|
|
#saveMNKD
Jan 27, 2021 19:55:04 GMT -5
via mobile
kite likes this
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 27, 2021 19:55:04 GMT -5
On Twitter now.....
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jan 27, 2021 21:00:44 GMT -5
Can we help save Mannkind (MNKD) and mankind, next? |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 27, 2021 21:47:13 GMT -5
Myself and another shareholder talked about it this morning on Twitter with Pete in a conversation talking about AMC.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jan 28, 2021 11:03:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jan 28, 2021 11:08:34 GMT -5
Make options market actually locate shares. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Jan 28, 2021 11:17:29 GMT -5
Get the concern of getting diluted on the way up.
But for those of us longs that 'did the right thing' and held through it all, some of us are still trapped - unable to average down, and with COVID impacts to jobs, etc, not in a position to do loss selling to counter the damage.
I'd take a run up for the opportunity to average down and at least clear out that $40/share inventory .... c'mon reddit people. This is a justice thing for sure. Including for Mann.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jan 28, 2021 14:00:35 GMT -5
My follow up tweet...  |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jan 28, 2021 15:54:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
#saveMNKD
Jan 28, 2021 16:27:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by markado on Jan 28, 2021 16:27:26 GMT -5
Question for all - and understand that I firmly believe that the need for shorting for "liquidity" reasons is crap, a la Jaime Dimon - is there a low end cap in Market Cap that you believe would be far to employ for shorting...that is, for example, one could short a company with a MC of $1.5B or greater? Or, just do away with it altogether? Personally, I fall in the later, but since I bought A LOT of shares of MNKD at $1, I might not have had that opportunity if shorting hadn't existed. Would shorting disclosure at 3-5% of a company's shares help? |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jan 28, 2021 16:31:13 GMT -5
Question for all - and understand that I firmly believe that the need for shorting for "liquidity" reasons is crap, a la Jaime Dimon - is there a low end cap in Market Cap that you believe would be far to employ for shorting...that is, for example, one could short a company with a MC of $1.5B or greater? Or, just do away with it altogether? Personally, I fall in the later, but since I bought A LOT of shares of MNKD at $1, I might not have had that opportunity if shorting hadn't existed. Would shorting disclosure at 3-5% of a company's shares help? I am starting to think shorting is for the catch and kill. Kill the competition. What businesses would not want electric 0 carbon vehicles? |
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jan 28, 2021 21:43:17 GMT -5
Question for all - and understand that I firmly believe that the need for shorting for "liquidity" reasons is crap, a la Jaime Dimon - is there a low end cap in Market Cap that you believe would be far to employ for shorting...that is, for example, one could short a company with a MC of $1.5B or greater? Or, just do away with it altogether? Personally, I fall in the later, but since I bought A LOT of shares of MNKD at $1, I might not have had that opportunity if shorting hadn't existed. Would shorting disclosure at 3-5% of a company's shares help? I am starting to think shorting is for the catch and kill. Kill the competition. What businesses would not want electric 0 carbon vehicles? I tend to agree. But I think institutional shorting has two purposes: 1) A product to be sold to large less innovative companies to decapitalize and kill the competition; and, 2) to be used to suppress the value of entire sectors to create guaranteed degrees of return later to satisfy large clients' portfolios. It's easy to know how much something can grow, if you were instrumental in pushing it down in the first place... |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Jan 28, 2021 23:49:11 GMT -5
I am starting to think shorting is for the catch and kill. Kill the competition. What businesses would not want electric 0 carbon vehicles? I tend to agree. But I think institutional shorting has two purposes: 1) A product to be sold to large less innovative companies to decapitalize and kill the competition; and, 2) to be used to suppress the value of entire sectors to create guaranteed degrees of return later to satisfy large clients' portfolios. It's easy to know how much something can grow, if you were instrumental in pushing it down in the first place... I agree. Much has been said about naked shorting by many entrepreneurs trying to start new companies. One notable example is Patrick Byrne, who filed several suits against hedge funds who used naked shorting to suppress the share price of his Overstock.com company. Much of the story behind his personal and partially successful campaign to hold hedge funds accountable can be found in a report on the website deep capture Those revelations occured ~15 years ago, and yet still, the rules need to be reworked. In what other enterprise is it possible for someone to trade and profit using something they don't even own? But naked shorting may just be the tip of the iceberg. In my opinion, there has been an avalanche of sketchy activity this week in the market. It was nauseating to watch the talking heads of the hedge fund cabal whine about retail investors ganging up on them and depriving them of their "due", which portrays an entitlement mentality by privileged fund managers who are used to getting their own way. That said, how can anyone justify today's abrupt "seat of the pants" restrictions on transactions for certain stocks? In my mind, this raises all kinds of questions about "free markets". The industry seems to be circling the wagons to protect itself, with the implicit message that retail investors be damned. At the very least, a comprehensive inquiry is needed into market practices by a commission that is comprised of objective representatives from outside of the industry. I doubt anything will happen. But if there were to be rules changes, why not place restrictions on the actual percentage of shares outstanding that can be shorted? There should NEVER be situation where the percentage of shares shorted is greater than the total number of shares in the float. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Jan 29, 2021 0:30:44 GMT -5
I tend to agree. But I think institutional shorting has two purposes: 1) A product to be sold to large less innovative companies to decapitalize and kill the competition; and, 2) to be used to suppress the value of entire sectors to create guaranteed degrees of return later to satisfy large clients' portfolios. It's easy to know how much something can grow, if you were instrumental in pushing it down in the first place... I agree. Much has been said about naked shorting by many entrepreneurs trying to start new companies. One notable example is Patrick Byrne, who filed several suits against hedge funds who used naked shorting to suppress the share price of his Overstock.com company. Much of the story behind his personal and partially successful campaign to hold hedge funds accountable can be found in a report on the website deep capture Those revelations occured ~15 years ago, and yet still, the rules need to be reworked. In what other enterprise is it possible for someone to trade and profit using something they don't even own? But naked shorting may just be the tip of the iceberg. In my opinion, there has been an avalanche of sketchy activity this week in the market. It was nauseating to watch the talking heads of the hedge fund cabal whine about retail investors ganging up on them and depriving them of their "due", which portrays an entitlement mentality by privileged fund managers who are used to getting their own way. That said, how can anyone justify today's abrupt "seat of the pants" restrictions on transactions for certain stocks? In my mind, this raises all kinds of questions about "free markets". The industry seems to be circling the wagons to protect itself, with the implicit message that retail investors be damned. At the very least, a comprehensive inquiry is needed into market practices by a commission that is comprised of objective representatives from outside of the industry. I doubt anything will happen. But if there were to be rules changes, why not place restrictions on the actual percentage of shares outstanding that can be shorted? There should NEVER be situation where the percentage of shares shorted is greater than the total number of shares in the float. Another interesting case study of Prem Watsa from Fairfax Financial who also fought an interesting battle against illegal shorting. (known illegal because he won). www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1117/114.html |
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 29, 2021 11:00:56 GMT -5
interesting reading about how the Game stop deal happened. This is not too crazy for Mannkind. The real question is how many shares of MannKind are currently in any type of broker lending program. What happens if the shares are no longer available for lending? Many of us from time to time had lent the shares out where there was 25% or more interest in the shares. I know over they years I got paid to buy new shares with big interest payments. Read this article on Game stop. thefederalist.com/2021/01/28/how-the-trading-platform-robinhood-started-stealing-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the-rich/ |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jan 29, 2021 11:08:41 GMT -5
|
|
