|
|
Post by cretin11 on Feb 14, 2023 17:03:56 GMT -5
Yep, manipulation can work both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 14, 2023 22:44:27 GMT -5
Where is the tar and feather option on the poll? I believe that belongs next to the short and distort option. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 14, 2023 22:52:24 GMT -5
So far, it sounds as though the majority of long term investors that frequent Mannkind proboards would like to have a forensic look at our naked short position.
MC, Mannkind Board of Directors, FYI.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 15, 2023 9:28:11 GMT -5
I was furious at Sanofi and what they did, which I feel was clearly breach of contract. I was glad they paid some settlement and give Mike credit for accomplishing that. That likely would have been expensive and risky litigation, but Mike managed to get something meaningful without a court fight. I agree with this post but Matt got the settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Feb 15, 2023 11:54:25 GMT -5
I was furious at Sanofi and what they did, which I feel was clearly breach of contract. I was glad they paid some settlement and give Mike credit for accomplishing that. That likely would have been expensive and risky litigation, but Mike managed to get something meaningful without a court fight. I agree with this post but Matt got the settlement. That makes sense, thanks for the correction sports. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 15, 2023 16:05:18 GMT -5
I was furious at Sanofi and what they did, which I feel was clearly breach of contract. I was glad they paid some settlement and give Mike credit for accomplishing that. That likely would have been expensive and risky litigation, but Mike managed to get something meaningful without a court fight. I agree with this post but Matt got the settlement. Thanks. I plead PTSD. |
|
|
|
Post by casualinvestor on Feb 16, 2023 10:50:40 GMT -5
There's no vehicle to manufacture shares to spike the stock that I know of, that all just comes from covering the short and plain old buying.
But to be clear about naked shorting, those shares are still covered at some point. They are borrowed/created without finding a share to borrow (legally/illegally/morally/immorally, don't want to get into that discussion here), but still follow the rules of being a short-lending-created-share that needs to be covered at some point? I would assume so. Less clear: Is collateral set aside to buy that share, and how much is required in case of the share price rising? I'm guessing nothing because it's market makers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 16, 2023 11:19:09 GMT -5
There's no vehicle to manufacture shares to spike the stock that I know of, that all just comes from covering the short and plain old buying. But to be clear about naked shorting, those shares are still covered at some point. They are borrowed/created without finding a share to borrow (legally/illegally/morally/immorally, don't want to get into that discussion here), but still follow the rules of being a short-lending-created-share that needs to be covered at some point? I would assume so. Less clear: Is collateral set aside to buy that share, and how much is required in case of the share price rising? I'm guessing nothing because it's market makers. Since theoretical losses are unlimited with shorting, there can never be enough collateral to cover all risk. Short positions have led to the ruin of many. Market making firms would rarely allow their open holdings to get so skewed, long or short, to pose that sort of risk. Have no idea if there would be regulatory limits, but their normal mode of making money (the difference between bid and ask), or betting on volatility reversion if trading options, has much better risk-reward profile. |
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Feb 16, 2023 12:42:50 GMT -5
With that said, can someone either explain or even guess as to why there are over 34M shares short as of Jan 31?
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 17, 2023 9:50:12 GMT -5
Since theoretical losses are unlimited with shorting, there can never be enough collateral to cover all risk. Short positions have led to the ruin of many. Market making firms would rarely allow their open holdings to get so skewed, long or short, to pose that sort of risk. Have no idea if there would be regulatory limits, but their normal mode of making money (the difference between bid and ask), or betting on volatility reversion if trading options, has much better risk-reward profile. ^This is correct. There is no way that their risk officers would allow they to maintain a significant position for any length of time because; (a) this opens them up to insider trading prosecutions since as market makers they have material non-public information on the stock, (b) their regulators would stamp on their fingers in the annual audit and failing an audit is an existential risk, and (c) they are simply not staffed for it, it's not what their people are trained for (think of it like a brain surgeon doing open heart surgery - they could probably do it but it may well end badly and yhis is why you have specialties.) |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 17, 2023 10:19:54 GMT -5
With that said, can someone either explain or even guess as to why there are over 34M shares short as of Jan 31? Because it's a relatively high beta stock. Look at a plot of UTHR overlayed by MNKD and you will see they essentially track each other, but Mannkind's swings are larger (the beta.) These reports are pretty meaningless IMHO because they are simply the short position mid month and month end. They could take a huge short position on the first trading day of the month and provided closed it before the 15th it would not be reported because the reports are point in time. What you see is the short interest on those two days, not how long they have been open, sizes, who holds them, nothing useful. |
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Feb 17, 2023 11:56:47 GMT -5
With that said, can someone either explain or even guess as to why there are over 34M shares short as of Jan 31? Because it's a relatively high beta stock. Look at a plot of UTHR overlayed by MNKD and you will see they essentially track each other, but Mannkind's swings are larger (the beta.) These reports are pretty meaningless IMHO because they are simply the short position mid month and month end. They could take a huge short position on the first trading day of the month and provided closed it before the 15th it would not be reported because the reports are point in time. What you see is the short interest on those two days, not how long they have been open, sizes, who holds them, nothing useful. Thanks! Why the range of "days to cover" from 4 to 11 in the past few months if opening and closing positions can occur with frequency? I've always believed the "days to cover" was of great significance, especially if a run were to occur....which by the way, I wouldn't mind seeing next week  |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Feb 17, 2023 12:01:08 GMT -5
Since theoretical losses are unlimited with shorting, there can never be enough collateral to cover all risk. Short positions have led to the ruin of many. Market making firms would rarely allow their open holdings to get so skewed, long or short, to pose that sort of risk. Have no idea if there would be regulatory limits, but their normal mode of making money (the difference between bid and ask), or betting on volatility reversion if trading options, has much better risk-reward profile. ^This is correct. There is no way that their risk officers would allow they to maintain a significant position for any length of time because; (a) this opens them up to insider trading prosecutions since as market makers they have material non-public information on the stock, (b) their regulators would stamp on their fingers in the annual audit and failing an audit is an existential risk, and (c) they are simply not staffed for it, it's not what their people are trained for (think of it like a brain surgeon doing open heart surgery - they could probably do it but it may well end badly and yhis is why you have specialties.) So I guess all these companies are making up stories about naked shorting?... |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 17, 2023 12:53:23 GMT -5
Which specific stories? Are there firms that abuse shorting... sure. If "locates" really always happened and were valid, there would be no fails to deliver. So the fact that we see fails to deliver, sometimes quite high relative to volume, are clear indicators of things going wrong. That should be addressed through reg changes.
Stories without evidence are always questionable... to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Feb 17, 2023 13:04:46 GMT -5
It's a self-regulated industry. That right there lend itself to problems. If Bernie Madoff can run a ponzi scheme for over 20 years worth $50-80 Billion and the organizations responsible for making sure investors don't get ripped off never caught him (due to either being inept or paid-off) then there's a high probability that other internal schemes that make 10x the money can happen. Greed is a strong factor. So keep putting your heads in the sand.
|
|
