|
|
Post by markado on Aug 23, 2019 7:52:53 GMT -5
In the spirit of true investment and partnership, could MC connect with institutional investors to encourage them to withhold their shares from lending for shorting? At this stage, if institutional investors took 5m-10m shares of MNKD away from shorting, one would have to think the gain in SP value would well outpace any interest to be earned. I'm not versed on shorting or institutional trades, but in that it would only be a request, and the institutions are under no obligation to honor, is there any regulatory reason why this couldn't be done?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 8:28:16 GMT -5
Mike nor any CEO would do that. The only way to burn the shorts is to grow sales and the company. Sooner or later the shorts cover but don't expect a rocket ship higher. The market makers will protect them and give them every opportunity to cover when they are ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Aug 23, 2019 8:38:58 GMT -5
Mike nor any CEO would do that. The only way to burn the shorts is to grow sales and the company. Sooner or later the shorts cover but don't expect a rocket ship higher. The market makers will protect them and give them every opportunity to cover when they are ready. And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2019 9:08:08 GMT -5
Mike nor any CEO would do that. The only way to burn the shorts is to grow sales and the company. Sooner or later the shorts cover but don't expect a rocket ship higher. The market makers will protect them and give them every opportunity to cover when they are ready. And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. I don't think there is any regulatory prohibition, but you need to understand two things: 1. Much of what is reported as "institutional ownership" is really a brokerage account held by an individual at that brokerage. Legally the brokerage has bare title to the shares but the beneficial owner (the customer of the brokerage) calls the shots on what can or cannot be loaned out. 2. The balance of institutional ownership is mostly in index funds that trade in and out of stocks according to an algorithm. These funds usually have very low fees to the investor so the main way the brokerage house makes money on index funds is to loan out shares for shorting. In short, it is not likely that this would be a particularly effective strategy. The best way to stop shorting is to clearly articulate a financial plan and to then hit those numbers consistently, and secondarily to have an upside surprises once in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Aug 23, 2019 9:14:20 GMT -5
Mike nor any CEO would do that. The only way to burn the shorts is to grow sales and the company. Sooner or later the shorts cover but don't expect a rocket ship higher. The market makers will protect them and give them every opportunity to cover when they are ready. And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. That sure is thinking out of the proverbial box. Suppose he would ask and they would all do so; would that not be collusion/manipulation? |
|
|
|
Post by markado on Aug 23, 2019 9:57:15 GMT -5
And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. That sure is thinking out of the proverbial box. Suppose he would ask and they would all do so; would that not be collusion/manipulation? I really don't know. That's why I am asking. I don't see it as colluding, as much as reiterating the company's potential value to some of its largest shareholders and letting them decide what to do with that information. Further, if Mike were to make public that he was going to go down this path, wouldn't that provide sufficient notice to the market to take it in stride, accordingly. Thinking/typing, as I go... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 9:58:56 GMT -5
Mike nor any CEO would do that. The only way to burn the shorts is to grow sales and the company. Sooner or later the shorts cover but don't expect a rocket ship higher. The market makers will protect them and give them every opportunity to cover when they are ready. And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. Because CEO's "almost" never talk about their stock price or the treatment of their stock. You have a couple of rogue CEO's like Elon Musk who said TSLA was over valued or the Overstock CEO Byrne who had a major STOCK MANIPULATION (DEEP CAPTURE) going on with his company. Even Matt was approached about this idea and he said there's nothing they can do. They can complain but why waste the energy when nothing will be done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 10:03:12 GMT -5
And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. Because CEO's "almost" never talk about their stock price or the treatment of their stock. You have a couple of rogue CEO's like Elon Musk who said TSLA was over valued or the Overstock CEO Byrne who had a major STOCK MANIPULATION (DEEP CAPTURE) going on with his company. Even Matt was approached about this idea and he said there's nothing they can do. They can complain but why waste the energy when nothing will be done. You have to realize this is THE GAME of Wall Street. As long as Hedge Funds are allow to trade in the United States you will have this activity. In London HF's are not allowed to SHORT COMPANIES. My advice is if you like MNKD and believe in their future keep buying. I lowered my CB from $35 down to $2.5 and yes it took alot of buying and NO SELLING. Sooner or later (and you will never know when) this will pop. Ride it DOWN and Ride it UP. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 23, 2019 12:34:04 GMT -5
Games aside, there is also the fact that many fund managers hedge as insurance using a variety of buy/sell tactics (ie straddles). Whether they are bull or bear strategies, they minimize losses in the event that share share goes in the opposite direction. It’s not uncommon for a fund manager who trades in $millions every month.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Aug 23, 2019 19:11:48 GMT -5
Mike nor any CEO would do that. The only way to burn the shorts is to grow sales and the company. Sooner or later the shorts cover but don't expect a rocket ship higher. The market makers will protect them and give them every opportunity to cover when they are ready. And, why, would a CEO not do this? Again, is there anything that makes it illegal to do so? I look at it somewhat like a share buy back. But, I'm a novice in this area. It's just business, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the company thrives, money is made on the long side, if the company is floundering like a beached whale, money is made on the short side. But make no mistake, every penny up, and every penny down, somebody is making money. The shorts are here until cashflow positive |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Aug 23, 2019 22:43:16 GMT -5
I would think the smart shorts will jump out before cash flow positive; that they will jump out as soon as it becomes a foreseen probability without further dilution.?
|
|
|
|
Post by letitride on Aug 24, 2019 7:25:17 GMT -5
If the shorts jumped out before cash flow positive there would be little chance of a MOASS. There time is on loan I own mine Let it Ride.
Sentiment-- Not Long Enough
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 26, 2019 18:53:40 GMT -5
I would think the smart shorts will jump out before cash flow positive; that they will jump out as soon as it becomes a foreseen probability without further dilution.? Yes, I would think many would leave before it is 100% obvious that all the future debt servicing can be met without dilution. |
|
