|
|
Post by mnkdrox on Apr 1, 2016 7:59:54 GMT -5
I guess you're choosing to ignore the RICO level collusion and naked shorting then?
|
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Apr 1, 2016 8:12:39 GMT -5
Pretty hard to ignore a running range of over 50% FTD (synthetic dilution, aka naked shorting), other factors above notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdrox on Apr 1, 2016 8:20:02 GMT -5
I like stories, but I don't believe them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdrox on Apr 1, 2016 8:22:08 GMT -5
As Krammer said "battleground stock".
|
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Apr 1, 2016 8:53:17 GMT -5
An interesting fact about the GS coverage of MNKD is that it coincided so closely with the involvement of SNY. Could it be that GS had some extra visibility with someone inside SNY providing the info?
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdrox on Apr 1, 2016 8:56:39 GMT -5
An interesting fact about the GS coverage of MNKD is that it coincided so closely with the involvement of SNY. Could it be that GS had some extra visibility with someone inside SNY providing the info? Collusion is a distinct possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 1, 2016 9:20:44 GMT -5
An interesting fact about the GS coverage of MNKD is that it coincided so closely with the involvement of SNY. Could it be that GS had some extra visibility with someone inside SNY providing the info? I have wondered the same, because jay asked at all the conference calls, "when can Sanofi drop you? "
I have started to think it may have been as simple as this; unlike what happened on this board, GS ran the numbers, and knew sanofi was tyring to sell Afrezza to the Ameicans for 3 times what fast acting injectable cost, saw no insurance coverage, and knew that only well informed type ones with good insurance and cash flow would be allowed to try afrezza.
There is some extra visibility for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 1, 2016 9:28:49 GMT -5
We are where we are because Afrezza failed to sell as predicted. If we had hit the sales there is nothing GS or any of the shorts could do. Right now the problem is that we need more money and by hammering the price the dilution will be bad. I can see an easy way for the shorts to profit - beat the price down, wait for the sale to raise money, when the price drops from the dilution pile in and buy to close the short position.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Apr 1, 2016 9:56:57 GMT -5
We are where we are because Afrezza failed to sell as predicted. If we had hit the sales there is nothing GS or any of the shorts could do. Right now the problem is that we need more money and by hammering the price the dilution will be bad. I can see an easy way for the shorts to profit - beat the price down, wait for the sale to raise money, when the price drops from the dilution pile in and buy to close the short position. you're assuming there will be a "sale to raise money" and therefore a dilution. I make no such assumption. There are other ways to raise money. And Olson's price target of 5 cents is absurd. Talk about wishful thinking! |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdrox on Apr 1, 2016 10:33:24 GMT -5
An interesting fact about the GS coverage of MNKD is that it coincided so closely with the involvement of SNY. Could it be that GS had some extra visibility with someone inside SNY providing the info? I have wondered the same, because jay asked at all the conference calls, "when can Sanofi drop you? "
I have started to think it may have been as simple as this; unlike what happened on this board, GS ran the numbers, and knew sanofi was tyring to sell Afrezza to the Ameicans for 3 times what fast acting injectable cost, saw no insurance coverage, and knew that only well informed type ones with good insurance and cash flow would be allowed to try afrezza.
There is some extra visibility for us.
His first CC he says that. Amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Apr 1, 2016 10:47:29 GMT -5
Jay doesn't have much of a track record and I think his last line of questioning during the CC exposed him as someone who seemed to be clueless or at least disingenuous. But the fact remains his price target and call on MNKD was more right than wrong. You can bitch and complain about him as I have but he's not the reason why Mannkind has under performed horribly. He didn't make the company make bad decision after bad decision such as switching devices to create the second CRL or pick Sanofi or not do a secondary when the stock price was much higher. He didn't make Mannkind pick a CEO that would only last 1 month because someone didn't do their due diligence over his non compete issue. Maybe it is time that we stop complaining about GS and start holding the Mannkind responsible for their misfortune. I know its a hard concept to swallow for many on here because it is as if Mannkind can do no wrong. But hey, I get it that it is therapeutic to blame everything and everyone else for Mannkind's poor performance. And in the real world, few things are binary and black and white. Mostly its grey. And this is where blame in general makes idiots of us all. Sure, the best CEO in the world might have known what most would only know in hindsight. I think a lot comes down to the Viehbacher debacle and Wallstreet games (Betcha money that GS had inside info on that one, and Olson is just a junior, disposable mouthpiece.) There's plenty of proven, court cases in the media specifically around GS and SNY in similar circumstances to the one with MNKD. And yes, there were some bad MNKD decisions to be sure. All companies make some. That CEO revolving door is a good example, and that infamous comment of 'give us a call'. Yep. And embarrassment to say the least. The real world of business is a mixture of things we can control, and things we can't. And that's why most businesses don't succeed. But I think there's a line between 'holding responsible' MNKD management for our current investment outcome - and then in essentially the same sentence, blaming them for everything that's happened. Looking forward. The question is whether things are poised to truly change. Is having SNY off the table and major C-level changeout at the company enough to shift that combo of what we can control, and what we can't - enough to change the overall outcome? Good question. Pfeffer's been there the whole time, and we do still have enormous short interest with a vested interest in this outcome (which could in truth, play either way now) We'll soon see. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 1, 2016 10:58:29 GMT -5
you're assuming there will be a "sale to raise money" and therefore a dilution. I make no such assumption. There are other ways to raise money. And Olson's price target of 5 cents is absurd. Talk about wishful thinking! I would be very surprised if there was not. Mannkind has nothing like the money needed to market Afrezza on a reasonable scale so that is going to have to come from somewhere. The option is debt and I would rather take dilution than deal with Deerfield or similar. A 5 cent price is stupid. You would have to be actually bankrupt before it hit that. |
|
