|
|
Post by mnholdem on May 26, 2016 12:57:42 GMT -5
I have to laugh today, because a few weeks ago we were discussing options activity and how it may be a good play to do straddles. Whether the stock moves up or moves down, you make a profit. The only thing that would screw you out of your money would be if MNKD maintained a sideways pattern. Naturally, that's what has happened. 
In addition to matt's comment, I would add that it's obvious by the recent trading activity that we're dealing with professionals. 
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on May 26, 2016 13:51:58 GMT -5
Reverselo,
correction of last information. As today IB found 1.04m shares available at 62%. The offering went well for shorts.
|
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on May 26, 2016 22:33:57 GMT -5
Matt, thanks for sharing your perspective on Rodnan & Renshaw. From what you've observed, how often do their deals go sour somehow? If they are a sure thing, then as you say, those 2% quick hitters do add up nicely. Wondering what the risk is, generally speaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 27, 2016 10:26:05 GMT -5
Matt, thanks for sharing your perspective on Rodnan & Renshaw. From what you've observed, how often do their deals go sour somehow? If they are a sure thing, then as you say, those 2% quick hitters do add up nicely. Wondering what the risk is, generally speaking. Almost never. This is a sub-prime market - a company only turns to these funds when they are in no position to haggle. The fund sets the price to protect it's own investors and provide a quick profit. Provided you stick to the rules and dump the stock ASAP you have very limited risk. |
|
|
|
Post by humann on May 27, 2016 11:14:03 GMT -5
This sounds similar to why Employee Stock Purchase Programs are such a great benefit. If you sell right away, you take very little risk and can take a 15+% profit (depending on the plan and price movement) a couple times a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Jun 9, 2016 14:13:29 GMT -5
I would think 97M shares shorted still provides plenty of opportunity for a squeeze. Not clear to me though that will happen, it appears that an orderly exit of the smart shorts has already started. Can only hope it gets a little less orderly. One hand washes the other. The investors that just bought the shares are offloading them and the shorts are picking them up. The investors want them off their books but not so fast that the price drops materially, and the shorts are buying but not so fast that they push the price up. At the pre-ASM dinner, Hillsave pointed out that it is likely the June 9th NASDAQ SI report will be the one that reflects whether Matt P. was indeed able to place the 50M unit offering in 2-3 strong hands, or if the associated 50M shares end up being split off and fed out to covering shorties. I think 6PM is the data release? Should be interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 9, 2016 14:26:42 GMT -5
One hand washes the other. The investors that just bought the shares are offloading them and the shorts are picking them up. The investors want them off their books but not so fast that the price drops materially, and the shorts are buying but not so fast that they push the price up. At the pre-ASM dinner, Hillsave pointed out that it is likely the June 9th NASDAQ SI report will be the one that reflects whether Matt P. was indeed able to place the 50M unit offering in 2-3 strong hands, or if the associated 50M shares end up being split off and fed out to covering shorties. I think 6PM is the data release? Should be interesting... The problem is that they were not Matt P's to place, they Renshaw's. If Matt had the investors he could have placed them directly and saved the fees ($2.5M?) they paid Renshaw. It's not clear they would show in the SI if the holdings were simply flipped. |
|
|
|
Post by sla55 on Jun 9, 2016 15:16:23 GMT -5
One hand washes the other. The investors that just bought the shares are offloading them and the shorts are picking them up. The investors want them off their books but not so fast that the price drops materially, and the shorts are buying but not so fast that they push the price up. At the pre-ASM dinner, Hillsave pointed out that it is likely the June 9th NASDAQ SI report will be the one that reflects whether Matt P. was indeed able to place the 50M unit offering in 2-3 strong hands, or if the associated 50M shares end up being split off and fed out to covering shorties. I think 6PM is the data release? Should be interesting... Short interest 5/31/2016 = 86,478,598 Days to cover = 15.074716 Change: -10,741,127 |
|
|
|
Post by mbseeking on Jun 9, 2016 17:59:30 GMT -5
I had 3 possible hypotheses for the shorts
#1. The stock would go to zero with BK and they'd win.
#2. There'd be a short squeeze and they'd lose.
#3. The stock price has been somehow under complete control of those who short, and if and when they thought MNKD prospects had changed they'd leave in an orderly fashion.
#3 is the most hard to believe. The first part is the conspiracy theory . The second part also that, but also just the math of so many days to cover and lately on lower than historical volume.
And yet here we are hovering at $1.00 and the short interest down 10M in a month. Sorry.. that's half a month.. its down 19M in the month.
|
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Jun 9, 2016 18:23:43 GMT -5
At the pre-ASM dinner, Hillsave pointed out that it is likely the June 9th NASDAQ SI report will be the one that reflects whether Matt P. was indeed able to place the 50M unit offering in 2-3 strong hands, or if the associated 50M shares end up being split off and fed out to covering shorties. I think 6PM is the data release? Should be interesting... The problem is that they were not Matt P's to place, they Renshaw's. If Matt had the investors he could have placed them directly and saved the fees ($2.5M?) they paid Renshaw. It's not clear they would show in the SI if the holdings were simply flipped. At a reported 86M-ish SI, I'd have to think that some amount of those shares did find their way to covering; and I agree that based on the report, it seems unclear as to what amount that may have been. If taken at face value, it could be 20% were flipped and the balance may still be held by strong hands. If so, that ain't too bad. Of course we will never really know. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 9, 2016 19:12:11 GMT -5
The problem is that they were not Matt P's to place, they Renshaw's. If Matt had the investors he could have placed them directly and saved the fees ($2.5M?) they paid Renshaw. It's not clear they would show in the SI if the holdings were simply flipped. At a reported 86M-ish SI, I'd have to think that some amount of those shares did find their way to covering; and I agree that based on the report, it seems unclear as to what amount that may have been. If taken at face value, it could be 20% were flipped and the balance may still be held by strong hands. If so, that ain't too bad. Of course we will never really know. Renshaw investors are in it for the shortest time possible so they will just sell to any willing buyer. Some of those buyers may be former shorts, some may be strong hands - it's a lottery really. There are still all those warrants out there covering positions as well. Renshaw have a bundle of investors who will buy almost anything if the price is right. For a fee Renshaw will place your stock with those investors who promptly flip it for a few percent. Holding positions is not something the investors do because they need their capital to finance the next deal. A few percent a month at zero risk soon adds up! |
|
