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.
"the Saudis" Yes, but thats all. EOM
OT Dread, my view too.
It was gentle, and I thought broad, dig at folks who find something, anything, to gripe about. I guess that brand of humor does not always come through when texting.
BTW can you think of a better customer base to have than government when gasoline is going through the roof? I can't.
The CEO message is nice.
But why did we have to hear about it from Lynx??
"should have come from our leaders"
Where do you think it came from?
First of all, these guys are very busy indeed.
Second, if you are really that curious, you call them on the telephone and our leaders will tell you.
Third, there is a real danger in setting expectations that there is going to be an announcement at every change, including recheduling meetings of importance. If you start that expectation, then you leave yourself open to the charge of manipulating the flow of information when it doesn't happen all the time. Better to give periodic reports, and if you want more than that CALL THEM UP.
Way to go.
Buy some for me and I'll pay you back before the end of the year.
I am actually pleased to see the shorts digging deeper and deeper.
But there are even more problems, blue,
uh, dude. Who is going to want in on a deal like this? All you have to offer them is a monopoly position and a boatload of purchase orders from finanacilly impeccable customers. It all seems insurmountable doesn't it?
It is just that easy Mr Dabreeze sir.
The trouble is, who? They should be big enough to handle the orders. And they would need the manufacturing plant(s) in place. And ideally their own distribution system for spare parts and the like. Oh yeah, and excess capacity. But who in the automotive industry has all that?
Torvec merely licenses a manufacturer
to make them or enters into a joint venture with a mfr to make them. Actually, the term "joint venture" brings to mind something I have read before. Now where was that?
That is exactly the complaint
I have heard about Steve Jobs. His arrogance dwarfs anyone at Torvec...or on this board...and specifically, it is said that he respects no one, and no ones opinion, but his own. He actually talked down to Bill Gates at a private meeting and left Gates dumbfounded. But the guy is pretty successful I think. That's all I care about here.
Again, this behavior is not helpful, but these people get it done in spite of, not because of, their style.
I do not like brashness or rudeness either.
It does not help. However, I hear a lot of it from the very posters that complain most about it. Some is rather vicious. So physician heal thyself.
More to the point, ever hear of the "Mouth of the South" Ted Turner? I question whether style dictates the level of success. He is a multi-billionaire. I have run into very successful attorneys and businessmen who are obnoxious and millionaires. I think this whole issue is bogus and lame.
Finally, as to maturity, I think the less I hear from someone the more they probably have something I want to hear. Some of you should take some time off.
Does anyone know the economics of
retrofitting? I recall that the IVT could be installed in existing trucks which was a valuable feature. I would suppose the same is true of passenger cars. My question is, how economically feasible is that? That is, would the cost be recouped in gas savings in some acceptable time frame? Certainly it would be faster now than before.
Don't be fooled Dino
I would take this CEO message with a grain of salt.
I mean:
1. We have heard good news before and we're not there yet.
2. The stock has not gone up immediatel--as it should!
3. Management is not doing anything to market this.
4. Mangement should be changed for people who can get results NOW. This takes too long.
5. Given the foregoing none of this can be true anyway.
6. I'm still not rich.
LOL What a bunch of teenagers!
Thank you tovc4me for the input.
I must say it is like a breath of fresh air.
If the FTV were a chiefly recreational vehicle
like the SUV I would agree that a spike in gasoline would crimp demand. But it is not. It is a vehicle made to perform tasks that need to be done no matter the cost of gasoline, and tasks that are performed by users well able to afford to fill up at any price: government, big oil, the forestry industry, as so on. Even for recreational use, which I consider minor myself, if you can afford the sticker price of one of these babies you do not much care about the price of gas. In short, the market for the FTV is a tier of very deep pockets, perhaps recession-proof. And if the FTV does the tasks they need done more efficiently, it will be their vehicle of choice.
As far as Nissan, my earlier post was perhaps itself too subtle (and on re-reading perhaps a trifle smug). I think your apparent gloom reflects the notion that Nissan walked because it found the isotorque wanting. I cannot believe that. What is more likely, given Torvec's history, is that Nissan found a gold mine but wants to pay for a rock quarry. If that is the case, and I don't know, I can tell Nissan that our esteemed CEO and Board will not bite. And, if so again, I hope they do not. And, posters like yourself going around shedding desolation are not helping our cause intimating a shareholder revolt. There isn't one. After that mini-shareholder meeting reported by Torv4me, it is clear to me that the heavy hitters are sticking. And a lot of the rest of us. And besides, management owns Torvec and they will not be low-balled.
Microsoft walked out on Google: too much money. Does that mean a deal is dead? According to Friday's WSJ there are players involved who won't let that happen. All it means is that someone has to re-think their position. Let's not get too despondent about this.
IMO when negotiating you should not
believe everything you are told. As to what is omitted, our moderator does not hear what he expected and so concludes definitively it is not so. But that is itself not so. A deal may have gone south or one is creating the impression it has. I have no personal knowledge one way or the other. But I am absolutely sure from past events, and the posts I have seen here, that the Gleamans are vastly more subtle than most of the the posters on this board.
I would say a mere CUSTOMER can validate
a product when the customer is also an EXPERT on the subject and feels they have seen enough to give an unequivocal opinion. We blue herons do not like red herrings by the way and this endurance testing obsession is just that.
Validate
I am agape! I thought the U.S.Air Force did that for a product that includes several of our inventions.
What in your view was lacking from that, or, the other recent testimonials on the isotorque?
This is definately NOT
...adding value. I wish you both would just drop this exchange.
Torv4me,you add a lot of value to this board EOM
Arguably better than a deal.
Because everything in that letter creates bargaining leverage that is difficult to exaggerate. I think this development not only accelerates negotiations but assures a price that is a reasonable market price...which is to say, very big.
I hear the fat lady clearing her throat. "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder, dah, dah, daah,...."
Some of what I see on this board is just plain pernicious.
Are you going to delete this Dread?
With all deference Dino
since I think we see alike. What brought on your last post?
Regarding optimism...
It does appear that these in-the-know folks are holding on to their shares. That boosts my own optimism.
I too appreciate your input 4me
and look forward to your reports. One question I have calls for both new and interesting information and is, what was the attitude of those shareholders who attended, and their reaction to it all? In that vein, there must be much that is new and yet not really inside information, or I hope so.
I for one am SICK AND TIRED
of being told that ordinary, right-thinking, decent people on this board are fed up with being sick and tired.
I'm certainly not!
And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
(attribution, M. Python)
Revisiting the video issue
...to make a bigger point.
What I get a bit tired of is not negative opinions so much as gratuitous negative spins. Using this example...
Why did Ford not make the video itself? That is supposed to be a telling issue with negative connotations. Why? If one just tries to be objective, I think the easiest and least strained explanation is:
Ford has seen the videos Torvec can produce; wants the video only for internal use, not public, so it does not need lots of polish; maybe wants something just like it has seen before from Torvec to show its dealers what the new product would look like and whether they like what it can do; and all they want is to see the cab inside, and the "Ford" tracked vehicle tearing around the parking area like all the other FTV tapes it has seen. We can do something that simple and do it well. So do it.
And the bigger point I have is that stretching for a negative interpretation is not only gratuitous but hurtful. What do any of us get out of it in a material way? I am not being little Miss Sunshine, I just think this is the simplest explanation.
I am not looking for a personal fight, and I do not this that this is picking one.
FORD Tracked Vehicle?
Someone who knows or thinks they do what it would take to get a company like Ford to consent to a small company putting a video on the Internet of a new vehicle and calling it a Ford vehicle--at ANY stage of negotiations or development--please tell me what to think. I really am impressed.
My parting shot....
Know why I'm blue? The delay.
But like Dino I know these things have a life of their own and cannot be rushed. (I don't think he was uppity at all by the way.) And when I am especially blue ONE of the things I use to console me goes like this.
Go to the Torvec website and you will find the list of the board of directors, with brief vitas, as well as the Code of Ethics promulgated by the board. Look through the Code; it also has a section on what is considered insider trading, and forebidding it by ALL personnel. You can be pretty sure most companies have the same kind of thing.
As to the Board I make particular mention of David Flaum who everyone there says is highly regarded and I can understand why from the short vita.
So I ask myself, if I were Mr. Flaum, for example, and week after week, month after month, my entreaties to management regarding marketing were ignored; if I felt that management chronically squandered corporate opportunities from sheer incompetence; if I felt a change of management was essential to the success of this enterprise but was convinced it would not happen; would I continue to lend my name and personal prestige to this three-legged horse?
I tell myself I would not. And I deluding myself?
I assumed you were talking non-public.
As for what was said at the shareholder meeting, Ford conducts negotiations with hundreds of companies year after year and some are protracted...and nothing comes of it. If you are a Ford employee and you buy stock in every Acme, Inc. that Ford is talking to, you would be broke by the end of the year.
Also remember that Ford and Torvec are without doubt subject to a confidentiality agreement. Would heavy trading by Ford employees suggest to Torvec's attorneys that the agreement is being violated. It would to FORD's attorneys. "Is there a leak?"
Possibly treble damages?
That's right isn't it? Insider trading will get you that; and possibly dismissal. And if the information is not public, it is inside information. Someone who knows more than I might illuminate us all with more authority.
Then, if they have an inside source, and are not afraid of liability, then they just might feel free to wait until their source tells them its a sure thing. Which it isn't until the ink has dried.
How's that? No, really, I am asking as well as pitching.
t-t-t-t-two hundred f-f-fifty !?
Thank you for your input. I am bullish myself but it is great to hear such from you.
With fond regards,
The Bird (is the word)
It is a good opinion and I was thinking the very same thing.
I know I will regret jumping in again, but…
You insurgent guys have every right to speak up. Indeed, “I feel your pain.” But if you really think that the majority shareholders of any, ANY corporation will relinquish control to the minority because it is fed up with their stewardship, you just don't get it. However much you have in this company the majority has vastly more in sweat equity alone. So be ready because your gambit is going to sail like a haystack.
I am not “scared off” as you put it. I simply had something to eat and went to bed. I do that.
I am not sure that you actually understand my position. If you will read my post you will see: “I also am extremely frustrated….” In a previous post I said: “I certainly share the impatience and frustration.” (13512) You seem to think I am complacent or totally satisfied. I am not. So rehashing what most of know has gone before in the way of expectations and disappointments is a waste of your energy, and fingers IMO. The Gleasmans are inveterate optimists or they couldn’t have done all that they have done and what that is is really amazing. As a result, they have raised our expectations to their level of expectation when they have been wrong. Well, I guess it’s a package deal.
I think I understand your own position pretty well. You are sick and tired of listening to all the stuff you listed that management is doing besides negotiating. You have made it very clear to me at least that you want to hear about results. Of course I know there are other things being done which is why I said “Almost all” they have to do is negotiate. But, OK, when I said “all” they have to report on is negotiations, I should have said, all that most of us want to hear about. And my point again is, they cannot report on that very easily without doing damage. And as again I said, I don’t like this situation, but I don’t want us shooting ourselves in the collective foot either. And you have not addressed that concern. TAIHTSN*
*That’s all I have to say now.
I have got to respond to some of this for my own sake.
Almost all this company has to do now is negotiate. Everything else has been done. So there is nothing to report on except negotiations. You see the problem management has? Other companies can report on sales, profits, expansion plans, etc. All our management has to talk about is confidential negotiations. That has to be frustrating for them as well as us. Frankly, I am going to stick and I don't want to see my investment impaired by some loose public disclosures to stockholders. I also am extremely frustrated but my message to management is if it will hurt me, don't say it. And if negotiations with X have stalled, and knowledge of that would tell Y it can stonewall, then don't talk about it. I don't like this situation either, but, hey. Just be legal.
Looking over this post I saw a mistake when I said the past is largely irrelevant. I meant sunk costs are largely irrelevant, which is not the same thing. Sorry.
Thank you.
I am long and have been for a long, long time. I certainly share the impatience and frustration, believe me. But reading about the “200 more investors since last year” cited by Dread got me thinking. Here is a thought experiment.
Imagine you are one of those investors. You did thorough due diligence and you learned all that has happened and that the rest of us have lived through, but you decide to get in. You decide because of all the positive developments that have developed last year and because you are impressed at how far the company has come in a hostile environment. So seeing warts and all you buy a significant position, for you at least. I ask myself what effect a lackluster shareholders meeting would have on that decision of that investor.
Good decision analysis is always forward-looking. It is sometimes hard for us to see in our own situations but the past is largely irrelevant to rational decisions. All that matters is what we think will happen next. All the time and missed opportunity costs are “sunk costs.” They are there whether we stick with Torvec or decide not to, and so they cancel out when we weigh our options on the decision-scales.
So, removing the impatience and upset over the sunk costs, and looking only at what you think will–or is all likelihood should--happen next, what do you do? And for a new investor, would the first annual shareholders meeting for them be the trigger as to timing?
I do not presume to say what anyone here should do. Maybe the lack of a deal over time tells you that management cannot do it in the future. If so, you have called what you think will happen next (nothing) and you should probably think about exiting. All I want to point out is that my newcomer would probably not make that call, and would not do so because he has none of the sunk costs the rest of us have weighing on us. IMO.
By the way, does anyone remember seeing a release of some kind where a Lockheed guy raves about Torvec’s technology, and if so, can you tell where to find it?
I was a bit disappointed in the CEO message at first but on reflection, while I would like some solid good news, there is nothing here to alarm me. It was not supposed to be big IMO. HDP thinks our CVJ technology will assist their engines. They probably have had permission to actually test it. To proceed with their own products they need to know they will have access to the CVJ technology. That is, they need a license. Then they can move forward with development. So we grant them one. Very limited. They get the sleeves from our vest. And the price is right. Off they go to do their own thing, and good luck to them. I do not expect us to receive any checks for a long time from them though considering what I have learned about this industry. But seeing as their principals are helping Torvec in its efforts, how could we refuse? And then announce in glowing terms. But in my opinion this is a crap shoot on the side (that engine sounds pretty futuristic), we have given away nothing for something, and the main games go on.
Nothing so clever. See maiden post 12425.
Actually its a pretty good book