|
|
Post by sunsetends on Aug 13, 2015 13:27:10 GMT -5
Won't lend out any of 90K.
|
|
|
|
Post by papihoyos on Aug 13, 2015 15:18:14 GMT -5
I will continue to lend out my shares roughly 106k and raising every month because I reinvest my monthly dividend by buying shares with my dividend until I see that we are getting some momentum in the weekly prescriptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Aug 13, 2015 15:38:51 GMT -5
I will continue to lend out my shares roughly 106k and raising every month because I reinvest my monthly dividend by buying shares with my dividend until I see that we are getting some momentum in the weekly prescriptions. And how will that make anything different? It sounds very paradoxical and self-centered, but hey, it's a "free market" I never, ever would trade anything in a non-IRA. You might get burned and take a lot of people with you. Maybe already But I wish you the best. |
|
|
|
Post by morfu on Aug 15, 2015 8:36:01 GMT -5
I will continue to lend out my shares roughly 106k and raising every month because I reinvest my monthly dividend by buying shares with my dividend until I see that we are getting some momentum in the weekly prescriptions. And how will that make anything different? It sounds very paradoxical and self-centered, but hey, it's a "free market" I never, ever would trade anything in a non-IRA. You might get burned and take a lot of people with you. Maybe already But I wish you the best. Hmm oh noes.. a self centered investor..  Compare the two positions from sunset and papi, which might have been the same about 6months ago: papi decided to short his about 90k and yes the stock price took a (small) hit because of that Ever since then he got his interest and buys his shares every month, the shorts yet have to cover from the initial sell. I dont think there is a way to tell that his first lending in the past still hurts the share price now (the resulting shorting is almost forgotten history by now), him buying is of course a good thing (we want more longs!) and so is the pending short position. Compared to the inactive 90k of the other investor I think you can savely say, that papi is the better deal for the company! (If not now, than for sure in the near future, latest after the short had to cover, there is a huge net benefit from papi's decission) Even if Hakan's argument were true, that there still is an effect from papi's first lending, he is making up for it every month, which benefits him and the company! Ultimately you can say not the investor, but the management determines the share price (however, I tend to agree that current rules about shorting a stock are destructive and I hope that Mannkind really burns them shorts!) |
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Aug 15, 2015 8:50:05 GMT -5
And how will that make anything different? It sounds very paradoxical and self-centered, but hey, it's a "free market" I never, ever would trade anything in a non-IRA. You might get burned and take a lot of people with you. Maybe already But I wish you the best. Hmm oh noes.. a self centered investor.. Compare the two positions from sunset and papi, which might have been the same about 6months ago: papi decided to short his about 90k and yes the stock price took a (small) hit because of that Ever since then he got his interest and buys his shares every month, the shorts yet have to cover from the initial sell. I dont think there is a way to tell that his first lending in the past still hurts the share price now (the resulting shorting is almost forgotten history by now), him buying is of course a good thing (we want more longs!) and so is the pending short position. Compared to the inactive 90k of the other investor I think you can savely say, that papi is the better deal for the company! (If not now, than for sure in the near future, latest after the short had to cover, there is a huge net benefit from papi's decission) Even if Hakan's argument were true, that there still is an effect from papi's first lending, he is making up for it every month, which benefits him and the company! Ultimately you can say not the investor, but the management determines the share price (however, I tend to agree that current rules about shorting a stock are destructive and I hope that Mannkind really burns them shorts!) Normally I would agree with you, however, it seems to me that recently, it's all up to Sanofi. They are handling insurance, doctor education, DTC. Mannkind could never do that, no resources, no expertise in those areas. My money is now in IRAs because my margin account got wiped out by some very shady options trading (not MNKD) last year--- I will never touch options again. But knowing what I know now about lack of control over what happens to the shares in a margin account, I wouldn't want to go there. Forces of darkness (and maybe dark pools) at work to screw the retail guys.... |
|
|
|
Post by BD on Aug 17, 2015 20:45:48 GMT -5
Sorry for the wait on the calculation...of course, anyone can do what I'm about to do here with my back-of-the-envelope analysis; I'm not using any information that isn't based on public numbers (including those from the poll.) I have to begin, however, by expressing some skepticism concerning the 10 members who claim they lend out 200K+ shares. I picked that number to be ridiculously high so that, basically, nobody would choose it. So did some of you goose the poll? (rhetorical question). I'll do my analysis accepting the 10 200K+ holders. Why not? I lack any more verifiable numbers. The other thing is that the analysis might be a bit more precise if I also knew how many total shares each poll voter actually owns. Because we do not want to ask that question of everyone, I'm going to make an assumption that those lending shares have made all the shares they own available for lending. I realize this is most likely not completely true, but as I don't have the data to know how untrue it is, I have to simplify by making that assumption. Finally, I am in no way a qualified statistician, this is just a thought experiment. So let's go. 46 members lend out their shares, 106 do not. So, simplest possible extrapolation based on just that: 30% of all shares held are currently available for shorting. That's based on the assumption the poll reflects a representative sampling of all shareholders; did I mention this was just a thought experiment? With a float of 261M, that would imply 78.3M total shares are available for shorts to borrow. Yet the actual short interest reported by NASDAQ has been as high as 131M. I'm assuming Al's shares are not being lent out, and we've been told company employees' shares aren't either. So where'd the extra ~53M shares shorted come from? I don't know. Next, let's look the poll numbers for how many shares each member is lending, and see where that gets us. If I use the midpoint of each poll choice (e.g., 3 members hold an average of 7500 shares each), I end up with a total of about 6M shares being represented by the 46 members who lend their shares. Average number of shares being lent out by these members: 129K. Let's further assume that the average number of shares held by those who lend their shares is the same as the average number held by those who do not lend them out (as I have nothing that would indicate otherwise.) With a 261M share float, and an average number of shares held of 129K, that says there are 2023 shareholders who collectively represent the float. Seems low--especially since 129K seems like a high number for average number of shares per shareholder--but perhaps if there are some institutional whales involved, they skew the average share count up. Let's just go with that. So, again, with 30% of shareholders lending their shares, that would make 675 shareholders (out of 2023) lending an average of 129K shares, or a total of 78.2M shares available for lending. That number agrees remarkably well with my earlier, simpler result...I'm suspecting I've maybe perpetrated some sort of tautology here, but I'm too stupid to diagnose it. I'm ready to hear from some of you how I've done that, though  The number I was hunting for by posting this poll, then, is about 78M shares. If everyone lending shares called them back, that's how many shares the shorts would have to buy. It's nice to dream... |
|
|
|
Post by patryn on Aug 18, 2015 17:06:41 GMT -5
BD asked me to post my analysis of the share lending situation.
My analysis of the 116 million shorts breaks down as follows:
415 million outstanding
148 million not shortable due to being held by insiders
267 million held by non insiders
Of those held by the public:
92 million held by institutions
175 million held by retail investors
Almost all institutions goose their yields by loaning out the shares since a great deal have to hold the shares as part of their investment basket to mimic the index they are following. As a result, I napkin mathed and said 90% of institutional is lent out or 83 million of those short shares.
That means retail investors are lending out 33 million of the short shares (19% of the retail investors) and in theory, those could be recalled in a concerted effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by BD on Aug 18, 2015 19:24:37 GMT -5
Thanks, Patryn. I figured my numbers were probably lame, but at least they got folks with a better financial head on their shoulders (such as you) thinking and putting out better theories...
|
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Aug 19, 2015 8:21:10 GMT -5
BD asked me to post my analysis of the share lending situation. My analysis of the 116 million shorts breaks down as follows: 415 million outstanding 148 million not shortable due to being held by insiders 267 million held by non insiders Of those held by the public: 92 million held by institutions 175 million held by retail investors Almost all institutions goose their yields by loaning out the shares since a great deal have to hold the shares as part of their investment basket to mimic the index they are following. As a result, I napkin mathed and said 90% of institutional is lent out or 83 million of those short shares. That means retail investors are lending out 33 million of the short shares (19% of the retail investors) and in theory, those could be recalled in a concerted effort. This seemed like a very good back of the envelope calculation until I woke up this morning with a question. Are there not really 531,000,000 shares to account for, that is 415,000,000 shares issued and 116,000,000 "artificial shares" created by the short sellers? And in a related question could a willing short seller and a willing lender of shares theoretically create infinite shares; if the shareholder lent his shares, the short seller sold them on the open market, the original shareholder bought those borrowed shares and again loaned them out, creating an endless cycle? This seems possible because although shares should not be fungible, in practice they are. |
|
|
|
Post by patryn on Aug 19, 2015 11:12:56 GMT -5
BD asked me to post my analysis of the share lending situation. My analysis of the 116 million shorts breaks down as follows: 415 million outstanding 148 million not shortable due to being held by insiders 267 million held by non insiders Of those held by the public: 92 million held by institutions 175 million held by retail investors Almost all institutions goose their yields by loaning out the shares since a great deal have to hold the shares as part of their investment basket to mimic the index they are following. As a result, I napkin mathed and said 90% of institutional is lent out or 83 million of those short shares. That means retail investors are lending out 33 million of the short shares (19% of the retail investors) and in theory, those could be recalled in a concerted effort. This seemed like a very good back of the envelope calculation until I woke up this morning with a question. Are there not really 531,000,000 shares to account for, that is 415,000,000 shares issued and 116,000,000 "artificial shares" created by the short sellers? And in a related question could a willing short seller and a willing lender of shares theoretically create infinite shares; if the shareholder lent his shares, the short seller sold them on the open market, the original shareholder bought those borrowed shares and again loaned them out, creating an endless cycle? This seems possible because although shares should not be fungible, in practice they are. It's true. I did not account for the theoretical infinite creation of shares through shorting and buying back of the same share and then re-lending it back out. I had also failed to account for the ridiculously high number of fail to deliver shares which are also likely short shares. I had conjectured that a very small percentage of the float was actually being loaned out multiple times and/or in that fail to deliver status. The percentages given by Nasdaq for the percentages of float being held by various folks are the true outstanding shares which is 415 million. Remember that loaned out shares do not actually count as real shares (though they will for the purpose of needing to be bought and returned). The reason is that even if there were an infinite number of shares being created through this mechanism, when it comes time for a shareholder vote then only 415 million votes will count. Also, when it comes time to cover those shorts, you can't sell an artificially created share - you have to sell a real share (otherwise you sell your share and if it was loaned out, then someone else would have to sell a real share to have the short seller return to you a real share that you can then sell. Not sure if that all made sense, but while I count the 116 million shorts as shares that need to be bought back, they would not have an impact if the actual shareholders loaning out shares decided to recall them either to hold or sell them. |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Aug 19, 2015 18:35:33 GMT -5
If there is a Vegas meetup, MNKD would have probably met or exceeded most of our expectations. I can safely say that should that day come, I would be happy to rent out the entire penthouse at the Bellagio and host a party for everyone who would want to show up without even needing to sell any of my MNKD shares Count me in !! Thanks in advance. Rock |
|
|
|
Post by BD on Aug 19, 2015 21:12:56 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone for participating in the poll. Time to un-pin.
|
|
|
|
Post by longstocking on Aug 19, 2015 21:16:03 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone for participating in the poll. Time to un-pin. That was fun to see. Thanks for setting it up. |
|
|
|
Post by kball on Aug 19, 2015 21:40:09 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone for participating in the poll. Time to un-pin. Now if you're really bold, lets do a poll on our cost basis. |
|
|
|
Post by BD on Aug 19, 2015 21:43:36 GMT -5
kball, I think I can ballpark a guess on that without taking a poll...
|
|
