|
Post by biotec on Jul 13, 2015 18:54:52 GMT -5
They would buy less then 5% (I am not saying they have or will) so they do not have to publically disclose as required by law. Black Rock's recent ownership disclosure was triggered by this same law for your reference. Theoretically they would buy part of mnkd b/c they believe it makes business sense as they did w Reign. They may not want to own 5% or more b/c the legally required public disclosure might give away or tip their level of confidence to the competition. And as we know they have been very tight lipped about Afrezza. Hope your right Mannmade!
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jul 13, 2015 19:02:03 GMT -5
They would buy less then 5% (I am not saying they have or will) so they do not have to publically disclose as required by law. Black Rock's recent ownership disclosure was triggered by this same law for your reference. Theoretically they would buy part of mnkd b/c they believe it makes business sense as they did w Reign. They may not want to own 5% or more b/c the legally required public disclosure might give away or tip their level of confidence to the competition. And as we know they have been very tight lipped about Afrezza. I can see an argument for keeping specific goals and timelines secret. Not giving away "level of confidence" in Afrezza would seem to be a stupid decision on their part if it is at all the case. Doctors and patients would be reluctant to bother with Afrezza if there is any indication Sanofi doesn't have confidence in it. To me the only valid reason for keeping share purchase quite is to get them cheaper before market reacts to their buying.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jul 13, 2015 19:04:43 GMT -5
Baba, Thanks for pointing out my math error as i never was very good with numbers which is why I originally became a lawyer instead of a doctor (Veterinarian). As for the potential upside to their losses yes I get it and probably should have mentioned it. However all good to me at this point. As Chauncey Gardiner (Chance the Gardener) once said... "I like to watch..." It can cost money to "watch" these days, mannmade! I guess whether it's well spent or not depends....
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jul 13, 2015 19:31:48 GMT -5
They would buy less then 5% (I am not saying they have or will) so they do not have to publically disclose as required by law. Black Rock's recent ownership disclosure was triggered by this same law for your reference. Theoretically they would buy part of mnkd b/c they believe it makes business sense as they did w Reign. They may not want to own 5% or more b/c the legally required public disclosure might give away or tip their level of confidence to the competition. And as we know they have been very tight lipped about Afrezza. I can see an argument for keeping specific goals and timelines secret. Not giving away "level of confidence" in Afrezza would seem to be a stupid decision on their part if it is at all the case. Doctors and patients would be reluctant to bother with Afrezza if there is any indication Sanofi doesn't have confidence in it. To me the only valid reason for keeping share purchase quite is to get them cheaper before market reacts to their buying. DBC I may not have been entirely clear. I believe Sanofi is completely behind Afrezza and is supporting it as such w DTC, doctor dinners, etc . However they may have other corp reasons for investing in mnkd (future partnerships etc, just speculation on my part at this time) and may not want to disclose any shares bought at this point (again I am not saying they have) for competitive reasons unrelated to Afrezza.
|
|
|
Post by lfalcon on Jul 13, 2015 20:55:18 GMT -5
Calls are not from nothing...... shorted shares are really in the hands of someone and really need to be bought. MMs have to buy shares when selling calls Bravissimo Parrerob! Whether it's having to buy shares when they take the other side of the trade or laddering up out of the money with spreads it has to net out somewhere...as I've analogized previously to the Greeks and IMF kicking the can down the road the "hedging with options" response is such a cop out because they never account for the other side of the trade that is still short until covered. Sure if I'm short and take out calls to limit my risk exposure, another entity is "taking the ball" so how do they lay it off without some other party absorbing it. Somewhere you have to find clothes for the emperor...or he has to get exposed for what he is...naked The ability to nail strike prices works until it doesn't and then when faced with the possibilities of deep losses you will see swift moves as was the case from those mid 3.50 lows to the low to mid 7's...that was an appetizer and a very tasty one at that...I don't necessarily put this in a GMCR or VW camp, lets keep it in the biotech arena and just say DNDN but with a 1000% more sustainable and viable product/blockbuster. Joey.....I found the following post when looking into the DNDN squeeze after reading your post. Knowing next to nothing about short squeezes myself, i would be very interested in your opinion, or any other knowledgeable poster's take on the validity of the assessment below. TIA! LF "No short squeeze ever is possible in a Hedgefund-manipulated and controlled environment. Period. All incipient Short Squeezes are capped and walked back down immediately. The last really big one occurred in late March 2007 when the FDA Advisory Committee got it wrong (in Pazdur's scheme of things) and voted strongly to recommend Approval for "an essentially side-effects-free, and Trials-proved-viable (for significant extension of Overall Survival") product—Dendreon's Provenge. By all that's right and Holy in the FDA Wonderland, the Committee was supposed to vote it down. We then had (unexpectedly from the Hedgefund perspective) zipped slightly up from the $22s to $27s, and within a day or two or three again saw the $12s. That's sort of the way it is with hedgefund-controlled capped squeezes. The run to $57 under discussion in this thread was caused and fed almost entirely from multiple fully-repositioned hedgefund long positions being worked to the max with pumping and buying by those same repositioned hedgefunds. A new reverse turnaround came throughout the $50s as fools rushed in and the hedgefunds unloaded and re-commenced shorting (a new repositioning) all the way back down to the $3s where they have for several weeks been again repositioning for the next super-delayed upward leap that lies somewhere in our near-term but not exactly immediate future. That all is legitimate trading. Even naked shorting probably is already (and always) covered in shell sham corporations owned by lawyer friends of those shorting hedgefunds. Those entirely independent but trusted lawyers use legitimately borrowed funds (from a hedgefund their friends represent). That enables those sham "independent" corporations ("individuals in perpetuity" under the law as recently interpreted by a misguided Supreme Court) to make an honest whoring person of such a "naked short" hedgefund (pun intended) at any necessary moment. They do it with cash loaned to them by their SEC-jeopardized hedgefund friend. That friend, of course, makes the loan using up-front-received cash proceeds from naked shorting activities—proceeds that the hedgefund receives instantly in cash at each naked shorting event. What you see in the Short Interest report is not what you get—NOT AT ALL. That report is absolutely meaningless due to the above-described hedgefund manipulation of the report. In my view, virtually all "Short Interest Report" shares are fully covered up front in the manner described above, though the sham corporation purchases of stock withthe immediately borrowed funds are naturally deferred until a guaranteed much lower price (such as we have today) is available for the sham corp to buy."
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Jul 13, 2015 23:24:55 GMT -5
Sanofi is contractually not permitted to buy more than 5% of MNKD shares without the expressed permission of MNKD.
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Jul 14, 2015 0:55:01 GMT -5
Calls are not from nothing...... shorted shares are really in the hands of someone and really need to be bought. MMs have to buy shares when selling calls Bravissimo Parrerob! Whether it's having to buy shares when they take the other side of the trade or laddering up out of the money with spreads it has to net out somewhere...as I've analogized previously to the Greeks and IMF kicking the can down the road the "hedging with options" response is such a cop out because they never account for the other side of the trade that is still short until covered. Sure if I'm short and take out calls to limit my risk exposure, another entity is "taking the ball" so how do they lay it off without some other party absorbing it. Somewhere you have to find clothes for the emperor...or he has to get exposed for what he is...naked The ability to nail strike prices works until it doesn't and then when faced with the possibilities of deep losses you will see swift moves as was the case from those mid 3.50 lows to the low to mid 7's...that was an appetizer and a very tasty one at that...I don't necessarily put this in a GMCR or VW camp, lets keep it in the biotech arena and just say DNDN but with a 1000% more sustainable and viable product/blockbuster. Wow. That was well stated. You summarized the major problem of the large short position. I love the following statement you made: ...it has to net out somewhere... That is the problem the shorts now have with 115,000,000 shares short.
|
|
|
Post by cusop on Jul 14, 2015 7:19:08 GMT -5
I can see an argument for keeping specific goals and timelines secret. Not giving away "level of confidence" in Afrezza would seem to be a stupid decision on their part if it is at all the case. Doctors and patients would be reluctant to bother with Afrezza if there is any indication Sanofi doesn't have confidence in it. To me the only valid reason for keeping share purchase quite is to get them cheaper before market reacts to their buying. DBC I may not have been entirely clear. I believe Sanofi is completely behind Afrezza and is supporting it as such w DTC, doctor dinners, etc . However they may have other corp reasons for investing in mnkd (future partnerships etc, just speculation on my part at this time) and may not want to disclose any shares bought at this point (again I am not saying they have) for competitive reasons unrelated to Afrezza. Not to mention the fact that if they end up with 10,000 users of Afrezza they have a quick tap in to their own "insulin sales" which will net them a huge profit based on quantity alone!! The moment the FDA approve of their insulin in Afrezza then the potential for a Mannkind buy out becomes a reality. Sanofi cannot lose on this deal, the balls in their court there is only upside for them and if for some mad reason Afrezza fails to deliver the real cost them is minor compared to having to develop a new drug!
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jul 14, 2015 8:34:55 GMT -5
If Sanofi buys a large enough % of MNKD, they could possibly secure a Board of Directors seat, which would enable them to keep tabs on the latest Technosphere developments. Just thinking out loud...
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jul 14, 2015 10:28:46 GMT -5
First and foremost they probably already own 4.98% that they have accumulated on the cheap. Why not? Its a great buy. The issue of board approval is a non-issue. The MannKind Board can have a Tele-conference on a one day notice and vote to allow Sanofi to buy a position higher than 5% of the outstanding shares. It would be my guess that is the plan with the convertible notes coming due. If Sanofi purchased a stake in the company (PARTNERSHIP) like Regeneron the PPS issue would go away instantly.
The confidence that Matt had on the calls indicates to me that is what will happen. Think about the three calls we had in June. All upbeat and positive.
Think about the Jay Olsen / Goldman Sachs event. Nothing from Jay Olsen since that time? Why? think about it. This man called for $3.00 in February and nothing from the June Meeting. He knows the deal that has been made or is coming. He is not issuing any Upgrades/Downgrades as he knows that a Big even is going to happen and his firm is in the middle of the transaction. Again as I have stated many times in the last year. SILENCE is golden. You have to know that nothing from Jay Olsen has to be some type of signal.
My thoughts and ramblings. Take them for what they are worth.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jul 14, 2015 10:29:46 GMT -5
This is a non-issue. It can be eliminated with a board Tele-conference. Sanofi is contractually not permitted to buy more than 5% of MNKD shares without the expressed permission of MNKD.
|
|
|
Post by nemzter on Jul 14, 2015 12:24:14 GMT -5
Sanofi is contractually not permitted to buy more than 5% of MNKD shares without the expressed permission of MNKD. Medtronic or Rengeneron can always fill in for this, wouldn't that be nice? Only a matter of weeks for us to know on the convertible though, just be ready for some more disappointment on how it'll be handled. All options are on the table and I wouldn't rule out dilution either.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jul 14, 2015 13:54:02 GMT -5
Is the tide turning? In less than a month Vetr has upgraded MNKD from Sell->Hold->Buy->Strong Buy (this morning).
Yesterday, Zachs listed MannKind Corporation as it's highest growth pick for 2015. Zachs? I rubbed my eyes to make sure I was reading that correctly!
I'm so used to bad press preceding bear raids... could it be the investment analysts' press releases turning favorable is a precursor to a rally or (as the title suggests) an imminent short squeeze?
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Jul 14, 2015 14:09:00 GMT -5
Is the tide turning? In less than a month Vetr has upgraded MNKD from Sell->Hold->Buy->Strong Buy (this morning). Yesterday, Zachs listed MannKind Corporation as it's highest growth pick for 2015. Zachs? I rubbed my eyes to make sure I was reading that correctly! I'm so used to bad press preceding bear raids... could it be the investment analysts' press releases turning favorable is a precursor to a rally or (as the title suggests) an imminent short squeeze? It is so interesting to me to see how positive upgrades do not get published. How is it that two solid upgrades don't show up in any media articles? But if Matt Pfeffer farts, it runs in the headlines that Afrezza is doomed. (Note: I took a little artistic license in describing Matt's condition for effect. I hope no one minds. ?)
|
|
|
Post by BD on Jul 14, 2015 14:21:00 GMT -5
|
|