|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:12:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by cfield23 on Jan 6, 2016 0:12:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:15:04 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 0:15:04 GMT -5
ccan u tell if they had stock or notes? I believe it was principal notes (PRN)
|
|
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:21:07 GMT -5
Post by hawaiiguy42 on Jan 6, 2016 0:21:07 GMT -5
Wow! What a bunch of %&*(&()*)__+&^*^%&%!
|
|
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:28:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by cfield23 on Jan 6, 2016 0:28:01 GMT -5
ccan u tell if they had stock or notes? I believe it was principal notes (PRN) Looks like notes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 0:28:29 GMT -5
Cfield this goes on all the time. Watch the first episode of Billions on Showtime. The hedge fund players are arguing over short or long a company that might be slowing down growth and they place their bet by bribing some one from the ware house of the company to figure out the true numbers. I thought of selling when I first read that article but again ignored my gut. The reality is this has all been in front of our faces we just choose to ignore it. Thats what bothers me the most. My hedge fund friend told me about the TASE listing was an offering and I ignored him. I invested $60,000 in twitter reviews.....Shame on me.
|
|
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:29:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by chuck on Jan 6, 2016 0:29:45 GMT -5
You're linking a reduction in share ownership in Q3 to insider trading? This is insane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:36:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 0:36:54 GMT -5
You're linking a reduction in share ownership in Q3 to insider trading? This is insane. No its not I am not sure which short blogger it was pointed this out on social media.
|
|
|
Post by cfield23 on Jan 6, 2016 0:38:15 GMT -5
You're linking a reduction in share ownership in Q3 to insider trading? This is insane. I'm sorry. Its hard to believe that Lazard didn't know SNYs true intentions to drop MNKD. If they did and traded, it's not legal. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical. Very well could be. Just find it odd. They had a large position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:41:48 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 0:41:48 GMT -5
You're linking a reduction in share ownership in Q3 to insider trading? This is insane. I'm sorry. Its hard to believe that Lazard didn't know SNYs true intentions to drop MNKD. If they did and traded, it's not legal. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical. Very well could be. Just find it odd. They had a large position. Notes might have been paid off
|
|
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 0:53:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by chuck on Jan 6, 2016 0:53:20 GMT -5
You're linking a reduction in share ownership in Q3 to insider trading? This is insane. I'm sorry. Its hard to believe that Lazard didn't know SNYs true intentions to drop MNKD. If they did and traded, it's not legal. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical. Very well could be. Just find it odd. They had a large position. These trades would have been done between July to September. They just barely started dtc and you're saying that sny had already decided to pull out and not only this they leaked it to Lazard. Come on. Why do I even bother.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 6, 2016 9:47:56 GMT -5
Every investment bank has a transactions group that handles the merger, acquisition, and divestiture business, and a different arm that manages investment funds. Regulatory requirements impose a "Chinese Wall" which prevents members of the two groups from talking shop about specific clients. The M&A guys may very well have known about Sanofi's intentions, but the research analysts didn't hear it from them. If the research side came to the same conclusion that Sanofi would dump MNKD on their own or through other sources, that is fair game.
Secondly, the fact that Sanofi would probably dump MNKD in January was not exactly a well-kept secret on Wall Street. You could have read that rumor / speculation in any number of financial publications once the monthly scripts failed to impress.
Finally, just because Sanofi is looking to exit animal health doesn't mean that the diabetes guys are involved in those discussions. If you think that one business group of a major multinational knows what the other groups are doing, then you have a lot to learn about how multi-billion companies are managed. Executives often have no visibility to what is happening in the adjacent office because they are so immersed in their own challenges.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 6, 2016 9:57:45 GMT -5
Every investment bank has a transactions group that handles the merger, acquisition, and divestiture business, and a different arm that manages investment funds. Regulatory requirements impose a "Chinese Wall" which prevents members of the two groups from talking shop about specific clients. The M&A guys may very well have known about Sanofi's intentions, but the research analysts didn't hear it from them. If the research side came to the same conclusion that Sanofi would dump MNKD on their own or through other sources, that is fair game.
Secondly, the fact that Sanofi would probably dump MNKD in January was not exactly a well-kept secret on Wall Street. You could have read that rumor / speculation in any number of financial publications once the monthly scripts failed to impress.
Finally, just because Sanofi is looking to exit animal health doesn't mean that the diabetes guys are involved in those discussions. If you think that one business group of a major multinational knows what the other groups are doing, then you have a lot to learn about how multi-billion companies are managed. Executives often have no visibility to what is happening in the adjacent office because they are so immersed in their own challenges.
Again, another guy who got it totally wrong with his "Sanofi's brilliant market strategy." If this board was a business, he'd be fired for gross incompetence with his misguided analysis.
|
|
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 9:59:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by chuck on Jan 6, 2016 9:59:45 GMT -5
Matt - that is my experience as well both on the Chinese wall and multinational org's. Although a few cases I was suspicious about people circumventing the Chinese wall. Advise to all - go a read matt's comments. He's one of a few on this board that has first hand knowledge and experience.
|
|
macb
Newbie
Posts: 4
|
Post by macb on Jan 6, 2016 11:49:28 GMT -5
More likely, Lazard just wasn't blinded by Sanofi's brilliant marketing strategy.
|
|
|
Lazard
Jan 6, 2016 12:04:37 GMT -5
Post by iclaudius on Jan 6, 2016 12:04:37 GMT -5
"TENOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY,L.P." sold "all" to the tune of 24.5 million shares.
Ditto for "GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P." -- 21.5 million shares.
Ditto for "DUPONT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP" -- almost 5 million shares.
Ditto for "WOLVERINE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC" -- almost 4 million shares.
And ditto for "CNH PARTNERS LLC" -- about 3.3 million shares.
Overall, Lazard's move doesn't seem terribly exciting despite the Sanofi connection.
|
|