|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Feb 3, 2017 11:58:03 GMT -5
MNKD will apply for an extension and will most likely get it because big short will not benefit from RS. They will not be delisted until extension is being reviewed. Shareholders will approve RS, so it will be done if extension is denied. Shorty will not be happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgwvsrfr on Feb 3, 2017 12:05:26 GMT -5
Many people on the board have commented that a R/S does not really change things but I think it does for the avg investor. If I bought 150 shares of MNKD stock for an average $ Cost of $5 it will mean with a 3/1 split we need to get to $15 before I'm breaking even instead of $5. That's pretty lame! Or am I not looking at this correctly?
|
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Feb 3, 2017 12:08:20 GMT -5
You are not looking at this correctly. Many posts here have already addressed this. Would you rather have one $100 bill or five $20 bills?
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Feb 3, 2017 12:10:32 GMT -5
yes, you are correct 15 dollars on a 3 for 1 with a cost average of 5 dollars for break even.
A difference is the float will also go down by the reverse split denominator.
In that case, when/if, buyers/demand, do/does, show up, price will move more.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Feb 3, 2017 12:13:50 GMT -5
Surplusvalue, you'd be right about the share price falling as the result of a reverse split - but that's when the R/S is done out of desperation. Matt told us it was not done out of desperation, but from a position of strength. I have to say, most who listened to and commented on that conference call did not get the impression that we're moving from a position of strength.
Soooooo, is Matt lying or spinning or delusional or being factual? I think we're coming from a position of strength (cough, cough), although somehow this feels more like the "Bowling Green Massacre" - remember where you were and what you were doing the day you heard about that? I know I remember (as it was just this morning!).
Just rambling, most here have a pretty clear picture of what is happening. This is going to make it pretty easy for a takeover to occur at a bargain price, unless those friggin script numbers get moving northward .... fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 12:15:30 GMT -5
Many people on the board have commented that a R/S does not really change things but I think it does for the avg investor. If I bought 150 shares of MNKD stock for an average $ Cost of $5 it will mean with a 3/1 split we need to get to $15 before I'm breaking even instead of $5. That's pretty lame! Or am I not looking at this correctly? You are correct. The cheerleaders here will try to convince you that its just as easy to get to $15 as it is to $5 presplit because the ratio is the same. But its nonsense to assume that because there are others factors that accompany the split besides the strict mathematics of the split and those who have been through reverses know this from experience not from reading something from investopedia or zacks. see my post earlier in this thread and the reference to a discussion of this in another thread. Also see my post here mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7113/proxy?page=2Unless the reverse is for delisting issues only its likely it will be 1 for 10 which is even worse for a presplit cost of $5. Youll need $50 to break even. Now go look at what the share price of big pharmas are and tell me that MNKD will get up there with the big boys within a few years? But even more pertinent is that MNKD will have to substantially increase its scripts to get anywhere near $50 per share and from what the CEO suggested by chart at a previous CC is takes about 5 years to commercialize a product. |
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 12:22:43 GMT -5
Surplusvalue, you'd be right about the share price falling as the result of a reverse split - but that's when the R/S is done out of desperation. Matt told us it was not done out of desperation, but from a position of strength. I have to say, most who listened to and commented on that conference call did not get the impression that we're moving from a position of strength. Soooooo, is Matt lying or spinning or delusional or being factual? I think we're coming from a position of strength (cough, cough), although somehow this feels more like the "Bowling Green Massacre" - remember where you were and what you were doing the day you heard about that? I know I remember (as it was just this morning!). Just rambling, most here have a pretty clear picture of what is happening. This is going to make it pretty easy for a takeover to occur at a bargain price, unless those friggin script numbers get moving northward .... fast. Anyone with eyes (get it?) can see what the situation is. Matt is just trying to make something unpalatable more palatable, trying to sell the reverse, putting a big red bow on it, lipstick on a pig etc. He is good at it, dont you think? |
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Feb 3, 2017 12:25:39 GMT -5
There are 2 separate issues. Strictly looking at the math by itself, there is no difference in what it takes to break even because of a RS. Percentages are what matter and they don't change.
The other issue is that companies don't have RS unless something is bad. This is why they (sometimes) lose value during a RS.
If you think it is harder for a $15 stock to double in value than a $5 stock to double in value than you should not be investing in stocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 12:31:22 GMT -5
There are 2 separate issues. Strictly looking at the math by itself, there is no difference in what it takes to break even because of a RS. Percentages are what matter and they don't change. The other issue is that companies don't have RS unless something is bad. This is why they (sometimes) lose value during a RS. If you think it is harder for a $15 stock to double in value than a $5 stock to double in value than you should not be investing in stocks. Golly gee willikers, thanks for setting us all straight. You being obtuse on purpose? I'm not talking just about the math of the reverse alone by itself (and I assume the original poster of this question isnt either) but its context and what accompanies it and thats what makes the difference. Look at my reply to MNHOLDEM in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 3, 2017 12:33:14 GMT -5
Surplusvalue, Nope, I think he sucked at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Feb 3, 2017 12:33:32 GMT -5
Nope, I think he sucked at it. I like Matt but this time his attempt to spin things just made it worse. No company has ever done a RS from a position of strength. It doesn't even make sense why you would do a RS if you didn't have to. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Feb 3, 2017 12:37:31 GMT -5
Many people on the board have commented that a R/S does not really change things but I think it does for the avg investor. If I bought 150 shares of MNKD stock for an average $ Cost of $5 it will mean with a 3/1 split we need to get to $15 before I'm breaking even instead of $5. That's pretty lame! Or am I not looking at this correctly? You are correct. The cheerleaders here will try to convince you that its just as easy to get to $15 as it is to $5 presplit because the ratio is the same. But its nonsense to assume that and those who have been through reverses know this from experience not from reading something from investopedia or zacks. see my post earlier in this thread and the reference to a discussion of this in another thread. Also see my post here mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7113/proxy?page=2Unless the reverse is for delisting issues only its likely it will be 1 for 10 which is even worse for a presplit cost of $5. Youll need $50 to break even. Now go look at what the share price of big pharmas are and tell me that MNKD will get up there with the big boys within a few years? If the psychology behind buying shares of a small pharma for greater than 50 bucks per share is that bad then just do a (forward) split. A reverse split does not alter the sales trajectory of afrezza. It does not determine the long term probability of success of mannkind. If I was trading the stock or my investment horizon was short then yes I would be concerned. Buy the dips. |
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Feb 3, 2017 12:41:23 GMT -5
There are 2 separate issues. Strictly looking at the math by itself, there is no difference in what it takes to break even because of a RS. Percentages are what matter and they don't change. The other issue is that companies don't have RS unless something is bad. This is why they (sometimes) lose value during a RS. If you think it is harder for a $15 stock to double in value than a $5 stock to double in value than you should not be investing in stocks. Golly gee willikers, thanks for setting us all straight. You being obtuse on purpose? I'm not talking just about the math of the reverse alone by itself but its context and what accompanies it and thats what makes the difference. Look at my reply to MNHOLDEM in this thread. It is difficult keeping track of who said what and who they were talking to. Some people here are confused about the math. I'm just trying to help. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2017 12:42:29 GMT -5
I hope when we get to 50.00 per share we can do a forward split of 10 shares for every one and begin at 5.00 again and make it more affordable. That's what I want to see.... That does keep me up at night worrying about what is going to happen when we hit $50.00  |
|
|
|
Post by me on Feb 3, 2017 12:55:27 GMT -5
There are 2 separate issues. Strictly looking at the math by itself, there is no difference in what it takes to break even because of a RS. Percentages are what matter and they don't change. The other issue is that companies don't have RS unless something is bad. This is why they (sometimes) lose value during a RS. If you think it is harder for a $15 stock to double in value than a $5 stock to double in value than you should not be investing in stocks.Golly gee willikers, thanks for setting us all straight. You being obtuse on purpose? I'm not talking just about the math of the reverse alone by itself (and I assume the original poster of this question isnt either) but its context and what accompanies it and thats what makes the difference. Look at my reply to MNHOLDEM in this thread. But, but, but, surplusvalue, you said here, "Youll need $50 to break even. Now go look at what the share price of big pharmas are and tell me that MNKD will get up there with the big boys within a few years?" Heck, if MNKD did a 1:200 R/S, they'd be right there tomorrow! Your very statement here seems to indicate that uvula's caution about investing in stocks was warranted. Do you really think the value of a company is resident in the absolute dollar price of the share of stock? If not, then why the statement above? If so, then I'd recommend you at least think about uvula's comment a little more reflectively. (BTW, I personally believe a R/S is almost always a bad sign for a stock. Unlike a lot of posters here, however, I am not equating shareholder approval of a R/S with the actual execution of a R/S.) Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7203/reverse-stock-split-smoke-mirrors?page=1#ixzz4Xe4phodz |
|
