|
|
Post by caveintemptor on Oct 21, 2015 8:12:55 GMT -5
I have always been non-plussed by MNKD longs lending shares to shorts in order to allow them to bring the PPS down. Why would one want to help those killing a stock if one like it enough to go long in the first place  ?? Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility... and really peanuts to be paid to watch a stock one like being killed... |
|
|
|
Post by ashiwi on Oct 21, 2015 8:38:38 GMT -5
Fidelity just raised the interest for shorts to borrow to 49%.
Just confirms yesterday's short attack at 3:37. Looks like more to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdcenter61 on Oct 21, 2015 8:52:07 GMT -5
Cave,
I had lent my shares back over the summer and slowly watched the price erode as well as the interest rate paid (I'm using Schwab). I have to admit I personally didn't feel right helping those short bastards out, but also didn't mind getting some yield which I used to turn around and buy more shares. I still felt like I had to take a shower after the interest was credited to my account each month, lol. In the end, I called Schwab in August and recalled my shares as a matter of principle more than anything.
That being said, I don't begrudge anyone choosing to lend their shares as part of their own individual investing plan. I've become pretty simple minded; I've been burned with MNKD options, watched my MNKD warrants whittle down, so my holdings and recent buys are simply long shares. I've put more than I should into this thing but if I lost it all it wouldn't change my lifestyle (might add a few more years to work/retirement plan, lol, but as long as I'm healthy I would rather work anyway). For me, I tend to sleep a little better without the complications (and internal moral struggles) of lending the stock. Best to luck to all (other than shorts). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 8:55:41 GMT -5
I have always been non-plussed by MNKD longs lending shares to shorts in order to allow them to bring the PPS down. Why would one want to help those killing a stock if one like it enough to go long in the first place ?? Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility... and really peanuts to be paid to watch a stock one like being killed... why not if it helps them to dig a deeper hole .. so deep that they cant get out lol although I have a position which is not huge to be lent out, this lending can be equivalent to a dividend paying stock... reap the dividends while watching the farm grow... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 10:08:14 GMT -5
Cave,
I had lent my shares back over the summer and slowly watched the price erode as well as the interest rate paid (I'm using Schwab). I have to admit I personally didn't feel right helping those short bastards out, but also didn't mind getting some yield which I used to turn around and buy more shares. I still felt like I had to take a shower after the interest was credited to my account each month, lol. In the end, I called Schwab in August and recalled my shares as a matter of principle more than anything.
That being said, I don't begrudge anyone choosing to lend their shares as part of their own individual investing plan. I've become pretty simple minded; I've been burned with MNKD options, watched my MNKD warrants whittle down, so my holdings and recent buys are simply long shares. I've put more than I should into this thing but if I lost it all it wouldn't change my lifestyle (might add a few more years to work/retirement plan, lol, but as long as I'm healthy I would rather work anyway). For me, I tend to sleep a little better without the complications (and internal moral struggles) of lending the stock. Best to luck to all (other than shorts). And when you lent your shares to Schwab, did they in turn lend them to another Schwab retail client, Schwab institutional client or non-Schwab institutional client? I know you called your shares back but what would happen in the event of a massive short squeeze? What if during such an event you asked for your shares back and they were not returned or not returned in a timely fashion? What would your recourse be? Is it correct to assume that the binding arbitration you agreed to when you opened your Schwab account would be the only remediation mechanism for the scenario I described? Even if you (or anyone else who lent shares) was able to use a lawyer and court system for the purposes of attempting to be made whole, the process would take years and you would never get all of your money back. In binding arbitration you would also likely come up short in a doomsday scenario. I think if / when we see a short squeeze, many who are participating in the share lending programs at the time of said squeeze could end up getting burned. |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 21, 2015 12:57:23 GMT -5
Cave,
"Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility." I don't lend my shares....yet. But I would never lend them if I could figure which way the volatility was going to take the stock, problem is, I can't, but I can understand close to half percent a week (in the upward direction), and that is no illusion.
Notwithstanding, your point is well taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 21, 2015 13:26:03 GMT -5
I have always been non-plussed by MNKD longs lending shares to shorts in order to allow them to bring the PPS down. Why would one want to help those killing a stock if one like it enough to go long in the first place ?? Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility... and really peanuts to be paid to watch a stock one like being killed... The money seems to spend just like any other money, so not sure why it is illusion to you. Many people have owned MNKD for quite some time as buy and hold rather than trading. If someone has had shares lent out for a couple of years, even with a bunch of ups and downs, that amounts to a very significant amount of interest greatly reducing their effective cost basis. I've only been lending shares for about 7 months and I've brought my cost basis down by 8%. That has only helped cushion how far in the red I am right now and I obviously would have been better off selling and repurchasing at these lower prices if my crystal ball weren't on the fritz. Us retail investors not lending would not stop the shorting. Maybe if any effect it could blunt the rapidity of bear raids slightly, but in the end the price is set by the events and perceptions. Even if all retail longs retracted shares, any squeeze upswing would likely be followed by return to these same price levels since nothing would have fundamentally changed regarding the FUD that has us here. |
|
|
|
Post by mdcenter61 on Oct 21, 2015 13:26:31 GMT -5
And when you lent your shares to Schwab, did they in turn lend them to another Schwab retail client, Schwab institutional client or non-Schwab institutional client? I know you called your shares back but what would happen in the event of a massive short squeeze? What if during such an event you asked for your shares back and they were not returned or not returned in a timely fashion? What would your recourse be? Is it correct to assume that the binding arbitration you agreed to when you opened your Schwab account would be the only remediation mechanism for the scenario I described? Even if you (or anyone else who lent shares) was able to use a lawyer and court system for the purposes of attempting to be made whole, the process would take years and you would never get all of your money back. In binding arbitration you would also likely come up short in a doomsday scenario. I think if / when we see a short squeeze, many who are participating in the share lending programs at the time of said squeeze could end up getting burned. All good points - although there was 100%cash collateralization at the end of each day in my lending account, my concern was if by slim chance a mega-news event came in and the resulting PPS pop resulted in a default by the ultimate borrower. I know that on the surface they would like you to think that Schwab would make you whole, but my concern was that there was language deep in the lending document which would absolve Schwab ultimately and could result in a protracted legal battle I couldn't afford. HENCE, my asking them to return shares! You don't receive that type of interest rate without significant risk! |
|
|
|
Post by bighaus89 on Oct 21, 2015 13:29:40 GMT -5
I have always been non-plussed by MNKD longs lending shares to shorts in order to allow them to bring the PPS down. Why would one want to help those killing a stock if one like it enough to go long in the first place ?? Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility... and really peanuts to be paid to watch a stock one like being killed... The money seems to spend just like any other money, so not sure why it is illusion to you. Many people have owned MNKD for quite some time as buy and hold rather than trading. If someone has had shares lent out for a couple of years, even with a bunch of ups and downs, that amounts to a very significant amount of interest greatly reducing their effective cost basis. I've only been lending shares for about 7 months and I've brought my cost basis down by 8%. That has only helped cushion how far in the red I am right now and I obviously would have been better off selling and repurchasing at these lower prices if my crystal ball weren't on the fritz. Us retail investors not lending would not stop the shorting. Maybe if any effect it could blunt the rapidity of bear raids slightly, but in the end the price is set by the events and perceptions. Even if all retail longs retracted shares, any squeeze upswing would likely be followed by return to these same price levels since nothing would have fundamentally changed regarding the FUD that has us here. This is the main point. How many institutional investors are lending their shares? Even if a small fraction of them are, that is significantly more shares than most retail investors combines. Retail investors loaning shares is a drop in the bucket. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 21, 2015 13:36:20 GMT -5
@scotta... So Schwab is going to default on their obligation to a bunch of retail customers and fight it in arbitration over what would probably amount to rounding error for them? Why would they not fulfill their obligation to their clients and go into arbitration instead with the counter party that defaulted? Why didn't they have collateral from that counter party to cover their loses if they need to buy MNKD on the market to return shares to us... oh, they probably do. Seems a bit far fetched Schwab would screw a bunch of their clients as response to a failure in a counter party.
And the scenario of getting burned you present is one where there is a huge short squeeze spike and we don't get the opportunity to sell during the spike and the share price then drops? I'm primarily in this for the long haul and believe MNKD share price will be significantly higher than it is now based on fundamentals, not just short squeeze. My timing has never been great, so selling during a short squeeze temporary spike is not part of my plan for MNKD. And... as stated above, I think it absurd that Schwab would not meet their obligations even during a short squeeze.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 21, 2015 13:41:20 GMT -5
bighaus89... not to mention if an institutional investor is wanting to accumulate shares they would have every reason to loan them out as quickly as possible to help blunt the demand of them buying as long as shorts are willing to play along. And, those same shares can circle around in an unlimited fashion increasing net short interest as the institution builds their position.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinvestor89 on Oct 21, 2015 13:47:49 GMT -5
I have always been non-plussed by MNKD longs lending shares to shorts in order to allow them to bring the PPS down. Why would one want to help those killing a stock if one like it enough to go long in the first place ?? Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility... and really peanuts to be paid to watch a stock one like being killed... To me, I feel as a true long on this stock I don't mind lending my shares out for the big guys to play their game. For the small fish that don't know what they are investing in, I suppose buyer beware? If you are allowed to be scared out of your position, that's your loss I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by caveintemptor on Oct 21, 2015 14:05:48 GMT -5
I have always been non-plussed by MNKD longs lending shares to shorts in order to allow them to bring the PPS down. Why would one want to help those killing a stock if one like it enough to go long in the first place ?? Note a 25% per annum rate is an illusion: this is only 0.43% per week... way below the intra-day volatility... and really peanuts to be paid to watch a stock one like being killed... The money seems to spend just like any other money, so not sure why it is illusion to you. Many people have owned MNKD for quite some time as buy and hold rather than trading. If someone has had shares lent out for a couple of years, even with a bunch of ups and downs, that amounts to a very significant amount of interest greatly reducing their effective cost basis. I've only been lending shares for about 7 months and I've brought my cost basis down by 8%. That has only helped cushion how far in the red I am right now and I obviously would have been better off selling and repurchasing at these lower prices if my crystal ball weren't on the fritz. Us retail investors not lending would not stop the shorting. Maybe if any effect it could blunt the rapidity of bear raids slightly, but in the end the price is set by the events and perceptions. Even if all retail longs retracted shares, any squeeze upswing would likely be followed by return to these same price levels since nothing would have fundamentally changed regarding the FUD that has us here. Maybe you would be less in the red if the shorts had not used your own shares to bring the PPS way down... I guess they have been happy to pay you 8%, because they brought the PPS down way more and so they did with your initial investment... Index Funds may not really care about the gyrations of the market, but all true longs do prefer to see the PPS going up :-) |
|
|
|
Post by wiscdh on Oct 21, 2015 14:22:58 GMT -5
I used to lend out my shares too but not anymore. I used to buy more shares which in turn were also lent out and the cycle continued for months. And don't forget, as the stock price goes down, so does your 'dividend'. I know the retail investor doesn't have much control over the stock price of Mannkind but the big guys know what to do to drive the share price down 100 shares at a time. Don't give them more ammunition.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 21, 2015 15:15:29 GMT -5
caveintemptor... All true longs that aren't still trying to accumulate would want price higher. I bought some more at $3.06 in the past few weeks, so if my measly number of shares lent helped me to scoop up some extra really under priced shares then I'm really a Wall Street genius... that is assuming of course that the share price is depressed because of the shorting (as you believe) and not because of real issues such as formulary acceptance which though many believing will go away are still a issues that present risk that must be priced into what people are willing to pay for the shares. If you truly believe that shorting is the primary driver of the price then you should beg, borrow and steal money to buy at these prices. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity with little risk if you believe your thesis that but if for shorts the price would be much higher.
|
|
??
