|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 24, 2017 23:15:05 GMT -5
According to this link 95.8 million outstanding shares 46.2 million owned by Institutions add them up 48.2% right ?? NASDAQ says 177 Institutional Holders 18,471,435 Total Shares Held Are you saying their addition is incorrect? CNBC is Al Mann owns 22.5, he is listed as an Institional holder, also, Nasdaq was missing the 5.2 million Deerfield shares. I included the link, everything is there.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 24, 2017 23:16:11 GMT -5
According to this link 95.8 million outstanding shares 46.2 million owned by Institutions add them up 48.2% right ?? I can spot over 27 million shares not listed @ Nasdaq instantly AL Mann 22.1 million Deerfield 5.2 million Nasdaq lists 18 million total lol Shares owned by individuals, their trusts or estates aren't considered "institutional" shares.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 24, 2017 23:19:25 GMT -5
I can spot over 27 million shares not listed @ Nasdaq instantly AL Mann 22.1 million Deerfield 5.2 million Nasdaq lists 18 million total lol Shares owned by individuals, their trusts or estates aren't considered "institutional" shares. Click the link, scroll down to "INSTITUTIONAL OWNERS" and add them up, I did.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 24, 2017 23:22:56 GMT -5
Shares owned by individuals, their trusts or estates aren't considered "institutional" shares. Click the link, scroll down to "INSTITUTIONAL OWNERS" and add them up, I did. The top two Institutional Owners are not listed on the Nasdaq, it looks like Nasdaq is a little behind as they don't even have Deerfield yet. Im just sharing what I'm seeing.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Apr 25, 2017 0:00:57 GMT -5
According to this link 95.8 million outstanding shares 46.2 million owned by Institutions add them up 48.2% right ?? NASDAQ says 177 Institutional Holders 18,471,435 Total Shares Held Are you saying their addition is incorrect? TD AMERITRADE says 21.56% institutional ownership. FIDELITY does not even have a number on the graph.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdorbust on Apr 25, 2017 2:16:10 GMT -5
the level of FUD has increased exponentially .... its every where ......LONGS know the value of this company. We also know Matt P. is doing a great job despite the millions spend on trying to kill MNKD. As a share holder for the past 6 years, I didn't know that Matt P was doing a great job. I personally think he's doing a lousy job. The best thing in my mind that he has done was hiring Mike. I sure hope he proves me wrong but that is my current assessment.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Apr 25, 2017 5:29:43 GMT -5
the level of FUD has increased exponentially .... its every where ......LONGS know the value of this company. We also know Matt P. is doing a great job despite the millions spend on trying to kill MNKD. So has the level of delusion in believing that everything is going to be fine if we continue to blindly trust in the company and wait for a turnaround that has been promised for over two years. What has that blind trust delivered so far? Our lowest share price in the history of the company and just a few months of cash left before the company is insolvent. You want to know the value of the company? As of COB yesterday, it was $74.52 million dollars. Long, short, indifferent....THAT'S the value despite what people's delusions of grandeur may tell you. The job Matt has done is open to interpretation. I think he's put in lots of effort, but I think his job as a whole has peen pretty lousy. So far, I'd say the same about Mike as well. Job performance has to be based on results and so far, we have none despite years of work and millions spent trying to achieve them.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 25, 2017 7:17:19 GMT -5
Click the link, scroll down to "INSTITUTIONAL OWNERS" and add them up, I did. The top two Institutional Owners are not listed on the Nasdaq, it looks like Nasdaq is a little behind as they don't even have Deerfield yet. Im just sharing what I'm seeing. I don't know where CNBC get their numbers from, but the NASDAQ numbers are from the filed 13F so they are accurate if outdated. I doubt the CNBC numbers simply because other than a 13F there is no way to know what an institution is doing unless they hit a 13D/G limit which is rare for a stock like Mannkind.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 25, 2017 7:36:41 GMT -5
I don't know where CNBC get their numbers from, but the NASDAQ numbers are from the filed 13F so they are accurate if outdated. I doubt the CNBC numbers simply because other than a 13F there is no way to know what an institution is doing unless they hit a 13D/G limit which is rare for a stock like Mannkind. Exactly correct; the only accurate numbers are from Form 13 filings which are horribly out of date (even when first filed). Secondly, and I can't emphasize this too much, don't take too much comfort in institutional ownership unless you understand where those numbers come from. Any company subject to reporting under the Investment Act of 1940 (which is basically all funds and brokerages, but excludes family offices) is a filer, and they aggregate all their holdings. Fidelity, for example, has mutual funds that they actively manage, picking and choosing the stocks, but they also have individual accounts like self-directed IRAs and 401(k) plans where Fidelity technically and legally owns the shares, but holds them as a fiduciary on behalf of the individual beneficial owner. The same is true for every brokerage account with shares held in street name; the account holders no longer "own" the shares, they just have a right to the beneficial interest. FMR (the legal entity that ultimately owns all the Fidelity funds and shares in individual brokerage accounts) is allowed to report a single number for each stock they hold. When you see a company with high institutional ownership don't assume that a lot of smart money managed by professionals is pouring into the company. That might be the case, but it might also be that a lot of retail holders with street name accounts are buying up the shares. The only way to know is to track the handful of healthcare funds that only invest long-term in healthcare stocks, funds like Orbimed Advisors, since they are true institutional holders with professional managers that can be considered smart money. When you see the numbers for a huge company, like FMR or Goldman Sachs, you can't tell what the composition is because that is not public information, but be assured that most of the reported transactions are simply flowing through their clearing operations.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 25, 2017 8:20:25 GMT -5
The top two Institutional Owners are not listed on the Nasdaq, it looks like Nasdaq is a little behind as they don't even have Deerfield yet. Im just sharing what I'm seeing. I don't know where CNBC get their numbers from, but the NASDAQ numbers are from the filed 13F so they are accurate if outdated. I doubt the CNBC numbers simply because other than a 13F there is no way to know what an institution is doing unless they hit a 13D/G limit which is rare for a stock like Mannkind. CNBC has the Deerfield 5.2 million shares, Nasdaq doesn't, the other discrepancy is Al Mann's 22 Million shares, CNBC has them listed as Institutional, and has had them listed that way since I've been invested.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 25, 2017 8:32:09 GMT -5
I don't know where CNBC get their numbers from, but the NASDAQ numbers are from the filed 13F so they are accurate if outdated. I doubt the CNBC numbers simply because other than a 13F there is no way to know what an institution is doing unless they hit a 13D/G limit which is rare for a stock like Mannkind. Exactly correct; the only accurate numbers are from Form 13 filings which are horribly out of date (even when first filed). Secondly, and I can't emphasize this too much, don't take too much comfort in institutional ownership unless you understand where those numbers come from. Any company subject to reporting under the Investment Act of 1940 (which is basically all funds and brokerages, but excludes family offices) is a filer, and they aggregate all their holdings. Fidelity, for example, has mutual funds that they actively manage, picking and choosing the stocks, but they also have individual accounts like self-directed IRAs and 401(k) plans where Fidelity technically and legally owns the shares, but holds them as a fiduciary on behalf of the individual beneficial owner. The same is true for every brokerage account with shares held in street name; the account holders no longer "own" the shares, they just have a right to the beneficial interest. FMR (the legal entity that ultimately owns all the Fidelity funds and shares in individual brokerage accounts) is allowed to report a single number for each stock they hold. When you see a company with high institutional ownership don't assume that a lot of smart money managed by professionals is pouring into the company. That might be the case, but it might also be that a lot of retail holders with street name accounts are buying up the shares. The only way to know is to track the handful of healthcare funds that only invest long-term in healthcare stocks, funds like Orbimed Advisors, since they are true institutional holders with professional managers that can be considered smart money. When you see the numbers for a huge company, like FMR or Goldman Sachs, you can't tell what the composition is because that is not public information, but be assured that most of the reported transactions are simply flowing through their clearing operations I think we can all agree that Deerfield has 5.2 million shares not listed on the Nasdaq link, and we can also agree on the Mann shares @ 22 million that aren't listed as Institutional @ Nasdaq. I personally don't care, but Nasdaq is inaccurate at least 5.2 million shares which is quite a bit when they are showing only 18 million total shares held by Institutions.
|
|
|
Post by fanz8967 on Apr 25, 2017 23:33:07 GMT -5
A lot of people are starting to say that they think that Matt is a cheat and that he is intentionally holding back on advertising to tank the company so that either it can be taken private for cheap or picked up in bankruptcy for near nothing. Wouldn't it be illegal for him not to do whats in the best interest of the shareholders? Couldn't we all get a lawyer and put him in jail if he is defrauding us? I'm not sure that I believe that he is doing this, but everyone keeps saying that we should have seen money from RLS by now and that the international partner deal should be done, and the scripts are only low, because they have not aired a TV commercial and don't have enough reps. If it turns out that this all ends up to be true, couldn't we all work together to put him behind bars? There are so many theories here, I don't know. No one is saying that on this board are they? Bradmel was saying in the original post that it looked like Matt was purposely steering the company into BK to shake off retail investors. What do you mean no one on this board? Didn't you read the post?
|
|
|
Post by bradmel on Apr 26, 2017 0:11:26 GMT -5
I posed the question to the Board, If there were benefits for a company in Mannkind's position to steer the ship towards a Bankruptcy as a way to save their jobs and possibly to restructure the company and also of course to keep control of the drug and continue to try to bring the drug to market with a new partner AFTER all us shareholders are wiped out.
I did bring up Matt obviously because he is our CEO/CFO and I pointed out some observation That I and others have seen that just has me asking why? This doesn't make any sense. Silence from Management, Not trying to defend the PPS, DTC marketing??, Lack of fiscal responsibility.
Please don't misunderstand.....I do believe Matt tried his best to make Mannkind a success for quite some time after Sanofi left, but recently did the company get to a point of digging a hole so deep that the only way to climb out and survive is to go Bankrupt, Restructure, Partner up now with Apple, Google, Amgen, RLS, Deerfield, Dexcom etc...Pick one or pick um all and then see this become the Blockbuster that we all were TOLD it would be.....BUT we are on OUT.
I don't know about you but if this was the case...that we were strategically pushed out. I would be irate for waiting since 2009 and over so much loss just to see the Management who tried but made huge mistakes continue with their Golden Parachutes and for others make so much after we lost so much. Loyal Investors.
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on Apr 26, 2017 4:59:58 GMT -5
Did MNKD submit a commercial to the FDA for review? The FDA does not require companies to submit commercials to them for approval (as stated on the FDA website). Where did you hear or read that MNKD submitted a commercial? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 26, 2017 5:15:14 GMT -5
bradmel From all I can gather this is not the case.
It's my opinion at this time that Matt is not giving up and is determined to make Al proud, and not toss the shareholders under the bus.
I also do not believe that the pps is being artificially held down because of a deal that's to come.
We have to sell Afrezza. And climb back from the aubisque. I think we keep seeing scripts increase. We need to reach that point where there is no doubt that this has marketability. Then we see overseas open up and funding.
If not, IMO, they will have to sell the company cheap. And we will feel like we got thrown under the bus anyway...
|
|