|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 12, 2019 13:40:40 GMT -5
The share price has languished in a slow downward bleed/purgatory for almost half a year, you cannot expect retail investors to turn this around and get the share price up. No amount of testimonials, Seeking Alpha articles, message board posts, etc. will accomplish this. Management has to change the market makers' minds, that's the only thing that will shift course. Right now, Wall Street doesn't give a crap about fluff PRs, extending runways, new marketing campaigns, slide decks, etc.; all they care about is if and when the revenue starts coming in at a much higher rate. If this happens, the share price will increase and the retail investors will follow and continue the momentum. There is no point about worrying about retail investors right now. I assume you're using that term loosely? True "market making firms" provide liquidity and primarily make their money off being the middle man that captures the difference between bid and ask rather than having opinions on the stocks. I've known market makers that barely could describe what the companies they traded did. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 12, 2019 14:09:47 GMT -5
blah blah blah blah blah I don’t care about Matt and Stevil’s posts. Matt and Stevil. Matt and Stevil, Matt and Stevil.... The title of this thread is investors needed and I asked how do we get the attention of more retail investors as about 50% of shares are owned by retail. This is what we need to get the share price up so we can raise needed money for better marketing and studies at a lower cost. Get it? We really need actively managed institutional investors. Does a buy-in from "actively managed institutional investors" imply or require dilution? |
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Aug 12, 2019 14:43:32 GMT -5
As I look around the room ... I can verify that all institutionalized investors are being well managed. AND, we definitely don't need fluff PRs, extending runways, slide decks, etc ... at least till I get back from Las Vegas.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
|
Post by pat on Aug 12, 2019 15:10:47 GMT -5
Wall Street - ie the financial industry sell side, including market makers - doesn’t give a flying f... about MNKD. WS exists to make the spread.
“Actively Managed Funds”? As opposed to not so active...index...wealthy individuals...my point being it doesn’t matter. there will be plenty of investors looking to buy soon enough.
This stock is going to run for 10 years+. We get to watch the technosphere platform monetized by a very capable management team led by MC.
Well be hard pressed to find an investment that performs as well as this one will starting shortly.
And to the inevtible clowns in the cheap seats save your circular cr@p comments for someone who cares
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 12, 2019 16:10:41 GMT -5
We really need actively managed institutional investors. Does a buy-in from "actively managed institutional investors" imply or require dilution? No. Sometimes it could happen through private placements, but majority is simply mutual funds, pension funds, etc. buying on open market. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 12, 2019 16:24:43 GMT -5
... This stock is going to run for 10 years+. We get to watch the technosphere platform monetized by a very capable management team led by MC. Well be hard pressed to find an investment that performs as well as this one will starting shortly. And to the inevtible clowns in the cheap seats save your circular cr@p comments for someone who cares The question this raises is what is the definition of starting shortly; days, weeks, months, years? And what is the expected rate of take off or is this going to be the current steady rate? It's easy to say this one will start shortly is easy, but it's harder to quantify in a meaningful way. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 12, 2019 16:39:51 GMT -5
... This stock is going to run for 10 years+. We get to watch the technosphere platform monetized by a very capable management team led by MC. Well be hard pressed to find an investment that performs as well as this one will starting shortly. And to the inevtible clowns in the cheap seats save your circular cr@p comments for someone who cares The question this raises is what is the definition of starting shortly; days, weeks, months, years? And what is the expected rate of take off or is this going to be the current steady rate? It's easy to say this one will start shortly is easy, but it's harder to quantify in a meaningful way. One definition of shortly might be when it is likely to be near enough to sustained market beating appreciation that investors that can't ignore opportunity cost of dead money on a quarter by quarter basis (i.e. institutional investors) start buying in. But seems we haven't yet hit that threshold of shortly. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 12, 2019 16:51:13 GMT -5
We really need actively managed institutional investors. Does a buy-in from "actively managed institutional investors" imply or require dilution? Some actively managed funds will buy on the open market if they sense a real opportunity. All funds prefer to get in on private placements because the securities are sold at a discount and, sometimes, with warrant coverage. If you think a company is worth a $1.00, wouldn't you rather buy for 80 cents? On the flip side, if the company has enough upward momentum then the fund manager may be willing to pay full price in order to make sure the fund participates in the upswing. It comes down to whether the company is a tightly coiled spring about to explode in value, fund managers do not want to miss out on that, but buying cheap is an easier way to guarantee their bonus. Most of the time that means a private placement with some dilution. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 12, 2019 17:21:03 GMT -5
Does a buy-in from "actively managed institutional investors" imply or require dilution? Some actively managed funds will buy on the open market if they sense a real opportunity. All funds prefer to get in on private placements because the securities are sold at a discount and, sometimes, with warrant coverage. If you think a company is worth a $1.00, wouldn't you rather buy for 80 cents? On the flip side, if the company has enough upward momentum then the fund manager may be willing to pay full price in order to make sure the fund participates in the upswing. It comes down to whether the company is a tightly coiled spring about to explode in value, fund managers do not want to miss out on that, but buying cheap is an easier way to guarantee their bonus. Most of the time that means a private placement with some dilution. The volume of private placements isn't great enough to meet the demand of all institutional investors. It may be gravy that they love snapping up when available, but I imagine a vast majority of money invested by funds is done through the markets. I'm sure that's easily verifiable by looking up records for some large institutional investors and seeing whether many of the positions they build have corresponded to private placements. There may be some funds that specialize in getting in on private placements, but it's a specialty not mainstream. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Aug 12, 2019 17:40:23 GMT -5
... This stock is going to run for 10 years+. We get to watch the technosphere platform monetized by a very capable management team led by MC. Well be hard pressed to find an investment that performs as well as this one will starting shortly. And to the inevtible clowns in the cheap seats save your circular cr@p comments for someone who cares The question this raises is what is the definition of starting shortly; days, weeks, months, years? And what is the expected rate of take off or is this going to be the current steady rate? It's easy to say this one will start shortly is easy, but it's harder to quantify in a meaningful way. Place your bets. Words are easy to quantify. |
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Aug 12, 2019 22:41:35 GMT -5
How soon do. you need them? I think investors are attracted to businesses which are executing against their business plan showing QoQ and YoY positive results more than they are news clips and articles. Some not very saavy investors maybe, but do you want them in and out or buy and hold? You might want to check out the WTF thread for the few posts from Stevil and Matt to get a sense of how quickly things are going to move on the Afrezza marketing (and the stock price). So you’re saying investors like us that bought to hold are dumb asses. Oh. That's sure how it feels after 6 years of straight downhill PPS movement |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 13, 2019 8:03:14 GMT -5
So you’re saying investors like us that bought to hold are dumb asses. Oh. That's sure how it feels after 6 years of straight downhill PPS movement I’ll always say.... I should’ve sold when Mike C sold :-) |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 13, 2019 9:24:47 GMT -5
Some saavy investors "trade around a core". I am not one of them. I assume I would fail to time my buys and sells well enough. Personally I'm getting nervous the PPS is headed north and won't look back, ever, to current levels. I'm trying to be disciplined but I may add again sooner than I planned.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 13, 2019 9:42:59 GMT -5
Some saavy investors "trade around a core". I am not one of them. I assume I would fail to time my buys and sells well enough. Personally I'm getting nervous the PPS is headed north and won't look back, ever, to current levels. I'm trying to be disciplined but I may add again sooner than I planned. If you are getting in here, have a stop set so you are not holding below a dollar. I’m thinking we never see a $1 again though. But do not go down with the pps. |
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Aug 13, 2019 9:56:53 GMT -5
What happens if we go below 1$? Are you thinking RS? Sounds like something is in the works again..
Is management thinking of doing an RS so we can attract institutional investors? Gawd I hope not.. I'm not going through that..I sold the last time, and I will again..
|
|
