|
Post by slugworth008 on Jan 16, 2020 11:58:51 GMT -5
I didn’t see a link to the post. I suspect that may have been edited. The naive assumptions do look like something I might have posted 5 years ago on Yahoo! Message Boards. Some of the wording doesn’t look like me. I can’t remember saying toolbags but maybe I did. I used to be a lot more vehement about the shorting. Now I just look at it like part of life. You know, like terrorists and theives. Now, truth be told, I get that shorting is a legal and legimitate way to make money using a “hedge” strategy, but honestly I think anymore it is used to destroy value for the benefit of the short. I would be heartily in favor of a market that did not permit shorting. I am curious if many companies would be willing to list there. SOX caused many companies to go private and to de-list. Did the rise of “hedge” funds contribute to that too? Don’t know. But as to whether I wrote that post or not. Maybe I did. Not everything I write is good. Same for bababooey. :-) Agreed on your thoughts on shorting. Perhaps setting a cap / percentage of a companies shares that can be shorted would be a solution? It is definitely used as a weapon by large companies protecting their turf against start ups - IMO
|
|
|
Post by bababooey on Jan 17, 2020 0:05:17 GMT -5
I didn’t see a link to the post. I suspect that may have been edited. The naive assumptions do look like something I might have posted 5 years ago on Yahoo! Message Boards. Some of the wording doesn’t look like me. I can’t remember saying toolbags but maybe I did. I used to be a lot more vehement about the shorting. Now I just look at it like part of life. You know, like terrorists and theives. Now, truth be told, I get that shorting is a legal and legimitate way to make money using a “hedge” strategy, but honestly I think anymore it is used to destroy value for the benefit of the short. I would be heartily in favor of a market that did not permit shorting. I am curious if many companies would be willing to list there. SOX caused many companies to go private and to de-list. Did the rise of “hedge” funds contribute to that too? Don’t know. But as to whether I wrote that post or not. Maybe I did. Not everything I write is good. Same for bababooey. :-) How does shorting destroy a company? It's just savvy investors who are taking advantage of a falling stock. Good companies don't fail due to short selling. A company's stock price is dictated by it's success. It's quite naive to think that all stocks should go up, no matter what. The cold hard truth is that Mannkind is/was a company with a MASSIVE amount of debt and a single product that just doesn't sell. Its kinda silly to expect a stock price to be high when the company is doing so poorly. This is where confirmation bias has lead you and many others to make very poor decisions. It's clear any negative opinion is not welcome here...
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 17, 2020 1:03:58 GMT -5
I didn’t see a link to the post. I suspect that may have been edited. The naive assumptions do look like something I might have posted 5 years ago on Yahoo! Message Boards. Some of the wording doesn’t look like me. I can’t remember saying toolbags but maybe I did. I used to be a lot more vehement about the shorting. Now I just look at it like part of life. You know, like terrorists and theives. Now, truth be told, I get that shorting is a legal and legimitate way to make money using a “hedge” strategy, but honestly I think anymore it is used to destroy value for the benefit of the short. I would be heartily in favor of a market that did not permit shorting. I am curious if many companies would be willing to list there. SOX caused many companies to go private and to de-list. Did the rise of “hedge” funds contribute to that too? Don’t know. But as to whether I wrote that post or not. Maybe I did. Not everything I write is good. Same for bababooey. :-) How does shorting destroy a company? It's just savvy investors who are taking advantage of a falling stock. Good companies don't fail due to short selling. A company's stock price is dictated by it's success. It's quite naive to think that all stocks should go up, no matter what. The cold hard truth is that Mannkind is/was a company with a MASSIVE amount of debt and a single product that just doesn't sell. Its kinda silly to expect a stock price to be high when the company is doing so poorly. This is where confirmation bias has lead you and many others to make very poor decisions. It's clear any negative opinion is not welcome here... I read that Tesla is the most shorted stock there is, yet that hasn't held it back. Prior to that, it was Apple. markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-stock-most-shorted-us-beats-apple-highest-short-interest-2020-1-1028823046
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Jan 17, 2020 1:12:00 GMT -5
Oh you are welcome bababooey ... by all means stay. Keep believing that MNKD only has a single product that doesn't sell. Nevermind current partnerships and the development of other molecules and sales in international locations and ... Oh Nevermind ... you are right. Stay and bury us when we are dead and gone.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
Post by casualinvestor on Jan 17, 2020 9:59:09 GMT -5
How does shorting destroy a company? It's just savvy investors who are taking advantage of a falling stock. Good companies don't fail due to short selling. A company's stock price is dictated by it's success. It's quite naive to think that all stocks should go up, no matter what. The cold hard truth is that Mannkind is/was a company with a MASSIVE amount of debt and a single product that just doesn't sell. Its kinda silly to expect a stock price to be high when the company is doing so poorly. You would think I'd learn to ignore the trolls, but it's a slow Friday morning... So, are you: Ignorant, stupid or actually lying? If it's the first, I apologize. Short attacks designed to blow through stops are just "savvy investors"? Price manipulation designed and timed to amplify the effect of negative press doesn't happen? TSLA is a great example of that one. Late night talk show hosts were even making jokes about the frequency of Tesla attack adds articles And getting to the heart of actually hurting the company: FDA approval for AFREZZA wasn't harder to come by due to the actions of certain short sellers? You bet your ass it was. Lets face it, if shorting were not possible, a company would stumble and some investors would go away, causing a price drop. No one is against that. With shorting in the mix, that price drop is amplified greatly, causing over-correction and huge volatility. Which is great for the financial industry, but pretty bad for the casual investor /sigh
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jan 17, 2020 10:04:19 GMT -5
I didn’t see a link to the post. I suspect that may have been edited. The naive assumptions do look like something I might have posted 5 years ago on Yahoo! Message Boards. Some of the wording doesn’t look like me. I can’t remember saying toolbags but maybe I did. I used to be a lot more vehement about the shorting. Now I just look at it like part of life. You know, like terrorists and theives. Now, truth be told, I get that shorting is a legal and legimitate way to make money using a “hedge” strategy, but honestly I think anymore it is used to destroy value for the benefit of the short. I would be heartily in favor of a market that did not permit shorting. I am curious if many companies would be willing to list there. SOX caused many companies to go private and to de-list. Did the rise of “hedge” funds contribute to that too? Don’t know. But as to whether I wrote that post or not. Maybe I did. Not everything I write is good. Same for bababooey. :-) Agreed on your thoughts on shorting. Perhaps setting a cap / percentage of a companies shares that can be shorted would be a solution? It is definitely used as a weapon by large companies protecting their turf against start ups - IMO I have worked for a lot of big companies over the years and I have never seen shorting used, although I have seen other things. While I guess shorting does happen it's a lot less common than people seem to think. If you want to destroy a startup there are far simpler ways of doing that; selective discounting would be the poster child, leaning on banks and suppliers is another. The problem with shorting as a competitive strategy is that if the startup has a compelling product or service then shorting is ineffective because the market simply soaks up the stock. There is not an unlimited pool of shares for the shorts to draw from.
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Jan 17, 2020 10:13:49 GMT -5
How does shorting destroy a company? It's just savvy investors who are taking advantage of a falling stock. Good companies don't fail due to short selling. A company's stock price is dictated by it's success. It's quite naive to think that all stocks should go up, no matter what. The cold hard truth is that Mannkind is/was a company with a MASSIVE amount of debt and a single product that just doesn't sell. Its kinda silly to expect a stock price to be high when the company is doing so poorly. You would think I'd learn to ignore the trolls, but it's a slow Friday morning... So, are you: Ignorant, stupid or actually lying? If it's the first, I apologize. Short attacks designed to blow through stops are just "savvy investors"? Price manipulation designed and timed to amplify the effect of negative press doesn't happen? TSLA is a great example of that one. Late night talk show hosts were even making jokes about the frequency of Tesla attack adds articles And getting to the heart of actually hurting the company: FDA approval for AFREZZA wasn't harder to come by due to the actions of certain short sellers? You bet your ass it was. Lets face it, if shorting were not possible, a company would stumble and some investors would go away, causing a price drop. No one is against that. With shorting in the mix, that price drop is amplified greatly, causing over-correction and huge volatility. Which is great for the financial industry, but pretty bad for the casual investor /sigh And look where Tesla is now. Short attacks can definitely fuel short term irrationality and volatility, but over time if you deliver results, shorts will be punished. MannKind has yet to deliver those results, so shorts can comfortably just hang around in perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jan 17, 2020 10:21:03 GMT -5
Lets face it, if shorting were not possible, a company would stumble and some investors would go away, causing a price drop. No one is against that. With shorting in the mix, that price drop is amplified greatly, causing over-correction and huge volatility. Which is great for the financial industry, but pretty bad for the casual investor Shorting is a bet that the management are sufficiently inept that they will repeatedly stumble and so that the stock is over-priced. If the price drop is overdone then the market will step in and buy because it's free money. To step in though the market needs to believe that the stock is oversold, and it can be hard-nosed about wanting evidence. It can be very profitable to trade special situations because you are buying when the market is selling, but it can be expensive if the market was actually right. I thought ending of the Sanofi partnership was one of those opportunities and doubled down on LEAPs because I couldn't see how someone else wouldn't want to step into Sanofi's shoes with a developed FDA approved drugs. That turned out to be a mistake and I lost over half my money by the time I sold out just before the reverse split. On the other-hand buying DAL during the Ebola crisis when the airline stocks all plunged was a nice winner.
|
|
|
Post by bababooey on Jan 17, 2020 11:17:54 GMT -5
You would think I'd learn to ignore the trolls, but it's a slow Friday morning... So, are you: Ignorant, stupid or actually lying? If it's the first, I apologize. Short attacks designed to blow through stops are just "savvy investors"? Price manipulation designed and timed to amplify the effect of negative press doesn't happen? TSLA is a great example of that one. Late night talk show hosts were even making jokes about the frequency of Tesla attack adds articles And getting to the heart of actually hurting the company: FDA approval for AFREZZA wasn't harder to come by due to the actions of certain short sellers? You bet your ass it was. Lets face it, if shorting were not possible, a company would stumble and some investors would go away, causing a price drop. No one is against that. With shorting in the mix, that price drop is amplified greatly, causing over-correction and huge volatility. Which is great for the financial industry, but pretty bad for the casual investor /sigh And look where Tesla is now. Short attacks can definitely fuel short term irrationality and volatility, but over time if you deliver results, shorts will be punished. MannKind has yet to deliver those results, so shorts can comfortably just hang around in perpetuity. Thank you. A good company will always prevail in the end. blaming shorts for the last 15 years for mnkd’s downfall is just outright absurd. I understand it’s much easier to say it’s the shorts fault your investment failed than it is to admit you might have been wrong. This is further fueled by messages boards were constant confirmation biases leads one to believe their thinking is correct. I am long mnkd but like playing devils advocate. Already the hardcore longs here are calling me a short lol. No matter for much I believe in a stock I will try to find kinks in its armor. Blaming MannKind’s failure on shorts is downright ridiculous at this point
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Jan 17, 2020 11:59:27 GMT -5
Speaking of which, Elon sunk a ton of his own money and resources into Tesla as a huge show of confidence to fight the attacks. He pretty much spent 24/7 at the Tesla factory in Fremont during peak Model 3 rollout.
Paging Mike and Kendall...
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Jan 17, 2020 11:59:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wgreystone on Jan 17, 2020 12:13:56 GMT -5
Short selling certainly had impact on the company's performance. However, Mike C has burned close to $200m dollars yet look at Afrezza sales number. Afrezza is a a great product and investors have been very kind to the company (handing them $2B so far). It's time for the company to deliver.
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jan 17, 2020 12:19:02 GMT -5
Imho the one thing short selling does do, is make funding harder to acquire and thus increases the downward impact of dilution (more shares needed to acquire funds) on share price which results in keeping a lid on price and giving shorts an exit if they need...
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Jan 17, 2020 12:45:35 GMT -5
I'm in the camp that still blames the current financial struggles on prior management, including Al. If we do a large cash raise right after approval, we would have 2 or 3 products in phase 2 already. JMHO
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 17, 2020 12:56:52 GMT -5
Management did far more harm than the shorts when they added 140M shares (doubling of the then authorized) at a time when they had little credibility. That was a signal taken by many that the company itself was going to be a much bigger supplier of shares, and thus downward pressure, than the shorts.
Shorted shares can upset the dynamic of supply and demand on a temporary basis... i.e. time period when the open short interest is going up or down. If the open short interest is relatively stable, then the shorts really aren't pushing the price one way or the other. And at end of the day, short shares do not dilute the earnings potential of shares. There could be half the shares in the market be short and holders of each share regardless of whether their transaction happened to be with a short or not, will get the same dividend once those can be issued. So the thing that makes stocks particularly vulnerable to shorts is when there is no clarity on profitability.
We've got ~40M shares from shorts floating around. How many additional net shares do you think they will supply over the next two years... how many shares do you think Mannkind itself will put into the market? If I'd asked you the same question 2 years ago, would you have been correct?
|
|