|
Post by esstan2001 on Oct 21, 2015 15:47:47 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. caveat, another point: the sum total of all the retail longs that are in lending programs likely pales in comparison to the amounts that institutions are lending, so even if we all recalled everything I think the net effect would be an inconsequential drop in the proverbial bucket. We are merely getting compensated for the risk we take holding long against the short's belief that we are the fools- and they are the ones compensating us for this. IMO the long term end value will be little affected by these 'short' term shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 21, 2015 16:03:27 GMT -5
My personal belief is that share price isn't primarily driven by supply/demand effects such as lent shares, but is based on a huge risk discounting built into the share price because of a total lack of ability/willingness to give guidance. Think about it, the company is saying nothing about magnitude nor timing of expected profitability. The shorts are the cause of FUD and that FUD I'm sure effects this risk discounting, but the FUD would still be there even if it were harder for the shorts to borrow shares. Unless a vast majority of lent shares disappeared (highly unlikely) the most adamant shorters (the source of FUD) would still be in there fighting like crazy. The shorters found a great opportunity in a situation with a drug that they probably had inside information would be slow on uptake due to initial poor formulary placement and made all the much better for them by two companies with a tight lips policy. I think we'd be down at these levels even if far fewer shares were being loaned. No matter how many shares they could get they wouldn't be winning if people had confidence in profitability... this is primarily a lack of new longs issue. Those of us willing to take the risk without clarity are largely already invested.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Oct 21, 2015 16:24:59 GMT -5
My personal belief is that share price isn't primarily driven by supply/demand effects such as lent shares, but is based on a huge risk discounting built into the share price because of a total lack of ability/willingness to give guidance. Think about it, the company is saying nothing about magnitude nor timing of expected profitability. The shorts are the cause of FUD and that FUD I'm sure effects this risk discounting, but the FUD would still be there even if it were harder for the shorts to borrow shares. Unless a vast majority of lent shares disappeared (highly unlikely) the most adamant shorters (the source of FUD) would still be in there fighting like crazy. The shorters found a great opportunity in a situation with a drug that they probably had inside information would be slow on uptake due to initial poor formulary placement and made all the much better for them by two companies with a tight lips policy. I think we'd be down at these levels even if far fewer shares were being loaned. No matter how many shares they could get they wouldn't be winning if people had confidence in profitability... this is primarily a lack of new longs issue. Those of us willing to take the risk without clarity are largely already invested. I totally agree here; could not have said it better.
|
|
|
Post by dinvestor89 on Oct 21, 2015 17:13:34 GMT -5
My personal belief is that share price isn't primarily driven by supply/demand effects such as lent shares, but is based on a huge risk discounting built into the share price because of a total lack of ability/willingness to give guidance. Think about it, the company is saying nothing about magnitude nor timing of expected profitability. The shorts are the cause of FUD and that FUD I'm sure effects this risk discounting, but the FUD would still be there even if it were harder for the shorts to borrow shares. Unless a vast majority of lent shares disappeared (highly unlikely) the most adamant shorters (the source of FUD) would still be in there fighting like crazy. The shorters found a great opportunity in a situation with a drug that they probably had inside information would be slow on uptake due to initial poor formulary placement and made all the much better for them by two companies with a tight lips policy. I think we'd be down at these levels even if far fewer shares were being loaned. No matter how many shares they could get they wouldn't be winning if people had confidence in profitability... this is primarily a lack of new longs issue. Those of us willing to take the risk without clarity are largely already invested. Def agree with this statement but I am confused, why are the shorts still around. Do they expect this stock to get lower than it is today? It seems, to me, they are not able to move from their position. Otherwise, why would they still be around. The stock is around $3 per share. This company has an amazing drug and great delivery platform, so how much less do they expect this stock to go? Also, they are constantly shorting this stock by borrowing shares, wasting millions each month to maintain their position. I don't see the logic in this, unless they are extremely under water right now and praying for some sort of crash or something. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 21, 2015 18:20:42 GMT -5
My personal belief is that share price isn't primarily driven by supply/demand effects such as lent shares, but is based on a huge risk discounting built into the share price because of a total lack of ability/willingness to give guidance. Think about it, the company is saying nothing about magnitude nor timing of expected profitability. The shorts are the cause of FUD and that FUD I'm sure effects this risk discounting, but the FUD would still be there even if it were harder for the shorts to borrow shares. Unless a vast majority of lent shares disappeared (highly unlikely) the most adamant shorters (the source of FUD) would still be in there fighting like crazy. The shorters found a great opportunity in a situation with a drug that they probably had inside information would be slow on uptake due to initial poor formulary placement and made all the much better for them by two companies with a tight lips policy. I think we'd be down at these levels even if far fewer shares were being loaned. No matter how many shares they could get they wouldn't be winning if people had confidence in profitability... this is primarily a lack of new longs issue. Those of us willing to take the risk without clarity are largely already invested. Def agree with this statement but I am confused, why are the shorts still around. Do they expect this stock to get lower than it is today? It seems, to me, they are not able to move from their position. Otherwise, why would they still be around. The stock is around $3 per share. This company has an amazing drug and great delivery platform, so how much less do they expect this stock to go? Also, they are constantly shorting this stock by borrowing shares, wasting millions each month to maintain their position. I don't see the logic in this, unless they are extremely under water right now and praying for some sort of crash or something. Thoughts? Perhaps... they have insight into timing of likely formulary improvement (or other issues) that we do not. They realize that with the clause in the agreement giving SNY the right to back out of the deal, they know they have something significant they can safely exploit for a given time period. They may have a well planned strategy, perhaps using options at some point, where they will end up making money on a sharp rise in addition to having made money on the fall. Or... they truly believe Afrezza will fail. In the end I'm sure that big shorts have WAY more inside info regarding Sanofi's strategy and timing than I do. So if the big shorts truly have the latter opinion that would make me very concerned. That said, there is no way of telling what their true belief is... and maybe I'm giving them too much credit that they manage to get inside info. Maybe shorts are hapless and stuck in a position they wish they weren't, but given that they have been on the winning side for quite some time now, I tend to give them some credit for knowing what they are doing. It seems they've done a good game playing the FUD.
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Oct 21, 2015 20:43:22 GMT -5
Toujeo's rapid (and surprise) approval may have given the shorts a big gift...
|
|
|
Post by kc on Oct 21, 2015 21:17:48 GMT -5
I don't agree with you on your theory. Many of us who are upside down with shares at a high basis price look at the return on loaned shares as THE COST OF FUNDS for their investment. The retail investor who has his shares on loan to fidelity or some other broker does not represent that many shares. Do you think we represent more than 5% of the shares? I bet not. I would guess that we don't even move the needle.
So so my return or MannKind dividend has allowed me to buy more shares each month. It also has kept me in the investment for the long haul as we are still a long way from hitting the cost basis that many of us have in mannkind. Investing is not for the faint of heart as it could go either way with a big win or big loss. I am betting on the win and the interest I am earning on my shares keeps me in the game.
You could be on both sides of this issue. Buy 30,0000 shares (MARGIN) @ $3.33 = $99,900 an then put them in the lending program. you pay 8.75% to fidelity for the margin interest at a daily cost of $24.281 or $8,741.25 per year. And you get a current return today of 32% + or - depending on short interest . $99,900 x 32% = $88.80 per day or $31,968 based on a 360 year.
Investing is is a out having a return on you COST OF FUNDS.
|
|
|
Post by patryn on Oct 21, 2015 21:20:34 GMT -5
Only problem with that scenario KC is that you don't actually own the margined shares. Fidelity does and they will lend them out without needing to ask your permission.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Oct 21, 2015 21:20:37 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... its its a return on your cost of funds invested.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Oct 21, 2015 21:28:46 GMT -5
Only problem with that scenario KC is that you don't actually own the margined shares. Fidelity does and they will lend them out without needing to ask your permission. Depends on the size of your account. If your account is large enough then you designate your MannKind shares into the cash side and they will go into the lending program.
|
|
|
Post by cathode on Oct 22, 2015 0:12:29 GMT -5
Def agree with this statement but I am confused, why are the shorts still around. Do they expect this stock to get lower than it is today? It seems, to me, they are not able to move from their position. Otherwise, why would they still be around. The stock is around $3 per share. This company has an amazing drug and great delivery platform, so how much less do they expect this stock to go? Also, they are constantly shorting this stock by borrowing shares, wasting millions each month to maintain their position. I don't see the logic in this, unless they are extremely under water right now and praying for some sort of crash or something. Thoughts? Perhaps... they have insight into timing of likely formulary improvement (or other issues) that we do not. They realize that with the clause in the agreement giving SNY the right to back out of the deal, they know they have something significant they can safely exploit for a given time period. They may have a well planned strategy, perhaps using options at some point, where they will end up making money on a sharp rise in addition to having made money on the fall. Or... they truly believe Afrezza will fail. In the end I'm sure that big shorts have WAY more inside info regarding Sanofi's strategy and timing than I do. So if the big shorts truly have the latter opinion that would make me very concerned. That said, there is no way of telling what their true belief is... and maybe I'm giving them too much credit that they manage to get inside info. Maybe shorts are hapless and stuck in a position they wish they weren't, but given that they have been on the winning side for quite some time now, I tend to give them some credit for knowing what they are doing. It seems they've done a good game playing the FUD. I don't think the entire base of short sellers are acting purely in the borrow-sell-buy-return-profit cycle. I think there are many that look to reap their rewards that way, but I also think there are highly-vested interests looking to place MNKD in a weak position for as long as they can. Just like I don't plan to sell my shares anytime soon, they don't plan on covering until they absolutely have to, even if it is at a serious loss. That is why Nate Pile always says a real squeeze won't happen until we are in the 11s or 12s. This is clearly a disruptive technology just like Al Mann has been saying all along, so the hedge funds and institutions with a history of ownership of established players like NVO have every reason to try to keep the company down. An investment in supressing MannKind fortifies their existing portfolios. The benefit being, of course, that it takes less money to force the hand of a $1.4B company than to bolster a $140B company. Edit: This is all focusing on the diabetes application, of course. Who knows what future TS apps will hold in store.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Oct 22, 2015 9:26:23 GMT -5
My personal belief is that share price isn't primarily driven by supply/demand effects such as lent shares, but is based on a huge risk discounting built into the share price because of a total lack of ability/willingness to give guidance. Think about it, the company is saying nothing about magnitude nor timing of expected profitability. The shorts are the cause of FUD and that FUD I'm sure effects this risk discounting, but the FUD would still be there even if it were harder for the shorts to borrow shares. Unless a vast majority of lent shares disappeared (highly unlikely) the most adamant shorters (the source of FUD) would still be in there fighting like crazy. The shorters found a great opportunity in a situation with a drug that they probably had inside information would be slow on uptake due to initial poor formulary placement and made all the much better for them by two companies with a tight lips policy. I think we'd be down at these levels even if far fewer shares were being loaned. No matter how many shares they could get they wouldn't be winning if people had confidence in profitability... this is primarily a lack of new longs issue. Those of us willing to take the risk without clarity are largely already invested. Def agree with this statement but I am confused, why are the shorts still around. Do they expect this stock to get lower than it is today? It seems, to me, they are not able to move from their position. Otherwise, why would they still be around. The stock is around $3 per share. This company has an amazing drug and great delivery platform, so how much less do they expect this stock to go? Also, they are constantly shorting this stock by borrowing shares, wasting millions each month to maintain their position. I don't see the logic in this, unless they are extremely under water right now and praying for some sort of crash or something. Thoughts? Maybe the shorts are here because longs aren't selling at these levels, for the shorts to exit, longs must sell. Shorts are buying shares for longs every month reducing the amount of shares available to cover, the interest the longs are getting is hurting the shorts in more way than one !! For the most part, shorts can't cover. They can pay to keep the sp in check,(for a while), but even this isn't sustainable. i would imagine all institutions are loaning at least some of their shares, Vanguard with 17 million, Blackrock and the rest. When there is no more "short" money to be made, institutions will turn on a dime and shorts will be in trouble in my opinion. What an investor does with their shares is their business.
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Oct 22, 2015 9:45:59 GMT -5
Today I can't help but think about the epic short squeeze in Volkswagon that saw a billionaire lose his family's fortune and kill himself. If only he could have held out for a few more years, which of course would have been impossible with the collateral required and interest paid on borrowed shares. Another example that time is money. I think that in this case time is on our side.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Oct 22, 2015 10:00:48 GMT -5
"Think about it, the company is saying nothing about magnitude nor timing of expected profitability."
DBC, given what MNKD has to go on now in terms of Rx, I really doubt I want their opinion/projection on the above to be stated publicly.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 22, 2015 12:01:58 GMT -5
Perhaps... they have insight into timing of likely formulary improvement (or other issues) that we do not. They realize that with the clause in the agreement giving SNY the right to back out of the deal, they know they have something significant they can safely exploit for a given time period. They may have a well planned strategy, perhaps using options at some point, where they will end up making money on a sharp rise in addition to having made money on the fall. Or... they truly believe Afrezza will fail. In the end I'm sure that big shorts have WAY more inside info regarding Sanofi's strategy and timing than I do. So if the big shorts truly have the latter opinion that would make me very concerned. That said, there is no way of telling what their true belief is... and maybe I'm giving them too much credit that they manage to get inside info. Maybe shorts are hapless and stuck in a position they wish they weren't, but given that they have been on the winning side for quite some time now, I tend to give them some credit for knowing what they are doing. It seems they've done a good game playing the FUD. I don't think the entire base of short sellers are acting purely in the borrow-sell-buy-return-profit cycle. I think there are many that look to reap their rewards that way, but I also think there are highly-vested interests looking to place MNKD in a weak position for as long as they can. Just like I don't plan to sell my shares anytime soon, they don't plan on covering until they absolutely have to, even if it is at a serious loss. That is why Nate Pile always says a real squeeze won't happen until we are in the 11s or 12s. This is clearly a disruptive technology just like Al Mann has been saying all along, so the hedge funds and institutions with a history of ownership of established players like NVO have every reason to try to keep the company down. An investment in supressing MannKind fortifies their existing portfolios. The benefit being, of course, that it takes less money to force the hand of a $1.4B company than to bolster a $140B company. Edit: This is all focusing on the diabetes application, of course. Who knows what future TS apps will hold in store. SNY is now in control of marketing Afrezza... even if MNKD went bankrupt the agreements provide SNY access to Afrezza. Maybe I'm a bit dense, but how does it benefit NVO shareholders to have MNKD's stock price low?
|
|