|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 22, 2015 20:45:17 GMT -5
patryn... I stick by my math that there are longs with a net position now of around $1.88B despite exceeding market cap of company. Granted only holders that have not lent shares get to vote. My point was that whatever you want to call the borrowed and shorted shares, they do balloon the value of all the long holdings almost as if there were actually a larger number of shares. They are "virtual" shares from the financial standpoint if not voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 22, 2015 20:50:04 GMT -5
The shares short may not be all that naked. Wonder how many of those short shares have been bought and re-lent by accomodating longs... OOg The main topic of this thread is institutions accumulating. If institutions have better intelligence than I do (and I assume they do), I would think they would have some idea of when the situation on the ground (formulary, etc.) will start changing in a way to drive up price. In the meantime they would have every reason in the world to be lending out shares they buy as fast as the shorts are willing to take them in order to blunt the price appreciation that might otherwise come from their accumulation. It would be logical to pace this to keep the price down... assuming the smart money has some sense of when the formulary/script trajectory will change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 20:56:45 GMT -5
So in theory. If Mannkind had the capital and desire, they could issue a buyback, retire shares, thus making the overall number of shares available smaller, correct? By doing so, a short squeeze could possibly insue and the strong possibility of a MNKD finding its true share price. But, again for this scenario to take place MNKD would need the capital to do so, and management would need the desire to actually intervene.
For example, OLED. Universal Display. My god this stock was pooped on by shorts so many times. Actually, still is. For the longest time, OLED management was SO similar to MNKD; focusing so little on shareholders instead focuing on the business of OLED materials and it intellectual property. So this caused major swings in the stock price, allowing shorts to manipulate at will. Until...one magical day! Management pulled their heads out of their bums! Issuing a buyback. Holy cow, did this do wonders for the stock. We had volume, we had a rising stock price, we had buyers, we had a SQUEEZE! This put a firm support for the price. Eventually, rising to old highs, and this coupled with news which came out about a year later of a second long term contract with LG had the share price going nuts. Unfortunately, OLED has again hit a rough patch. But, I will be a buyer under 30.
If MNKD could follow with something similar. Being knowledgeable about some good news coming out on the horizon coupled with a buyback, wow could you imagine. MNKD issue a buy back of 10,000,000 shares and then days later a press release for approval in Europe thus another milestone in the bank, or a 5% buy in by Sanofi. Where would the price climb to? I can almost guarantee shorts would be crapping their pants. We would have a climb in share price, I am sure!
I dont suggest that management do a share buy back at this time. As in the case of OLED they have NO DEBT, and around something like $7 a share in cash. MNKD has had problems with cash, but I believe that is the nature of BIO stocks. Burning cash until the product/drug becomes a success. What I do suggest is that they STOP ISSUING SHARES, by issuing more stock the problem of shorts will NOT go away. It will become more of a headache for investors such as us. But, if there is a chance to spend some money on an even small buyback, the ripple of this action could be huge. Something that I would really like Matt and Haken to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Oct 22, 2015 22:37:28 GMT -5
... but first of all let's talk about shares sold short. You don't add the number of shares borrowed to the number of shares of stock and create "phantom shares" That reflects a total lack of understanding of short selling. If a person borrows his neighbor's car and sells it to someone else, he didn't just create another automobile. For a short period of time he might have a lot of cash in his pocket, but he better buy that car back before his neighbor asks him to return it or he's going to jail. Naked short selling is illegal. Does it happen that sometimes people discover they can't deliver the shares when demanded? Yes, but it is my understanding that this is a short term situation. Shares that were available to borrow are either lent to someone else, withdrawn or sold and new shares have to be located before the deadline. With an illiquid stock, with shares to be borrowed in high demand this can't always be done by the end of the day and a ftd notice is issued. Usually it is cleared up by the next day. This is not necessarily a sign of bad intentions. There is one important point missed here, and that is that shares of stock are fungible; that is (of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable. So it is not like borrowing your neighbor's car and then selling it. It is more like borrowing a pound of sugar or a gallon of gas and selling it. Any sugar or gas of the same type can be bought at a later time to repay the debt. Also, as mentioned, "failed to deliver" means the stock was not delivered on time in the required 3 business days to settle the transaction, not that the shares will never be delivered. |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Oct 22, 2015 23:15:50 GMT -5
patryn... I stick by my math that there are longs with a net position now of around $1.88B despite exceeding market cap of company. Granted only holders that have not lent shares get to vote. My point was that whatever you want to call the borrowed and shorted shares, they do balloon the value of all the long holdings almost as if there were actually a larger number of shares. They are "virtual" shares from the financial standpoint if not voting. DBC In my opinion you are trying to apply linear maths to a non linear phenomena. A priori it sounds kind of reasonable that the borrowed shares count twice but only in a steady state mathematical model (which this certainly is not). The unwinding (in our favour) will produce dramatically different market cap numbers on the way up and the unwinding (in their favour) the opposite numbers. In other words I think you are trying to express with one number (market cap) multiple variables that are not so easily 'mathematically reducible'? Variables: Real shares, price of real shares, borrowed (and resold) shares, interest rates paid and crucially time. Note I did not include naked short shares and the time they are used. The psychology behind all this is much more important that any rule of 3 mathematical model. PS: I say all this with the utmost respect and simply 'to pass the time'... |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 25, 2015 10:44:50 GMT -5
Morningstar just updated several accounts on October 20, 2015. It looks like there's been some interesting movement.
Owners Activity (MNKD)
| INSTITUTIONS | | FUNDS | |
| Current
| % Chg from Prev Qtr
| Current
| % Chg from Prev Qtr
| Total Owners | 249 | 10.67 | 208 | 6.12 | New Owners | 41 | 32.26 | 18 | -10.00 | Sold Out | 22 | -21.43 | 10 | -23.08 | # of Owners Buying | 85 | 14.86 | 55 | -3.51 | # of Owners Selling | 51 | -3.77 | 37 | 19.35 | Total Shares Owned (Mil) | 108 | 8.15 | 62 | 6.49 | Total Shares Bought (Mil) | 16 | 40.86 | 1 | -41.44 | Total Shares Sold (Mil) | 8 | 13.92 | 2 | -25.05 | Net Share Change (Mil) | 8 | 81.68 | -1 | 35.18 |
Incidentally, MannKind Corporation actually provides quite a bit of this information within the Investors section of their corporate website, including Shareholder Concentration, Buyer/Seller Rotation and Top Shareholders.
Link: MannKind Ownership Profile
|
|
|
|
Post by mbseeking on Oct 26, 2015 9:25:27 GMT -5
Why doesn't the SEC or Nasdaq regulate so we can see similar information on who the big shorters are? Just like the entities in the table above, the shorts have a material influence on the market for the stock. Why arent they named?
|
|
