|
|
Q3 13F
Nov 14, 2016 17:55:25 GMT -5
Post by kbrion77 on Nov 14, 2016 17:55:25 GMT -5
According to WhaleWisdom Tourbillon sold their entire put of 4.6mm shares. Goldman increased their call position by 3.8mm shares. I don't really look too much into these filings but the Tourbillon exit is interesting.
|
|
|
|
Q3 13F
Nov 14, 2016 21:06:36 GMT -5
Post by mnholdem on Nov 14, 2016 21:06:36 GMT -5
I was just writing about that very topic in a PM today. I think there was an October 24 article which stated that the profit they made from shorting MNKD resulted in a great 3Q16 for Tourbillion Capital Partners.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Nov 14, 2016 21:21:58 GMT -5
They will short it again, they are just waiting for it to go up. They have made a killing over the last two years or so shorting Mannkind on a regular basis so they are not likely to stop now.
|
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on Nov 14, 2016 21:38:59 GMT -5
I believe shorting MNKD now and going forward would be a very dangerous move for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Nov 15, 2016 7:19:55 GMT -5
I believe shorting MNKD now and going forward would be a very dangerous move for them. People have been saying that for a long time. They have booked a lot of profit from shorting Mannkind so they can afford to take risks. Also if they really only used puts to do it then there is not even that much risk as their down side is limited to the cost of the puts. |
|
|
|
Q3 13F
Nov 15, 2016 8:24:03 GMT -5
Post by kbrion77 on Nov 15, 2016 8:24:03 GMT -5
They will short it again, they are just waiting for it to go up. They have made a killing over the last two years or so shorting Mannkind on a regular basis so they are not likely to stop now. At least for the time being maybe Karp doesn't believe MNKD is going to zero anymore. Would love to see his profits over the last 2 years though. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Nov 15, 2016 9:56:39 GMT -5
They will short it again, they are just waiting for it to go up. They have made a killing over the last two years or so shorting Mannkind on a regular basis so they are not likely to stop now. At least for the time being maybe Karp doesn't believe MNKD is going to zero anymore. Would love to see his profits over the last 2 years though. I continue to have reservations about the fairness of a trading environment that allows large hedge funds to prophecy doom for start ups and then pile on with the expectation that they can waltz to the bank every quarter. There is a moral hazard in allowing this to take place without some restrictions, IMO. What is to prevent, for example, companies with deep pockets from stifling competition, or using hedge funds as proxies? In this case, most would agree that when useful medicines are involved, there is a potential harm to the public good that can result from such trading. It is true that companies can fight back by getting results; but I would argue that during start up phases, this is easier said than done (as has been shown with Mannkind). I would support regulations beyond those that failed to curtail naked shorting; perhaps by protecting companies whose share price has dropped below 20% of their IPO price. I'd be interested in other perspectives. |
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Nov 15, 2016 10:20:27 GMT -5
At least for the time being maybe Karp doesn't believe MNKD is going to zero anymore. Would love to see his profits over the last 2 years though. I continue to have reservations about the fairness of a trading environment that allows large hedge funds to prophecy doom for start ups and then pile on with the expectation that they can waltz to the bank every quarter. There is a moral hazard in allowing this to take place without some restrictions, IMO. What is to prevent, for example, companies with deep pockets from stifling competition, or using hedge funds as proxies? In this case, most would agree that when useful medicines are involved, there is a potential harm to the public good that can result from such trading. It is true that companies can fight back by getting results; but I would argue that during start up phases, this is easier said than done (as has been shown with Mannkind). I would support regulations beyond those that failed to curtail naked shorting; perhaps by protecting companies whose share price has dropped below 20% of their IPO price. I'd be interested in other perspectives. I think that's called keeping them private, but maybe the rules for private placements could be modified more easily to allow small investors without having to fall under "public" guidelines. Good topic. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 15, 2016 10:59:26 GMT -5
They will short it again, they are just waiting for it to go up. They have made a killing over the last two years or so shorting Mannkind on a regular basis so they are not likely to stop now. They probably already have. Remember that 13F forms only show a snapshot of the holdings as of the last day of the quarter, and the forms come out 45 after quarter end. They might have loaded up after the conference call pop and shorted it already, but you won't see that until mid-February when the December 31 holdings are published. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 15, 2016 11:10:27 GMT -5
They will short it again, they are just waiting for it to go up. They have made a killing over the last two years or so shorting Mannkind on a regular basis so they are not likely to stop now. They probably already have. Remember that 13F forms only show a snapshot of the holdings as of the last day of the quarter, and the forms come out 45 after quarter end. They might have loaded up after the conference call pop and shorted it already, but you won't see that until mid-February when the December 31 holdings are published. So the story is the biggest and brightest have already shorted again? Because the intent is never to cover?
|
|
|
|
Q3 13F
Nov 15, 2016 11:11:38 GMT -5
Post by kbrion77 on Nov 15, 2016 11:11:38 GMT -5
They will short it again, they are just waiting for it to go up. They have made a killing over the last two years or so shorting Mannkind on a regular basis so they are not likely to stop now. They probably already have. Remember that 13F forms only show a snapshot of the holdings as of the last day of the quarter, and the forms come out 45 after quarter end. They might have loaded up after the conference call pop and shorted it already, but you won't see that until mid-February when the December 31 holdings are published. To me that's just crazy to be that hell bent that MNKD and Afrezza are going to fail but if that is what they truly believe than I can't really knock them. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Nov 15, 2016 18:41:37 GMT -5
They probably already have. Remember that 13F forms only show a snapshot of the holdings as of the last day of the quarter, and the forms come out 45 after quarter end. They might have loaded up after the conference call pop and shorted it already, but you won't see that until mid-February when the December 31 holdings are published. So the story is the biggest and brightest have already shorted again? Because the intent is never to cover? I don't know if they have started to short again. I suspect they will continue to short until the scripts show robust growth and at that point I would expect them to take their winnings and leave. |
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Nov 15, 2016 18:57:18 GMT -5
At least for the time being maybe Karp doesn't believe MNKD is going to zero anymore. Would love to see his profits over the last 2 years though. I continue to have reservations about the fairness of a trading environment that allows large hedge funds to prophecy doom for start ups and then pile on with the expectation that they can waltz to the bank every quarter. There is a moral hazard in allowing this to take place without some restrictions, IMO. What is to prevent, for example, companies with deep pockets from stifling competition, or using hedge funds as proxies? In this case, most would agree that when useful medicines are involved, there is a potential harm to the public good that can result from such trading. It is true that companies can fight back by getting results; but I would argue that during start up phases, this is easier said than done (as has been shown with Mannkind). I would support regulations beyond those that failed to curtail naked shorting; perhaps by protecting companies whose share price has dropped below 20% of their IPO price. I'd be interested in other perspectives. [ I completely agree,,,,,, what we're seeing goes WAY beyond the idea of betting against a company because someone thinks they will fail naturally. This is more like placing your bet and then doing everything in your power to see that they fail so your bet is a winner... with no rule or regulation to stop you. |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Nov 15, 2016 21:20:48 GMT -5
So the story is the biggest and brightest have already shorted again? Because the intent is never to cover? I don't know if they have started to short again. I suspect they will continue to short until the scripts show robust growth and at that point I would expect them to take their winnings and leave. They'll cover then go long and make $$$ on the way back up |
|
