|
|
Post by phdedieu12 on Feb 9, 2023 14:23:52 GMT -5
Great point, and as far as MNKD is concerned, we'd have to have implicit knowledge that naked shorting is indeed happening and that there is something that can be done about it. The question then becomes, does anyone know for a fact that it is happening? And then how do we prove it? And then what can be done about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Feb 9, 2023 14:38:25 GMT -5
Multiple interesting things here about the "Top 4 things" Tweet from Roger James Hamilton. (Does he go by Roger or Roger James? He's basically got 3 last names.) Anyway, I don't know who RJH is, but it is interesting he's able to talk to CEOs. I have too on a very few occasions and its been my experience its definitely easier to talk to a CEO of a small company than of a Fortune 50. I think the question (that he didn't say he asked) about a CEO doing "something" about naked shorting is an odd question to ask. Asking the question seems to imply there are things the CEO should do, and that the person proposing the interrogative has some concept of what those actions are. We know that prior to Mike Castagna's tenure at Mannkind, there were instances when MNKD appeared on the FCC's Regulation SHO warnings about excessive Failure To Deliver (FTD) naked shorting. As far as we know, Mike's predecessor, Matt Pfeffer, didn't do anything overt about the naked shorting (although I think Matt P might have once mumbled something about asking the SEC to investigate). If I had been in Matt's shoes and been asked by RJH what I would do about naked shorting of MNKD, I think I might have given one of the 3 answers that weren't "Naked what?". Except for perhaps Martin Shkreli, who would want to irritate the SEC? And if you're already getting your stock hammered by Wall Street thugs, who would want to dare them to do worse? There will be some like the (former?) weirdo CEO at Overstock.com who would take on Wall Street, but definitely the exception so should we blame them, or sympathize? I suspect the action I would try to take would be to put my company in a position such that naked shorting posed a reduced or eliminated threat. A sufficient stock buyback program would do that. I might even try to take the company private. But what I am interested to know is, what does RJH think CEOs should be doing about naked shorting? Go watch some of his recent Youtube videos and I think a lot of your questions will be answered. He admits that CEOs aren't taught about a lot of these things and get get burned by doing capital raise deals with entities that are only interested in making as much money as they can off the situation of the company. Yes there are some companies out there that can be scams but for the many that are trying to grow which requires them coming to the markets to raise capital, they walk into a bad situation not knowing that the people they are borrowing from just want to make the most money as they do not care about what the company does or whether they will survive. Do you remember Deerfield?  As for Patrick Byrne CEO of Overstock, he was the first person to take a stand against what we are seeing happening to many other companies (including MNKD in the past) but they did a great job with the smear campaign making him out to be crazy ( and you fell for it as well ). He's not so crazy now as more and more CEOs are saying the same thing he did back then. I believe Al took the steps which he thought would fix the Naked Shorting problem back in 2015 by dual listing on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange but didn't work out like he thought it would. mnkd.proboards.com/thread/3819/mnkd-announces-listing-stock-exchangemnkd.proboards.com/thread/5439/mgt-re-stock-manipulationmnkd.proboards.com/thread/3701/shorting-ftd-impact-stock |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 9, 2023 16:02:53 GMT -5
Good comments Harryx1. Thank you.
I made up my own mind about Patrick Byrne being wacky watching him on an interview where he claimed some stuff that was outlandish and then never heard anything more about what he claimed. I'm not trying to take away from what he did for Overstock, but just sharing that he's an odd duck from my point of view. Regardless, he did "fight the good fight".
Yes I remember Deerfield. And we groaned about the "toxic debt". And I was relieved when it appeared the MidCap loan would be better. Now I'm not as sure. Ability to convert debt into shares appears to be a common hedge which I suspect puts downward pressure on the share price while not converted to shares, and dilutive if/when the debt is converted to shares. A bond or conventional loan would be better, but goodness knows what kind of bond rating and interest MNKD would have gotten. The bond rating might be better now, but certainly the interest is worse thanks to the Fed.
I remember the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange listing and followed that for awhile. I was hopeful it might be related to a possible deal with Teva, but as you say, nothing much came of that move. It does make sense it might have been a defensive move related to naked shorting. That's an interesting insight.
I don't know how to influence the SEC to change their rules permitting destructive trading practices. I almost think it will take Congress or a US President to do something about the complexion of the SEC looking like an extension of the financial industry rife with former investment banking executives.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Feb 9, 2023 16:10:27 GMT -5
I do think that a blockchain based exchange would be a big step towards cutting down manipulation. I also think T-0 settlement would as well. But they will fight it as long as they can and I'm sure that they will eventually put rules/regulations in to circumvent those too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Feb 9, 2023 19:20:27 GMT -5
He knows what naked shorting is. I think the only people he doesn’t wanna make mad is the FDA. Hopefully, right now I hope he is focused on making sure form "inhaled insulin" is in the 2024 CMS bid package. Its good to hear is doesn't care about making the CMS mad if they are not playing nice. |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Feb 10, 2023 11:58:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 10, 2023 17:18:03 GMT -5
I watched the whole thing Harryx1. Just sickening.
One thing that occurred to me though was while they kept focusing on CEOs as the customers for the information these two companies could provide, class-action lawsuits by investors could be another source. We know MNKD was shorted enough to be on SHO, and that we have unusually high short interest to this day. And I do not assume for one moment that low interest shorting costs, or FINRA-reported shorting and naked shorting is the whole story. I don't know if there would be enough collective interest from MNKD shareholders to join a class-action lawsuit, but whether we are, or some other investors in other companies are, it would seem like a big opportunity area for plaintiff-seeking attorneys. One thing to think about with respect to MNKD shareholders wanting to shine light on the "real" trading action is some of the largest shareholders are almost certainly part of the 300 market makers indulging in skullduggery.
Thank you for sharing Harryx1. I hope you get some visibility to this from Bill and Mike.
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 13, 2023 12:32:44 GMT -5
If you're going to naked short a company, you want it to be a scam or at least have one foot in the grave already. That way, when it is delisted, there's no obligation to cover. Companies screaming bloody murder about being naked shorted are, basically, saying, "Look, we're in bad shape, just the kind of company naked shorts love. And look! There they are!" I think it's a bit of a lose-lose situation. I'm embarrassed to say I had money in a Pink Sheet stock that speculators (couldn't call us investors) were convinced was going down due to naked shorting. As it turns out, there was naked shorting, but the company was also a total sleazy scam, got delisted, and nobody gave a hoot about the naked shorting after that. Sadly, been there, got the T-shirt. It's how I first learned the term, "naked shorting". If you haven't watched the Roger Hamilton interview of the two forensic investigators of trading fraud, it is definitely worth spending the 47 minutes. Gut wrenching.
What used to be disgusting has gone completely off the rails and is massively destructive. It feels like collusion led to theft (no surprise there of course) and the automation of the stock market led to the ability to steal on a level never before possible, but the white collar criminals didn't let that opportunity go untapped for very long.
I agree with Harryx1 that decentralized ledger technology (aka "blockchain") may well hold promise for creating a trading infrastructure that doesn't permit dark pool trading abuse, and therefore, you can be sure the market makers will be against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 13, 2023 15:27:23 GMT -5
Great point, and as far as MNKD is concerned, we'd have to have implicit knowledge that naked shorting is indeed happening and that there is something that can be done about it. The question then becomes, does anyone know for a fact that it is happening? And then how do we prove it? And then what can be done about it? Market makers are allowed to short without first securing shares, so it happens for all stocks. What could be done about it?... you can lobby your politicians to change laws, but that's a steep climb as those that participate in the markets would likely view that as a negative for liquidity. If you're worried that somehow your broker doesn't actually have shares that you could vote and would pay you dividends if they are ever declared... call them and ask what level of open fail to deliver exist for MNKD holdings in their custody. They certainly could provide that info, though you might need to be insistent. That would be a sanity check as to whether the data on open fail to deliver is accurate, or totally off the mark as some like to claim here. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 13, 2023 16:48:38 GMT -5
Great point, and as far as MNKD is concerned, we'd have to have implicit knowledge that naked shorting is indeed happening and that there is something that can be done about it. The question then becomes, does anyone know for a fact that it is happening? And then how do we prove it? And then what can be done about it? Market makers are allowed to short without first securing shares, so it happens for all stocks. What could be done about it?... you can lobby your politicians to change laws, but that's a steep climb as those that participate in the markets would likely view that as a negative for liquidity. If you're worried that somehow your broker doesn't actually have shares that you could vote and would pay you dividends if they are ever declared... call them and ask what level of open fail to deliver exist for MNKD holdings in their custody. They certainly could provide that info, though you might need to be insistent. That would be a sanity check as to whether the data on open fail to deliver is accurate, or totally off the mark as some like to claim here. This is a useful reference - www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm#:~:text=A%20failure%20to%20deliver%20occurs,securities%20on%20the%20settlement%20date. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 13, 2023 18:47:20 GMT -5
Great point, and as far as MNKD is concerned, we'd have to have implicit knowledge that naked shorting is indeed happening and that there is something that can be done about it. The question then becomes, does anyone know for a fact that it is happening? And then how do we prove it? And then what can be done about it? Market makers are allowed to short without first securing shares, so it happens for all stocks. What could be done about it?... you can lobby your politicians to change laws, but that's a steep climb as those that participate in the markets would likely view that as a negative for liquidity. If you're worried that somehow your broker doesn't actually have shares that you could vote and would pay you dividends if they are ever declared... call them and ask what level of open fail to deliver exist for MNKD holdings in their custody. They certainly could provide that info, though you might need to be insistent. That would be a sanity check as to whether the data on open fail to deliver is accurate, or totally off the mark as some like to claim here. Hey! Good to see you're still around ktim. Welcome to the conversation. The claims that are interesting are in the interview that I linked earlier today (based on a link provided by Harryx1). Those aren't claims made here, just referenced here. What the two investigators outline is a detailed review of how naked shorting and FTDs are used to steal, on a massive scale. Definitely worth a watch. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 13, 2023 20:58:51 GMT -5
Market makers are allowed to short without first securing shares, so it happens for all stocks. What could be done about it?... you can lobby your politicians to change laws, but that's a steep climb as those that participate in the markets would likely view that as a negative for liquidity. If you're worried that somehow your broker doesn't actually have shares that you could vote and would pay you dividends if they are ever declared... call them and ask what level of open fail to deliver exist for MNKD holdings in their custody. They certainly could provide that info, though you might need to be insistent. That would be a sanity check as to whether the data on open fail to deliver is accurate, or totally off the mark as some like to claim here. Hey! Good to see you're still around ktim . Welcome to the conversation. The claims that are interesting are in the interview that I linked earlier today (based on a link provided by Harryx1). Those aren't claims made here, just referenced here. What the two investigators outline is a detailed review of how naked shorting and FTDs are used to steal, on a massive scale. Definitely worth a watch. I listened to about the first half of that. Hard to tell if there is anything legit with those gentlemen (both are trying to earn money from what they are selling, not merely investigators in the journalistic sense). The guy in the lower box points out that there is a lot of shorting (~50%), but that doesn't surprise me at all, since I'd expect roughly half the trades a market maker does to be in the order of selling at the asking price and then buying at the bid from someone else vs doing it the reverse order. Those are simply legal, innocuous intraday market making activities*. The guy on the upper left early in the vid made the distinction that his company isn't about that huge legitimate market making process but rather about what I believe he referred to as "aged fails"... though he basically said their methods of pinpointing or quantifying those are proprietary so couldn't be disclosed. Someone that has lost meaningful money in MNKD might contact him, but from a statement he made in the video about companies not wanting their shareholders to know this sort of data and that they intend to be a "trusted partner" to CEOs, it appears they will not work with shareholders (also seems their website is consistent with that). Hard to assess the significance of that stance. Perhaps a large shareholder should contact MC and inquire about pursuing it. At what time stamp do they reveal something concrete about the magnitude of the stealing being massive? I was listening for something concrete but didn't hear it before I got pulled off the vid for a phone call. * most market makers try to keep neutral position so if they sell very much at ask and aren't getting anyone to buy from at their bid they will adjust bid up in order to flatten their position. They can make great money off the bid/ask spread without risking directional losses. The market makers I've known rarely wanted to go home at night with a directional position. Had one tell me one of the main reasons he loved the job was that when the day was done, it was done and he had nothing to worry about at night, as the next day was entirely new trading. Not to say some firms classified as market makers don't engage in wild speculation or even shenanigans, but a large majority of market making is just providing bids and asks at which they bridge the gap and provide liquidity. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 13, 2023 21:56:53 GMT -5
Good question about “what point in the video”. I actually thought about trying to find timestamps on one or two highlights. I don’t feel like sitting through 47 minutes of video or spot checking hoping I land on something. My memory is it was when the gentleman in the lower window started talking about the forensics associated with looking through “blue sheet” records which provide the transparency needed to discover (through legal discovery) when there has been abuse. His in-depth discussion of intra-day trade analysis made it obvious he’s an expert, and an expert witness.
I agree, they’re selling their services and are biased because of it, but the service they’re selling is to identify abuse and make it available as evidence for legal redress. It isn’t like they’re manufacturing evidence. They’re finding it. And identifying the areas where the abuse is permitted.
Regulation SHO annoyed the living daylights out of me because of how loosely it’s written. I’ve some experience with regulators and I’ve seen words like “reasonable” used as a definition for appropriate action. That is the same as saying “plausibly deniability”. “I’m not breaking the law because you can’t easily tell that I’m breaking the law”. “If you can’t tell what’s going on, it must be OK”. “Pay no attention to the little man sitting behind the curtain”.
Think about how they are actively advocating for systems which could put them out of business, and think about what the market makers and regulators are advocating. Who seems more trustworthy?
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 13, 2023 22:53:56 GMT -5
... Think about how they are actively advocating for systems which could put them out of business, and think about what the market makers and regulators are advocating. Who seems more trustworthy? That depends if they ever expect change to come. If not advocating for the change is just self-promotion because they never expect to pay the price. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 13, 2023 23:20:12 GMT -5
... Think about how they are actively advocating for systems which could put them out of business, and think about what the market makers and regulators are advocating. Who seems more trustworthy? That depends if they ever expect change to come. If not advocating for the change is just self-promotion because they never expect to pay the price. Listen to the last 5 minutes. The “tip of the iceberg” guy whose company specializes in finding indications of misdeeds (which the other guy confirms with intra-day trade forensics) implies a well-known VIP is going to bring it to Congress in a noticeable way. I was hoping he meant Elon Musk. Regardless, we’ll see if/when that happens whether it’s real or has legs. |
|
