|
Post by tchalaa on Mar 26, 2015 14:18:00 GMT -5
I have proposed some voting points to the board of directors: - a 1-to-4 reverse split - better communication with shareholders - more information for shareholders
Let's also figure out some questions which will help better understand and be more informed
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Mar 26, 2015 14:30:50 GMT -5
Support TC's proposal above. Since Afrezza is now in the market, management needs to make sure that there is minimum dilution going forward.
|
|
|
Post by liane on Mar 26, 2015 14:36:31 GMT -5
A reverse split does nothing to create shareholder value. Now, a share buyback or dividend, that would create value, but it's far too early for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 15:31:01 GMT -5
A reverse split does nothing to create shareholder value. Now, a share buyback or dividend, that would create value, but it's far too early for that. Reverse split does help by reducing the volatility and manipulation as the outstanding number of shares available to manipulate will be reduced by a lot
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Mar 26, 2015 15:38:25 GMT -5
Would it also expose those phantom shares?
My concern with a reverse split is that while it could make it harder to manipulate, the bearish chokehold could reassert itself. Shorts would be emboldened at a higher price to short back down to $5 - and then I could wind up with 75% more loss than I already have.
Too many things don't make sense with this stock for me to have confidence in the outcome. And I imagine they would play it with the assumption that the new buyers/sellers would have a short memory span. They'd just say "finally! We can value this at about $1 - $3 - just as Karp and GS predicted - adjusted for reverse split."
Right now, unless it caused the short stampede to resolve those failure to delivers, I think this could get really ugly. Best time might be just as the price rise firms up and pressure is already on shorts .....?
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Mar 26, 2015 15:40:43 GMT -5
Only protection would be perhaps the institutional holders, unless they are all spread both long and short and make money in either case.
|
|
|
Post by tchalaa on Mar 27, 2015 4:15:45 GMT -5
A reverse split indirectly, so to say strategically, create shareholder value. Going through the reverse split process will mean, correct me if I'm misleading:
- stopping for some time borrowing of share, while recovering the borrowed shares for inventory
- doing an inventory of all available shares
- reducing the volatility, which can be sustained later on with a positive business feedback
- base on our Afrezza income, Positive news regarding our delivery system Technosphere, greater awareness due to the proliferation of diabetes and current Afrezza-USERS, slow uptrend of the curve don't be surprise to see the institutional ownership double meaning reducing the available stocks to trade, so a more stable upwards trend curve.
- this can also get us to the long awaited short squeeze. $$$
- Now about the fear of stock being borrowed in the future. There will always be some and since stock-shorting principle is to see the price go down while it's instead going up steadily we shall observe less Short Interest and sooner than expected the next "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc" or "Biogen, Inc" Target Price $$$.
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Mar 27, 2015 4:23:26 GMT -5
tchalaa, do you have any examples to cite where a reverse split has led to a short squeeze and resulting steep increase in share price (post-reverse split)?
|
|
|
Post by tchalaa on Mar 27, 2015 5:34:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Mar 27, 2015 8:19:26 GMT -5
A reverse split does not change anything, and Mannkind has no control over shares that are lent out. If you lend shares, they are no longer registered in your name. They are registered with person that buys them from the borrower. Mannkind has no knowledge of anyone's lent out shares and cannot call them back. When you lend shares, you no longer own them.
If there was a reverse split, I suspect the share price would drop because it would send a signal that the company is in trouble. The only reason that I can see for a reverse split is to prevent a company from being delisted due to a fractional share price.
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Mar 27, 2015 8:44:59 GMT -5
Why are we talking about reverse splits on a thread about going to the Shareholder Meeting?
OOG
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Mar 27, 2015 9:05:52 GMT -5
Does anyone know the date of record for shareholder ownership- I want to pull my shares form the lending program before then, so no short has proxy over any of my shares. ... If you lend shares, they are no longer registered in your name. They are registered with person that buys them from the borrower. Mannkind has no knowledge of anyone's lent out shares and cannot call them back. When you lend shares, you no longer own them.
|
|
|
Post by me on Mar 27, 2015 14:06:45 GMT -5
A reverse split does nothing to create shareholder value. You're right. In fact, it would hang an albatross on this stock! Reverse splits are almost always interpreted as portending doom.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Mar 27, 2015 14:07:32 GMT -5
Why are we talking about reverse splits on a thread about going to the Shareholder Meeting? OOG Because in addition to the HC question, there was a suggestion of questions to ask/raise, I believe. But fair enough to send the reverse split vs. dividend vs. buy back to a separate thread. Plenty of meat on that one.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Mar 27, 2015 14:08:39 GMT -5
A reverse split does nothing to create shareholder value. You're right. In fact, it would hang an albatross on this stock! Reverse splits are almost always interpreted as portending doom. Right. Whereas a buy back is usually a bullish indicator. We could move this to another thread .... interesting discussion here.
|
|