|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 25, 2023 10:36:55 GMT -5
"Stocks that trade below $5 are considered so risky that institutional investors, including pensions and mutual funds, aren't allowed to buy penny stocks and can even be required to sell securities that fall below the $5 mark. This double-edged sword cuts both ways, however, when an issue rises above $5 and institutions are allowed to buy." Even that author fell for the myth. Here’s a more recent (and informed) link: finance.yahoo.com/news/3-myths-penny-stocks-150213321.html“Myth #3: Institutions cannot trade penny stocks Many people assume that the penny stock market is made up entirely of retail traders and that institutions are prohibited from participating in the market, but this is actually not the case. This myth may have gained credence based on historical restrictions or prohibitions on OTC stocks, but these are no longer true. Institutions follow opportunity—be that in penny stocks or larger, more liquid securities. Importantly the majority of dollar volume traded occurs in the 3400+ OTC securities which meet the penny stock exemption, including ADR's, Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Clarifying the misconceptions around what constitutes a penny stock and understanding the data is critical to helping retail investors and institutions make better-informed decisions.” That article is more recent but also relies on assertions and no direct evidence. I spent time researching the laws and SEC regulations regarding definition of and investment in penny stocks. There is lots of material. I agree that AFAIK there are no statutory or regulatory prohibitions on fund managers and investment firms purchasing penny stocks. That said, what was emphasized in the record over and over again is that penny stocks as a category have a much higher risk profile than non-penny stocks. Fiduciary responsibility regarding investment in low-grade stocks was mentioned years ago as being in the covenants of the Mann Group and a reason they would sell their MNKD holdings (which they did to a large degree). It is those kinds of covenants and self-imposed rules which are more likely at work and why the sentiment persists. It is reasonable to assume MNKD being a penny stock inhibited investment and that we now appear to be on a trajectory that removes that headwind. |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Feb 25, 2023 10:40:45 GMT -5
That’s right, some funds etc voluntarily chose to self-impose certain rules (that’s what funds do, after all), but the inaccurate part of the Benzinga/yahoo article you posted was: “Stocks that trade below $5 are considered so risky that institutional investors, including pensions and mutual funds, aren't allowed to buy”
|
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Feb 25, 2023 10:43:22 GMT -5
So yes, the farther we get from $5 the more likely it is that some number (even if not huge) of institutional investors may consider us more seriously. And as aged pointed out on another thread, when we get closer to the $8 range we can then be included in some mid-cap funds which should further the momentum.
|
|
|
|
Post by cppoly on Nov 22, 2023 19:06:38 GMT -5
From 3Q slides, Inhale 1 interim analysis and Afrezza India (Inhale 2) submission are expected to occur before the end of this year. Thoughts on significance?
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Nov 25, 2023 10:04:02 GMT -5
From 3Q slides, Inhale 1 interim analysis and Afrezza India (Inhale 2) submission are expected to occur before the end of this year. Thoughts on significance? Next catalyst (though small) is peds trial in April. |
|
|
|
Post by cppoly on Dec 27, 2023 10:46:52 GMT -5
4 days left this year for India submission according to last CC. Can we do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Dec 27, 2023 10:54:44 GMT -5
4 days left this year for India submission according to last CC. Can we do it? Doubtful. Too many people have already stopped working aggressively this year and remain in holiday mode. Maybe the new year can start off with a few good announcements. |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Dec 27, 2023 12:22:37 GMT -5
When do we get to see the India study results? I would think they would be available prior to submission and what a great Christmas present it would be if in fact they showed the 1.5 - 2.0 A1c reduction Mike mentioned several months ago.
I think the current gold standard is Mounjaro with 90% of people taking Mounjaro 10-mg plus basal insulin achieved an A1C of under 7% when with an average starting A1C of 7.9% to 8.6%. If afrezza without a GLP1 and without a basal can show 1.5 - 2.0 A1c reduction that should be the new gold standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Dec 27, 2023 16:12:05 GMT -5
... I think the current gold standard is Mounjaro with 90% of people taking Mounjaro 10-mg plus basal insulin achieved an A1C of under 7% when with an average starting A1C of 7.9% to 8.6%. If afrezza without a GLP1 and without a basal can show 1.5 - 2.0 A1c reduction that should be the new gold standard. Let's look at this properly since I think that data is from Surpass-2 (NCT03987919). In Surpass-2 10mg of Mounjaro (basal insulin isn't used) plus whatever metformin they were on gave an average reduction in A1c was 2.37 so that is the target. If Afrezza can only manage 1.5 - 2.0 it's definitely not going to be the new gold standard. The clincher for endos will be that Mounjaro is a once weekly drug vs. three times a day for Afrezza. The India trial is slightly more permissive than Surpass-2 since the participants are allowed to be on two or more OAD rather than just metformin. That makes sense since it mirrors the Mannkind Type 2 clinical trial. |
|
