Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 22:16:22 GMT -5
the war has yet to be determined. There is no question scripts will increase over time, but will they increase rapidly enough to prevent shareholders deterioration?
Any thoughts other than peppy's?
|
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Sept 10, 2016 2:10:12 GMT -5
It ain't over 'til it's over, Kastanes. First we're deluded, then we're diluted, then we dominate.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Sept 10, 2016 7:25:54 GMT -5
Maybe it's not that we have to prove that we can become profitable in time. But that Afrezza can become very profitable for other opportunities to open up?
|
|
|
|
Post by thekindaguyiyam on Sept 10, 2016 10:09:40 GMT -5
if the risk is small, the reward is small. I think we are still in the middle of "this" battle is not over yet though we have been through a major fight. Let's surrender this battle when the prescription #'s come out by the end of this year. I'm not ready to concede quite yet as a bloodied boxer hearing hearing the count before I get back up.
|
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Sept 10, 2016 15:41:40 GMT -5
the war has yet to be determined. There is no question scripts will increase over time, but will they increase rapidly enough to prevent shareholders deterioration? Any thoughts other than peppy's? Agreed on the "War", however it's been a bloody and costly one for all longs. Scripts will increase and the marketing plan will produce far more scripts than SNY ever did (IMO). I personally hope that the strategy is to out-do SNY script numbers and them go after them for breach of contract. Yes, I know that's been discussed at length on many threads - but I'd like to see it. The only way I see having enough time for scripts to increase without further dilution is for a Technosphere deal to actually provide revenue/cash to MNKD. Hello RLS...anybody home? Then again once scripts show sustained upward movement the game may change significantly. At least I sure as hell hope it does. All right back to college football. |
|
|
|
Post by mbseeking on Sept 11, 2016 20:48:47 GMT -5
I'm starting to believe the war is over already.
We've got a month, two tops, for the scripts to dramatically increase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 7:28:51 GMT -5
With the DTP about to begin, we should see respectable w/w NRx increases in a month or two. Let's wait until the EOY before making judgment.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhwisc on Sept 12, 2016 10:06:53 GMT -5
I don't know if we longs can win. It doesn't make sense to short a stock when it sits at 0.69 cents. Especially when most shorts have made a lot of money by shorting this stock.
The thing is, how do the shorts get out when there are 8I million shares shorted. The only way out for them is dilution, reverse split or bankruptcy.
Does anyone else have ideas how the shorts can unwind their positions?
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 12, 2016 10:20:41 GMT -5
I don't know if we longs can win. It doesn't make sense to short a stock when it sits at 0.69 cents. Especially when most shorts have made a lot of money by shorting this stock. The thing is, how do the shorts get out when there are 8I million shares shorted. The only way out for them is dilution, reverse split or bankruptcy. Does anyone else have ideas how the shorts can unwind their positions? Dilution certainly helps the shorts if they buy into the new offering since they can deliver those shares to close out their position. Reverse splits don't help because if somebody has shorted 100 shares and the reverse split ratio is 5:1, then they still owe 20 shares and those shares will be the same proportion of the total outstanding. Bankruptcy, if the existing shares are cancelled, is a home run because those shares never have to be repaid; you cannot repay something that no longer exists and that is the legal effect of a bankruptcy cancellation of a class of equity claims. Some people also take a position that since there is no offsetting transaction there is no need to pay tax on the theoretically open short until death when it has to be included on their final return.
The other way shorts can exit is via options. If a long sells calls against their position, the shorts can exercise in the money calls and deliver the shares to close the position, or they can use more complex portfolios of derivative securities to create a synthetic long position that economically neutralizes the short position and effectively leaves them with no exposure.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Sept 12, 2016 10:37:21 GMT -5
If bk doesn't happen, then the dilution is the leading candidate for shorts to escape. matt, not sure what you mean when you say "if a long sells calls against their position." Doesn't matter if they do or don't, does it? The options are separate - in other words, the calls bought do not have to correspond to longs selling calls. Certain brokers sell calls, and they do not necessarily own the underlying stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by me on Sept 12, 2016 11:44:37 GMT -5
I don't know if we longs can win. It doesn't make sense to short a stock when it sits at 0.69 cents. Especially when most shorts have made a lot of money by shorting this stock. The thing is, how do the shorts get out when there are 8I million shares shorted. The only way out for them is dilution, reverse split or bankruptcy. Does anyone else have ideas how the shorts can unwind their positions? I see this inaccurate statement all the time. Whether the price of a share is 69 cents or 69 dollars, a short can still make 100% on their money. The absolute price of an equity doesn't determine whether it makes sense to short it, but rather the expectation of future percentage moves of the price of the equity is the (among some others) determining factor...regardless of its starting price. |
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Sept 12, 2016 11:53:45 GMT -5
I don't know if we longs can win. It doesn't make sense to short a stock when it sits at 0.69 cents. Especially when most shorts have made a lot of money by shorting this stock. The thing is, how do the shorts get out when there are 8I million shares shorted. The only way out for them is dilution, reverse split or bankruptcy. Does anyone else have ideas how the shorts can unwind their positions? I see this inaccurate statement all the time. Whether the price of a share is 69 cents or 69 dollars, a short can still make 100% on their money. The absolute price of an equity doesn't determine whether it makes sense to short it, but rather the expectation of future percentage moves of the price of the equity is the (among some others) determining factor...regardless of its starting price. The reason $0.69 vs $69 doesn't make sense isn't because of the return on investment. It's because there is much less downside associated to a $69 investment vs a $0.69. When a stock is as low as $0.69, any small catalyst can catapult it easily to a 4-5x multiple. So instead of losing $2-3/share going short at $69, you're now losing 4-5 times your money. Sure, if you buy one share there's no difference. But people who buy $0.69 stocks, you're usually only doing so in massive quantities to make it worth your while. There is a huge difference. |
|
|
|
Post by me on Sept 12, 2016 12:38:34 GMT -5
I see this inaccurate statement all the time. Whether the price of a share is 69 cents or 69 dollars, a short can still make 100% on their money. The absolute price of an equity doesn't determine whether it makes sense to short it, but rather the expectation of future percentage moves of the price of the equity is the (among some others) determining factor...regardless of its starting price. The reason $0.69 vs $69 doesn't make sense isn't because of the return on investment. It's because there is much less downside associated to a $69 investment vs a $0.69. When a stock is as low as $0.69, any small catalyst can catapult it easily to a 4-5x multiple. So instead of losing $2-3/share going short at $69, you're now losing 4-5 times your money. Sure, if you buy one share there's no difference. But people who buy $0.69 stocks, you're usually only doing so in massive quantities to make it worth your while. There is a huge difference. , sorry, I thought you would have recognized the basic (unstated) assumption in my post, ceteris paribus. And one of those "all elses" would be the volatility of the equity in your example above. So, ceteris paribus, one stands to lose or gain the same percentage of one's investment in shorting of an equity, whether the price of that equity is 69 cents or 69 dollars. Better? (And for sh*%s and grins, ask yourself this: MNKD A, 500 million shares trading at $0.69 and MNKD B, 5 million shares trading at $69 per share. Do you not think that "any small catalyst" would have the same percentage effect on the price of the equity, whether we're talking about MNKD A or MNKD B?) |
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Sept 12, 2016 13:11:16 GMT -5
If the share price increases $1 in each scenario, which would you rather be holding short, 500 million shares or 5 million?
Factor in liquidity and losses. I didn't miss your point. 500 million shares is far harder to cover than 5 would be as a catalyst would attract buyers, but not 500 million shares worth.
Also, although each yields around $345million initially, if the share price goes up 1 dollar, you'd owe $500 million under the first scenario and only $5 million on the other.
The scenario you've described applies only to going "long". Going "short" has a different set of rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by me on Sept 12, 2016 14:25:17 GMT -5
If the share price increases $1 in each scenario, which would you rather be holding short, 500 million shares or 5 million? Factor in liquidity and losses. I didn't miss your point. 500 million shares is far harder to cover than 5 would be as a catalyst would attract buyers, but not 500 million shares worth. Also, although each yields around $345million initially, if the share price goes up 1 dollar, you'd owe $500 million under the first scenario and only $5 million on the other. The scenario you've described applies only to going "long". Going "short" has a different set of rules. LOL, I understand the differences between being long and being short a stock. You are still missing my point. Ceteris paribus, how is a $1 increase in a 69 cent stock analogous to a $1 increase in a $69 stock?! Given all else being equal, if an event were to cause a 69 cent stock to go to $1.69, then that same $69 stock would go to $169. Under the first scenario, you would lose $1 for every share you held short, let's say 100,000 (2% of outstanding), so your loss would be $100,000 on an investment of $69,000. Again, all else being equal, in the second scenario you would lose $100 for every share you held short. And since all else is equal, that would be 10,000,000 shares, for a loss of $1 billion on an investment of $690 million. As an investor, I look at the rate of return on my investment, and in this case, the returns are identical. |
|
