|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 14, 2014 1:34:28 GMT -5
JPG,
I share with you the same major reason for investing in a Mannkind. I hope my theory proves out to be wrong. And again my theory is just a theory, it's not a belief. If it was my belief, I would have sold my shares.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Sept 24, 2014 7:39:11 GMT -5
Rather than start a new thread on the SI reporting, figured I would just throw this one back up there. Also, I will now refer to SI as our SG (Support Group) as they are now IMO deemed to be inherent support underlying the SP going forward. I would venture to say that when the numbers from our SG comes out this afternoon after the close that it wouldn't surprise me to see it remain in the 75m range as of 9/15. Btw, our pal Jim had this to say "Cramer doesn't like the action in MannKind, and it didn't jump on positive news. He would stay away"....gotta love Jim, he sure is on top of things lol...enjoy your day ahead!
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Sept 24, 2014 8:03:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't surprise me to see it drop another 4-6 million, either. There are as many nervous shorts as there are longs. Many things can happen before 1Q15 launch and sales reports.
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Sept 24, 2014 11:27:02 GMT -5
Moved to another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Sept 24, 2014 12:32:27 GMT -5
Which one?
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Sept 24, 2014 12:54:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alethea on Sept 24, 2014 13:23:37 GMT -5
I wouldn't surprise me to see it drop another 4-6 million, either. There are as many nervous shorts as there are longs. Many things can happen before 1Q15 launch and sales reports. I predict that short interest will rise by 2 or 3 million shares. Resulting in about 76 or 77 million shares short as of Sept 15 settlement. This is to be announced today after 4 pm EDT I believe. The trading volume during this two week period was anemic at about 5.5 M shares daily or less. I don't think there was much covering. If hedge funds and manipulators were removed, I think true volume would be well less than 1 M shares daily. Only about 52 M sh or so in total were traded during the entire 10 days from Aug 27 thru Sept 10. Compare that to the 106 M sh traded in just two days on Aug 11 and Aug 12 when the partnership with Sanofi was announced. This is an incredibly manipulated stock. The gutting of the SEC rules installed in 1933, and the repeal of Glass Steagall and Gramm Rudman have left manipulating shorts with Agent 007's proverbial license to kill. It is very easy for Wall Street to drive down the price of low market cap stocks. And the last two years of MNKD's road to Affrezza have been a textbook example. Poor retailers with long options have had their guts carved out. |
|
|
|
Post by liane on Sept 24, 2014 15:09:42 GMT -5
Virtually unchanged:
9/15/2014 74,292,867
8/29/2014 74,067,605
|
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Sept 24, 2014 15:25:15 GMT -5
Virtually unchanged: 9/15/2014 74,292,867 8/29/2014 74,067,605 What really stands out is the almost 3 trading weeks to cover based on recent average volume: Settlement Date Short Interest Avg Daily Share Volume Days To Cover 9/15/2014 74,292,867 5,182,576 14.335123
8/29/2014 74,067,605 6,004,525 12.335298 Read more: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/short-interest#ixzz3EGdBKhgg |
|
|
|
Post by liane on Sept 24, 2014 15:36:35 GMT -5
I've never put much credence in the "days to cover"; volume can ramp up in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Sept 24, 2014 19:52:22 GMT -5
I've never put much credence in the "days to cover"; volume can ramp up in a heartbeat. Corrections welcome but most of the shares traded by algos are 'back and forth' so really aren't useful to cover with. Even if volume goes up to 20 million shares there might only be 2 million real shares at play and that can be 'truly returned'? Am I correct or am I missing something? JPG |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Sept 24, 2014 23:17:43 GMT -5
I've never put much credence in the "days to cover"; volume can ramp up in a heartbeat. Corrections welcome but most of the shares traded by algos are 'back and forth' so really aren't useful to cover with. Even if volume goes up to 20 million shares there might only be 2 million real shares at play and that can be 'truly returned'? Am I correct or am I missing something? JPG Generally I would say that comparing apples to apples - in a SS situation, no doubt volume increases regardless of DTC? 3 days to cover would certainly be easier for shorts than 3 weeks ...? |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Sept 25, 2014 3:38:10 GMT -5
Corrections welcome but most of the shares traded by algos are 'back and forth' so really aren't useful to cover with. Even if volume goes up to 20 million shares there might only be 2 million real shares at play and that can be 'truly returned'? Am I correct or am I missing something? JPG Generally I would say that comparing apples to apples - in a SS situation, no doubt volume increases regardless of DTC? 3 days to cover would certainly be easier for shorts than 3 weeks ...? Thank you but I would need a more 'spelled out' version! What is SS and DTC? What are you referring to by apples to apples? This trading stuff is not my thing but I would like to understand it better... JPG |
|
|
|
Post by cybergym66 on Sept 25, 2014 5:50:21 GMT -5
Generally I would say that comparing apples to apples - in a SS situation, no doubt volume increases regardless of DTC? 3 days to cover would certainly be easier for shorts than 3 weeks ...? Thank you but I would need a more 'spelled out' version! What is SS and DTC? What are you referring to by apples to apples? This trading stuff is not my thing but I would like to understand it better... JPG SS = Short Squeeze DTC = Days to Cover DTC is just a rather useless number. As an example, the trading volume per day is rather low (2-4M?). With 72M shares short, it would take 36 - 18 days for the shorts to "cover" at that volume. But if a SS occurs the volume could easily go to 75-100M/day which means it would only take the short a day to cover. So DTC is really not a useful metric for me to use for making investment decisions. I'd like to hear from other what possible SS scenarios they can come up with...right now I'd only see a SS occurring with something coming out totally unexpected --- SNY announcing they're buying MNKD shares (5%+), Sales projections WAY higher than expected ($1B in sales in the 1st 6 months) , EU Afrezza approval with projected sales start date. |
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Sept 25, 2014 7:43:37 GMT -5
I really do not want to get into a debate on the DTC issue and various opinions but here is my take on it fwiw, it is too simplistic to think that just because volume can spike that it would absorb or shorten the days to cover period. The very nature of the avg. volume used is there for a reason. Think about it this way, in a perfect world, yes if volume were measured as every sale is a long liquidation then you would be correct in thinking a spike in volume would shorten the amount of days the shorts would have to cover. However, that is not the case and an example of just the opposite occurred on the most recent three binary events that caused the spikes in volume:
4/2 Post Adcom vol. = 84.62mill shares traded
6/27 - 6/30 Post FDA approval vol. = 71mill shares combined friday/monday
8/11 - 8/12 Post Partnership Announcement = 97.5mill shares combined
So in theory, if the SI had the ability to cover in a day or two we would have a significant drop in SI. This was not the case. In fact, quite the opposite happened, SI increased over the 4 mo. period into the last event of the partnership announcement and as we know through yesterday's reporting has maintained at record levels. So if you think about it not only did it absorb any long liquidations that took place but due to the very nature of events that took place two things happened, new long positions were established or added to and the shorts had to add to their positions in order for the share price to act as it has. Logically, if the events were negative than the shorts would have covered at much lower prices than here and yes the long's would have liquidated into their hands and SI would have decreased. So it is much more than just simply thinking periodic spikes in volume allows the opportunity to reduce the DTC at ratio's of 1:1, yes it does remain a net zero game (assuming you eliminate naked shorting but even those have to eventually be covered at some point). Volume incorporates not just 1:1 share short covered to long liquidation but rather additional shares being shorted to additional long positions being added and I'm not even including the day trading that takes place within that period. That is why they take an average over a period of days as a smoothing mechanism of what the theoretical time or "days to cover" it would take for an actual covering to take place.
If I were looking to take a short position in a stock, believe me I would take notice of the days to cover before establishing a position. In a case where the DTC period stood out as 14+ days, I would strongly consider switching my thoughts to going long as opposed to short and do some due diligence for reinforcing why the situation is where it is.
|
|
