|
|
Post by mnkdorbust on Oct 23, 2014 11:35:09 GMT -5
Thank you. I was being lazy and asked instead of digging for it. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdorbust on Oct 23, 2014 11:35:28 GMT -5
We clearly need a spy in the Danbury plant. A chameleon would be a good choice to blend in... but I've got a day job. Anyone have any experience with drones?  |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 23, 2014 11:46:11 GMT -5
Baba, my understanding is that they still plan on a mid 1st Q 2015 launch as of right now. As lawyers, mannmade, we both love the use of the phrase, "my understanding is." LOL!! |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 23, 2014 11:46:48 GMT -5
We clearly need a spy in the Danbury plant. A chameleon would be a good choice to blend in... but I've got a day job. Anyone have any experience with drones? By chance, yes in my day job we work with some of the drone manufacturers. Industrial espionage is not yet approved by FAA  |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 23, 2014 11:53:59 GMT -5
Thanks for reminding us about that deal, way back in 2009. I was really surprised when I went back and read the article again that the Sanofi spokesman said about the deal, "We hope that by frustrating MannKind's bid at this time, we put ourselves in a better position to partner with them once they get FDA approval, assuming MannKind finally stops fumbling the ball near the goal line with the FDA. Once we partner with them, it will only be a matter of time before we buy them out - their shareholders won't know what hit them." Again, surprising, wouldn't you say? |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 23, 2014 12:12:19 GMT -5
Good thing they redacted that Sanofi spokesperson's comments, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 23, 2014 15:48:50 GMT -5
Correct, mnholdem, fortunately I get the raw, unedited versions of press releases sent directly to me, in this case I guess I forgot to mention that!!
Did you notice, we're rich(er) again today!
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 23, 2014 22:56:34 GMT -5
Yep. My understanding is (chuckle) that the bump was on really low volume. I would have thought the shorts would have waited for another slow day to return and manipulate the pps down. Any chance some fund managers have been accumulating long positions and are moving in to start doing something about their Christmas performance bonuses?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Oct 23, 2014 23:30:22 GMT -5
Thanks for reminding us about that deal, way back in 2009. I was really surprised when I went back and read the article again that the Sanofi spokesman said about the deal, "We hope that by frustrating MannKind's bid at this time, we put ourselves in a better position to partner with them once they get FDA approval, assuming MannKind finally stops fumbling the ball near the goal line with the FDA. Once we partner with them, it will only be a matter of time before we buy them out - their shareholders won't know what hit them." Again, surprising, wouldn't you say? "Their shareholders won't know what hit them." Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Generally, I still think of a BO (at a reasonable price) as a good thing. But I would rather see it read "Their shorts won't know what hit them." Your take? |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Oct 23, 2014 23:47:23 GMT -5
Yep. My understanding is (chuckle) that the bump was on really low volume. I would have thought the shorts would have waited for another slow day to return and manipulate the pps down. Any chance some fund managers have been accumulating long positions and are moving in to start doing something about their Christmas performance bonuses? This may sound completely wrong but if someone with deep pockets is truly accumulating a large amount of shares and the big sophisticated shorts (those with the big computers...) know this: wouldn't volume go down instead of up? Why would they 'pseudo trade' to walk down the price if they know any low bid they throw out to lower the price will get picked up? They would know they are guaranteed to loose money. Once they know there is a deep pocketed buyer the manipulation game is up until that buyer goes away. I this scenario volume would go down? No? This is not my area of expertise obviously but I am wondering if people aren't using trading rules or patterns that applied 'pre algo computer trading' but have little relevance today with computer trading? At the same time I would speculate that this asymmetrical understanding of trading is one of the many advantages the algo driven traders have over short term retail traders. Would our trading experts care to weigh in? JPG |
|
|
|
Post by gamblerjag on Oct 23, 2014 23:55:58 GMT -5
sorry .. off topic.. if there was a buyout of lets say 40 bucks and short interest is high.... can the short interest increase the stock price.. ie.. to 60 or 70 bucks? I always thought the number of the buyout is the number and the shorts that didnt' cover would just have to cover up through the buyout price. ( within a few cents either way..)
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 24, 2014 1:32:23 GMT -5
jpg, I can't even imagine answering your question with any degree of certainty. Way out of my league, have no idea how those shorts work, but I don't think it always involves two players walking the share price down, hand in hand. Sometimes, it can be just one player dumping a bunch as a "loss leader" and hoping to panic the rank and file.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 24, 2014 1:36:22 GMT -5
sorry .. off topic.. if there was a buyout of lets say 40 bucks and short interest is high.... can the short interest increase the stock price.. ie.. to 60 or 70 bucks? I always thought the number of the buyout is the number and the shorts that didnt' cover would just have to cover up through the buyout price. ( within a few cents either way..) Makes no sense to me that with a $40 buyout, the price could hit 60 or 70. The number is $40, that's what the shorts will cover at, the only way it goes higher is if there is a reasonable possibility that another suitor will enter the picture, so you do have some arbitrage possible. But until a new suitor actually lays some money on the table, I would have a hard time seeing the stock trade higher than $42. Of course, our stock would have to be at least $18 or so before we'd even have a prayer at getting $40. |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Oct 24, 2014 3:04:21 GMT -5
jpg, I can't even imagine answering your question with any degree of certainty. Way out of my league, have no idea how those shorts work, but I don't think it always involves two players walking the share price down, hand in hand. Sometimes, it can be just one player dumping a bunch as a "loss leader" and hoping to panic the rank and file. Hi Baba, That is a bit my point really. Why would 2 players try 'walking the share price down' if they know there is a deep pocketed buyer who will buy all their 'bait'? If my theory is correct this would mean less volume because there is no point trading back and forth hoping to make money by shaking fragile hands out of their real shares. Again clarifications welcome.
JPG |
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Oct 24, 2014 8:58:42 GMT -5
Ok, because you guys seem to be struggling on this thread, Spiro has decided to help out. With MNKD, No news is good news. good news is bad news. I don't know about you guys, but my portfolio can't handle any explosive good news from MNKD. Spiro says it's like a football game, where one team is so much better than it's opponents, that their bungling management can fumble the ball 10 times and still win the game. But as long as the team wins, it's unlikely that the coaches will lose their jobs. It's obvious that Sanofi got a couple of pick 6's from MNKD, in addition to 10 fumbles. We just need to hope that MNKD has enough left to win the game.
I hope this helps,
Spiro
|
|
