|
|
Post by falconquest on Jan 4, 2017 20:24:54 GMT -5
Allow me to point out another biotechnology stock that was left for dead after its reverse split and is making a strong comeback: ZGNX. Enough said. Believe what you will. Every case is different. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 20:29:34 GMT -5
Allow me to point out another biotechnology stock that was left for dead after its reverse split and is making a strong comeback: ZGNX. Enough said. Believe what you will. Every case is different. As Eisenstein said: no number of experiments can prove a theory, but one can prove it false. |
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Jan 4, 2017 20:41:55 GMT -5
Good for you! Once in a while there is a positive outcome but normally......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 20:51:37 GMT -5
Good for you! Once in a while there is a positive outcome but normally...... So while experiment after experiment does not prove Eisenstein's theory of relativity, not one has proven it wrong. The analogy is similar to MannKind: despite all the dooms day scenarios by Wall Street, MannKind continues to survive. Perhaps Alfred Mann was our contemporary Eisenstein. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 4, 2017 21:03:10 GMT -5
MnHoldem's Theory of Relatives
The probability of in-laws visiting you is directly proportional to how much you feel like being left alone.  |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2017 22:50:45 GMT -5
Good for you! Once in a while there is a positive outcome but normally...... So while experiment after experiment does not prove Eisenstein's theory of relativity, not one has proven it wrong. The analogy is similar to MannKind: despite all the dooms day scenarios by Wall Street, MannKind continues to survive. Perhaps Alfred Mann was our contemporary Eisenstein. Einstein's views on quantum mechanics were certainly proven to be wrong. So hopefully the analogy you are trying to make isn't too precise... correct in early years of career and then wrong at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 5, 2017 0:40:36 GMT -5
Allow me to point out another biotechnology stock that was left for dead after its reverse split and is making a strong comeback: ZGNX. Enough said. Bad example. You havent a clue what you are talking about with respect to ZGNX. I was invested early on in this stock before the split with many others. FDA approved drug with comparatively much better outcomes as a result of less side effects. Small biotech went up against big pharma interests and got squashed by Mylan and others along with significant political interference. Lawsuits galore. Didnt help that management was pathetically inept. Many lost their investment but some of us stayed (in too deep), weathered the split but needed around $21-22 /share to get even but only after averaging down significantly just before the split happened. The stock peaked at around $20-$21 post split and some got out with a very small loss. The stock never recovered to its presplit value... ever. Guess what...Zgnx sold their FDA approved "blockbuster" after the split and the stock is still now more than half its presplit value. ( And getting into a stock after the split is announced and the sp plummets doesnt count as good for shareholders; only good for those who invested after the carnage.) So dont tell me about how reverse splits are good for shareholders. For every reverse split that was successful it had something to shore it up while the majority saw their sp spiral downwards again. So for those of you who keep saying that immediately after the split the value of the shares you hold is the same that is correct ..but once the sp starts to spiral downwards the value disappears quickly and its much more difficult to recover your loss especially if the split was large. Think about it. Want another example? Oncs did a big reverse to get onto a main exchange and had nothing to support it (ok they sent a pr out about a canine study which was laughable) and the stock has tanked all the way down again to the $1.20 range. Go take a look at how big the split was. Go ask anyone invested before the split in ONCS how that worked out for them and while you're at it ask them what they think of management's butchering of the shareholders. Dont believe me...just go look at the ZGNX and ONCS history. Most of those commenting here about reverse splits dont have a clue. The general response after a reverse split is announced is for most smart shareholders to take their losses and leave if they are not in too deep. They know what's coming. |
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 5, 2017 1:40:38 GMT -5
So while experiment after experiment does not prove Eisenstein's theory of relativity, not one has proven it wrong. The analogy is similar to MannKind: despite all the dooms day scenarios by Wall Street, MannKind continues to survive. Perhaps Alfred Mann was our contemporary Eisenstein. Einstein's views on quantum mechanics were certainly proven to be wrong. So hopefully the analogy you are trying to make isn't too precise... correct in early years of career and then wrong at the end. You guys are hilarious. I know it was a spelling error..Eisenstein was a famous Russian filmmaker famous for his Battleship Potemkin (the famous baby carriage scene which Allen references in Love and Death.) The idea of scientific proof in terms of confirmation empiricist theory of truth was raised by Hume as problematic. Popper followed with the idea of scientific disproof ("proving it wrong")i.e continuously subjected to criticism and withstanding such criticisms. Kuhn offered up a different notion of truth and change in science with his notion of paradigm shifts. Thus the metaphysics in the methodology of theory of scientific truth have changed significantly even while the general public have clinged to antiquated notions of proof and disproof, truth and certainty. Feyerabend raised questions even about Kuhns assumptions. Einstein's views just like Newton's are not wrong but rather contextually based within their specific frameworks and corresponding applications, If Newton was "wrong" we could never send an object in to space. The most prevalent view of quantum mechanics hinges on Werner Heisenbergs Interpretation of quantum mechanics in which he raises questions about even our simplest comprehension of matter as a particle-wave and the problems of indeterminacy with respect to "position" and "motion". Interference, indeterminacy and the resulting importance of probability functions come in play making truth field/context based and interpretative(not entirely relative like the post modern "followers" of Derrida etc think). It also raises serious problems about the traditional separation( bifurcation) between the "subjective" and the "objective". It's a good read. www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/heisenberg/Copenhagen_Interpretation.pdf. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 5, 2017 3:02:19 GMT -5
surplusvalueI'd still say Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics. It wasn't that he missed it because of simply not thinking of it within the context that would have exposed it. He was fully aware of the theory and context and more capable than most of understanding it, and simply rejected it. Indeed I would not characterize Newton as being wrong with his theory of gravity, it was merely an incomplete understanding. He did not reject special relativity after being presented with a paper explaining it. I had presumed he meant Einstein based upon the context.
|
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 5, 2017 3:51:20 GMT -5
surplusvalue I'd still say Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics. It wasn't that he missed it because of simply not thinking of it within the context that would have exposed it. He was fully aware of the theory and context and more capable than most of understanding it, and simply rejected it. Indeed I would not characterize Newton as being wrong with his theory of gravity, it was merely an incomplete understanding. He did not reject special relativity after being presented with a paper explaining it. I had presumed he meant Einstein based upon the context. Einstein wasnt wrong i.e there is no "right or wrong" because there are elements of indeterminacy and interference both subjective and objective ones simultaneously represented more accurately by probability functions... just as there is never a complete anything;that's Heisenberg' point that there is always incompleteness as a ground of all our knowledge. This is part of the paradox he speaks of and why he says the kind of knowlege we have is due to the "kind of beings we cant help being." Not a matter of simple rejection but again related to the context of his own framework. Einstein was unwilling to accept the conditions of probability "G-d doesnt play dice" since within his framework the important constants couldnt allow for it. Frame of reference, yes, but the constants were not probabilities. And Newton himself recognized this condition of incompleteness with respect to gravity. We could measure its effects through our understanding of force and mass but we still couldnt explain what it was. In the end Newton saw his physics as a basis for the proof of the existance of G-d. How could just the right proportion of particles with the just right mass under the just right conditions of motion allow matter to cohere under the condition of gravity. Gravity as "action at a distance" was difficult to accept by others and thats why Newton was accused of bringing in occult forces in to physics. The accusation was not without merit since Newton spent most of his time focused on alchemy (trying to turn base metals into gold)...sort of what what we try to do when we invest in the stock market Read the Heisenberg carefully if interested and I think you may see what I'm saying about the problematic character of the language you are using to describe conditions of epistemology (knowlege) in general and scientific knowledge in particular belonging to the various "schools of physics" .( It's a fairly difficult read, even if one has a background in physics and its history. The implications and nuances are not easily grasped especially in one sitting). As far as an analogy with MNKD is concerned, which got us all off on this tangent in the first place it would be more appropriate to relate this to Heisenberg rather than Einstein. Nothing clearer to me that investing in MNKD has been predominately full of indeterminacy and not much else. Thankfully no one mentioned chaos theory. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jan 5, 2017 5:24:39 GMT -5
The problem is that if the stock is delisted the institutions will drop it immediately, it almost certainly gets delisted from the TASE, all the trackers have to dump the stock, and I think the ATM disappears. That is going to put a huge amount of stock onto the market with no visible buyer. The stock price will go over a cliff. I've seen stocks delisted from main exchanges and the institutions dont bail...depends on the institution and who holds the principle stock. As for the TASE there are certainly stocks still listed on main european exchanges but delisted from e.g. nasdaq. Are you sure the ATM provision requires listing on the Nasdaq ? Do a RS (an act of desperation in this case)... do you think the institutions wont see it for what it is and bail;especially if there is nothing to hold the sp in place. Institutions wont need too much to surmise that the sp will spiral downward literally destroying any value left. You're forgetting this is already a targeted stock with an enormous short position just waiting for another opportunity to drive this down after a rs. Rinse and repeat. MNKD would be just inviting more punishment and it would get it ...in spades. The end result, delisting anyways in a very short time. After all this, then certainly, everyone could kiss their investment good-buy. MNKD needs to have something substantial to back up a RS otherwise its pointless. Either they have it fully ready or they dont. If they have something substantial then there would be no need for a rs. 43% of the float is held by funds and institutions, delist and that hits the market. There is no way the retail traders can pick that up. I agree that reverse splits are horrible when done to avoid delisting but I don't see an option if things reach that point. |
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Jan 5, 2017 7:00:20 GMT -5
The problem is that if the stock is delisted the institutions will drop it immediately, it almost certainly gets delisted from the TASE, all the trackers have to dump the stock, and I think the ATM disappears. That is going to put a huge amount of stock onto the market with no visible buyer. The stock price will go over a cliff. I've seen stocks delisted from main exchanges and the institutions dont bail...depends on the institution and who holds the principle stock. As for the TASE there are certainly stocks still listed on main european exchanges but delisted from e.g. nasdaq. Are you sure the ATM provision requires listing on the Nasdaq ? Do a RS (an act of desperation in this case)... do you think the institutions wont see it for what it is and bail;especially if there is nothing to hold the sp in place. Institutions wont need too much to surmise that the sp will spiral downward literally destroying any value left. You're forgetting this is already a targeted stock with an enormous short position just waiting for another opportunity to drive this down after a rs. Rinse and repeat. MNKD would be just inviting more punishment and it would get it ...in spades. The end result, delisting anyways in a very short time. After all this, then certainly, everyone could kiss their investment good-buy. MNKD needs to have something substantial to back up a RS otherwise its pointless. Either they have it fully ready or they dont. If they have something substantial then there would be no need for a rs. The exact same scenario is just as likely to happen if and when the stock gets delisted from the Nasdaq. Being on the Nasdaq is just about the only thing left that still gives MNKD some semblance of being relevant in the financial world. Lose that and I think Proboards matt is right, it will kill the stock and the company will probably never recover. Nobody is advocating a reverse split. I certainly am not. You are 100% correct in that it's a desperation move that will undoubtedly result in even more erosion of shareholder value than we've already seen. My investment is 80% underwater more or less, so there's precious little left to lose. My point is that the exact same thing is going to happen if the stock is delisted. There will be a MASSIVE sell off and shareholder value will whittle away just like it would with a R/S. Credible institutions will dump it, financing will be next to impossible to obtain, and If I'm going to see my investment go to relative zero, I'd rather see it go to zero still trading on the Nasdaq than on the OTC. If MNKD ever hopes to survive long enough to recover and finally sell it's product(s) then it will need the Nasdaq to do it, in my opinion. There are no good options here, other than sell Afrezza and they can't do that by all accounts. If the share price isn't above $1 by March, Matt is going to have a very difficult choice to make. I will as well. If the company delists or R/S, I might take up a small short position to hedge and try and recover some of what I've lost in my initial investment since I don't play options. If there's an example of a company that fell from Nasdaq to the OTC and became a resounding success, I'd love to read more about it but none come to mind. I'm guessing there aren't too many of them. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 5, 2017 8:45:53 GMT -5
But then why do private pharmaceutical development companies succeed? Even if delisted, what if the FDA re-classifies Afrezza as a First-in-Class "Ultra Rapid-Acting" insulin and sales explode?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. Honestly, I just am wondering. Is it that fact that MannKind is listed on NASDAQ that will attract financiers or is it the products and potential future profits that this company offers?
The deal with Receptor Life Sciences is cloaked in secrecy but it, at the very least, demonstrates to Wall Street that there is at least one company interested in the technology the MannKind has developed.
|
|
|
|
Post by kball on Jan 5, 2017 9:25:30 GMT -5
Dont you think it's just a little bit condescending to point us to an investopedia article as if it has some inherent merit? Think for a moment, does MNKD have investor confidence now? How many institutional investors are researching and trading the stock now? Please..... No I don't think it was condescending. Or I wouldn't have posted it? I've been in pink sheets stocks before and I couldn't buy or sell because of the low liquidity. Maybe I should have just said that? I didn't mean to offend you. Sorry So I'm the only one counting on those Boiler Room type sales people selling up this stock so i can make SOMETHING to people who may be bigger fools than me? Our last hope? |
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Jan 5, 2017 10:00:35 GMT -5
But then why do private pharmaceutical development companies succeed? Even if delisted, what if the FDA re-classifies Afrezza as a First-in-Class "Ultra Rapid-Acting" insulin and sales explode?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. Honestly, I just am wondering. Is it that fact that MannKind is listed on NASDAQ that will attract financiers or is it the products and potential future profits that this company offers?
The deal with Receptor Life Sciences is cloaked in secrecy but it, at the very least, demonstrates to Wall Street that there is at least one company interested in the technology the MannKind has developed.
I would opine that the delisting issue has less to do with MNKD's ability to sell than it does with MNKD's ability to finance. MNKD's sales are largely the product of their own success and is in large part under their own control, i.e. whether or not their own effective sales people can deliver, whether or not their patient outreach is successful, whether or not insurance formulary coverage can be improved, etc.... Financing is most assuredly not in their control, especially if they will be seeking outside money to keep the lights on until the sales of their products can do that for them. They will likely be doing this later this year once the new runway is exhausted and if the ATM/Mann Group loans are ever exercised. It is there that the Nasdaq listing will likely be critical. I find it highly unlikely that a JP Morgan, Deerfield, or other potential finance source would have too much reassurance about investing millions of dollars into a company that has fallen from the Nasdaq and now sits on the OTC or Pink Sheets. I certainly wouldn't. The Nasdaq stamp of approval on a stock means something and if MNKD ever needs financing again (which they will in all likelihood) they're going to want to have it. My opinion is only my own but saying you're a Nasdaq traded company carries legitimacy with it. You can't do that when you try that with the OTC. Products and profits are important, but if MNKD can't deliver on them better than they have been, staying on the Nasdaq might be the only card they have to play to get future financing. Not being argumentative either, and I'm hoping beyond hopes that all of this is for nothing and they can do better. If nothing else, I'd like them to reset the clock on the delisting window so we aren't so up against the wall for the next quarterly results. |
|
