Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 10:01:38 GMT -5
Seems overly scathing does it not? The 50 Endos and 50 "experts" is interesting, but they didn't ask any GPs?
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Oct 20, 2014 10:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Oct 20, 2014 11:05:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Oct 20, 2014 11:07:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Oct 20, 2014 11:08:09 GMT -5
You beat me to the punch..... |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Oct 20, 2014 11:45:30 GMT -5
No worries... I agree that with Barron's on the GS neutral, that is, we neither get hurt too bad not helped too much... However, on a somewhat positive note with their $6pps price target it should set a floor on pps regarding the manipulations by the forces of BS (Bears & Shorts) as we now have coverage and confirmation from a major brokerage as to what they think the fair pps should be.
And with the floor set (I hope) the future sales numbers will speak for themselves as we hopefully begin a steady pps climb up somewhere between November 2014 and February 2015.
GLTA!
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Oct 20, 2014 11:48:05 GMT -5
Seems overly scathing does it not? The 50 Endos and 50 "experts" is interesting, but they didn't ask any GPs? Really hard to tell unless you know what the questions in the survey were and who conducted it, etc... Could be another one of those self serving surveys like the one Af used to quote. |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Oct 20, 2014 12:09:18 GMT -5
Over the years I have learnt that it often pays very well to do the opposite of what Goldman suggests. Or at the very least my first question is always what is Goldman really doing (not that there is any way of really knowing). Their trading desk probably doesn't know about the Chinese Wall thing... To me Goldman has as much credibility as anyone who front runs trades.
JPG
|
|
|
|
Post by purge on Oct 20, 2014 12:40:35 GMT -5
Doesn't Goldman have a history of telling clients one thing while they are doing the opposite?
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Oct 20, 2014 12:51:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cybergym66 on Oct 20, 2014 13:14:35 GMT -5
It does seem to be causing the stock to drop. Hopefully good news is just a few weeks away and analysts will be giving more glowing reviews. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Oct 20, 2014 13:18:19 GMT -5
Yes coming from a major institution such as GS this would seem to give the shorts all the cover they need for their activities. As some on this board have speculated you do have to wonder about the level of objectivity of GS on Mannkind.
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Oct 20, 2014 13:26:36 GMT -5
GS= master market manipulators. They didn't get to where they are by being ethical.
|
|
|
|
Post by pmikeks on Oct 20, 2014 13:41:28 GMT -5
Did I understand it right that GS is basing their neutral rating of Mnkd on what they think might be true in 2017 & 2018? Suggesting that Mannkind may not break even in 2017. If they really thought that's true, why would they rate it neutral?
|
|
|
|
Post by EveningOfTheDay on Oct 20, 2014 15:30:39 GMT -5
Will see what happens, but for the first time in a long while this feels like real bad news. It also comes at a really bad time too, just when the stock seemed to be recovering a bit. Unfortunately, GS comments could keep the stock down for the foreseeable future. Actually what they have done, for the time being, is effectively cap the price, and I do not expect this to change unless we get stelar news, which I do not expect either. I too question their motivation, but a part of me questions too my questioning. GS is not particularly ethical or objective, but they do have the ear of many institutions. I wonder how this rating will affect buying strategies for the much needed institutional investors.
|
|
