Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:50:10 GMT -5
IMO we will never know the truth to that question because if Al's foundation are selling their shares you can bet they are being shorted once sold. I think the scary thing is if you add all these shares for shorting will the borrow rates be as high? However more shares being shorted the more likely chance of a violent squeeze.
IMO That interactive brokers rate of 165% was the sole reason the share price moved from a buck to 2.20 based on Matts comments about not needing money.
|
|
|
|
Post by mydogskip on May 18, 2016 8:53:09 GMT -5
There are 1.5M shares available for shorting according to IB. Borrow rate is down to 90%. Wasn't Matt saying that the shares went to selected investors who take care that they are not shorted? I don't believe Matt ever said the investors promised not to short or lend their shares. In fact, if you read the agreement, there is a paragraph that states Mannkind did not seek to ask or demand that the investors not short or lend their shares. In other words, Mannkind said do what ever you want with them, we don't care. It might have been necessary for Mannkind to do this to get the investors to buy the shares. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:28:42 GMT -5
There are 1.5M shares available for shorting according to IB. Borrow rate is down to 90%. Wasn't Matt saying that the shares went to selected investors who take care that they are not shorted? I don't believe Matt ever said the investors promised not to short or lend their shares. In fact, if you read the agreement, there is a paragraph that states Mannkind did not seek to ask or demand that the investors not short or lend their shares. In other words, Mannkind said do what ever you want with them, we don't care. It might have been necessary for Mannkind to do this to get the investors to buy the shares. He said they are in good hands which I guess would imply they were not being shorted but no one knows for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on May 18, 2016 9:43:39 GMT -5
There are 1.5M shares available for shorting according to IB. Borrow rate is down to 90%. Wasn't Matt saying that the shares went to selected investors who take care that they are not shorted? I don't believe Matt ever said the investors promised not to short or lend their shares. In fact, if you read the agreement, there is a paragraph that states Mannkind did not seek to ask or demand that the investors not short or lend their shares. In other words, Mannkind said do what ever you want with them, we don't care. It might have been necessary for Mannkind to do this to get the investors to buy the shares. MannKind said nothing of the sort (see boldfaced statement above). The "in other words" statement is solely yours and is 100% speculation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:46:44 GMT -5
Fidelity down to 75% borrow rate. Being in the red on the day of an insider buy that hasnt happen in god knows how long means someone is dripping shares.
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on May 18, 2016 10:04:00 GMT -5
mnholdem,
You can call this speculation but that is exactly what I allowed myself to decypher from Matt's comment.
What else should "good hands" mean than long-term investors/partners/family etc that get good value for their money but do not lend these shares out?
He explicitly said that the said (BoA 22:36) "with a very small, a couple of investors.. we were very careful about where our shares went. This is very important for me.." I also remember the "good hands" but are a bit in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 18, 2016 10:26:29 GMT -5
"Good hands" is an excessively vague phrase that can mean practically anything. The reality of the financial markets is that investors are looking for a return, and that return might not depend solely on holding shares and waiting for long-term accretion of value. A "good" investor might be one that bought at a discount and sold into the market after the closing versus the "not so good" practice of shorting at the moment the investor signs a subscription agreement and then delivering the new shares to close out the short. If the buyers were really long-term investors they could have bought restricted shares subject to Rule 144, which are always priced lower than registered shares due to the six month minimum holding period, but that is not what happened; they bought registered securities with immediate liquidity.
Once a "good" investor has sold their new shares, anything can happen. While the "good" investor may have kept their promise to refrain from shorting, the subsequent buyer of those share may have other ideas about how to maximize their return. Since one share is exactly like every other share it becomes impossible to track the flow of any particular share held in street name.
|
|
|
|
Post by mydogskip on May 18, 2016 10:47:25 GMT -5
I don't believe Matt ever said the investors promised not to short or lend their shares. In fact, if you read the agreement, there is a paragraph that states Mannkind did not seek to ask or demand that the investors not short or lend their shares. In other words, Mannkind said do what ever you want with them, we don't care. It might have been necessary for Mannkind to do this to get the investors to buy the shares. MannKind said nothing of the sort (see boldfaced statement above). The "in other words" statement is solely yours and is 100% speculation. You are right. They didn't say it. But they did include language in their prospectus about it which is legally binding. Do yourself a favor and click on this link investors.mannkindcorp.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-16-584809&CIK=899460 and scroll down to page 18 section (ee). Then come back and tell me that I am wrong and that Mannkind isn't allowing owners of the stock to do what ever they want with the shares. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on May 18, 2016 12:02:13 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't think MannKind can legally tell anyone what to do with their shares. That wasn't my point.
It was your implication of what Mannkind was thinking regarding the funds/'tutes they sold these latest shares to. Contrary to your, "...do whatever you want...we don't care" opinion, I think Matt's remarks implied the exact opposite. He may not be able to tell the buyers what they can or cannot do with their shares, but Matt may have had some discussions with these buyers that led him to make the remark that these latest shares were sold to good hands.
 
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 18, 2016 12:57:44 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't think MannKind can legally tell anyone what to do with their shares. That wasn't my point.
It was your implication of what Mannkind was thinking regarding the funds/'tutes they sold these latest shares to. Contrary to your, "...do whatever you want...we don't care" opinion, I think Matt's remarks implied the exact opposite. He may not be able to tell the buyers what they can or cannot do with their shares, but Matt may have had some discussions with these buyers that led him to make the remark that these latest shares were sold to good hands.
I seem to recall someone previously saying that as the shares were placed through Rodman & Renshaw, they would have been sold to Rodman & Renshaw's regular client base. That Mannkind would not really have had any say in who Rodman & Renshaw placed the shares with, and so Matt's 'good hands' comments were just feel good fluff. If Matt was in touch with buyers who would buy and hold long term why not sell to them directly? Why bother using Rodman & Renshaw? Those are rhetorical questions, no response required. |
|
|
|
Post by mydogskip on May 18, 2016 14:03:53 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't think MannKind can legally tell anyone what to do with their shares. That wasn't my point.
It was your implication of what Mannkind was thinking regarding the funds/'tutes they sold these latest shares to. Contrary to your, "...do whatever you want...we don't care" opinion, I think Matt's remarks implied the exact opposite. He may not be able to tell the buyers what they can or cannot do with their shares, but Matt may have had some discussions with these buyers that led him to make the remark that these latest shares were sold to good hands.
If you read the link and section I posted, it pretty much is black and white Mannkind allowing who ever holds their shares that they can do what ever they want with them. If you can't interpret that, then you truly have a problem with reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Jun 22, 2016 8:58:13 GMT -5
Shares available to borrow down to total 300k coming from 1.2m. Borrow rate still at long-term low with 40%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 9:09:00 GMT -5
Shares available to borrow down to total 300k coming from 1.2m. Borrow rate still at long-term low with 40%. Just to clarify There was 1.2 million shares available to short but now down to 300k? No shares available at Fidelity and it looks like interest is down. |
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Jun 22, 2016 9:15:03 GMT -5
Shares available to borrow down to total 300k coming from 1.2m. Borrow rate still at long-term low with 40%. Just to clarify There was 1.2 million shares available to short but now down to 300k? No shares available at Fidelity and it looks like interest is down. Well this was what it looked like for some few weeks. They appeared with some delay after last financing. I recall that I saw 1.2 m yesterday. I checked this second and there are 783k available right now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 9:29:32 GMT -5
Just to clarify There was 1.2 million shares available to short but now down to 300k? No shares available at Fidelity and it looks like interest is down. Well this was what it looked like for some few weeks. They appeared with some delay after last financing. I recall that I saw 1.2 m yesterday. I checked this second and there are 783k available right now. What's the margin requirements in IB? TD Ameritrade has this at 100% although they don't share the lending interest |
|
