to deliver," which litigants have called "counterfeiting," as being "pervasive."
The professor said that a whopping 42% of listed stocks at the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and AMEX, and 47% of unlisted stocks in the OTCBB and Pink Sheets had persistent fails of 5 days or more with 4% being above the SEC's threshold limits for failures.
The standard for settlement is presently 3 days with a concept proposal by the SEC in comment to reduce 3 day settlement to 1 day, noted Patch.
The economist pointed to a study conducted by Evans, Geczy, Musto, and Reed in 2003 that provided evidence that while the SRO's have buy-in requirements, such buy-ins almost never occur. She noted that an audit of one market maker showed that all or a portion of shares in 69,063 transactions during 1998-1999 were "fails to deliver."
"The market maker was bought-in on only 86 of these positions," she stated.
Dave Patch, editor of "Stockgate Today," said that his own review of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 finds no reference to "strategic failures." In fact, he said, Section 17a of the 1934 act "mandates prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of trades, and the admission of Strategic Failures is also in direct violation of Rule 15c6-1."
Rule 15c6-1 defines the settlement cycle for trades executed and states that no Broker Dealer may enter into a contract for the sale of a security whereby the payment for that security and the delivery of that security is greater than 3 business days. For market making activities there is a slight exemption from the delivery in a Bona Fide Market Making activity but as the SEC and SRO's have repeatedly stated, Bona Fide Market making is not simply supporting the best offer in a naked short sale without also representing the best bid or near best bid in a long trade. They must be actively making a market on both sides of trading to use the exemption, noted Patch.
Delegates to the September 20 annual SEC Forum on Small Business passed several resolutions on the issue to be submitted to the SEC. Among them were:
1. Extend Reg. SHO to apply to all publicly traded companies including non-reporting companies.
2. Recommend that the SEC Commissioners reinstate the proposed provision in Regulation SHO that prohibited a selling shareholder from withdrawing his/her profits from the trade until after delivery of the underlying sold shares.
3. SEC should require all SROs, and any clearinghouse for an SRO that receives securities into accounts for security holders to disclose the fact of the ability to loan the securities in the accounts and allow security holders to opt out of allowing the securities to be loaned.
Robert Shapiro, chair of Sonecon LLC, an economic advisory firm and former Under Secretary of Commerce from 1998 to 2001 and principal economic advisor to President William Clinton in his 1992 campaign, has expressed "serious concerns about the impact of the final version of Regulation SHO regarding short sales on the equity and transparency of our equity markets."
Shapiro holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and has been a Fellow of the National Bureau
of Economic Research, the Brookings Institution, and Harvard University.
Shapiro said the SEC is correct to broaden the terms of regulation of short sales, and applauded the section directing broker dealers to mark all equity orders as "long," "short" or "short exempt." More important, he said, the new "locate and delivery" requirements could substantially reduce stock manipulation carried out through naked short sales -- but only if those requirements are
widely applied and strictly enforced.
"Unfortunately, Regulation SHO does not meet either of these two standards. The troubling result is that the Regulation, in effect, establishes an official level of tolerance for unsettled or naked short sales," Shapiro charged.
Shapiro said he strongly concurs with the comments of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) on the draft rule, which said NASAA was "unable to determine why the Commission proposes to permit significant settlement failures at all. While there are instances when settlement may be legitimately delayed, existing regulations provide for extensions for settlement. If the Commission continues to allow settlement failures, it may well facilitate the harm that the proposal is designed to remedy."
"Until Regulation SHO, this economic counterfeiting has been facilitated by electronic record keeping and the apparent practice of the DTCC and its subsidiary National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) of often disregarding persistent unsettled short positions. With Regulation SHO, the SEC has provided its implicit imprimatur for the same practice in cases covering the vast majority of public companies and billions of dollars."
Shapiro urged the SEC to "reconsider the provisions of Regulations SHO and, at a minimum, apply the 'locate and delivery' requirements for threshold securities to all short sale transactions, and adopt a zero-tolerance policy for significant settlement failures. American investors should feel confident that the SEC will ensure the integrity of every equity transaction they undertake and fully protect their right to receive what they have paid for."
Twenty civil cases have now been filed by O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle, Christian Smith & Jewell, and Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood, LLP, all of Houston, Texas. The consortium of law firms, famed for the giant awards they obtained suing tobacco companies. The group recently brought suit against the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. for allegedly participating in the short-selling conspiracy through its "stock borrow" program which the attorneys say is nothing more than an illegal electronic printing press for stock certificates.
Lead counsel John O'Quinn said: "We are committed to the relentless pursuit of justice."
In comments to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, C. Austin Burrell, who is providing litigation support and research for the law firms, said that StockGate is more massive than anyone may have imagined. "Illegal Naked Short Selling has stripped hundreds of billions, if not TRILLIONS, of dollars from American investors," and have resulted in over 7,000 public companies having been "shorted out of existence over the past six years." Burrell said some experts believe as much as $1 trillion to $3 trillion has been lost to this practice.
He stated that the restrictions on short selling were deliberately put into the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 because of the first-hand evidence then available that the "sheer scale of the crashes was a direct result of intentional manipulation of US markets through abusive short selling by a massive conspiracy."
Burrell noted that the 65-lawyer team presided over by lead lawyers Wes Christian and John O'Quinn has uncovered more than 1,200 hedge fund and offshore accounts working through more than 150 broker-dealers and market makers in a joint cooperative effort to strip small and medium size public companies of their value.
According to lawyer Christian, et.al., the DTC is at the very heart of the problem, and has almost a billion dollars a year at stake in keeping the problem.
The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the SEC. The depository supposedly brings efficiency to the securities industry by retaining custody of some 2 million securities issues, effectively "dematerializing" most of them so that they exist only as electronic files rather than as countless pieces of paper. The depository also provides the services necessary for the maintenance of the securities it has in "custody."
According to the suit, the DTCC has an enormous pecuniary and conflicted interest in the entire short selling scandal through the huge income stream they were realizing from it every day. They have made literally billions of dollars lending individual real shares, in most cases over and over, getting a fee each time they made a journal entry in the "Stock Borrow Program."
The Stock Borrow Program was purportedly set up to facilitate expedited clearance of stock trades. Somewhere along the line, the DTCC became aware that if it could lend a single share an unlimited number of times, it could collect a fee each time, according to Burrell. "There are numerous cases of a single share being lent ten or many more times," giving rise to the complaint that the DTCC has been electronically counterfeiting just as was done via printed certificates before the Crash.
"Such re-hypothecation has in effect made the potential 'float' in a single company's shares virtually unlimited and the term 'float' meaningless. Shares could be electronically created/counterfeited/kited without a registration statement being filed, and without the underlying company having any knowledge such shares are being sold or even in existence." Burrell said the Christian/O'Quinn lawsuits will seek to show that the "counterfeiting/creation of unregistered shares is a specific violation of the Securities Act of 1933, barring the 'Sale of Unregistered Securities'."
One lawsuit alleges that the DTC has a colossal disincentive to stop the "stock borrow" program, booking revenues from services of $425,416,000 and similarly, the NSCC deriving revenues of $293,133,000.
Further, the suit alleges that "open positions" resulting from this activity at the close of business on December 31, 2003, "approximated $3,025,467,000" due to NSCC, and $2,303,717,000 due by NSCC, and unsettled positions of $721,750,000 for securities borrowed through the NSCC's "Stock Borrow Program." The largely unregulated DTC has become something of a defacto Czar presiding over the entire U.S. markets system, wielding more day-to-day influence and control than the SEC, the NASD and NASDAQ combined.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.'s two preferred shareholders are the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD, a regulatory agency that also owns the NASDAQ (NDAQ) and the embattled American Stock Exchange!
In an era when corporate governance is the primary interest for the SEC and state regulators, the DTCC is hardly a role model. Its 21 directors represent a virtual litany of conflict:
They include Bradley Abelow, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (GS); Jonathan E. Beyman, Chief Information Officer, Lehman Brothers (LEH); Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Executive Vice President, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney's Corporate Investment Bank (C); Michael C. Bodson, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley (MWD); Gary Bullock, Global Head of Logistics, Infrastructure, UBS Investment Bank (UBS); Stephen P. Casper, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Fischer Francis Trees & Watts, Inc.; Jill M. Considine,Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC);
Also, Paul F. Costello, President, Business Services Group, Wachovia Securities (WB); John W. Cummings, Senior Vice President & Head of Global Technology & Services, Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER); Donald F. Donahue, Chief Operating Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC); Norman Eaker, General Partner, Edward Jones; George Hrabovsky, President, Alliance Global Investors Service; Catherine R. Kinney, President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, New York Stock Exchange; Thomas J. McCrossan, Executive Vice President, State Street Corporation (STT); Eileen K. Murray, Managing Director, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSR); James P. Palermo, Vice Chairman, Mellon Financial Corporation (MEL); Thomas J. Perna, Senior Executive Vice President, Financial Companies Services Sector of The Bank of New York (BNY); Ronald Purpora, Chief Executive Officer, Garban LLC; Douglas Shulman, President, Regulatory Services and Operations, NASD; and Thompson M. Swayne, Executive Vice President, JPMorgan Chase (JPM).
In their comments to the SEC regarding Regulation SHO in January, the 50 state regulators, through their association, the North American Association of Securities Administrators (NASAA) issued what many consider to be a strong warning that if the DTC is not dealt with in the final regulations, state regulators such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer may step to the plate.
In what many considered to have been explosive comments, Ralph Lambiase, NASAA president and Director of the Connecticut Division of Securities, warned "NASAA urges the Commission to reconsider its stance regarding the role of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (the DTC). As a threshold matter, NASAA believes that the Commission should explicitly prohibit the DTC from lending more shares of a security than it actually holds. The ability of the overall proposed rule would be severely impared unless the Commission undertakes to implement such a prohibition."
The new "threshold lists" could make for an interesting January, and possibly, an interesting 2005.
galileo...
Interesting comment you made - "after all they do have a track record as opposed to a 1 hit wonder (Torsen)."
That 1 hit wonder you mention has been around for 50 years..many are feeling that one or more of the technologies in devlopment by Torvec will likely be hits # 2 and maybe 3 or 4.....
If CXO has such a great track record, why do they have to use hypothetical client profiles on their website to show what they can do....what, no real clients to use in those profiles...I couldn't believe that when someone posted about that ..I had to go and read it for myself on their site..A friend of mine that lives in Rochester informed that CXO's office "suite" that is their listed office address is a PO Box in a mail center...track record...?
Your last comment - "What really is sad is that where this is headed, we will likely not get our return." If you are short, you are 100% accurate......
did you say hi to the CXO guys for everyone....
That's your typical spin...
Just trying to have a reasonable discussion...
Say hi to the CXO guys for everyone...
Thats exactly what I'm saying...
To your point about short position relative to float size and outstanding share numbers, there are actually a number of documented cases of short positions greater than the number of ISSUED shares,not just greater than the float..! Google naked shorting or naked short selling and see what comes up...
Copmanies have been ruined by this tactic...(fyi- you donot have to be actually naked to naked short a stock..market makers do it all the time with their pants on..)
Even if the number of shares short is half the 5 mill number, thats still huge...
Just a sec...my bong is clogged..
I think at one time the "actual float" was even less than 3,000,000...way less...now I would disagree with dreads 3,000,000 number....with a current float of 14 million, I would guess that half of that is in friendly hands, leaving a true float in the 6 to 7 million range...which would mean that if there is 5 mill shorted, that it represents 2/3 of the "actual" float....thats makes it an even juicier scenario for longs should a covering event occur....try finding 5 million shares in a freaking stampede with only 6 to 7 million out there...an "event" would also really tighten up the float drastically to a certain level making the early run in the squeeze epic....
Invest...
I have maintained that there is a large short position in Torvec....dreads info on the DTC sheet imbalances support my opinion...if it indicates that there is currently a 5,000,000 share short position in Torvec.....currently......
The stock has trended downward for the last 12 to 15 months..(interestingly, that is when CXO arrived)...The downward trend caused the short position to grow not shrink, the downward pressure fueled the sale momentum...that hasn't been fun to watch, however, it also means that whomever is short, has to cover....WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET 5,000,000 SHARES IN THE MIDDLE OF A TORVEC MONETIZING EVENT...??? They willnot get any of my shares until it hits double figures...Katy bar the door in the event of even a modest sized deal on any of Torvec's tech....
I have some opinions on the short players and connections but will not share that opinion here...
invest..
after reading the filings, I agree with the moderator...
So...did I miss anything..
was gone for the week....alot of people back on here that dont own shares and said they were gone...hi everyone...why in God's name would anyone want to post here if they didnt own the stock...
still reading the 100 posts and filings...will return after catching up on board activity and real job...LOL
Short strategy doesn't seem to have any more legs for you nyc...
Say hi to everyone ...
Interesting to see a company like Delphi teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.....
What could Torvec's suite of technology done for them..
re Torotrak...
If they had the goods, the TRK stock price wouldnot be at 51 pence, which is roughly 85 cents...
Hi Leit....
It's more patience than stamina....I am willing to wait for the appropriate return on my TOVC invesment...while it has been a longer run than I anticipated, the timing today is very much in Torvec's favor. The additional time has also allowed for the tech to be enhanced and refined to a higher level...thats a good thing...this remains a "one deal launch" in my opinion...as you know, another of my opinions is that there is a sizable short position in TOVC...that position will have to be unwound at some point...that is a huge positive from my standpoint...it is naive to listen to the pundits here that say a bulletin board stock cannot be shorted..anyone that claims it cannot be done is trying to convince you otherwise for a reason...it can be done, it is done all the time and it excites me to think how it will affect the share price of TOVC....
Despite the time line, side shows and missteps, I am patient with confidence right now.......
I agree artguy...
I think Torvec is going to see interest in the iso-torque in the near term...
nyc....
you should be a writer for Stock Picker Magazine....your analysis in sharp, if not riveting for the reader...your ability to dissect through the issues like a laser beam is a rare quality in today's fast-paced market ....thank you for your in-depth view of Torvec...
I would assume that you have sold out of your 300 share position that you said you bought last month...
He's alive......!!
Dread....you mentioned some good stuff in the 8k...did you mean the 10Q or the CEO update rather than the 8k....?
FYI nycinvst...re: your short selling comments...it's illegal to heroin too..but it happens.doesn't it...
interesting read for you below...I'm sure you weren't aware of this activity..(yeah right)...there are articles on this everywhere....
NASD files Civil Action against Market Maker for Naked Shorting
June 13, 2005
By: David Patch
STOCKGATE TODAY An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
NASD files Civil Action against Market Maker for Naked Shorting -- June 13, 2005
David Patch
In a January 13, 2005 press release the NASD identified that they have filed a civil complaint against Scott W. Ryan and Ryan and Co. for illegally executing short sales on behalf of 3 Hedge Funds.
The complaint alleges that Ryan and Co. (RYCO), acting as a Market Maker, would use the bona-fide market making exemption limited to market makers to execute short sales on behalf of the Hedge Funds. The Hedge Funds themselves could not execute the short sales, as they could not meet the obligations of the affirmative determination [locate requirements] required to execute these short sales and therefore solicited RYCO to circumvent the NASD rules. The illegal shorting, known as naked shorting, resulted in the trades to fail settlement at the time of the short sale execution applying sell side imbalances on the supply and demand of the securities traded.
The NASD claims that RYCO reaped substantial profit by engaging in the illicit acts. If RYCO reaped substantial profits, so must the Hedge funds they illegally traded on behalf of.
While this is the first complaint of this nature, it is only another of the more recent complaints being filed against Wall Street for short sale abuses involving Hedge Funds. A problem that appears more systemic than the Securities and Exchange Commission is willing to admit to.
Dating back to 2000, complaints of stock manipulation due to illegal short selling have risen substantially. A pattern that would indicate that illegal shorting, like late-trading and bogus research, was not small isolated events.
1. January 2001 the NASD fined the Fiero Brothers and John Fiero $1 Million due to the firm's participation in stock manipulation involving criminal elements. The story became the background to the Businessweek article by Gary Weiss titled 'The Mob on Wall Street.' The results of the Fiero Brothers abuses involved the insolvency of Hanover Sterling Corporation and the Adler Coleman Clearing Company as the companies did not have the net capital available to cover all the settlement failures held on their books. The illegal trading activities took place over a period of several years in the late 1990's.
2. February 2003 the SEC fined Rhino Advisors $1 Million for their participation in the manipulation of Sedona Corporation. In the Rhino case, the SEC had obtained audio recordings of Rhino Executives bribing US Brokers to manipulate Sedona Corp. stock by selling with 'unbridled levels of aggression.' The Rhino Executives were later recorded congratulating the US Brokers on 'collapsing' the security. While the SEC has the audio recordings, they have not to date taken any actions against the Brokers bribed to manipulate the stock. The period of the recorded manipulation was 2001. The SEC has recently issued a Wells notice to Refco which acts as both a Brokerage House and Clearing Agent for firms like Rhino Advisors.
3. December 2004 the NASD filed a civil complaint against Hedge Fund Manager Hilary Shane for her illegal short selling of Compudyne Co. during a Private Placement Financing Deal [PIPE]. In the civil complaint the NASD claimed that Shane executed 975 separate short sale transactions without the firm meeting the requirements of affirmative determination. The result of the trades at the time of the execution was failed settlements that were later covered by shares received Shane received in the PIPE arrangement. The NASD and SEC settled with Ms. Shane for nearly $1.45 Million regarding the sale of unregistered securities [naked shorts] as well as trading off insider information. The actions of Ms. Shane took place in September 2001.
4. March 2005 the CEO of Friedman, Billings, and Ramsey (FBR) announced his resignation amidst allegations of fraudulent trading of CompuDynes Stock. Speculation of NASD and SEC investigations into the short selling activities of CEO Emanuel J. Friedman during the PIPE deal with Hedge Fund Manager Hilary Shane apparently forcing the action. In addition, Wells notices to the Company, CEO Friedman, Head Trader Scott Dreyer, and Chief Compliance Officer Nicholas Nichols resulted in FBR the Company submitting a proposed settlement to the NASD in April 2005 for a reported $7.5 Million. While the NASD has reportedly not yet accepted the offer, this leaves the three former employees to fend for themselves on their settlement to the civil complaints.
5. April 2005 the SEC files civil charges against former Managing Director Guillaume Pollet of SG Cowen for insider trading and for short selling ahead of PIPE deals. Pollet has been accused of illegally shorting stocks in a minimum of 10 separate PIPE deals dating back to 2001 that resulted in over $4 Million in profits to the firm of SG Cowen and Co. The SEC came across this evidence in 2001 when SG Cowen presented the evidence to the SEC while at the same time terminating the employment of Pollet. Why it has taken the SEC a duration of nearly 4 years to act upon evidence SG Cowen was able to use to terminate Pollet is an open question that needs to be addressed.
To travel into each of these enforcement actions several threads of commonality appears.
· Wall Street, in working with Hedge Funds, willfully violated Securities Laws due to the cost benefits to do so. Illegal shorting activities appear commonplace for these markets.
· The illegal shorting of securities that resulted in large settlement failures failed to raise the red flags that are part of the intent of the Depository Trust Settlement system (DTCC). Hilary Shane's 975 executed settlement failures, Pollet's similar failures in a minimum of 10 separate PIPE financing deals, FBR's illegal shorting without compliance or settlement, Rhino Advsors, Fiero, and now Ryan and Co. all presumably using the DTCC stock borrow program to mask the illegal trade executions as in each case affirmative determination was not made.
· The delays in enforcement action never brought justice to the investors abused by the illegal trading activities. Instead, the SEC has fought issuers and investors each step of the way claiming the abuse never existed. SEC director of Market Regulation Annette Nazareth went so far as to say investors were merely complaining that their stock portfolios did not go up.
· Finally, the systemic proof that there is no such thing as an isolated event on Wall Street no matter how rosy the SEC tries to paint that picture. The SEC, in full awareness of the systemic problems, and with recent enforcement actions of 5-year old fraudulent acts, illegally grandfathered the failures on the books today to protect the criminal elements associated with Wall Street firms and the wealthy Hedge Fund clients.
The NASD actions today again raise the question about the integrity of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Congress empowered to oversee them.
How much of the small investor's soul has the SEC stolen to protect the financial strength of Wall Street and the wealthy of this country? What ever happened to Senator Robert Bennett and his desire to get to the bottom of Regulation SHO and its clear lack of closure to this problem?
Rumors out of Washington are that the Republican Controlled Congress and White House are purposely delaying any formal hearings and investigations into this matter in order to put out an appearance that Wall Street has become a friendly place to invest in. The Republican agenda to invest Social Security into this rigged marketplace taking precedence over investor protection. The Congressional delays only further strip the working class of more of their hard earned savings.
It will only be a matter of time before a community of people Congress cannot quiet confronts the issue. When that happens those Senators and Representatives representing SEC oversight better have a good story put together on why they once again turned a blind eye to the people they were empowered to protect. I am not talking about the wealthy who invest in the hedge funds.
SEC spokesman John Heine would not comment on this most recent NASD action and how these actions continue to show concern that the Regulation SHO grandfathering clause only hides these types of abuses. Asked when the SEC would initiate investigations into the DTCC stock borrow program as a tool to assist manipulation Mr. Heine again stated 'no comment.' Mr Heine did come forward and admit the SEC has the oversight responsibility of the DTCC, a first for Mr. Heine who is best known for his patented 'no-comment
FYI..
The Torvec web site version of the CEO update has a link for a Power Point presentation....I'm the only guy in America that doesn't have Power Point so wasnot able to view it...
New CEO update from Torvec website pasted below....appears that a delegation from Peng Pu/Shanghai is coming to town....
Message from the CEO.
September 20, 2005
I am writing to give you a brief update of what is happening at Torvec.
We have installed our Modular Hydro-Mechanical transmission into our Tahoe test vehicle. We have performed initial functionality testing to validate our data acquisition / sensor system. Our data acquisition system monitors a minimum of 20 different aspects of our transmission every tenth of a second, including:
Engine / Pump / Motor RPM
Three pressure transducers
Temperature
Input / Output RPM
Fuel Flow measurement within ± .2 of a percent
We have also completed development of our own more advanced engine controller to replace the basic controller previously used.
We intend to perform the standard EPA sanctioned City and Highway driving cycle tests, as well as a modified version of these test, by increasing the acceleration rates to reflect more realistic moderate, rapid, and “teenager” drive scenarios. Modification of these tests gives us a closer approximation to “Real World” driving. We will also endeavor to obtain and perform “Real World” driving tests used by American Automobile Association (AAA) which have received such recent notoriety. In order to eliminate human driving error between tests and give us even greater accuracy and consistency in our test data, we have created a special computerized driving program (where the computer actually drives the vehicle remotely) to run the Tahoe through all testing cycles with both the stock automatic transmission and our IVT.
In addition we have installed our new and improved steer-drive in our FTV™. After years of testing and research we have built and installed our “production ready” steer-drive with 30% fewer parts and have filed for worldwide patent protection. We are confident this latest generation steer-drive will increase the already impressive performance of the FTV™ in extreme environmental conditions. We are excited that we will be able to demonstrate this improved steer-drive to a delegation from Peng Pu / Shanghai Automotive when they visit us in furtherance of continuing ongoing negotiation on our FTV™ and other technologies.
We want to again emphasize that the FTV™ was designed to be a high-speed secondary road vehicle, with exceptional off-road capabilities. This is the unique benefit we feel is delivered by our FTV™. The FTV™ should not be compared to a tank or bulldozer, because although similar in appearance, the functionality and use are not.
Please take the time to review the brief presentation on road conditions around the world by clicking here (1.5 Mb). You will see why we are encouraged at the possible market opportunities in China and other the Pacific Rim nations.
Our Iso-Torque™ prototype is nearing completion. The differential housings have been machined and the gears are undergoing final heat treatment and the cutting of axle splines for final installation into our Nissan 350Z. After a brief break-in period, testing and demonstration will begin.
More in-depth information on these and other items of interest to our shareholders in our 10-QSB field with the SEC by clicking on the link at the bottom of Torvec’s homepage.
Our shareholders deserve as much current information about Torvec, its finances and operations in as timely a fashion as we can legally disclose these matters. In contrast to previous CEOs, I intend to deliver frequent, although perhaps brief at times, updates as developments warrant. But please remember communication can be a two-way street – please feel free to write, email, or call me directly and I will endeavor to share with you as much information as I legally can.
Sincerely,
James Gleasman
Chief Executive Officer
Thats pretty funny....
take care dyna...
Dyna....
you need to up your dosage or lower your # of shares held in TOVC to zero....I don't see you ever being happy with the way things move at Torvec or the people involved in the company..
Why bother with it all...do as Warren B/Invst111 did..sell it..
While polishing turds most certainly presents many challenges....I believe that there is a much more difficult job....that is the challenge of maintaining a short position in an investment when said investment presents the possibilty of closing a deal, the byproduct of which is akin to being hit by a train during the scramble for shares by longs and fellow shorts alike, creating margin calls of epic proportions, all of which is very quickly followed by a visit from Billy Bob, Donald, Jimmy and Johnny..etal...
Polishing turds is....well.....corny.....
Here is the quote from the ihub forum relating to the Cheri deal...
"5. What happened to the Chery deal? Who killed it?
JG Shanghai Auto!! Guess who’s bigger!!?? Shanghai killed that deal."
What...?
"They (Cheri) obviously walked away after the test based upon EPA standards." ......I believe your corncob pipe runeth over...
Hi Leit...
I'm trying to piece some things together, like many are. On the technnology side, the filing indicates the "discussions with Peng Pu and with its parent company, Shanghai Automotive, are continuing." Iso-torque proto's nearing completion, cv joint included in discussions....
The side-show that has emerged on the people side is what has my dots flying....not so much connecting...you have people claiming not to be at meetings that it appears they were actually present for, contracts that appear in the filings differently than what appears to be agreed upon according to minutes from the meetings, all the stuff from the recent 8k's, people still on the BOD that were removed from management responsibilities based on findings from an indepedant counsel investigation....etc...etc..If there is no deal going to happen on the Torvec technology side, why the enormous effort on the part of CXO to try to remain part of the deal..? Reputation..? Then there's Carlisle's two completely different resignations...? These and 25 other items have me still trying to piece the puzzle together...My opinion is that there is more to the story than we see....each piece of info creates more questions...we will all have to wait for the picture to become more clear...
A good day to all...
(note to self.....look into all possible uses for corn)
Interesting read pasted below on hybrids..there is a section in the middle that discusses the problems with the EPA's mileage/fuel ratings...
Hybrids: Frugal or Costly?
9 Considerations Before Buying
By Terry Jackson
When the first-generation Toyota Prius and the oddly styled, two-seat Honda Insight brought gasoline-electric hybrid engine technology to the United States, more than four years ago, skeptics wondered if this would be a quirky fad that would be popular among a few tree-huggers and then fade away.
After all, that's what happened with all-electric vehicles such as the General Motors EV1 that appeared in the late 1990s and failed to sell.
But the skeptics were wrong. Hybrids have taken hold and are expected to be a part of the automotive landscape for at least the next decade and likely beyond.
Witness the announcement by Toyota earlier this month that it will add 10 hybrid cars to its lineup and plans to sell 600,000 hybrids annually -- 25 percent of its total sales -- in the United States in the next decade.
This year, about 130,000 hybrid vehicles will be sold in the United States -- double the number sold last year and about 1 percent of all new cars that will be sold in 2005.
But even the impressive sales numbers have been overshadowed by the hype about hybrid vehicles, fueled by gasoline prices that threaten to rise to $3 a gallon.
So what's the truth about these new vehicles? Are they good buys? Are they as fuel-efficient as they seem? Will they help the environment? What about maintenance? What will happen when these vehicles start to get to 80,000 or 100,000 miles?
If you're considering a hybrid, here's a primer to help understand the issues and what you might be getting for your money.
What's available?
Right now, there are just 10 hybrid vehicles available in dealer showrooms: Ford's Escape sport utility vehicle; Mercury's Mariner SUV; Chevrolet's Silverado pickup; GMC's Sierra pickup; Honda's Insight, Civic and Accord; Toyota's Prius and Highlander SUV; and Lexus' RX 400h SUV. As many as 10 more will appear over the next few years.
On average, hybrids today cost $2,000 to $4,000 more than the same vehicle with a conventional gasoline engine, although the $49,000 Lexus RX 400h costs $11,000 more than the gasoline-only RX 330, due in large part to making a lot of luxury options standard on the RX hybrid.
How a hybrid works
All of these hybrids are a marriage of a gasoline engine and an electric motor that is powered by a large battery pack. The battery pack is recharged either when the brakes are applied or through the alternator system of the gasoline engine.
Where they differ is in how the gas and electric motors work together.
Some vehicles operate on the electric motor, while the vehicle is stopped or running at slow speed, then kick over to the gasoline engine at higher speeds. Others use the gasoline and electric power in tandem to boost acceleration.
While all hybrids will get better fuel mileage than comparable gasoline-only vehicles, those designed to run at least part-time on electric power alone will be significantly more fuel-efficient than those that use hybrid technology for added power.
The trend toward more-powerful hybrids has some environmental groups upset. The Alliance to Save Energy complains that car companies are squandering the technology by appealing to some consumers' thirst for faster vehicles.
The National Resources Defense Council also has decried the horsepower trend, not only in hybrids but all vehicles in general. The council contends that if horsepower ratings in all vehicles had stayed at the levels of the mid 1980s, new cars today would have 20-percent greater fuel efficiency, thanks to technology developed since then.
What's the fuel mileage?
So what kind of improved mileage can you expect from a 2005 hybrid vehicle? It depends.
If you buy a Chevrolet Silverado, or its twin the GMC Sierra pickup, with a hybrid electric-V8 power system, your fuel mileage will likely increase by only 1 to 2 miles per gallon over a straight V8 model.
That's because the electric motor comes into play only when the pickup is stopped. At a stoplight, the gasoline-powered V8 shuts off and the electric motor takes over, running the air conditioning, stereo and other accessories. When the light turns green, a tap of the accelerator pedal tells the electric motor to start the gasoline engine, and from then on the V8 operates on its own. In other words, the electric motor is never used until the pickup stops, and the only fuel conservation results from not burning gasoline at stoplights or when idling. Of course, there are no pollutants being emitted at that time, either.
At the other end of the scale is the Honda Insight, which gets the greatest fuel economy of any vehicle sold in America -- a maximum of 66 mpg, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. The Insight does that by using a small 1-liter, 3-cylinder, 65-horsepower gasoline engine linked to a 13-horsepower electric motor, all packaged in a lightweight, two-seat, aerodynamically styled coupe.
Toyota's Prius also is engineered for maximum fuel mileage in a more conventional four-door sedan package. By running only on battery at some speeds and on gasoline with its 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine at others, the Prius, according to the EPA, can achieve a maximum of 60 mpg.
Maximum EPA highway mpg ratings for the other hybrids:
• Honda Civic -- 48 mpg
• Honda Accord -- 37 mpg
• Ford Escape -- 36 mpg
• Mercury Mariner -- 33 mpg
• Toyota Highlander -- 33 mpg
• Lexus RX 400h -- 31 mpg
• Chevrolet Silverado -- 21 mpg
• GMC Sierra -- 21 mpg
But will you actually see such efficiency in your hybrid?
Most likely not, because the EPA uses a very controlled laboratory environment that is almost never duplicated by an individual's driving habits. Even if you drive like there's an egg between your foot and the accelerator, it's unlikely you'll regularly see fuel mileage as high as the government ratings on any vehicle, hybrid or not.
Consumer Reports recently tested the Honda Accord V6 Hybrid, which the EPA says should be capable of a maximum of 37 mpg and 32 mpg in combined city/highway driving.
But Consumer Reports found that in its regular driving cycle it could do no better than 25 mpg on average in its Accord Hybrid, just 2 mpg better than a test of a gasoline-only V6 Accord.
A road test that Bankrate did on an Accord Hybrid six months ago resulted in an average of about 28 mpg, a result of a large percentage of highway miles in the test.
Similar published tests of other hybrids show that while they get better fuel mileage than their gasoline counterparts, it's rarely going to be as high as the government sticker on the window says.
What about the environment?
Putting aside for a moment the size of any fuel savings, another appeal of hybrids is the promise that they are doing less damage to the environment than similar, gasoline-only vehicles.
Is that true?
Yes, but with a few caveats.
The EPA, concentrating on global warming, provides ratings for vehicles based on the amount of greenhouse gases produced in a year, expressed in tons. The more fuel a vehicle burns, the more greenhouse gases it emits. So hybrids, by their very nature, will emit fewer harmful gases.
Consider the Ford Escape Hybrid. The EPA estimates that it will produce 5.8 tons of greenhouse gases over a year when driven 15,000 miles. That compares to 8.2 tons for a similar gasoline-only Escape.
But that EPA estimate is based on the assumption that a driver will get an average of 33 mpg from the Escape Hybrid and an average of 23 mpg from the gasoline-only Escape. The amount of harmful emissions depends on your mileage, so it's possible that an individual's driving style could mean fewer greenhouse gas emissions in a gasoline-only Escape than that emitted from an Escape Hybrid whose driver always has the pedal to the metal.
And there's another -- as-yet-unexplored -- environmental issue with hybrids: What's to be done about recycling or disposal of those highly toxic battery packs when they wear out?
What about maintenance and durability?
As with any new technology, there are going to be questions about reliability, and so far there isn't enough real-world experience to know for sure how hybrids are going to fare over the long haul.
The gasoline engines in either the hybrid or gasoline-only vehicle should hold up equally -- it's the electric side of the equation that's uncertain. The most pressing question concerns the batteries that are essential to any hybrid. Even high-tech batteries have a limited lifespan when it comes to charging and recharging them.
Generally, the battery packs in hybrids are warranted for eight years or between 80,000 and 100,000 miles depending on the manufacturer. Beyond the warranty period, the manufacturers say they are confident the batteries will last much longer -- perhaps for the useful life of the car.
If you had to replace a battery pack today, and it was not covered by warranty, it would cost $2,000 to $4,000, but so far, no manufacturer has reported selling a replacement battery pack for its hybrid models.
Prices are expected to keep dropping, but how much they'll cost when they begin to wear out and are not covered by warranties is anyone's guess.
And, even if an owner gets 80,000 trouble-free miles from a hybrid, what will happen at trade-in time? How attractive will a used Prius, for example, be with 80,000 miles on the odometer and the original battery back still on board?
One small sign of problems may have already appeared. The federal government has opened an investigation into reports that about three dozen 2004-2005 Toyota Prius sedans have had their gasoline engine stall at highway speeds. No injuries were reported and no recall has been ordered.
Two good sources of information about hybrids can be found at Fueleconomy.gov, which is an EPA site, or at Hybridcars.com, which is an enthusiast site.
Are hybrids a good buy?
Based solely on the price of a gallon of gasoline, it makes no economic sense to buy a hybrid in comparison to the same vehicle with a gasoline-only engine.
Look at it this way: A Honda Civic Hybrid with a manual transmission carries a sticker price of $20,415. A comparable Honda Civic EX lists for $18,025. That puts the price difference between the two at $2,390.
Using the EPA fuel-mileage numbers, the Civic Hybrid should get, a combined city/highway, 47 mpg. The gasoline-only Civic should get 34 mpg, for a difference of 13 mpg.
Assume you drive 15,000 miles a year. The gasoline-only vehicle will consume 441 gallons in that distance (15,000 miles divided by 34 mpg is about 441). The hybrid will eat up 319 gallons (15,000 miles divided by 47 is about 319). The difference of 122 gallons, costing $2.50 per gallon, means the hybrid will save you $305 a year.
A sticker price differential of $2,390 means it would take almost eight years to break even ($2,390 divided by $305 is 7.8 years). Even if the cost of gasoline goes to $5 a gallon, the 122 gallon difference would save you $610 and it would still take almost four years ($2,390 divided by $610 is 3.9 years) to recoup the extra cost of the hybrid.
And that's a rosy scenario. The real-world numbers right now are even worse, because you can get a better discount off the list price on a gasoline-only Civic, while the Civic Hybrid is commanding near-list price.
What about tax incentives on hybrids?
True, tax breaks will offset some of the higher costs of a hybrid and reduce the time it would take to break even, but not by much.
If you buy one in 2005, the federal government allows a one-time $2,000 tax deduction, which would mean about $500 in the pocket of someone who's in the 25-percent tax bracket.
The highway bill passed recently, by Congress, changes the rules for hybrid vehicles bought between 2006 and 2010. Instead of a deduction, there would be a one-time tax credit of between $250 and $3,400, with the amount based on how fuel-efficient the vehicle is compared to a standard set in the law.
Further complicating matters is language in the bill that limits the tax breaks to only so many hybrids per manufacturer, which could benefit U.S. manufacturers just getting started selling hybrids and mean that the plentiful Toyota hybrids may not qualify after 2007.
Some states, particularly California, are offering their own incentives for going hybrid, including the right to cruise the carpool lane. But, as with the federal tax break, those free passes are limited in number, so latecomers to the hybrid revolution could be shut out.
What's the bottom line?
There are some good reasons to buy a hybrid vehicle. It can be less harmful to the environment, and as more people buy hybrids that will encourage manufacturers to further expand the technology which in time will bring down the cost.
It's also impressive technology, and some of the hybrid vehicles are fun to drive. The Prius also has the added, though subjective, benefit of cutting-edge sedan styling.
For performance junkies, some hybrids offer the added thrill of faster acceleration than their gasoline-only counterparts.
But if the dollars and cents of car ownership are your guiding principle, the hybrid revolution has not reached the point where it makes financial sense.
nyc..now I understand what your saying...
for those of you that don't know what nycinvest meant by this last post, here is a translation...
"My short position is way bigger than I had intended and even the most modest of deals by Torvec will cause an unwinding of that position of biblical proportions...the guys that I dragged into this thing (Billy Bob, Johnny, Donald and Jimmy) are really hacked off at me and are planning on doing something to me in the basement..."
I don't know what the corn reference means...