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.
This video should have been already viwed by everyone who is serious about investing in this company. It is public information. It simply makes JB look uninformed, nothing else. It could be argued as the meaning of his words in the sentence used to describe the patents. The company is extremely clear about their patent applications. Your last statement is simply an attempt to divert attention from what is about to happen regarding your posts.
You stated…"They need the patent office to give them exclusive rights....but they wont."
You are stating that you have first-hand knowledge of the outcome of a prosecution of a patent application. Be prepared to answer how and where you gained this knowledge.
"So If I was IFT I would do the same thing...keep applying under different angles."
You are stating that IFT has applied for patents for the same product several times with different formulas. Be prepared to answer how and where you gained this knowledge.
According to the US government, IFT DOES have a patent in their name, regardless if it is not for one of the products in discussion. There is no record of an application before 2004 with the same specifications as the one in question. Making claims of a decade of waiting is misleading. Gaining credibility with some investors by misquoting others to strengthen your position as someone who exposes the truth is also misleading. Gaining from stock price movement under these circumstances is a criminal act.
Anyone interested in this video, please contact me directly. When contacting me, please be aware, it is very plausible to gain knowledge of multiple identities in this system.
I have touched base with IFT on the subject. Please do your own DD.
You have not proved me to have misguided anyone on any of the 3 subjects, (barring the video) yet you have claimed me to be "100%" wrong". It is about time others understand your motives.
All your posts here and RB have been extracted and will be reviewed. Your tactics here will be exposed.
You say...
"post1217 you claim that you have staurt claiming thay have patents on ALL of the products."
In actuality I said Jonathan Burst, another example of your haphazard interpretation of the truth.
Yes, I have the video of that claim. But where did I say that "I know they have patents?" I posted that HE claims it, not me.
Another example of how you twist the truth to make others seem ignorant.
Please show me where I said that IFT has patents on all products. An yes, they do have one patent in their name.
You say...
"Regarding the "misguided post" staement that was my personal opinion in the way you phrased the statement about patents seeming to say IFT only recently issued a patent when in fact most have been filed long ago."
You are aware of your mistake. You twisted my words. You found it necessary to add words to my statement and post in a public forum. This is very well known tactic meant to build one's credibility as a "defender of the truth" to the average investor thereby making it easier to deliver you calculated messages.
I have a video feed, not an audio file. Just another example of how you read into things.
According to you, so far, my credibility is in question in 2 areas.
1) You say I claim that IFT has patents on all products.
Please cut and paste where I claimed that IFT has patents on all their products.
2) You mentioned my "misguided post that seemed to dictate that IFT only submitted a Patent request in 04"
Please cut and paste where I used the word only.
3) You claim I am untruthful
Please cut and paste (besides the items above) where I attempted to mislead any investor.
Twisting one's words is not a valid tool for debating, especially when everything is stored digitally.
A thorough investigation will be done on all your posts to determine what your motives are.
I never claimed to have an "audio" file.
Anyone intersted in seeing what I have regarding claims of Patents, please contact me directly.
There is no "cause" I am trying to help. Just stating some facts and hopefully generate some intelligent discussions. So far it is not working.
One of the inventors of the surfactant formulas has over 8 patents granted under his name. Only one pending, IFT's. There are no records of that formula being filed since 1976. Please explain where the "almost a decade" came from. That is extremely misleading and false.
Also please explain the 50-60 Million you mentioned. There is an actual law regarding posting false information to promote the purchase or sale of stock on public forums.
The SEC uses Section 17(a) Securities Act of 1933 to try cases where people falsely post information regarding stocks they may own or short. (Tokyo Joe,Jonathan Lebed, etc.) One of them was actually a 15 year old boy.
I would never post false information on here. The information I get is directly from the source.
Actually, IFT presently owns a patent. I have a recording of Jonathan Burst actually claiming IFT owns patents on ALL their products, something I double checked and refused to relay to anyone else as truth.
I own a substantial amount of IFT stock. I believe when enough members are encouraged to join, this board could be a helpful forum to promote a great company.
"Total invested capital in the company is about $180 million, and estimated market opportunity is set at $5.5 billion for the fuel additive the company developed"
By Lene Johansen
St. Louis Business Journal
It might do you some good to read about prosecution of an application, objections and amendments to an application and the complexity and time it takes to execute a applications such as these.
For the simplest, non-contested, cut and dry patent approval, there may be a 3 year waiting period.
50 to 60 million is a laughable amount of money to sustain a company this long. The actual figure for IFT is now $180 million.
The operative word here is not “misleading” but "misguided" :)
(cut and pasted)
IFT has filed three patents pertaining to eight different uses of its proprietary technology relating to its fuel additives and fuel blends. A patent application covering the chemical formulations for the additives Diesolift, Gasolift, and Kerolift has been filed and is pending. A patent application covering IFT’s proprietary synthetic diesel fuel blend (see “EPAct Application”) and the additive formulation used to make that fuel blend has been filed and is pending. In addition, IFT and Tomah (see “Manufacturing Partner”) have filed a joint patent pertaining to urea/water technology. These patent applications protect IFT technology in many countries. Further patent applications for extension of IFT technology are in the process of being filed.
International Fuel has filed a patent application in 2004. No company is able to grant its own patent. I have a copy and have had it reviewed thoroughly. Application Code: 20040123515
Fundamental analysis does not apply to emerging industries. Fund Managers and sophisticated investors always engage in other methods of analysis for such companies.
IFUE’s primary concern has been to raise sufficient funds to engage and execute research and development. It is widely accepted amongst professional investors for this stage to last months or even years.
Correction - It was a St. Louis Business Journal article I found on MSN.
Regarding MSN News article on IFUE:
Chuck back paddles - says "This is not a stock for small investors, like the ones I write for."
He is right this time…It seems only the small investors found his article to have merit.
For those interested, please read on...
Shell Oil executives give International Fuel a boost By Lene Johansen
St. Louis Business Journal
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET June 5, 2005
The addition of two executives from Shell Oil is giving International Fuel Technology Inc. the credibility to take the company to the next level.
Clayton-based International Fuel recently hired Jayne Winfrey as president and chief operating officer and Gary Hirstein as executive vice president and chief financial officer.
Winfrey has worked with Shell since 1978, most recently as a general manager of fuels and convenience retailing. Part of her job was to develop Shell startup ventures, so the step from multinational corporation to a company emerging from its research and development phase is not as big as it seems.
Hirstein started with Shell in 1977 and last held the position of manager of property and planning. He has worked closely with Winfrey since 1996. They were both interested in working with a smaller company.
"You don't have the deep pockets of Shell, but there is no big bureaucracy, and we're not competing with other ventures for access to the deep pockets either," Hirstein said.
International Fuel posted a loss of more than $1 million on $48 in revenue for the first quarter of this year. However, analysts covering the company are excited about its prospects because it has more than $1 million in cash and no debt.
Total invested capital in the company is about $180 million, and estimated market opportunity is set at $5.5 billion for the fuel additive the company developed.
St. Louis lawyer Rex Carr is on International Fuel's board and is the largest individual shareholder, with 27 percent of the company's stock.
"The additive increases fuel efficiency by about 7 percent," Carr said. "The way I see it, we increase the world's oil supply by 7 percent."
Both investors and analysts are extremely optimistic about the company's product. The challenge for the two new executives is to take the company to the next level by commercializing the product and creating a sound financial structure. Many of the opportunities the company has developed globally are in the industrial market, including energy companies and other high volume users, such as transportation.
"Our biggest challenge is to increase volume and satisfy demand," Winfrey said. "International Fuel has done a tremendous job turning out global opportunities, now we need to transform those into actual sales."
She is not yet ready to put out revenue projections or timelines.
Chuck Jaffe, a columnist with Dow Jones MarketWatch, said International Fuel's biggest challenge is to prove the product delivers on its promise. The benchmark tests could provide the company with revenue, or end in a situation where the benchmarks are too good to be believed.
"Customers will say 'You are so far out of the norm, let me see you do it,' again, and again," he said.
Jaffe said the challenge for the executives is to turn what looks like a good product into good stock for investors. The two executives are careful to characterize market opportunities as opportunities, rather than actual sales.
"There is a general feeling among fuel consumers that the additives industry makes a bunch of claims they can't follow through," Hirstein said. "We need to convince the consumers that our product works."
International Fuel already ordered additional tests from Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, and at Prodrive in the United Kingdom. The company also initiated benchmark efficiency trials with major fuel consumers in India, the Philippines, and with the Indiana Railroad here in the United States.
International Fuel issued a press release Wednesday to address the recent volatility in the stock. On May 25, the stock hit a low of $0.72 and 1.15 million stock were traded -- that is more than 10 times the average trading of the stock. Jaffe wrote a column on May 27 criticizing International Fuel investor Dion Friedland for using his position as a respected hedge fund manager to tout the stock in a press release five days earlier.
"The company has an extremely interesting product, but we know that the average investor bails out with a price movement of 25 percent," Jaffe said. "International Fuel moves more than that in a day. This is not a stock for small investors, like the ones I write for.
Friedland recently started Fuel Technologies Ltd., which will distribute the product in Africa, the Indian sub-continent and parts of Europe. He projected that his distribution company will start generating revenue within the next six months and defends his press release by saying he wanted to make people aware of the distribution possibilities.
International Fuel's chairman and chief executive, Jonathan Burst, said no executive officer or director has sold International Fuel stock in 2004 or 2005.
"We have committed financial backers that believe in International Fuel Technology," he said. "Our technology works, our distribution channels are in place, and we are working on signing contracts that will lead to revenue. We expect to sign a number of such contracts in 2005."
IFUE...
Stinkeye...I recveived your phone call. I will get in touch with you soon.
Is anyone aware of another board where investors may exchange information regarding IFUE?
Regards,
Communicated with Chuck regarding the article...If anyone has an interest, email me privately and I will respond.
Defender,
I am sorry you missed the meaning of my message. From the tone of your post, perhaps my English offended you. My thought was based on patterns of buying and selling in relation to the trend and the recent news.
To avoid much of what is already transpiring here, you will no longer have my opinion.
Good luck Gentlemen.
I received no reply from Chuck regarding his article.
It seems some investors took his article for face value. Today reflects the dichotomy of the educated and uneducated. Many are taking advantage of the indiscriminate selling.
I will inform those interested if I hear from him.
No, I have not communicated with anyone here. I have spoken with IFUE several times.
Observe another couple of quotes from this gentleman who, in his article, applies big board investment strategies to OTC stocks.
Remarks are made regarding lack of revenues. If simple math is applied, IFUE's stock price should be considerably less than a penny. There are hundreds of OTC companies with no revenues and stock prices well over $1.00. A very uneducated and misleading observation for a man in his position.
He further makes another simple-minded statement...
"Rumors and filings that had the company reaching a potential deal with another big investor popped the stock last year, but amounted to nothing. "
In the world of very small public companies, the tenacity to look for and find wealthy investors is one of the top 3 things that make a company attractive. It is not only prudent it is expected and a historically proven method.
Defender,
Perhaps my post was not clear. The SIOTW article came out on May 27. On it, Chuck mentioned the following:
"On Monday, the company was touted in a press release by Dion Friedland, founder and past president of the Hedge Fund Association, and chairman of the Magnum Funds"
The Monday mentioned in Chuck's article, is the 23rd. SIOTW claimed investors reacted to the news by Mr. Frieland. My point was simply that the stock price plunged, in contrary to Chuck's presumption that investors were buying based on the news.
I contacted chuck and I await his response.
I have never posted here. I came across this on yahoo searching for International Fuel Technology. I am a business owner with offices in Ft. Lauderdale, NY and Detroit. I will be visiting IFUE's office in the next 2 weeks to check out their operation and meet with some of the staff. If anyone is interested in knowing more about IFUE or perhaps share some insight beyond the scope of this forum, please contact me directly and I will give you my phone.
Regards,
RDS
Regarding the Stupid Investment Of The Week:
I have written to Chuck regarding his article.
Monday - May 23
Supposedly an announcement is made that the company was touted in a press release by Dion Friedland, founder and past president of the Hedge Fund Association.
Stock Price: drops 21%
Tuesday - May 24
One whole day after the announcement:
Stock Price: drops another 12%
Wednesday - May 25
Stock Price: drops yet another 20 % and levels off almost even.
It does not sound like the Stupid Investor was buying based on the announcement. It is unfair and professionally unethical to make that reference.
Chuck also mentions that chances are good that few people making those trades actually looked at the company's balance sheet -They were mostly selling and the stock price dropped drastically since the announcement. I advised him to do a little more technical research before writing a column that makes reference to historical price.