|
|
Post by spiro on Feb 16, 2014 10:52:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rak5555 on Feb 16, 2014 11:06:09 GMT -5
Increases outpaced decreases by 3 to 1. Too bad there was so much short activity offsetting this buying.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashiwi on Feb 18, 2014 16:18:23 GMT -5
Institutional ownership continues to increase as more institutions update their 4th quarter holdings. Some very nice increases. Looking very positive. Up to 21% from 18% in the previous quarter that ended Sept 2013. About an increase of 13 million shares. www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/institutional-holdings |
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Feb 20, 2014 15:28:01 GMT -5
Institutional ownership updated again, now at 77,079,647. Perceptive Advisors LLC added 3.5 million shares last quarter. On 12/31/2013, institutional ownership stood at 63,271,194 shares. I wonder if the institutions know more than the shorts? That is a 21.8& increase in institutional ownership. www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/institutional-holdings?page=2 |
|
|
|
Post by harshal1981 on Feb 20, 2014 16:37:22 GMT -5
Institutional ownership is up to 21% which is positive certainly. However, my worry is we still don't see dedicated biotech hedge funds here like Orbimed or Baker Brothers. Tang Capital re-entered this quarter which is plus. The reason why I bring this up is because, all top institutional owners are mega funds and for them the investment in MNKD is <0.01 % of their total fund value. For example, Vanguard 13-F filing shows that out of their $ 1,129 Billion, they have just $66 Million in MNKD. For Blackrock, out of $303Billion, they have just $46 million in MNKD and for Fidelity (FMR LLC), out of $707 Billion, they have just $38 Million in MNKD. My concern is that, yes in absolute terms those numbers are huge. However, their exposure is very little. Meaning, for them investment in MNKD is in High-Risk/Low-Impact zone. If small funds like Baker Brothers invests $30-40 million out of their $7 Billion, it means something. It means that this is their safe/high potential/low risk investment.
Not sure what others are thinking on the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Feb 20, 2014 17:16:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alcc on Feb 20, 2014 20:39:32 GMT -5
Institutional holdings don't mean anything at this stage. Insider holding trumps institutional holding in every conceivable way.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Feb 20, 2014 22:24:37 GMT -5
harshal, even though the amounts are minuscule to the mega-funds, they mean a lot to the guy who picked the stock within the company, and to his division.
It's all a big crapshoot, I know most don't think so, but I think it is. I do think the dice are loaded substantially in our favor, though.
There are several big factors that can work either way, like partner/no partner; continuum of AdCom recommendation, from bad to glowing, who writes letters to the FDA and when, whether we get approval for just Type 1 or Type 2, also. All big movers of the stock price.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Feb 20, 2014 22:50:51 GMT -5
Babaoriley, I somewhat agree with you. if these fund managers are wrong, some of them could certainly be in the hot seat. But I for one, do not think these fund managers are playing craps. They have extensively researched MNKD and have obviously reached a similar conclusion to that of BeyondProxy, George Rho, and/or Joe Springer. Now, if you would have said it's like playing Russian Roulette, I would have agreed with you more. At least the player wins 5 out of 6 times. Oh well, forget it, I may still be under the influence of some the meds they gave me at the hospital.
Spiro
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Feb 20, 2014 23:47:07 GMT -5
I'll go for 5 out of 6 for good news out of the FDA (approval for at least Type 1), I think that's a fair assessment. After having a long conversation with you today, Spiro, I am happy to report to all that you are absolutely unchanged in any discernible manner!
|
|
