The Torvec itch. Ok, I'll scratch it and see what happens.
Stock price as validation of a company. Really? A lot of people thought Enron was a heck of a company at $66 a share. Pet.com was a great investment, same with Genomic Solutions. What? You never heard of Genomic? Hey, they had biotech in their back pocket, worth millions, then not so much.
All those company's got a LOT more press than Torvec, and they had a lot of experts touting them. A lot of people thought they had resources, value and were going to be big in the future.
Then you have Torvec. Up, down and mostly sideways. R&D, testing for years. Companies bought and sold while they developed. Now after a long time, in investor years, some feel it's a $3 company because, 'look at the stock'.
I understand. Sell, see you later, good luck, etc. Maybe you will be proved right, but what other factors are there besides the current stock price? Is the company cutting back, laying off? No. Is NASA doing everything it can to make the Torvec IVT an essintial part of the moon mission? Yes. Would the Army actually use the Torvec CV joint, Iso-Torque and IVT? Given the proven record of the Torsen in the Humvee and the stated intention of a key defense supplier, I would say it's a very strong possibility. Is the fact that Nissan's racing partner has stated an interest in more Iso-torques, an indication that there is a good connection with a leading OEM? Sure seems that way to me.
Patents in order. Company team productive. Development money starting to come in (NASA). Devices built, tested, rebuilt to correct specs with fabricators who apparently can deliver what was ordered in a timely manner (new NASA design turned around in about a month).
I guess you could think the 'market' is so savvy that Torvec at $3 is right on the money. I don't think so. We've seen the devices working, they ARE being used or in late stages of evaluation. Or at least that's what I infer from all the public statements.
I'm holding, I like the factors at play and in the wings and I'm remembering how the 'market' treated Apple. For years it could not get above $20. Even with Steve Jobs back at the helm. With the candy colored iMacs, with revamped OS kernel, even with better than expected iPod sales. No respect, no 'buy' recommendations. Michael Dell suggested Jobs liquidate all assets, divide proceeds to stockholders and close. After iPods were selling well for the SECOND year, then the 'market' moved on Apple. Now Dell is fighting to stay in business. Things change.
