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.
nycinvest...
"People bying co-ops and condos often require the inspection of the minutes a condition of the sell, this happens every day."
???? This isnot a condo or co-op sale we are talking about..
Trucker...
The CXO contract is in the filings....If I recall they got stock and warrants...way, way too many in my opinion...I am not sure what they can or can't do with them...
Thanks...
Here we go again....
I am not a Gleasman..I am a shareholder which you appear to be as well. I am not arguing with you...you posted the 624 law post, I googled the law, read the same thing you just posted and I came up with a different interpretation than you....so let's lighten up on the subtrafuge bs...ok ...this is a discussion...
When I read the law that you referenced, I agree that all of those records have to be kept, but the only ones that I, as a shareholder can extract are "its minutes of the proceedings of its shareholders and record of shareholders and to make extracts therefrom for any purpose reasonably related to such person`s interest as a shareholder." I can't extract any minutes or notes from just any board meeting or executive committee because I'm a shareholder in that publicly traded investment. That's crazy...anyone that could do that would have pre-disclosed inside information...
"Any person who shall have been a shareholder of record of a corporation upon at least five days' written demand shall have the right to examine in person or by agent or attorney, during usual busines hours, its minutes of the proceedings of its shareholders and record of
shareholders and to make extracts therefrom for any purpose reasonably related to such person's interest as a shareholder."
This is from the 624 law you referenced...it looks like a shareholder can get minutes from proceedings of it's shareholders.....doesn't say anything about being able to extract minutes of the Board or Executive Committees...if a shareholder could do that, wouldn't every shareholder be able to obtain inside information on deals and material events prior to those events being disclosed in an SEC filing or a press release..?
Your use of the term "covert operations" has a nice friendly tone to it...
I don't really, but you keep saying that all you guys don't know each other and then you use terms like "We know who they are"....it could make someone wonder
from Fain's CEO update....
Greater MPG during rapid acceleration — A considerable portion of typical city and suburban driving involves “rapid” acceleration, that is, acceleration from zero to 30 mph at a rate exceeding 6 mph per second. In side-by-side testing of the hydraulic transmission against the Tahoe’s automatic transmission in the zero to 30 mph acceleration range, the automatic transmission used 100% more fuel than our transmission.
While this percentage demonstrates the enormous fuel savings potential of our transmission, it is not the kind of information that can be obtained readily from various EPA-sanctioned tests. This is because EPA tests require the driver to accelerate at prescribed, significantly lower acceleration rates. (See more about the controversy surrounding EPA sanctioned tests in “Q&A 7” below).
Greater MPG for NYC EPA Test — We were asked by auto company representatives to compare our transmission side-by-side under exclusive city driving scenarios, such as those found in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro and Beijing. We then ran an entire series of side-by-side comparisons utilizing the EPA-sanctioned New York City cycle test. Over the course of all of these tests, our transmission consistently achieved an average of 4.33% improvement in fuel efficiency over the automatic.
7. How do you reconcile a 100% improvement in the zero to 30 mph acceleration range and “only” a 4.33% improvement in the overall New York City test?
First of all, it is important for you to understand the nature of the EPA New York City test and the opportunities for fuel improvement it allows.
The New York City cycle test runs for 9 minutes, 58 seconds and covers a distance of 1.18 miles. Of the time spent on the test, the vehicle is idling for 211 seconds (approximately 35%), accelerating for 208 seconds (approximately 35%) and decelerating in coast mode for 179 seconds (approximately 30%). The average speed that must be maintained by the driver is 7.1 mph. The top speed permitted is 27.6 mph, and this speed must be attained starting from zero at an average acceleration rate of 1.4 mph per second (which translates into almost 18 seconds to attain a speed of 25 mph!).
Accordingly, the area for fuel efficiency improvement is confined to a band of approximately 3.5 minutes covering only 35% of the entire test, since we cannot improve fuel efficiency in the idle and coast modes. Of that 3.5 minutes of acceleration, none of the time is conducted at an acceleration rate of at least 6 mph per second where our transmission truly shines.
As can be seen, the New York City cycle test (like all of the other EPA-sanctioned tests developed in the mid-1970’s) is extremely unrealistic and directly contributes to the “MPG sticker shock” syndrome consistently experienced by American drivers. Consumer complaints are met with the auto industry’s stock response that American drivers are “lead-footed” when in fact, the sticker fuel mpg is a result of a driving test that allows the vehicle to operate in a narrow zone of high efficiency for an automatic transmission.
Lead-footed or not, Americans simply do not drive the way the EPA says we do and, like it or not, the way we drive has a direct and significant impact on gas mileage. And, reputable organizations, such as the American Automobile Association and even the EPA itself, are beginning to understand that only comparable, side-by-side testing under real-world driving scenarios will provide the public and industry with any truly meaningful information regarding fuel efficiency. In fact, the Senate passed a highway funding bill in May that contains a provision requiring the EPA to make its fuel economy tests more realistic. The AAA says its own tests show the stickers could be off by as much as 30 percent on some models. Further confirming this point, OEM’s with whom we are having discussions have stated that they would be extremely pleased with as much as a 5% improvement on these tests.
To me, it seems like there isn't going to be anything I could say that would help your thought process....you have already formed your opinion ....why have you not sold your position and cut your losses if you don't think Torvec has the goods..?
So whats with the "We know who they are" stuff....
Who is "We"......
see this is what I'm talking about...
new people come on the board to contribute and you say "Bilge and Boppy will not show up here again. We now know who they are." That's not the new and improved dyna we are getting to know...
By the way, who is the We in "We know who they are..."?
A couple of points...
This from Fains CEO update...
"Effectively, we have been driving this transmission at over 100% overload during the entire testing period. In addition to operating in an overloaded condition, we ran the unit in excess of the design limits. We also performed a series of rapid deceleration tests without braking, including a “shock-load” deceleration of the Tahoe from 23 mph to zero in exactly one second!"
Isn't part of testing a product include overloading and shock loading designed to find weaknesses and sometimes break parts, etc...I'm thinking that is a normal part of making any product...pushing it to the limit...doesn't that have to be done before going to market, and in the case of a development company like Torvec, that will most likely be part of the process going forward with any deal partners on the IVT...they are going to WANT to try and push it to failure to test the limits of the product...
This from the filing....
"In addition one must ignore Mr. Carlisle's remarks concerning Torvec's IVT and FTV since those comments do not take into consideration that failures do occur with the development of any new product and specifically with respect to normal development procedures, tests are designed to take its products to the limit in order to identify any weak spots that could exist. Mr. Carlisle's characterization that this is a short coming defies reasonable analysis especially given his credentials."
You can't say that Torvec hasn't addressed his comments about the IVT...it's right there in the filing...
Invest...
Carlisle must not have read the CEO update from Fain (Carlisle's Distant Relative Thru Marriage/ Cousin (DRTMC), which goes into 6 pages of detail about the IVT....
http://www.torvec.com/messagefromceo053105.html
dyna...
"Brown and our Attys will get the facts about this" ....why do you need attorney's..? Who is "our" ....?
say hi to our doctor for me..
Zendo....
CXO on the Go is a Rochester company...they are all in Rochester...their bio's have been in the filings and on the web site...your comment in the post about "who's next, the Chicago guys?" struck me as odd because I didnt know there was any Chicago guys connected to Torvec...then the filing came out and dicussed the Peng Pu/Shanghai talks and mentioned "Small E Harrington Global Associates, Chcago,IL"..I thought there was something there that you knew before the rest of us...
wow....
what a busy weekend here....people are attempting to be civil..it's a circling rehash of the same stuff, but that's ok..I'm still trying to stay open minded and calm...why is it that anyone new who comes on gets trashed..? recent events have brought some people off the sidelines, which is good...after all it's discussion board...
that's alot of chintz....
Here's an interesting fact from the RBJ article...
under the watchful eye of Carlisle's Distant Relative Thru Marrige/ Cousin (DRTMC) and the rest of the CXO management team, Torvec's general and administrative expenses increased from $1.5 million in 2003 to $7.9 million in 2004...I think CXO came on board very early in 2004...
nice...
How do you know he didn't exercise warrants...?
He was still given warrants...that's compensation...if you get a paycheck but decide not to cash it, does that mean you weren't compensated...of course not...your company would say that you were compensated...you can't say .."I wasn't compensated"
I'm here...very busy few days at the office..
also, waiting for you guys to come up for air...
dyna....
this isnot the right investment for you....mutual funds
Question....
We know the FTV is in play with Shanghai Automotive. If these negotiations produce a deal that causes the market to recognize Torvec's value, enough so that your stock, for those of who own shares, produces a very good return, will any of this other
b-llsh-t really matter to anyone...
if you think these guys have enough pull to convince Shanghai Automotive to release that info on the same day as the release of the 23rd filing as someone claimed, I would think that there is a pretty good relationship there for that to occur...
I also don't think anyone would endure the public ass whipping that has been doled out for several years to give the company away and screw the minority shareholders...they could have sold it cheap a long time ago...
Here's what I do know that is different....
You and the rest of the doomsdayers were bashing the company not only for the letter of intent issue, but on the fact it was Chery...the no 8 in China....lowly Chery...
Now they are in discussions with #1 and that seems to be left out of each of your discussions...
The reason I don't like to get into these discussions with you is that you are so over-the-top one sided....
You lay out your detailed view of Torvec, yet never do you include details like the negotiations with Peng Pu / Shanghai Auto for example.....you don't lay the grounds for a balanced discussion...you shoot canon balls, non-stop along with your buddies....that is not a discussion route I'm willing engage..
Also, I didn't apologize for anything....
Basin...
So I have stated that I was wrong about the impact of Carlisle...there will officially be no Carlisle effect as I had originally envisioned...does that make you feel better...I hate to see you with your feelings hurt....
Your right...you and I draw our own conclusions and they are very different....we agree with one another on that...
The inside information claim is comical....I have posted something like 1000 times between here and RB...never have I posted any fact that wasnot from a filing..ever...period..I don't have inside info...what i do have is opinions and speculative ideas about this investment just like you do...you call those lies and truth twisting..they just don't line up with your plan of attack....why is that any different than what you are your pals are doing only with a non-stop negative approach......?
Again..thanks for the "you're being watched" heads up..that's classic.....
Basin...
Thanks for that heads up on the SEC monitoring this board...now you really are showing your colors...hey doesn't that mean they are monitoring everyone on the board...
invest...
your out of bullets!!...i have 10 left after this one..you need to pace yourself better...dyna's doctor helped me slow my self down..i have much better spacing and self control..dont you think..?
Hi check...
sorry..i have to do it that way for my own entertainment..
you have all lost your minds....
I have reached a conclusion about all of this and how it all ends....I will share it with you after it happens and will let you know if I was right...LOL
Question...
How does Carlisle come to all these technical conclusions on the products...the 8k indicates that he only attended a few board meetings by telephone...at what point did he evaluate, review, conduct analysis or even see the technology in use or being tested in order to make those claims...where was that information coming from in order to so bodly proclaim it in his letter...? I am connecting different dots now....he actually did say FTV failure...what failure...you mean the FTV that Shanghai Auto is in talks with the company over to do a joint venture..that failed FTV....he either didn't do his homework, got bad information and used it in his letter and probably regrets ever being brought in to this by his cousin...
Fain wrote the CEO update highlighting all of the IVT info, including the Hydrostatic info and the creation of the Hydromechanical....it's all in there........
I'm starting to sense that there is a reason you guys are on the course you're on and I am starting to question why...
Seriously dyna...you guys are looking and sounding somewhat desparate here....
The FTV failures..? You mean the ones that have Shanghai Automotive in negotiations with Torvec...The 8k indicates that "The latest meeting was held recently in Shanghai"..that tells me it wasn't the first....discussions began several months ago...you still think the Chinese gentleman in the FTV video was a food delivery guy...? As for your friend Invest and his IVT issues, Fain's own CEO message addressed the IVT issues including testing with shock-overload testing which can produce failures and successes.......
Look...you've heard me say it before...the Gleasman's and the company and it's management have made numerous mistakes over the last several years.....I wonder how many times they actually saved the company that none of us will ever know about...I bet several times....one of their mistakes appears to be the hiring of CXO to assist in running the company...that didn't turn out to be the right move...but in the middle of it all, they are in negotiations with the number one auto company in China, who just happened to have the Rover deal swept out from under them....The CXO guys were hired as outside managers and consultants...it didnt work out so Torvec did what it felt was necessary...there does appear to be enough documented stuff on CXO that it was apparent that they weren't a fit...
I am even starting to wonder why you guys donot come close to discussing the CXO short comings in the filing...is bilge pump on to something...
I remeber that someone posted they heard that was the reason, not that the company stated that...
dyna....
you said "as you know I never trusted CXO to be "custodians of our money" and you and Dread pounded me on that. I guess I was right and you were not."
You were right....
I stand corrected.....
I twas your buddy Zendo in post 2379 who said "Evidently McNamara & Carlisle were obstructionists but have now been streamlined out of the way. Can the departure of the Chicago guys be far off?"......
Zendo , how did you know about the Chicago guys...?
He got warrants..thats compensation...it's in the filings
Also, Fain was CEO and CFO...here is another excerpt from the filing.."During the course of his tenure as CEO and CFO, Mr. Fain has inattentively failed to authorize the payment to Torvec's accounts payable in a prompt and timely manner, including the failure to pay phone bills for months at a time causing the phone company to threaten to terminate phone service, despite adequate funds to pay the bills."
You seem edgey...maybe you should call dyna's doctor too...he's really helped us...
Invest....
You made a reference in a post a few weeks ago...something about cxo being gone and who's going to be next, the Chicago people? ..something to that effect...turns out that from today's filing, the "Chicago people" are from Harrington Global Associates, located in Chicago...how did you know about the Chicago people before this filing...?
The point, basin, is that he was compensated....he said he wasn't....he said he wasn't in an 8K
Where are you coming up with the "broke the bank" BS..Torvec has shown cash balances of roughly 500,000 to 1,000,000 for the last years worth of 10Q's...
dyna....
What have you got to say about the company now in negotiations with Shanghai Automotive..?
Here's from the 10k filing.....
Nonmanagement Directors Plan
On October 1, 2004, the Board of Directors approved a Nonmanagement Directors Plan pursuant to which each nonmanagement director is entitled to receive, on an annual basis for services rendered as a director, warrants to purchase 12,000 shares of the company's common stock at $.01 per share. In addition, the chairman of the audit committee is entitled to receive, on an annual basis for services rendered as chairman, additional warrants for 5,000 shares of the company's common stock at $.01 per share.
Looks like compensation to me...
You mean I have to read it again...
I'll wait for the next one....
Now I have an opinion.....
It's different than the one I had originally...boy was I wrong.
As it turns out the sequence seems to go along these lines..
They were in China and in talks with the #1 auto company Shanghai Automotive...these discussions are ongoing per the filing....that is very good news...Why would Shanghai announce it if it wasn't going well..? That is very encouraging...
The CXO guys turn out to be very wrong for the job per this mornings' filing.... a series of actions over time by the CXO team causes the conclusion by the board that they need to be"on the go"....
Executive committee formed to accomplish that..
Carlisle resigns professionally and wishes company well..
Carlisle finds out from his cousin, who is part of CXO that CXO is being squeezed out..
Carlsile resigns again ..... it appears to be sour grapes as I read it...(how many times do get to resign anyway..?)What happened to the warm fuzzy departure from the 8K a few weeks ago..?
Sarbanes - Oxley dictates that this stuff has to get 8k'd ...
Torvec 8k's it and has to reveal CXO's performance review....it wasn't a good review...
My opinion is that as shareholders, we are in a much better position now than we were a few weeks ago. This is good news...
Onward...my attention is turned toward China
Invest...
I am under strict orders form dyna's doctor to try to lower my stress level...also, he wants me to watch my cholesterol level as well....he told me that getting into heated exchanges on message boards will cause my bad cholesterol to go up...
...you should go see him..he's very good at treating people who have the urge to antagonize others...see what it has done for both dyna and myself...we are both much calmer and gentler....
as for my opinion, I'm holding judgement until I know more about what is going on.....right now I'm neutral due to lack of info...