|
|
Post by alethea on Feb 17, 2023 14:10:22 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. Gee, for shorting being such a NON-issue according to the recurrent negative posters, they are sure spending a lot of time and innumerable posts stressing that there is nothing of significance to the large Short position. Methinks they all protest too much! ANYONE who has followed MNKD since the June, 2014 FDA approval of Afrezza KNOWS for A FACT that MNKD has been manipulated, used and abused by the Shorts for nine years and counting. Manipulative shorting is real, it is significant and it has been a yoke around the neck of MNKD for a decade. |
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Feb 17, 2023 14:49:02 GMT -5
And I want to thank those shorts who allowed me to buy all my cheap shares.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 17, 2023 15:05:28 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. Gee, for shorting being such a NON-issue according to the recurrent negative posters, they are sure spending a lot of time and innumerable posts stressing that there is nothing of significance to the large Short position. Methinks they all protest too much! ANYONE who has followed MNKD since the June, 2014 FDA approval of Afrezza KNOWS for A FACT that MNKD has been manipulated, used and abused by the Shorts for nine years and counting. Manipulative shorting is real, it is significant and it has been a yoke around the neck of MNKD for a decade. From the poll results it's clear, among our long term investors, a wide margin of voters would like to see Mannkind take some action on our behalf regarding this "yoke around our neck". |
|
|
|
Post by dddupont on Feb 17, 2023 15:21:12 GMT -5
And I want to thank those shorts who allowed me to buy all my cheap shares. But, that's mytakeonit Me too! If not for the shorts, I would not have averaged down so far, and would still be in the red. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 17, 2023 15:37:56 GMT -5
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  If I could answer that I would be a lot richer. The market is not always rational contrary to what people think (hence Keynes famous quote, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.") Often all it takes is someone to build a trend and the trend followers pile in, then the trend ends and you get a reversion to mean - that happens in both directions. A run would be nice  |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 17, 2023 15:41:51 GMT -5
^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 this is why you have specialties.) So I guess all these companies are making up stories about naked shorting?... ... You took a reply about market makers specifically and generalized it to the entire market. I did not say deliberate naked shorting didn't happen in the broader market. |
|
|
|
Post by BD on Feb 17, 2023 15:44:09 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. IIRC, there's no need to cover if the company gets delisted. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 17, 2023 15:51:38 GMT -5
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 If I could answer that I would be a lot richer. The market is not always rational contrary to what people think (hence Keynes famous quote, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.") Often all it takes is someone to build a trend and the trend followers pile in, then the trend ends and you get a reversion to mean - that happens in both directions. A run would be nice In which direction do you need the run? |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Feb 17, 2023 16:47:25 GMT -5
And I want to thank those shorts who allowed me to buy all my cheap shares. I'm with MTOI on this, thank you shorts for allowing me to DCA way way way down. Special thanks to all the naked shorts. So much angst worked up by some posters here, and I know they sincerely believe every bit of it. But even if they are correct, the naked shorts have been the true heroes in our DCA movement! |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 17, 2023 20:43:00 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. Gee, for shorting being such a NON-issue according to the recurrent negative posters, they are sure spending a lot of time and innumerable posts stressing that there is nothing of significance to the large Short position. Methinks they all protest too much! ANYONE who has followed MNKD since the June, 2014 FDA approval of Afrezza KNOWS for A FACT that MNKD has been manipulated, used and abused by the Shorts for nine years and counting. Manipulative shorting is real, it is significant and it has been a yoke around the neck of MNKD for a decade. You seem to be misrepresenting, if you are including my posts as a "negative poster". (Though, I think I'm a quite positive poster. I'm in great cheer and about as excited as I've been in years for our upcoming earnings report. I've been somewhat negative in the past, but certainly not now.) But on the misrepresentation... I certainly have NEVER said that shorting has not been significant and a negative factor for MNKD. To suggest otherwise, if intentional, would be lying. We have had short attacks leading to volatility and rollercoaster drops. MNKD has had to go to creditors that require warrants or conversion rights, which are then shorted against. That of course is downward pressure on stock. The thing I have yet seen evidence of is something huge and nefarious that does not manifest itself in the short data that is publicly available. You are free to believe what you wish. I believe when I see evidence. I would still be openminded and willing to consider evidence if someone presents it here. Certainly would not protest that... I'd encourage it. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Feb 21, 2023 7:41:43 GMT -5
“Evidence” is hard to come by which is why ShareIntel and Buyins.net exist. The greatest complaint about shorting is illegal naked shorting permitted by dark pool trading and lax SEC regulations and non-existent enforcement. If there were transparency, there could be no complaint. Transparency does not exist. The practices are opaque, and history has shown that those with the opportunity to unethically abuse the system have done so over and over again. Are these practices a problem for MNKD? Nobody outside the market makers know for sure, but discovery is possible, and so some would like to see that, myself among them. It’s a “like to have” not a “must have”, but only because the prospects for MNKD are good, but we know there had been predatory, manipulative trading, so the only questions are, was any of it illegal, how bad was it, and can we recover our losses? Those who argue we should not be concerned or interested in investigation have not been persuasive to this skeptical investor.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 21, 2023 15:52:31 GMT -5
“Evidence” is hard to come by which is why ShareIntel and Buyins.net exist. The greatest complaint about shorting is illegal naked shorting permitted by dark pool trading and lax SEC regulations and non-existent enforcement. If there were transparency, there could be no complaint. Transparency does not exist. The practices are opaque, and history has shown that those with the opportunity to unethically abuse the system have done so over and over again. Are these practices a problem for MNKD? Nobody outside the market makers know for sure, but discovery is possible, and so some would like to see that, myself among them. It’s a “like to have” not a “must have”, but only because the prospects for MNKD are good, but we know there had been predatory, manipulative trading, so the only questions are, was any of it illegal, how bad was it, and can we recover our losses? Those who argue we should not be concerned or interested in investigation have not been persuasive to this skeptical investor. ShareIntel seems to be saying they are merely looking at publicly available data, so they aren't claiming it's hard to come by. They just say no one but them knows what to look for, and they won't tell you anything about it because they don't want you to know how to look at the data yourself, because they want money. Granted that's phrased a bit judgmentally, but I think it is accurate. The rules for shorting on dark pools are no different than the rules for shorting on other exchanges, what are you basing an assertion of it being "permitted" by dark pool trading? As for transparency, FINRA does provide data on dark pool trading. Dark pool exchanges are about hiding the identity of entities that are trying to do block trades while in the process of completing the block trades. The trades still get cleared through the same clearing houses, and any fail to deliver would be in the available data. Of course the above assessment of dark pools is referring to the ones that are registered and regulated. As I've pointed out before, it is possible for individual entities to trade shares off any exchange, and I suppose that could be considered a "dark pool". If I knew a whole bunch of wealthy active stock traders, I could invite them to meet for drinks and stock trading in my living room every Friday evening. One of my friends might say he was looking to sell 100,000 shares of AAPL and was offering 0.3% discount to last trade. I like the guy and have been thinking about increasing my AAPL holding so I say yes and we complete the trade with a clink of our Master's Edition Johnnie Walkers. Of course we honor our words, but at the end of the day before I wire him money I would get the necessary signed document from him that I can deliver to the AAPL transfer agent to move the 100,000 shares out of his name and into mine. The question for you would be... in that sort of unregulated "dark" transaction, WHY ON EARTH would anybody participate in it as a buyer of shares and NOT get the necessary transfer document or not sue the seller for fraud if such document is fraudulent. I just don't see what sort of idiot would do that, or do it more than once. BTW, I think we should be concerned about trading abuse, and levels of fail to deliver with MNKD certainly show it's happened. There should definitely be tighter regs that would prevent a full days worth of volume to accumulate as open fail to deliver. I've followed open short interest and open fail to deliver data as an investor in MNKD (and I am reading these threads), because of my interest in this topic. I'd be really interested if there is some evidence beyond the public data, but so far it's all just speculation. I'm an avid learner, so any insight into things that really occur in the market would be of high interest to me. Managing my money is basically my job now. I'd welcome any corrections to anything I state if there are inaccuracies. I encourage any investigation and would be one of the first to devour the data if something is unearthed. In the meantime I remain a skeptical investor. |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Feb 28, 2023 9:56:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Mar 5, 2024 23:23:36 GMT -5
NRXP had a forensic look at the number of illegal naked shorts in their shorts. They then instituted a spin off and dividend. Mike would do well to monitor the progress. If their approach works, SEC is sidelined, unless of course NRXP "Gamestops" the system. Mike needs to pay attention, this is a partner, not a stranger. If Mannkind has an equal % of illegal naked shorts that our partner NRXP suffers from, and we add this same type of fuel to the bonfire currently building, things could get explosive in MNKD land! Sorry moderators, I moved these posts from NRXP when I realized they were probably as pertinent to Mannkind as NRXP. (Or as pertinent as margin call to a MNKD short) I know, the cretins here have assured us that we have no shorts on proboards...they are the cutest lil buggers.   |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Mar 6, 2024 0:14:18 GMT -5
always enjoy longliner’s active imagination 🤣
|
|
