|
|
Post by trenddiver on Oct 3, 2014 12:51:30 GMT -5
Unfilled gap at at $4.44. Wondering if that is where it is headed?
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Oct 2, 2014 9:57:45 GMT -5
Are you a bear in disguise? If you are referring to me, the answer is - I am very bullish long term and own many shares. But just like everyone else, have lots of concerns and questions and don't mind shaking the trees for answers, or asking questions that might ruffle some feathers. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Oct 2, 2014 1:41:34 GMT -5
What happens when the price drops below $5.00.
Trend backs up the truck and loads up !!
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Oct 1, 2014 14:07:32 GMT -5
Joey,
I raised both possibilities in my prior posts. BTW on that note I did a little research on those previously discussed issues and spoke to a former employee/colleague of Al (not at Mannkind). He said Al would have fired anyone who shorted the stock and does not think there is any possibility that Al would short the stock, however he might lend the stock if he was getting enough interest.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Oct 1, 2014 9:33:39 GMT -5
Wondering how many others like Joey and Brother Dave are happily taking that "juicy" 8.5% return and enabling the shorts take the share price down. I raised the question in an earlier thread whether Big Al was lending out his shares and earning a big fat $100mm per year. If so, he is a major reason that the short interest is so high AND he can put and end to the price manipulation and cause a huge short squeeze any time he wants by wihdrawing the ability to lend out his shares.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 29, 2014 22:07:40 GMT -5
All of those events are "baked in the cake". Bears will find a way to negatively spin any positive effect these items have on EPS.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 28, 2014 13:34:30 GMT -5
Thought I would do my own DD on NWBO figuring that maybe this is a good buying opportunity. There are many recent SA about NWBO and many concerns about the company are raised including significant shareholder conflicts of interest, and the efficacy of their product. The only things that this company seems to have in common with MNKD is AF bashing and a large short interest, which may not be unwarranted in NWBO case. I'm going to continue doing more DD, and will post my thoughts.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 18, 2014 18:22:27 GMT -5
I know it sounds crazy but we've been hearing so much about these so called "naked short positions". Just wondering if there is such a strategy called "naked long". Its kinda of a reverse of the "naked short strategy" where shares are sold and not delivered. In this case shares are purchased and money not delivered. Hmmmm. I imagine Wall Street could probably figure a way if there was money to be made.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 17, 2014 21:47:39 GMT -5
There have been suggestions that Mannkind or Al Mann should formulate a plan which would cause a short squeeze to happen. What is it that Mannkind or Al Mann should be doing or could be doing to make that happen? Hope we get some really good suggestions.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 16, 2014 0:52:23 GMT -5
Al is a product engineer, not a financial engineer. I doubt the he has the knowledge, inclination, or desire to create a short squeeze. If that was the case, he already would have done so. At this time in his life, Al's primary concern is "the patient" and his own legacy. It's not about the money for Al. He's already made all the money he needs. Another billion or two just doesn't move the needle anymore for Big Al.
JMHO
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 14, 2014 1:34:28 GMT -5
JPG,
I share with you the same major reason for investing in a Mannkind. I hope my theory proves out to be wrong. And again my theory is just a theory, it's not a belief. If it was my belief, I would have sold my shares.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 12, 2014 23:07:40 GMT -5
JPG,
Yep. Just my "pet theory". No different then the theories re Sanofi buying shares. According to my theory, the capital raise had already taken place. That is when the short interest began to dramatically increase. As I stated earlier, I'm not a lawyer, just a "bean counter", who is long over 50k shares. I'm just tring to understand something that just doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, "if it doesn't make sense, it's not true. I am just looking for truth.
BTW, is Al prohibited from lending out his shares to the short sellers and earning big interest? Would he do such a thing? I say why not. It makes perfect sense to me. Especially if Al has the long view and is less concerned about share price today and more concerned about getting Afrezza produced and distributed. It kinda goes like this, why not let these crazy shorts borrow my shares and have them pay me $70MM-$100MM per year to short the stock with my shares. In the long run they are going to lose lots of money and pay me at the same time!
At the ASM, I asked Al about the large short interest expecting some statement to the effect that the shorts are about meet their maker, instead Al just kinda of shrugged his shoulders. That's actually what got me thinking that maybe something else is going on.
Notwithstanding anything stated above, I am a believer in the company and will add to my position if the opportunity presents itself at lower prices.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 11, 2014 21:56:04 GMT -5
JPG and Mannmade,
I apologize in advance for having these bazaar thoughts. But let me start off by stating these are my own thoughts and I have no knowledge that this has occurred. The ever increasing short position both in no. of shares and dollar value of the short position just didn't make sense to me, so I came up with my own explanation which I profer to this Board for comment. Legalities?, I'm not a lawyer so I ask - is shorting against the box illegal if you are the CEO? Is disclosure required? I think both of those answers are no.
I agree that Al is a great entreneur but I don't necessarily think that shorting against the box is a vote against the Company. It just may be good financial planning or good estate planning. None of us knows what is going on with Al Mann's personal financial or estate planning or what his cash requirements might be.
What I meant by shorting against the box is share price neutral, I was referring to the future covering of those shorted shares would not be such a squeeze, because Al could just deliver his shares. And if there was a price effect to Al shorting in 2012 and 2013, it would have driven down the price to a point where some of us were able to get in very cheap.
BTW, at the time that Al was repaid he loan with shares, the short position of Mannkind was around 30MM shares.
I also wonder whether Al is facilitating the short interest by lending his 150MM shares and earning a pretty good interest rate.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 11, 2014 12:58:40 GMT -5
Joey,
I don't think it's so simple. Going short against the box is not necessarily a bet against the company. It's just locking in a selling price for shares he probably didn't want to own. As you recall, at the time Al received 40MM shares (4th quarter 2012), it was in exchange for debt that he graciously lent the company. When it came time to pay off the debt, the Company didn't have the money, so Al took shares. By selling short at that time, he would have been able to repay the loan in cash not stock. Don't forget, it was a very risky time for MNKD in late 2012. Also, Al still owned 75MM-100MM. So he would still have been able to participate substantially in the upside of MNKD.
Shorting against the box is not a zero sum gain. You can be prudent and protect yourself, and not be screwing other shareholders. And I am sure that Al, like every other shareholder had serious doubts when the last CRL was received. It's a tribute to Al that he continued to fund the company. I think his continual support was more for patients as opposed to financial gain.
As to selling, since I have no proof of my theory, I'll continue to hold and sell when Al sells, for he still holds plenty of shares (even if he did short against the box).
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Sept 11, 2014 11:22:47 GMT -5
This is my theory, and it is only a theory. I'm not sure of Al 's exact holdings but let say for this discussion -150MM.shares. Many of those shares were acquired by converting debt to equity. I view Al as a very prudent investor who's investment in Mannkind was higher than he might have preferred, particularly since much of his holdings are held by his foundation. So I aim thinking that Al has been shorting against the box. That way he locked in a price during the periods of great uncertainly. He was able to convert the stock which he received for his debt back to cash, there was no SEC disclosure requirement triggering insider selling alerts. BTW, I recall a large increase in the short position at the time Al did the conversion. At the end, Al will deliver his own shares to close out the short position, which would be share price neutral (no short squeeze).
As to Al's motives, he's already made all the money he needs to make. He just doesn't want to lose any money. In my opinion, Al's goals right now are what's in the "best interest of patients and shareholders", in that order. That was his quote at the ASM when asked about the sale of Mannkind.
For me, it's the only explanation of the large short position that me sense. That being said, I'm kinda at a loss what to do. I'm holding a large position and my plan was to sell when Al sells.
|
|
