|
Post by cretin11 on Nov 12, 2015 11:21:57 GMT -5
Thanks tony. Any chance that big money was also some short covering, or would that not make sense with that timing?
|
|
|
Post by cathode on Nov 12, 2015 11:23:27 GMT -5
tbone are you seriously a long but you don't believe there's been ANY short manipulation of the share price? Apologies if I'm not understanding the gist of your posts here. Do I think there are efforts to bash and see a lower price? Sure. Do I think that those controlling 100 million short shares can manipulate the price of this stock for any more than seconds? No. The market is made up of everyone, not to mention that the longs control 400+ million shares. Why would you give credit to a few shorts for the low price of the stock we see. The price is based on where the buyer and seller agree, correct? So, at any given time, buyers are free to jump all over this 'mispriced' stock to bring the price back in line. Why doesn't that happen?? Because the price of the stock is based on no sales and no money, not on an article by AF or anyone else. Sure, he draws attention to the negative aspects of the situation but he does not manipulate the stock price. You really give shorts a lot of credit if you think so. To read all the manipulation cries really makes me question anything else that one says. Think about it. If shorts wanted to drive AAPL to $2, could they? Why not? Exactly. There are more than a few shorts, and they have disproportionately large financial means to move the stock where they want it. When in collusion, they can walk it wherever they want,as they are controlling almost all the volume. AF of course does not manipulate the stock price alone. If that were the case, the SEC would have actually prosecuted him by now. He sends out the signals for large-volume actions that are actually performed by institutions.
|
|
|
Post by ricguy on Nov 12, 2015 11:24:39 GMT -5
tbone are you seriously a long but you don't believe there's been ANY short manipulation of the share price? Apologies if I'm not understanding the gist of your posts here. Do I think there are efforts to bash and see a lower price? Sure. Do I think that those controlling 100 million short shares can manipulate the price of this stock for any more than seconds? No. The market is made up of everyone, not to mention that the longs control 400+ million shares. Why would you give credit to a few shorts for the low price of the stock we see. The price is based on where the buyer and seller agree, correct? So, at any given time, buyers are free to jump all over this 'mispriced' stock to bring the price back in line. Why doesn't that happen?? Because the price of the stock is based on no sales and no money, not on an article by AF or anyone else. Sure, he draws attention to the negative aspects of the situation but he does not manipulate the stock price. You really give shorts a lot of credit if you think so. To read all the manipulation cries really makes me question anything else that one says. Think about it. If shorts wanted to drive AAPL to $2, could they? Why not? Exactly. I get what tbone is saying and have also been thinking some of the same things. If Afrezza sales were much better the stock would be harder to be so called "manipulated", it's much harder to "manipulate" proven results/sales. It's hard to argue/manipulate against Afrezza the science itself, if the business side was a superstar like the science this so called "manipulating" would be very very difficult. The stock isn't where it should be mostly because of A sales, the lack of A sales is why we are where we are currently and the so called "maipulation" is a by-product of that and makes it easy for a moron to write articles about.
|
|
|
Post by tbone on Nov 12, 2015 11:27:46 GMT -5
Do I think there are efforts to bash and see a lower price? Sure. Do I think that those controlling 100 million short shares can manipulate the price of this stock for any more than seconds? No. The market is made up of everyone, not to mention that the longs control 400+ million shares. Why would you give credit to a few shorts for the low price of the stock we see. The price is based on where the buyer and seller agree, correct? So, at any given time, buyers are free to jump all over this 'mispriced' stock to bring the price back in line. Why doesn't that happen?? Because the price of the stock is based on no sales and no money, not on an article by AF or anyone else. Sure, he draws attention to the negative aspects of the situation but he does not manipulate the stock price. You really give shorts a lot of credit if you think so. To read all the manipulation cries really makes me question anything else that one says. Think about it. If shorts wanted to drive AAPL to $2, could they? Why not? Exactly. There are more than a few shorts, and they have disproportionately large financial means to move the stock where they want it. When in collusion, they can walk it wherever they want,as they are controlling almost all the volume. AF of course does not manipulate the stock price alone. If that were the case, the SEC would have actually prosecuted him by now. He sends out the signals for large-volume actions that are actually performed by institutions. And the longs, who control 4 times the number of shares, are at the mercy of whatever the shorts want to do and wherever they want the price to be? Yeah, ok, if you want to believe that. Why can shorts, in the obvious minority, "walk it wherever they want"? Think about it. You really believe that?
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Nov 12, 2015 11:29:32 GMT -5
Do I think there are efforts to bash and see a lower price? Sure. Do I think that those controlling 100 million short shares can manipulate the price of this stock for any more than seconds? No. The market is made up of everyone, not to mention that the longs control 400+ million shares. Why would you give credit to a few shorts for the low price of the stock we see. The price is based on where the buyer and seller agree, correct? So, at any given time, buyers are free to jump all over this 'mispriced' stock to bring the price back in line. Why doesn't that happen?? Because the price of the stock is based on no sales and no money, not on an article by AF or anyone else. Sure, he draws attention to the negative aspects of the situation but he does not manipulate the stock price. You really give shorts a lot of credit if you think so. To read all the manipulation cries really makes me question anything else that one says. Think about it. If shorts wanted to drive AAPL to $2, could they? Why not? Exactly. There are more than a few shorts, and they have disproportionately large financial means to move the stock where they want it. When in collusion, they can walk it wherever they want,as they are controlling almost all the volume. AF of course does not manipulate the stock price alone. If that were the case, the SEC would have actually prosecuted him by now. He sends out the signals for large-volume actions that are actually performed by institutions. What AF et al create is astmetrical information where most rational long participants (especially retail without access to instant information and in this case a good translator...) cannot make a quick and semi informed decision because they do not have access to good info. This is one of the reasons these syndicates find retail heavy stocks so easy and rewarding to 'work'.
|
|
|
Post by cathode on Nov 12, 2015 11:30:52 GMT -5
There are more than a few shorts, and they have disproportionately large financial means to move the stock where they want it. When in collusion, they can walk it wherever they want,as they are controlling almost all the volume. AF of course does not manipulate the stock price alone. If that were the case, the SEC would have actually prosecuted him by now. He sends out the signals for large-volume actions that are actually performed by institutions. And the longs, who control 4 times the number of shares, are at the mercy of whatever the shorts want to do and wherever they want the price to be? Yeah, ok, if you want to believe that. Why can shorts, in the obvious minority, "walk it wherever they want"? Think about it. You really believe that? Because they can manufacture artificial shares.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Nov 12, 2015 11:31:40 GMT -5
Ban me for drawing to your attention how the conspiracy theory of short manipulation has overtaken this board? Go ahead. I'm as long as the next guy here and have been for 11 years and 4 months. Kick me out because I ask where the manipulation cry is when the stock spikes 70 cents at the TASE close. Hahaha. If it had dropped 70 cents then ''manipulation' would be the only word being read. That's the point of OP. For the record, I sold a bunch of $2 Jan puts yesterday potentially increasing my long position. No, I don't wear a tin foil hat and I won't. Do I get kicked out for that? sure the company could have friends that have helped drive the price back up to 2.70's but this is also the area where the price of the stock represented the state of the company and it's financing BEFORE the short shenanigans occurred, so it is also within reason that the apparent value return to that level given the debunking of the rumor.
|
|
|
Post by tbone on Nov 12, 2015 11:33:52 GMT -5
I just think there is a very dangerous tendency by many Mnkd longs to blame the low share price on short manipulation. To me that is burying head in the sand and ignoring the real red flags, no sales and no money. With the sales we all think Afrezza deserves, we will begin to see a price more in line with what we think MNKD deserves. So, As succinctly as I can say it (too late for that now) stop blaming the shorts.
|
|
|
Post by ricguy on Nov 12, 2015 11:34:32 GMT -5
There are more than a few shorts, and they have disproportionately large financial means to move the stock where they want it. When in collusion, they can walk it wherever they want,as they are controlling almost all the volume. AF of course does not manipulate the stock price alone. If that were the case, the SEC would have actually prosecuted him by now. He sends out the signals for large-volume actions that are actually performed by institutions. What AF et al create is astmetrical information where most rational long participants (especially retail without access to instant information and in this case a good translator...) cannot make a quick and semi informed decision because they do not have access to good info. This is one of the reasons these syndicates find retail heavy stocks so easy and rewarding to 'work'. Hey JPG, On a side note your post reminds me of something I have been thinking about the past few days. Has the Internet and instant info made it harder or easier to invest. I go back and forth on this. Anyway didn't want to hi-jack this discussion. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 12, 2015 11:34:37 GMT -5
No bashing this morning. Hmmmm. Could it be those close to AF covered some of their shorts yesterday, actually bought a few shares or call options on the long side to profit from this swing? If so, they won't be staying long long. They'll turn a quick but huge profit percentage wise and be back on the short side.
As nice as today's move is thus far, let's not forget, the fundamentals, as reflected by the script counts, are not so rosy, so shorting will be back soon enough. But the time we bought is a precious commodity.
|
|
|
Post by cathode on Nov 12, 2015 11:40:06 GMT -5
I just think there is a very dangerous tendency by many Mnkd longs to blame the low share price on short manipulation. To me that is burying head in the sand and ignoring the real red flags, no sales and no money. With the sales we all think Afrezza deserves, we will begin to see a price more in line with what we think MNKD deserves. So, As succinctly as I can say it (too late for that now) stop blaming the shorts. Regarding the money issue, short sellers drove the price down during the debt-for-equity swap and forced MNKD to pay off debt with cash on hand. Yesterday, they again made attempts to drive the price down to limit the effectiveness of raising capital through the TASE indexes. I am not arguing that if the company were stronger the shorts would have less motivation, but MNKD has definitely been fighting an uphill battle at every turn.
|
|
|
Post by tonyz on Nov 12, 2015 11:47:52 GMT -5
Thanks tony. Any chance that big money was also some short covering, or would that not make sense with that timing? There may have been a little panic covering today, but yesterday was the logical day for shorts to cover if they were looking for an opportunity to cash in. This looked like buying from one entity. If I were the suspicious sort I might think it was Mannkind if they weren't so tight on cash. If it hadn't happened in 15 minutes I would have just thought it was just a reversion to the mean. As it is. your guess is as good as mine. BTW - MNKD stock manipulation usually takes place on low volume, not high volume. Low stock price + low volume = a stock that's easy to manipulate.
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Nov 12, 2015 11:51:42 GMT -5
What AF et al create is astmetrical information where most rational long participants (especially retail without access to instant information and in this case a good translator...) cannot make a quick and semi informed decision because they do not have access to good info. This is one of the reasons these syndicates find retail heavy stocks so easy and rewarding to 'work'. Hey JPG, On a side note your post reminds me of something I have been thinking about the past few days. Has the Internet and instant info made it harder or easier to invest. I go back and forth on this. Anyway didn't want to hi-jack this discussion. Thanks. Excellent and important observation. I've been thinking about that one for a while. For exactly the example of what happened with Mannkind I would say more difficult for retail if there are no regulations or consequence to organized crime manipulating using rumours, asymetrical info and HFT and naked shorting and... Importantly if this is what happened yesterday it is organized crime and RICO laws should be used. Not weak SEC enforcments faith in markets is to important for the SEC? . If there was a stock exchange with better regulators, less risk of manipulation and equal access to capital where would biotech companies list? Where would real investors want to invest? At a certain point biotech risks becoming the new junior mining companies on the shady exchanges...
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Nov 12, 2015 11:55:54 GMT -5
I just wish I could buy shares with cash, and then borrow that same cash from the seller I just gave it to to buy more shares, and then borrow that cash from that seller and......
|
|
|
Post by suebeeee1 on Nov 12, 2015 12:28:56 GMT -5
Tbone has been with us a while. And, while clearly a short or basher, I don't mind having him around. The louder he whines, the better I know we are doing.
|
|