|
|
Post by nylefty on Aug 19, 2015 18:56:35 GMT -5
I'm on Medicare and nobody from "gummint" has any say on whether I get Afrezza or any other prescription drug. I'm covered under a drug plan offered by my former employer (GE) and administered by CVS Caremark. No government agency involved. By the way, I'm not a diabetic, but Afrezza is covered by my (non-government) plan, although prior authorization is required. It was also required for the two drugs that I'm actually taking and that process went smoothly. Thanks for clarification, I thought Medicare was an insurance plan itself. Medicare is a government insurance plan that covers doctor visits, hospital stays, etc. As for prescription drugs, here's what it says at Medicare.gov: To get Medicare drug coverage, you must join a plan run by an insurance company or other private company approved by Medicare. Each plan can vary in cost and drugs covered.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 19, 2015 19:06:34 GMT -5
Aren't we saying the same thing? He's saying that even the thought of Sanofi expending funds/efforts to prepare trials as evidence of their commitment is laughable...but what he is doing is saying that he thinks it is foolish to short here by closing out yet another short position. That's the point I was making. So that's a good question to ask him: why do his actions not match his words? Unless...of course...he is certain it is going to tank...but he wants it to run up so he can short it again....but it is doubtful he can move the market to do that. This is my interpretation. Although his analyst is very bearish, the analyst doesn't run the HF. And by the way, they still own a bunch of $7 January 2016 puts. And my contact never said he was certain it was going to tank. What he told me was that based on his information, Sanofi's CEO will be evaluating all the partnerships in the 4th quarter, 2015 and 1st quarter, 2016 and that Afrezza was on chopping block (that doesn't necessary mean Afrezza will get chopped). As to closing out his short, I guess he knows when to take profits (that's what you do when you run a hedge fund), and yes if it went up to 7 or 8 again, he'd probably short it again. He thought the risk/reward right now was not favorable to being short. |
|
|
|
Post by longstocking on Aug 19, 2015 19:11:43 GMT -5
Aren't we saying the same thing? He's saying that even the thought of Sanofi expending funds/efforts to prepare trials as evidence of their commitment is laughable...but what he is doing is saying that he thinks it is foolish to short here by closing out yet another short position. That's the point I was making. So that's a good question to ask him: why do his actions not match his words? Unless...of course...he is certain it is going to tank...but he wants it to run up so he can short it again....but it is doubtful he can move the market to do that. This is my interpretation. Although his analyst is very bearish, the analyst doesn't run the HF. And by the way, they still own a bunch of $7 January 2016 puts. And my contact never said he was certain it was going to tank. What he told me was that based on his information, Sanofi's CEO will be evaluating all the partnerships in the 4th quarter, 2015 and 1st quarter, 2016 and that Afrezza was on chopping block (that doesn't necessary mean Afrezza will get chopped). As to closing out his short, I guess he knows when to take profits (that's what you do when you run a hedge fund), and yes if it went up to 7 or 8 again, he'd probably short it again. He thought the risk/reward right now was not favorable to being short. Since the SNY/MNKD allows SNY to terminate in 1st quarter 2016, then saying it is on the "chopping block" isn't really new info. Of course a new CEO is going to consider (AKA "chopping block"), whether a partnership started before his time with the company should continue or not. I don't think this is really new info when you think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Aug 19, 2015 19:53:00 GMT -5
An observation: Risk/reward decisions are made by companies everyday. If, as the hedge fund observer concludes, the risk is higher than the potential reward, then the short bet is not made if logic is driving the decision. Hence, I would agree that increasing a short position at these levels might not be a great idea.  The interesting thing about shorting (and why it is so risky) is that the risk is very hard to calculate (because it is theoretically infinite) if an unexpected event is announced and a squeeze results. However, the upper end of the potential reward is known. The share price of a stock can only go to zero. However, when a company does a risk/reward analysis the risk (cost) of failure can be calculated pretty accurately; but the reward is more difficult to estimate. When the potential reward is very high at some point in the future (as occurs with blockbuster drugs), I would imagine that the tolerance for risk might be higher, especially if the product is novel and shows great promise but requires a paradigm change prior to success. Those factors would tend to argue against a knee jerk decision and a willingness to be patient with the possibility of great rewards in the future. Just, as the thread title suggests, FWIW. Chris C |
|
|
|
Post by savzak on Aug 19, 2015 20:18:44 GMT -5
Mssciguy,
I'm very sorry for your loss. God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 14:10:23 GMT -5
Just got back from vacation and I spent some time with someone who runs a small hedge fund ($200 million). The topic of Mannkind came up and he told me that his hedge fund just recently closed out his relatively large short position in Mannkind but stills owns lots of puts. He knows Jason Karp well and believes quite a bit of JK's short thesis. In fact he read me a portion of JK's recent comments of the recent MNKD CC. In summary, he said that the "Street" (very knowledgable Wall Street gamblers) believe that the CEO of Sanofi has no real commitment to Afrezza and further believe that's it's highly likely that Sanofi will terminate the partnership early in 2016. He thought that if that happens, the share price could drop to $1.50. i know that this is diametrically opposite of what we heard on the CC - and that's why I titled this thread "For What It's Worth". Trend I guess Jason Karp and his sources were correct way back in August. Its interesting to read all of the posts on this thread in response to the info I posted. Trend |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 14:15:44 GMT -5
Just got back from vacation and I spent some time with someone who runs a small hedge fund ($200 million). The topic of Mannkind came up and he told me that his hedge fund just recently closed out his relatively large short position in Mannkind but stills owns lots of puts. He knows Jason Karp well and believes quite a bit of JK's short thesis. In fact he read me a portion of JK's recent comments of the recent MNKD CC. In summary, he said that the "Street" (very knowledgable Wall Street gamblers) believe that the CEO of Sanofi has no real commitment to Afrezza and further believe that's it's highly likely that Sanofi will terminate the partnership early in 2016. He thought that if that happens, the share price could drop to $1.50. i know that this is diametrically opposite of what we heard on the CC - and that's why I titled this thread "For What It's Worth". Trend I guess Jason Karp and his sources were correct way back in August. Its interesting to read all of the posts on this thread in response to the info I posted. Trend I spent New Years Eve with a family member who owns a fund. We got drunk and argued about MNKD. He flat out said to me do you think you and your retail following really know more then institutions with Ivy League Educations and billion $ pockets. Do I have access to better information? He had been warning me for months to get out. Kept telling me you dont invest based on user reviews. Kicking myself |
|
The interesting thing about shorting (and why it is so risky) is that the risk is very hard to calculate (because it is theoretically infinite) if an unexpected event is announced and a squeeze results. However, the upper end of the potential reward is known. The share price of a stock can only go to zero.