|
|
Post by sellhighdrinklow on Aug 8, 2018 15:53:12 GMT -5
agedhippie Not sure if you are short of MNKD. But to me your writing style is very similar to that of matt . What you wrote might be true. But in my view, your posts suggest that your thinking is very rigid and without imagination. Just like you had never though that Sanofi would pony up $50 million or so as settlement with Mannkind even though quite a few in this board thought that was very likely. I think you would not have thought Deerfield would loose the minimum cash hold last year to $10 million at one point. Similarly, I noticed that our famous bankruptcy expert matt yet again started to write about bankruptcy of Mannkind after he had wrote about it abundantly predicting mannkind to declare bankruptcy in thanksgiving 2016 and then by August 2017. My point is that yes, Deerfield has a covenant with mannkind that requires the latter to have a minimum cash hold of $25 million. Yes, Deerfield has the Danbury facility as collateral for its debt. However, given that mannkind has paid down the Deerfield debt to $25 million, mannkind has for the first time (since they secured their financing with Deerfield a few years back) the flexibility to do some major restructuring of the Deerfield debt, for example, by taking a new piece of debt from a new lender/investor, to take out the Deerfield debt entirely, or for the new lender/investor to take a second lien position to the danbury facility, with Deerfield remaining as the creditor taking the first/senior lien. Note that also Mannkind is growing its gross revenue/net revenue at 100% + annually. While we are not seeing hockey stick growth yet, 100% + annual growth rate is nothing to sneer at. I would say it is not so easy to find public companies whose main product has great market potential and its sales is growing at 100% + annually. I think Mannkind is on a similar growth track to that of Dexcom (at a market cap of around $8 billion currently) looking a few years back. As MK pointed out, when mannking is print $7/8 million a quarter by the fourth quarter, wall street will start to notice mannkind. For the members here, if you have not read the book “devering happiness”, I recommend it to you guys. It's a great book and very entertaining. www.amazon.com/Delivering-Happiness-Profits-Passion-Purpose/dp/0446576220/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533668552&sr=8-1&keywords=delivering+happiness In it, there was a point, Zappos was growing very fast, but was very much cash strapped and was facing a crisis. But then they got a lifeline via a loan from Wells Fargo as the bank saw great potential in Zappos in its growing sales. "Then something happened that changed everything: a loan from Wells Fargo Bank. No longer did they have to sit down every week, deciding which vendors to pay and which to put off. The company was saved. Now, for the first time, they were ready to become profitable and grow." www.customerville.com/en/download/guides/zappos Glad you posted that, my commentary on Matt’s quarterly BK predictions got deleted multiple times. Can I please ask the moderators here to please explain how such a relevant post can be deleted several times regarding Matt and his references to MNKD going BK? |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 8, 2018 16:56:58 GMT -5
I just logged in after a busy day but, without reading the posts you’re referring to I can guess it involves Board Rules. Opinions can be posted if topic-related but, if a post is directed against a member it will be removed.
Things some members post can be aggregating to others’ viewpoints. That doesn’t give anyone the right to go after them. If the poster in question becomes obviously antagonistic we’ll deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 8, 2018 16:59:18 GMT -5
I’ll add this. If you have concrete evidence of disruptive intent by a member, please contact staff via complaint channel or PM.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Aug 8, 2018 17:15:40 GMT -5
Don't count on it being over. They are just toying with us. My guess we are headed to a new low. Didn't we see .68 before? I'm guessing we see .50 this time. So what are you "guessing" now? |
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on Aug 8, 2018 20:09:54 GMT -5
Don't count on it being over. They are just toying with us. My guess we are headed to a new low. Didn't we see .68 before? I'm guessing we see .50 this time. So what are you "guessing" now? It was a guess. I was wrong for now. Hope I am wrong for good. Until the money situation is resolved, I do not believe we are going to see big gains and may very well see the pps decline even further. I bought 1500 shares this week. I've decided to trade these to pick up a few bucks as the pps fluctuates. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Aug 8, 2018 20:22:26 GMT -5
Above average volume today. Lots of shorting going on today. Bad sign.
|
|
|
|
Post by gareaudan on Aug 8, 2018 20:29:02 GMT -5
Above average volume today. Lots of shorting going on today. Bad sign. im not sure i understand. How a +12% day with volume above average could be a bad sign...and if the shorting was high but not able to stop the rise, isnt it a good thing? Not following. I would take those bad signs everyday, all year long. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Aug 8, 2018 20:33:50 GMT -5
Above average volume today. Lots of shorting going on today. Bad sign. you think all the upticks were shorted? What makes you think that? Why won't you think it was buyers/short covering? there has got to be a lot of "counterfeit" short shares. Or what ever they are called, I would need to find Joey's link. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Aug 8, 2018 20:40:17 GMT -5
The data says there was a lot of shorting today. Perhaps after we hit 1.25. People placing bearish bets is bearish.
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Aug 8, 2018 21:02:32 GMT -5
5.4 million shares traded, 1.5 of 2 million reported shorted on the NASDAQ. What percent if the remaining 3.4 million summary volume total were shorted?
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Aug 8, 2018 21:19:36 GMT -5
5.4 million shares traded, 1.5 of 2 million reported shorted on the NASDAQ. What percent if the remaining 3.4 million summary volume total were shorted? Stockshortdata.com Less than 75% but more than 65%. It’s split into several other “exchanges” |
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Aug 8, 2018 21:59:52 GMT -5
So selling has slowed ... but buying has increased ! Interesting ... but stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Aug 8, 2018 23:01:54 GMT -5
Seems very odd to me that if short sales outpaced buys that we would be up over 13% for the day. The short stock data does not indicate the number of short posituons that were closed out, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Aug 9, 2018 6:34:54 GMT -5
It would seem to me that short sellers would want to be covering here, especially those that started near the last $5 pop. Those would be some very hefty returns. If more are piling on at this price point, it's a very dangerous bet. However, another drop to .68 (someone else's figure) would extend their gains another 75-100% from this area...say 1.18 down to .68. I was looking to add in the .70s to improve my average but, I may have to rethink in a day or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Aug 9, 2018 6:59:35 GMT -5
Seems very odd to me that if short sales outpaced buys that we would be up over 13% for the day. The short stock data does not indicate the number of short posituons that were closed out, does it? Odd yes. There was lot of shorting on the way up in October to 6 dollars. But there were days back then with high volume and low shorting back then too. Correct. |
|
