|
Post by traderdennis on Aug 20, 2018 9:00:20 GMT -5
Doesn't MNKD have a 10 million dollar payment to deerfield on the 30th? or did I lose track? SO's latest article mentions that Mannkind owes "Deerfield $3 million by August 31st" and "about $2.7 million to Amphastar in this quarter". I also think it is likely that Deerfield has already created a 2.7+ million short position over the last two weeks
|
|
|
Post by jred on Aug 20, 2018 9:23:16 GMT -5
I also think it is likely that Deerfield has already created a 2.7+ million short position over the last two weeks
Despite being proven wrong by Deerfield's 13F filings this year you have continually made statements like this suggesting Deerfield has sold out their long position and gone short before each of the repayment events. I think the board is made stronger with the participation of different opinions, but do you have anything to substantiate your claim this time? Suggesting the same negative opinion over and over even when proven wrong feels more like FUD versus an honest attempt to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Aug 20, 2018 9:51:02 GMT -5
I also think it is likely that Deerfield has already created a 2.7+ million short position over the last two weeks
Despite being proven wrong by Deerfield's 13F filings this year you have continually made statements like this suggesting Deerfield has sold out their long position and gone short before each of the repayment events. I think the board is made stronger with the participation of different opinions, but do you have anything to substantiate your claim this time? Suggesting the same negative opinion over and over even when proven wrong feels more like FUD versus an honest attempt to contribute.
deerfield has 1.4m shares as of 6/30... there is no doubt they have sold much of what was provided to them as repayment. investors.mannkindcorp.com/stock-information/ownership-profileOf course any suggestion that they are short is also pure speculation (and very likely false)
|
|
|
Post by jred on Aug 20, 2018 10:04:59 GMT -5
I never suggested otherwise. I have stated in past posts that Deerfield has historically sold all shares issued to them and expressed an opinion that Deerfield is primarily interested in Mannkind for the yield on it's loan and not as a long term equity investor. This would be consistent with most of the investments Deerfield has in its Convertible Debt / Debt funds.
Between the milestone agreements and the remaining convertible debt that Deerfield holds, it already has a significant stake in Mannkind's potential future success. The fact that they were holding 1.4 million shares long in March and June this year was a surprising new development.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 20, 2018 10:32:35 GMT -5
Despite being proven wrong by Deerfield's 13F filings this year you have continually made statements like this suggesting Deerfield has sold out their long position and gone short before each of the repayment events. I think the board is made stronger with the participation of different opinions, but do you have anything to substantiate your claim this time? Suggesting the same negative opinion over and over even when proven wrong feels more like FUD versus an honest attempt to contribute.
deerfield has 1.4m shares as of 6/30... there is no doubt they have sold much of what was provided to them as repayment. investors.mannkindcorp.com/stock-information/ownership-profileOf course any suggestion that they are short is also pure speculation (and very likely false) It's speculation that they are short, but I think it's probably true. Once Deerfield decide they are going to take stock they need to go short to freeze their selling price for the stock. It's a fairly standard arbitrage and not a reflection on their view of the company. When part of the payment is in stock you short that stock for the amount you are going to receive to remove the risk of price fluctuation and lock in the value (it's also the only time I short stocks). I would be shocked if Deerfield were not doing that simply as good practice.
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Aug 20, 2018 10:40:34 GMT -5
I'm missing something. If they always short the stock when they receive shares then how do they ever make money? Wouldn't they always just stay even?
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Aug 20, 2018 10:43:54 GMT -5
I'm missing something. If they always short the stock when they receive shares then how do they ever make money? Wouldn't they always just stay even? Short, then sell?
|
|
|
Post by morgieporgie on Aug 20, 2018 10:46:35 GMT -5
I'm missing something. If they always short the stock when they receive shares then how do they ever make money? Wouldn't they always just stay even? Short in advance, knowing theyvmade a deal which will dilute the share price.
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Aug 20, 2018 11:28:22 GMT -5
I also think it is likely that Deerfield has already created a 2.7+ million short position over the last two weeks
Despite being proven wrong by Deerfield's 13F filings this year you have continually made statements like this suggesting Deerfield has sold out their long position and gone short before each of the repayment events. I think the board is made stronger with the participation of different opinions, but do you have anything to substantiate your claim this time? Suggesting the same negative opinion over and over even when proven wrong feels more like FUD versus an honest attempt to contribute.
How about reading the short interest thread. How conincidental that there was a 7 million share increase in short interest on the 2h June 2018 report. Deerfield gets paid in shares and a corresponding decrease in short interest happends. I am 100 percent standing by my statement of Deerfield shorting prior to accepting shares. Get your head out of the sand.
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Aug 20, 2018 11:30:57 GMT -5
I'm missing something. If they always short the stock when they receive shares then how do they ever make money? Wouldn't they always just stay even? They arbitrage. They sell short prior to accepting shares at a slightly higher average share price and then cover with the shares. It it also less risky to sell first and lock in the sales price, then cover with the shares for payment.
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Aug 20, 2018 11:33:25 GMT -5
I also think it is likely that Deerfield has already created a 2.7+ million short position over the last two weeks
Despite being proven wrong by Deerfield's 13F filings this year you have continually made statements like this suggesting Deerfield has sold out their long position and gone short before each of the repayment events. I think the board is made stronger with the participation of different opinions, but do you have anything to substantiate your claim this time? Suggesting the same negative opinion over and over even when proven wrong feels more like FUD versus an honest attempt to contribute.
Just to be clear, here is how the short interest looked period to period. sla4235 Avatar Jul 11, 2018 at 1:06pm sla4235 said: Short Interest 6/29/18 : 35,278,256 Days to cover : 9.277938 Short Interest 6/15/18 : 27,668,055 Change : 7,610,201 With today's report, I can conclude that the payment of shares in July to Deerfield was the cause the the 7.6 million share increase and the 5.5 million net share decrease in the 2nd half of July period. Aug 9, 2018 13:08:59 GMT -7 sla4235 said: Short Interest 7/31/18 : 30,151,512 Days to cover : 23.567063 Short Interest 7/13/18 : 35,627,125 Change : -5,475,613 Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7245/latest-short-interest?page=67#ixzz5OjkDU7Kt
|
|
|
Post by jred on Aug 20, 2018 12:27:14 GMT -5
Deerfield reported being long 1.46 million shares on 6/30/18 in their 13F. Not sure how you are connecting them to the short increase.
Despite being proven wrong by Deerfield's 13F filings this year you have continually made statements like this suggesting Deerfield has sold out their long position and gone short before each of the repayment events. I think the board is made stronger with the participation of different opinions, but do you have anything to substantiate your claim this time? Suggesting the same negative opinion over and over even when proven wrong feels more like FUD versus an honest attempt to contribute.
Just to be clear, here is how the short interest looked period to period. Jul 11, 2018 at 1:06pm sla4235 said: Short Interest 6/29/18 : 35,278,256 Days to cover : 9.277938 Short Interest 6/15/18 : 27,668,055 Change : 7,610,201 With today's report, I can conclude that the payment of shares in July to Deerfield was the cause the the 7.6 million share increase.
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Aug 20, 2018 12:41:34 GMT -5
I'm missing something. If they always short the stock when they receive shares then how do they ever make money? Wouldn't they always just stay even? Short in advance, knowing theyvmade a deal which will dilute the share price. Is this legal? Are they allowed to trade on inside information? I wouldn't be angry at Deerfield for making lots of money by lending money to risky investments, but I would be angry at them for making money illegally. (Yes I realize Deerfield doesn't care if I'm angry at them.)
|
|
|
Post by morgieporgie on Aug 20, 2018 12:51:50 GMT -5
Short in advance, knowing theyvmade a deal which will dilute the share price. Is this legal? Are they allowed to trade on inside information? I wouldn't be angry at Deerfield for making lots of money by lending money to risky investments, but I would be angry at them for making money illegally. (Yes I realize Deerfield doesn't care if I'm angry at them.) Somehow I suppose it is legal. How differnt is that scenario from say a Deerfield loading the boat near bankruptcy liquidation prices, knowing all along it will not let that happen cuz they will fund mannkind until they are viable? And the rich get richer...
|
|
|
Post by jred on Aug 20, 2018 12:52:26 GMT -5
I'm missing something. If they always short the stock when they receive shares then how do they ever make money? Wouldn't they always just stay even? They arbitrage. They sell short prior to accepting shares at a slightly higher average share price and then cover with the shares. It it also less risky to sell first and lock in the sales price, then cover with the shares for payment.
Arbitrage? Selling one day and then buying back days later is not arbitrage that's taking market risk.
Despite the actual filings, you are standing by your statement that Deerfield was short on 6/29/18? So the 13F filing on 6/30/18 saying they were long 1.46 million shares was false? Or is Deerfield just a fraud and can report whatever it wants?
And was the fact that MNKD was going to issue shares a secret between them and Deerfield? Of course not - anyone paying attention knew it was coming. It's obvious players in the market are shooting against predictable dilution events for MNKD for short term trades.
Head in the sand? Not quite yet, but heading to the beach next week ... we'll see
|
|