|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jan 29, 2021 11:29:07 GMT -5
Forgot to add this one yesterday...
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jan 29, 2021 11:48:29 GMT -5
IMO MNKD is more deserving of a $300pps than GME especially after its history with stock manipulators. Who knows, hope springs eternal and the 2021 pipeline looks real.
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 29, 2021 12:28:25 GMT -5
Get me to $50 and I’m gone for good. Heck I would be out at $20.00 and agree to never play with fire again.
|
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Jan 29, 2021 12:38:49 GMT -5
IMO MNKD is more deserving of a $300pps than GME especially after its history with stock manipulators. Who knows, hope springs eternal and the 2021 pipeline looks real. Neither are deserving. Except GME is a known consumer brand, and was WAYYY more heavily shorted than MannKind. That is why is became the chosen stock of the WSB movement. |
|
|
|
Post by phantomfj on Jan 29, 2021 14:14:13 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/There is another reason the short selling is allowed, it never dawned on me until this post made me realize.........the spread between what the shares are loaned out at and what the brokerages pay the actual stock owner. If I remember correctly from posts of people who were lending their shares out, the interest rate spread could have been as high as 50-100%....pure gravy for the brokerage houses themselves!!!!! And, chances are that many shares are held in margin accounts, which means no interest for those shareholders.... |
|
|
|
Post by mymann on Jan 29, 2021 14:22:07 GMT -5
I remember the good old days before FDA approval and SNY, the board members talking about $100 sp, that's $500 sp today.
|
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jan 29, 2021 14:31:23 GMT -5
I remember the good old days before FDA approval and SNY, the board members talking about $100 sp, that's $500 sp today. LOL. Still multiplying by 5? I give up. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 29, 2021 15:39:09 GMT -5
I remember the good old days before FDA approval and SNY, the board members talking about $100 sp, that's $500 sp today. exactly ...Al thought we would go to $20 on approval. Those were the days. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Jan 29, 2021 17:19:21 GMT -5
Get me to $50 and I’m gone for good. Heck I would be out at $20.00 and agree to never play with fire again. Those darned blisters hurt, hopefully we don't scar! I know we don't scare..... easily.  |
|
|
|
#saveMNKD
Jan 29, 2021 17:38:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by cretin11 on Jan 29, 2021 17:38:40 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/There is another reason the short selling is allowed, it never dawned on me until this post made me realize.........the spread between what the shares are loaned out at and what the brokerages pay the actual stock owner. If I remember correctly from posts of people who were lending their shares out, the interest rate spread could have been as high as 50-100%....pure gravy for the brokerage houses themselves!!!!! And, chances are that many shares are held in margin accounts, which means no interest for those shareholders.... I don’t think the spread was ever 50% and certainly never 100%, but your point remains valid. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Jan 30, 2021 9:21:35 GMT -5
I just confirmed my shares are for sale at $41.95 in all my accounts. If the price starts to run I don't want my shares made available to short against the rise. |
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jan 30, 2021 9:29:57 GMT -5
I just confirmed my shares are for sale at $41.95 in all my accounts. If the price starts to run I don't want my shares made available to short against the rise. Sounds good. What catalysts do you foresee that will drive our little company to a $10 billion market cap? The highest I think it’s ever been is around $4 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by poodlebytes on Jan 30, 2021 14:11:34 GMT -5
IDK what is meant by 'spread' but I was just looking at my Drive folder and I calc 60% FTDs for Jan 15
Have a lot similar crap if anyone is interested...
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Jan 30, 2021 14:22:39 GMT -5
I just confirmed my shares are for sale at $41.95 in all my accounts. If the price starts to run I don't want my shares made available to short against the rise. Sounds good. What catalysts do you foresee that will drive our little company to a $10 billion market cap? The highest I think it’s ever been is around $4 billion. I don't know what catalysts may drive the market cap to that level. I don't want my shares used to mute the rise to a 2 billion market cap so I place them for sale "out of the money" so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 30, 2021 14:41:42 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. I kinda like the fact that they were allowed to short over 100%... of course that's mainly because I've owned some GME for a couple of weeks. I highly doubt there will be any significant changes to the way the market works. Certainly shorts can be detrimental to companies that are already ailing, but I don't see regulators stepping in to change the dynamics. However, this market check will definitely change the math for shorts in the future. |
|
