|
|
Post by taylor810dn on Mar 10, 2016 15:17:34 GMT -5
Naked shorting is considered naked because the shares never existed (shorting a share is selling it short by borrowing the share from someone who owns it, and it has to be returned on demand, naked shorting is shorting a share without ever borrowing it), has nothing to do with other shorts or other shares being covered. Naked shorting is like making a credit card purchase without ever owning a credit card. It can be considered legitimate if it is used to maintain liquidity in a stock, but it is being used for a totally different and illegitimate purpose with MNKD. And it will be used to slow down any run or mitigate a short squeeze with MNKD unless the volume becomes so high the MMs can't control it.
|
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Mar 10, 2016 16:16:03 GMT -5
Naked shorting is considered naked because the shares never existed (shorting a share is selling it short by borrowing the share from someone who owns it, and it has to be returned on demand, naked shorting is shorting a share without ever borrowing it), has nothing to do with other shorts or other shares being covered. Naked shorting is like making a credit card purchase without ever owning a credit card. It can be considered legitimate if it is used to maintain liquidity in a stock, but it is being used for a totally different and illegitimate purpose with MNKD. And it will be used to slow down any run or mitigate a short squeeze with MNKD unless the volume becomes so high the MMs can't control it. My gut says that many if not most of the fail to cover shorts are put options being exercised at op ex, The brokerage then has "more short shares" than they have allowed to be borrowed. That brokerage will raise the amount they pay long holders to borrow their shares but in the period that the brokerage is covering "the naked short" they have days in which they have technically failed to deliver but eventually those naked shorts become covered shorts. Just my opinion, but I believe the naked short argument is blown way out of proportion on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Mar 11, 2016 2:00:17 GMT -5
It does seem significant, but wouldn't we expect the share price to have risen more than it did during that time frame? It went up a few cents I think. Then after that it had a nice bump, so I'm wondering if more covering occurred. I'm still not clear on what exactly the correlation is between short covering and share price. I think if you consider that the reporting period of the latest NASDAQ short interest report was the period Feb 13-29, you'll notice about a 30% rise in share price during that period. Then, few days after the 29th, pps dropped to $1.00 only to jump to $1.32 within a few more days - another 30% jump.
If I'm reading the chart right, then the share price was about .92 on the 13th and around 1.02 or 1.03 on the 29th, so that's only about an 11% rise, not 30%, during that short interest reporting period. That's why it concerns me they were able to reduce the short interest so much for such a small price increase. After that we did see a larger share price increase, so I'm curious to see the next short interest report. I wish we could get a day by day tracking of that so we wouldn't have to wait so long and have to wonder about the days in between the reporting dates. |
|
|
|
Post by oldfishtowner on Mar 11, 2016 13:59:18 GMT -5
I think if you consider that the reporting period of the latest NASDAQ short interest report was the period Feb 13-29, you'll notice about a 30% rise in share price during that period. Then, few days after the 29th, pps dropped to $1.00 only to jump to $1.32 within a few more days - another 30% jump.
If I'm reading the chart right, then the share price was about .92 on the 13th and around 1.02 or 1.03 on the 29th, so that's only about an 11% rise, not 30%, during that short interest reporting period. That's why it concerns me they were able to reduce the short interest so much for such a small price increase. After that we did see a larger share price increase, so I'm curious to see the next short interest report. I wish we could get a day by day tracking of that so we wouldn't have to wait so long and have to wonder about the days in between the reporting dates. My thought is that speculators who jumped in near the low expecting a bounce may have been taking profits when shorts were covering at around 1.00 which kept the price in check. Subsequently, the apparent strength of the PPS as well as possibilities for good news, as well as traders who on a technical basis are expecting the stock to fill the gap, have brought in buyers driving the price higher. The question is what happens when we get to 1.41-1.51? Will there be positive developments to support the stock moving higher or, having reached a technical point of resistance, will traders taking profits and shorts seeing an opportunity push the stock back to 1.00 or lower? |
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Mar 11, 2016 14:21:33 GMT -5
Note that short reporting takes SETTLED trades as of the 29th of Feb. Those would trades completed on 2/24th when the stock closed around 1.00 (t+3) and OpEx Feb 26th where it closed at $1.03 (options exercise settle on the same day as executed). Also the start of the period would be closer to Feb 9-11th since the 15th was also on a Monday. I think if you consider that the reporting period of the latest NASDAQ short interest report was the period Feb 13-29, you'll notice about a 30% rise in share price during that period. Then, few days after the 29th, pps dropped to $1.00 only to jump to $1.32 within a few more days - another 30% jump.
If I'm reading the chart right, then the share price was about .92 on the 13th and around 1.02 or 1.03 on the 29th, so that's only about an 11% rise, not 30%, during that short interest reporting period. That's why it concerns me they were able to reduce the short interest so much for such a small price increase. After that we did see a larger share price increase, so I'm curious to see the next short interest report. I wish we could get a day by day tracking of that so we wouldn't have to wait so long and have to wonder about the days in between the reporting dates. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 11, 2016 17:28:32 GMT -5
Traders buy/sell on more than just the first & last day of the trading period, right? I'm not proclaiming a correlation, just simply responding to the poster's question of how can 10% of shorts cover without a price increase. Rather than using first & last day share price, I used the low/hi share price range to calculate +30% range during that period. I would imagine a higher percentage of shares were covered on the days surrounding the peak. Long traders/investors aren't the only ones who fear losing $$$.
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Mar 11, 2016 17:58:39 GMT -5
Naked shorting is considered naked because the shares never existed (shorting a share is selling it short by borrowing the share from someone who owns it, and it has to be returned on demand, naked shorting is shorting a share without ever borrowing it), has nothing to do with other shorts or other shares being covered. Naked shorting is like making a credit card purchase without ever owning a credit card. It can be considered legitimate if it is used to maintain liquidity in a stock, but it is being used for a totally different and illegitimate purpose with MNKD. And it will be used to slow down any run or mitigate a short squeeze with MNKD unless the volume becomes so high the MMs can't control it. Yep, I guess it is all about volumes. If we stay in the area of some few millions a day incl. Ftd fakes they can control it and slowly but steadily reduce exposure. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 12, 2016 1:37:13 GMT -5
Naked shorting is considered naked because the shares never existed (shorting a share is selling it short by borrowing the share from someone who owns it, and it has to be returned on demand, naked shorting is shorting a share without ever borrowing it), has nothing to do with other shorts or other shares being covered. Naked shorting is like making a credit card purchase without ever owning a credit card. It can be considered legitimate if it is used to maintain liquidity in a stock, but it is being used for a totally different and illegitimate purpose with MNKD. And it will be used to slow down any run or mitigate a short squeeze with MNKD unless the volume becomes so high the MMs can't control it. Well, I'm not sure where there is an official definition of naked shorting. If that is the definition you are using I seriously doubt there is any long term naked shorting. Traders might get away with shorting and then covering in 4 days without ever delivering... but the idea that any substantial amount of the open short interest is shares shorted but never borrowed seems quite far fetched. I'd be open to evidence to the contrary, but I don't think interest rates paid to share lenders would now be 40%+ if people were shorting without ever borrowing. Many people confuse the concept of "failure to deliver" which really should be more accurately called "failure to deliver on time" with failure to deliver at all. FTD in no way implies that the shares are not ever delivered. In some circumstances FTD might stifle a short squeeze but it would only be in the case where there are still some of the shorts that are wanting to short more (and being able to do so more readily if they don't have to first locate shares to borrow) to supply to the shorts wanting to cover. A true blow out short squeeze would be when all the shorts are running for the exit... and then FTD doesn't matter because no one is shorting, with or without delayed delivery of shares. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 18, 2016 17:19:49 GMT -5
should we sharpen our pencils and do the math? screencast.com/t/SZJPabIhNmh screencast.com/t/d1xOmcxMRAJ
or was that buying unrelated to covering? or GS covering? that would be big. GS doing a reverse. We will have to see how much mannkind GS owns? Some one taking a stake? hmmmm, who would want a stake. 
and look at the shares going through. www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/time-sales
like fed said, robbery. all at 2 bucks.
The weekly chart shows the volume this week. 69.4 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Mar 18, 2016 17:43:08 GMT -5
Naked shorting is considered naked because the shares never existed (shorting a share is selling it short by borrowing the share from someone who owns it, and it has to be returned on demand, naked shorting is shorting a share without ever borrowing it), has nothing to do with other shorts or other shares being covered. Naked shorting is like making a credit card purchase without ever owning a credit card. It can be considered legitimate if it is used to maintain liquidity in a stock, but it is being used for a totally different and illegitimate purpose with MNKD. And it will be used to slow down any run or mitigate a short squeeze with MNKD unless the volume becomes so high the MMs can't control it. Well, I'm not sure where there is an official definition of naked shorting. If that is the definition you are using I seriously doubt there is any long term naked shorting. Traders might get away with shorting and then covering in 4 days without ever delivering... but the idea that any substantial amount of the open short interest is shares shorted but never borrowed seems quite far fetched. I'd be open to evidence to the contrary, but I don't think interest rates paid to share lenders would now be 40%+ if people were shorting without ever borrowing. Many people confuse the concept of "failure to deliver" which really should be more accurately called "failure to deliver on time" with failure to deliver at all. FTD in no way implies that the shares are not ever delivered. In some circumstances FTD might stifle a short squeeze but it would only be in the case where there are still some of the shorts that are wanting to short more (and being able to do so more readily if they don't have to first locate shares to borrow) to supply to the shorts wanting to cover. A true blow out short squeeze would be when all the shorts are running for the exit... and then FTD doesn't matter because no one is shorting, with or without delayed delivery of shares. dream: Please help we on that one: I understand that FTD is just a puffer. In case of a short-term price increase they can create some shares out of hot air and sell them to themselves or another friendly entity (they are so fast and the stock is to fractioned that they basically know who gets these virtual shares) to push the price down. Then some days later (means zillions of microseconds for the algos) they have to find real shares to close the FTD . Is this correct? If so: Why do they need other shorts? |
|
|
|
Post by sla55 on Mar 24, 2016 17:54:06 GMT -5
Short Interest 3/15/2016: 120,541.722
Days to cover: 20.068449
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 24, 2016 18:05:41 GMT -5
Short Interest 3/15/2016: 120,541.722
Days to cover: 20.068449 thank you. the run from $1.10 to 2.24 started 3/15/2016. 8 trading days ago.
real time totals 8 trading days, 4.74 m 3.87 m 9.5 m 39 m 8 m 4.52 m 3.8 m 3.6 m --------------- 82 million real time shares.
|
|
|
|
Post by patten1962 on Mar 24, 2016 18:22:50 GMT -5
Short Interest 3/15/2016: 120,541.722
Days to cover: 20.068449 thank you. the run from $1.10 to 2.24 started 3/15/2016. 8 trading days ago.
real time totals 8 trading days, 4.74 m 3.87 m 9.5 m 39 m 8 m 4.52 m 3.8 m 3.6 m --------------- 82 million real time shares.
Peppy, help me. How do we run up so much as more shares are shorted. |
|
|
|
Post by guicanuel on Mar 24, 2016 18:26:56 GMT -5
The number of shares shorted should be higher now if I understand correctly from the Short Analytics site www.shortanalytics.com/getshortchart.php?tsymbol=mnkdThere's been more shorted shares (%) every day since (except for March 15). So the number of shorted shares should be bigger even if the price has gone up lately... Should be a good news, no? Maybe someone/big fish is accumulating? |
|
|
|
Post by patten1962 on Mar 24, 2016 18:30:11 GMT -5
The number of shares shorted should be higher now if I understand correctly from the Short Analytics site www.shortanalytics.com/getshortchart.php?tsymbol=mnkdThere's been more shorted shares (%) every day since (except for March 15). So the number of shorted shares should be bigger even if the price has gone up lately... Should be a good news, no? Maybe someone/big fish is accumulating? I am excited/nervous to see what institutions are holding. |
|
