|
|
Post by yash on Feb 18, 2016 21:05:43 GMT -5
They're going to ride this down for the next two months, it's easy money. They know nothing of substance is going to be announced before then. Do they have inside info about MNKD?. Did Mat mentioned that nothing of substance will be announced till next 2 months? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 21:08:37 GMT -5
Do they have inside info about MNKD?. Did Mat mentioned that nothing of substance will be announced till next 2 months? I think they can sense if something is in works...its been that way and is the reason why they are running around mad cos they didnt know a thing on RLS |
|
|
|
Post by yash on Feb 18, 2016 21:24:18 GMT -5
Not sure why my post is under garrett name? I think my fault as I put my comments inside the box.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 22:22:19 GMT -5
Mods should make a thread and lock it about institutional ownership and how it is not as black and white as people think. Its really sad how many people have this wrong and there have been way to many posters who have steered people in the wrong direction with their conspiracy theories. At the end of the day you can only blame yourself for listening to unqualified individuals but MODS should right this ship. Sharing institutional ownership isn't steering anybody, unless people claim all shares are held by a certain institution. Quarterly institution ownership reports are something that most, if not all investors pay attention to, sharing this report if you notice it hasent yet been shared should be considered courteous IMO. "Unqualified individuals" LMAO Rockstar- i recently came across your post on YMB on Sune but have no desire to relay to this board how foolish your investing aka gambling is. As for my steering comments it's very simple. Mods, veterans boards members, social media authors have all relayed "if institutions are buying then so am I" My beef is very simply explained in the Gsco thread you started about the increase in institutional ownership. Sharing the data is different then the notion that there is this conspiracy. Do yourself a favor and read the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Feb 19, 2016 7:52:40 GMT -5
Is this fact? Admittedly i never knew this. Then Fidelity same? Yes, and Blackrock, etc. as well. So if Al had all his shares in a retirement account, it would show up twice for majority owners? That doesn't make sense at all. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 19, 2016 8:44:58 GMT -5
Yes, and Blackrock, etc. as well. So if Al had all his shares in a retirement account, it would show up twice for majority owners? That doesn't make sense at all. If he owned the shares directly they will show under his name otherwise not as the IRA is in the funds name. He will not count twice. |
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Feb 19, 2016 15:02:03 GMT -5
So if Al had all his shares in a retirement account, it would show up twice for majority owners? That doesn't make sense at all. If he owned the shares directly they will show under his name otherwise not as the IRA is in the funds name. He will not count twice. So it will show as Mann having no shares? How would it still say that he's a majority owner? What would it say in that case? |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 19, 2016 16:02:51 GMT -5
If he owned the shares directly they will show under his name otherwise not as the IRA is in the funds name. He will not count twice. So it will show as Mann having no shares? How would it still say that he's a majority owner? What would it say in that case. In Al Mann's case almost all his holdings are in his name so it's not really relevant. The bottom line is that there is no double counting within a class. |
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Feb 19, 2016 16:04:59 GMT -5
So it will show as Mann having no shares? How would it still say that he's a majority owner? What would it say in that case. In Al Mann's case almost all his holdings are in his name so it's not really relevant. Of course they aren't, but that's not the point and you know that. I specifically asked as if that was the case, hypothetically. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 19, 2016 16:31:32 GMT -5
In Al Mann's case almost all his holdings are in his name so it's not really relevant. Of course they aren't, but that's not the point and you know that. I specifically asked as if that was the case, hypothetically. Specifically and hypothetically? Now I'm confused. I have no idea of the exact mechanism through which Al holds his shares, there are an awful lot of possible options. If you really want to know you could examine his SEC filings which will tell you exactly how they are held. |
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Feb 19, 2016 19:35:12 GMT -5
Of course they aren't, but that's not the point and you know that. I specifically asked as if that was the case, hypothetically. Now I'm confused. I have no idea of the exact mechanism through which Al holds his shares, there are an awful lot of possible options. If you really want to know you could examine his SEC filings which will tell you exactly how they are held. I misread and thought you said they weren't in a retirement account. I then answered as if you said it in that manner and replied "of course they aren't" (in a retirement account) - although I should question whether we can tell if they are or not. You said it differently, but my point still stands. I specifically asked a hypothetical question; it's possible: If I had a pregnant Bulldog/Great Dane mix and it had a female puppy would it be able to have full Bulldog and full Great Dane babies? Hypothetical - I don't have a dog. Specific - I mention a specific species and situation. This is the specific and hypothetical scenario I presented earlier: Assume Al has all of his shares in a self-directed retirement account like one that you mentioned that would seem like the shares were owned by institutions. Would that then show that %ownership is not Al, but the institution and so not list Al as a majority owner, but list the institution instead (or both as majority owners)? |
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on Mar 24, 2016 16:16:30 GMT -5
The numbers show a classic option straddle, holding both puts and calls in approximately equal amounts. This is something an investor does when they recognize that a security is likely to experience high volatility, but the investor doesn't know whether the price will go up or down. So long as the price moves significantly, either the call or the put will be in the money and the other position will expire worthless. If, for example, you had a strong belief that MNKD would either go bankrupt or be acquired for $2/share, but you couldn't predict which of those outcomes was more likely, a straddle is the way to profit regardless of the outcome. The only way you lose with a straddle is if the price stays put around $1 (i.e. no big event) or if the price of the options becomes too expensive relative to the potential profit. As for the long position in shares, GS has a lot of funds and some of those are trackers that follow the indicies. So long as MNKD remains in the indicies, the funds will hold those shares regardless of the price action. GS also manages a lot of 401(k) / IRA type accounts where the client has chosen to invest in MNKD and those show up in the GS numbers even though it is not Goldman that actually owns the shares because the shares are in street name but parked in a GS account. Not with regard to Tourbillon necessarily, but wanted to follow up on Matt's classic option straddle comment. Today there were 10,000 puts/calls on the $3 strike in both May & August. Good sized wagers being made big events are on the way. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 24, 2016 16:32:44 GMT -5
The numbers show a classic option straddle, holding both puts and calls in approximately equal amounts. This is something an investor does when they recognize that a security is likely to experience high volatility, but the investor doesn't know whether the price will go up or down. So long as the price moves significantly, either the call or the put will be in the money and the other position will expire worthless. If, for example, you had a strong belief that MNKD would either go bankrupt or be acquired for $2/share, but you couldn't predict which of those outcomes was more likely, a straddle is the way to profit regardless of the outcome. The only way you lose with a straddle is if the price stays put around $1 (i.e. no big event) or if the price of the options becomes too expensive relative to the potential profit. As for the long position in shares, GS has a lot of funds and some of those are trackers that follow the indicies. So long as MNKD remains in the indicies, the funds will hold those shares regardless of the price action. GS also manages a lot of 401(k) / IRA type accounts where the client has chosen to invest in MNKD and those show up in the GS numbers even though it is not Goldman that actually owns the shares because the shares are in street name but parked in a GS account. Not with regard to Tourbillon necessarily, but wanted to follow up on Matt's classic option straddle comment. Today there were 10,000 puts/calls on the $3 strike in both May & August. Good sized wagers being made big events are on the way.
May I ask you to dumb that down for me. What was the wager being made? |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 24, 2016 16:35:09 GMT -5
Not with regard to Tourbillon necessarily, but wanted to follow up on Matt's classic option straddle comment. Today there were 10,000 puts/calls on the $3 strike in both May & August. Good sized wagers being made big events are on the way.
May I ask you to dumb that down for me. What was the wager being made? ******Additionally, you found the two one million share trades, that came through on volume, HOWEVER, did not come through on time and sales. |
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on Mar 24, 2016 17:22:04 GMT -5
Not with regard to Tourbillon necessarily, but wanted to follow up on Matt's classic option straddle comment. Today there were 10,000 puts/calls on the $3 strike in both May & August. Good sized wagers being made big events are on the way.
May I ask you to dumb that down for me. What was the wager being made? Sorry peppy, I had stepped away. The wager is that we go boom or bust. This straddle only pays off if one or the other takes place. if we plod along at $2 through August the straddle is a loser. |
|
