|
Post by traderdennis on Jul 10, 2015 16:10:13 GMT -5
OK, Price was around $5.90 per share on or around June 25th. Since yesterday the price went down to as low as $5.04 I'd say we are closer to 130MM short than 115MM short. Some covering today, especially at closing and I would guess the next report will be around 122-125MM short. Today is the last trading day before July 15th settlement report.
Less 5 )million to 115 million a/o June 30,2015
Settlement Date
Short Interest
Avg Daily Share Volume
Days To Cover
6/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 5/29/2015 131,158,892 10,605,477 12.367090
Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3fWQumUu4
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Jul 24, 2015 15:18:52 GMT -5
Again what sticks out is the days to cover due to the drop in avg. daily volume we've seen....they're still stuck and spinning the wheel but really getting nowhere IMO. 7/15/2015 112,846,501 4,415,939 25.554361 6/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3gqGJBTcL
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Jul 24, 2015 17:31:55 GMT -5
Again what sticks out is the days to cover due to the drop in avg. daily volume we've seen....they're still stuck and spinning the wheel but really getting nowhere IMO. 7/15/2015 112,846,501 4,415,939 25.554361 6/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3gqGJBTcLActually, taking a closer look over the 2 month reporting period they are back to square one with the exception that the s/p is actually up 25% with their SI having not really moved over that same period . So in reality, they are going somewhere....backwards Settlement Date Short Interest Avg Daily Share Volume Days To Cover 7/15/2015 112,846,501 4,415,939 25.554361 s/p at close = 4.986/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 5/29/2015 131,158,892 10,605,477 12.367090 5/15/2015 112,949,758 7,816,490 14.450189 s/p at close = 3.99Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3gqgwaWah
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Jul 27, 2015 11:01:44 GMT -5
Again what sticks out is the days to cover due to the drop in avg. daily volume we've seen....they're still stuck and spinning the wheel but really getting nowhere IMO. 7/15/2015 112,846,501 4,415,939 25.554361 6/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3gqGJBTcLTo me this is very bad news. Price goes from 5.90 (6/30 settlement) to 5.38(7/10 settles on 7/15) and they covered 3MM shares while the price goes down 10%. This tells me that an institution(s) sold part of their position during the last reporting period.
|
|
|
Post by cusop on Jul 27, 2015 11:14:12 GMT -5
Again what sticks out is the days to cover due to the drop in avg. daily volume we've seen....they're still stuck and spinning the wheel but really getting nowhere IMO. 7/15/2015 112,846,501 4,415,939 25.554361 6/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3gqGJBTcLTo me this is very bad news. Price goes from 5.90 (6/30 settlement) to 5.38(7/10 settles on 7/15) and they covered 3MM shares while the price goes down 10%. This tells me that an institution(s) sold part of their position during the last reporting period. There are two sides to the equation and it could also mean something else.
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Jul 27, 2015 11:27:49 GMT -5
Again what sticks out is the days to cover due to the drop in avg. daily volume we've seen....they're still stuck and spinning the wheel but really getting nowhere IMO. 7/15/2015 112,846,501 4,415,939 25.554361 6/30/2015 115,084,784 5,340,302 21.550239 6/15/2015 120,425,827 14,899,766 8.082397 Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3gqGJBTcLTo me this is very bad news. Price goes from 5.90 (6/30 settlement) to 5.38(7/10 settles on 7/15) and they covered 3MM shares while the price goes down 10%. This tells me that an institution(s) sold part of their position during the last reporting period. Huh? Theoretically, if I owe 112 mill shares at $4 and I now still owe 112 mill shares at $5 is that not down $112mill on my ledger? Are there some new accounting measures I should know about?
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Jul 27, 2015 12:34:31 GMT -5
To me this is very bad news. Price goes from 5.90 (6/30 settlement) to 5.38(7/10 settles on 7/15) and they covered 3MM shares while the price goes down 10%. This tells me that an institution(s) sold part of their position during the last reporting period. Huh? Theoretically, if I owe 112 mill shares at $4 and I now still owe 112 mill shares at $5 is that not down $112mill on my ledger? Are there some new accounting measures I should know about? Cusop. I am very interested in your theory. Please explain yours. I am only interested in the two week period between 6/30 and 7/15 settlement dates. Mine is that the share price goes down 10% and at the same time 3 million of the shares are covered. With the supply of shares decreasing by 3MM during the period the demand decreased by a larger amount or the supply of those selling shares from a long position increased substantially.
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Jul 27, 2015 12:37:58 GMT -5
Huh? Theoretically, if I owe 112 mill shares at $4 and I now still owe 112 mill shares at $5 is that not down $112mill on my ledger? Are there some new accounting measures I should know about? Cusop. I am very interested in your theory. Please explain yours. I am only interested in the two week period between 6/30 and 7/15 settlement dates. Mine is that the share price goes down 10% and at the same time 3 million of the shares are covered. With the supply of shares decreasing by 3MM during the period the demand decreased by a larger amount or the supply of those selling shares from a long position increased substantially. Yes, if the share price goes down by 10% during a two week period, either demand to sell increases or demand to purchase decreases or a combination of both. We can rule out it was not short selling during that two week period since per Nasdaq and SEC, shorts went from 115 to 112 million. How else can you explain the decrease in price and shorts. I am not concerned about how it looks over the 2 month period of time. I am only analyzing the two week period of time which this just happened. I can conclude that a large LONG position is being liquadating putting price pressure on the stock, with additional pressure again today.
|
|
|
Post by cusop on Jul 28, 2015 7:39:42 GMT -5
Did you purposefully mist the point, Nobody knows the trades inbetween the two dates just the net outcome
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Jul 28, 2015 9:35:23 GMT -5
Did you purposefully mist the point, Nobody knows the trades inbetween the two dates just the net outcome Are you serious? That is your answer? No I did not miss the point. I feel very certain that a large position(s) during the two week reporting period is liquidating(ed) their MNKD holdings. Do we need to discuss Econ 101. Price is a function of supply and demand. Known pieces of data. Short interest in the period went from 115MM to 112MM. Stock price went down 10% from the start to the end of the period. If the stock price goes down, it is safe to say there were MORE sellers than buyers. Conversly when there are more buyers than sellers the price goes up. So if the short sellers were COVERING their position during the two week period. The STOCK PRICE goes down 10% where is the selling pressure coming from? YOU have not refuted my theory that most likely that an institution(s) with a large position entering this two week period is liquidating part (all) of their current position. so Cusop, you refute what I say by placing your head in the sand saying you don't know the exact trades. I am using the known data points from above to made a solid inference to what in my opinion is a likely event. I am asking YOU to give me a hypotheses why the stock price goes down 10% in a two week period when our Short Seller friend were covering their position (no short selling pressure during the period).
|
|
|
Post by cusop on Jul 28, 2015 10:04:10 GMT -5
Yes you are and you do not know what happened in-between the to dates nor at what price the original short holding occurred at, so the question is what is being achieved here, we all watch the market if I could predict todays market I would be rich beyond my dreams, that is why when one takes a long position it has to be long. The fact is a short position taken before the weeks mentioned and could have been executed at profit during those two weeks and the price could still have remained depressed. So are you saying a major institution resolved to cover a short position ! And is that what you mean by liquidating their MNKD holdings
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Jul 28, 2015 10:28:29 GMT -5
I mean by the action I see, an institution(s) entered the period long trimmed or closed their position to create downward pressure during the two week period.
You can not dispute that short interest during the period was covered by 3%. It is irrelevant if their were profits or losses. I am asking you cusop, what will CAUSE the stock price to go down 10% inside the two week period, when you can eliminate the blame on short sellers since they net covered in the period.
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Jul 28, 2015 10:52:02 GMT -5
I won't pretend to know as much about options trading as the others on this board, but between 5/29 and 7/15, short interest dropped by about 19 million shares. To me that says that a lot of people thought that we were at or near the bottom and covered. It would have been nice if the stock price rose due to this covering, but it is still a sign that makes me optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by cusop on Jul 28, 2015 11:12:06 GMT -5
I mean by the action I see, an institution(s) entered the period long trimmed or closed their position to create downward pressure during the two week period. You can not dispute that short interest during the period was covered by 3%. It is irrelevant if their were profits or losses. I am asking you cusop, what will CAUSE the stock price to go down 10% inside the two week period, when you can eliminate the blame on short sellers since they net covered in the period. You don't know that form the data... You know that the short position went down and the price went down, you do not know when the short positions were taken up just that the overall number decreased.. If I knew the answer then I would not be here as I would have knowledge that is unavailable.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 28, 2015 11:48:12 GMT -5
Traderdennis,
You're taking one data point and reaching all sorts of conclusions that aren't necessarily supported. Theoretically, all three million shares covered could have been bought back on the same day, leading to the stock price staying flat, rising, or even falling a little, depending on so many other variables. Then, in the subsequent days, a very weak stock market, including the biotech sector, could've have contributed to MNKD price dropping 10%. This could be due to margin calls, retail investors retrenching by selling shares, or withholding bids. It also could be due to an institution, or two, or three, or four, etc, selling some shares.
All sorts of things could've happened, resulting in both the short interest shrinking and the price falling. Obviously, one of those possibilities is that one institution knows something and is liquidating, but that's just one possibility of so many possibilities. Bottom line, that one data point tells us absolutely nothing.
|
|