|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 27, 2023 12:00:38 GMT -5
It is interesting to wonder what shorting would look like if creditors were prevented from shorting a company whose warrants they own. Would it prevent making a legal agreement with another company to have them short the company whose warrants you own on the condition you can provide the shares at conversion, and split the proceeds in some fashion at maturity? There are two questions there: What would it do if you couldn't use the warrants to short? It would hamstring the lender's risk management. The consequence would be to increase the cost of borrowing for the borrower since the lender would need to be compensated for the increased risk to their capital. For example Deerfield would have charged truly eyewatering interest rates and MNKD would probably not have survived. Could a warrant holder have an agreement to provide stock to another company who is shorting the stock and then split any profit? That seems rather redundant since the warrant holder can short the directly without involving a third party (this is the normal practice.) I suppose they could agree to sell the stock to a third party with delivery in the future for the current price plus interest, but there are financial instruments for that already. Personally I use warrants for arbitrage. Either short or use Puts depending on whatever is cheaper to lock in the gain. Writing Calls can be effective as well, but there is always the danger that you get left with the stock if the price moves against you and you really don't want that. |
|
|
|
Post by neil36 on Mar 31, 2023 5:28:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 31, 2023 10:44:12 GMT -5
Lol. That goes nowhere, but it will get the shareholders off the management's back for a while. The real problem is that they are going to have to cut their dividend because their revenue is dropping as they sell off properties, and with a REIT that's very problematic. Take this from one who invested in a REIT that did exactly that (yes, I am looking at you CORR.) |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Mar 31, 2023 11:02:42 GMT -5
Lol. That goes nowhere, but it will get the shareholders off the management's back for a while. The real problem is that they are going to have to cut their dividend because their revenue is dropping as they sell off properties, and with a REIT that's very problematic. Take this from one who invested in a REIT that did exactly that (yes, I am looking at you CORR.) Ditto. It sucked.  (Not CORR) |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Apr 5, 2023 8:43:35 GMT -5
Goldman Sachs Fined $3M for Mismarking 60M Short Sale Orders The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has slammed a censure and fine of $3 million on Goldman Sachs for mismarking approximately 60 million short sales orders as “long” orders between October 2015 and April 2018. About 8 million of these orders, which amounted to over a billion shares, were executed in violation of US securities law and FINRA rules, the American self-regulatory organization (SRO) said in a published letter signed by both parties. www.tradingview.com/news/financemagnates:d546f8960094b:0/Excuse: "Coding Error" -> And they make billions and get a slap on the wrist, no one goes to jail. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Apr 5, 2023 9:10:52 GMT -5
Goldman Sachs Fined $3M for Mismarking 60M Short Sale Orders The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has slammed a censure and fine of $3 million on Goldman Sachs for mismarking approximately 60 million short sales orders as “long” orders between October 2015 and April 2018. About 8 million of these orders, which amounted to over a billion shares, were executed in violation of US securities law and FINRA rules, the American self-regulatory organization (SRO) said in a published letter signed by both parties. www.tradingview.com/news/financemagnates:d546f8960094b:0/Excuse: "Coding Error" -> And they make billions and get a slap on the wrist, no one goes to jail. It would be nice to know if MNKD was among the (mismarked) shorts. Given GS's treatment of Mannkind back then I would be surprised if we weren't. It would seem that given the SEC action, harmed shareholders/companies have a claim on Goldman Sachs ill gotten gains. That being in addition to the SEC imposed wrist slap (which confirms the crime occurred). |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Apr 5, 2023 9:34:58 GMT -5
Goldman Sachs Fined $3M for Mismarking 60M Short Sale Orders The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has slammed a censure and fine of $3 million on Goldman Sachs for mismarking approximately 60 million short sales orders as “long” orders between October 2015 and April 2018. About 8 million of these orders, which amounted to over a billion shares, were executed in violation of US securities law and FINRA rules, the American self-regulatory organization (SRO) said in a published letter signed by both parties. www.tradingview.com/news/financemagnates:d546f8960094b:0/Excuse: "Coding Error" -> And they make billions and get a slap on the wrist, no one goes to jail. It would be nice to know if MNKD was among the (mismarked) shorts. Given GS's treatment of Mannkind back then I would be surprised if we weren't. It would seem that given the SEC action, harmed shareholders/companies have a claim on Goldman Sachs ill gotten gains. That being in addition to the SEC imposed wrist slap (which confirms the crime occurred). 100% agree. I'm ok with regulatory enforcement being next to nothing if civil penalties provide the "real" enforcement. Seems like a story worth watching develop (if it does develop). |
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 5, 2023 9:42:53 GMT -5
Class Action???
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 5, 2023 11:01:28 GMT -5
Well, Elon Musk tweeted that they’re building an in house litigation team and will be going after bad guys. He specifically mentioned wall street short sellers, law firms and crooked regulators.
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 5, 2023 11:02:55 GMT -5
It would be nice if MannKind could sue for pass damages of the already multiple confirmed cases where MannKind was listed as a victim to illegal naked short selling schemes in SEC court documents.
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Apr 5, 2023 11:11:24 GMT -5
I assume statutes of limitation on civil suits could present a challenge. This is where having good information on the last 2 to 6 years worth of FTD naked shorting could be valuable. A few states will let you go back as far as 10 years, but most are less.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Apr 11, 2023 12:09:07 GMT -5
It would be nice if MannKind could sue for pass damages of the already multiple confirmed cases where MannKind was listed as a victim to illegal naked short selling schemes in SEC court documents. Have links to those court documents previously been posted to proboards? I'd be very interested in looking at those. |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Apr 11, 2023 12:26:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Apr 11, 2023 12:32:52 GMT -5
I assume statutes of limitation on civil suits could present a challenge. This is where having good information on the last 2 to 6 years worth of FTD naked shorting could be valuable. A few states will let you go back as far as 10 years, but most are less.
Once you've figured out what statute of limitations applies to your case, your next step is to determine when the clock starts ticking. Usually, the time begins to run on the "date of harm"—that is, on the date when you were injured, your property was harmed, or a contract or agreement was violated. However, another part of this general rule exists. It protects plaintiffs during the time when their not aware that they've been harmed—which could be for months or even years. In such cases, statutes of limitations will start the clock ticking either on the "date of discovery" of the harm or on the date on which the plaintiff "should have discovered" the harm. In short, for some types of legal actions the statute of limitations clock can start ticking at three different times! Earliest: The date of harm. Later: The date on which the plaintiff reasonably should have discovered the harm. This refers to the date when a judge considers it fair to say that the plaintiff should have known about the harm, even if the plaintiff didn't actually know about it. Latest: The date on which the plaintiff actually discovered the harm. The law is complex. The best way to protect yourself is by consulting with a lawyer about exactly how long you have to pursue a lawsuit—and what kind of lawsuit(s) you can pursue. www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statutes-limitations-is-it-too-late-sue-faq.html |
|
|
|
Post by JEvans on Apr 11, 2023 13:38:11 GMT -5
I take it that this info is current 2023 ? April 6, 2023 is the, one-off-day, that volume went through the roof and it was all shorted ? Very large volume was bought in the range of 4.15-4.21 that day, and today PPS went down to 3.89. |
|
(Not CORR)
