Recent Posts

Is the quick analysis above correct? 

If so, didn't Mannkind drastically short-change itself by selling off a long-term royalty stream for so little? 

Even worse, with interest rates heavily anticipated to drop in the next year, the present value of the long-term royalty stream will probably increase by, conservatively, at least 20% in the next year or two. 

Discuss?

That bit made me chuckle. Low double digits indeed. I think that has actually been known since (at least) the Nov 7 Q3 conference call, though. It's mentioned in the shout box transcript. 

mnkd.proboards.com/thread/13862/q3-cc-shoutbox-transcript

"LongMNKD: oh so its 10% royalty rate.. he really did mean low double digits lol 15 minutes ago"

Where do you find $0.15 as the next year EPS prediction? 

At SA, I see -$0.14 (a loss next year).  

At CNBC, I see -$0.18 (a loss next year). 

The two research reports at my online Brokerage also show negative EPS predictions for next year. 

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/business/23family.html

It is a turn of phrase with a long tradition, spun from corporate boardrooms in all seeming sincerity — no winks, no nods — just the sober announcement.

“Dear shareholder and John Q. Public: our trusted executive is resigning to spend more time with family.”

Sometimes it is actually true. The family tug is strong, especially this time of year. But with large severance packages and corporate images frequently at stake, more often than not the phrase is part of a carefully scripted termination agreement, filled with nondisparagement and confidentiality clauses.

The executive agrees to such terms readily after having been fired or quitting under a cloud. In extreme cases, the phrase is even trotted out in the midst of an investigation into criminal activity.

“There are two code expressions: One is the ‘spending more time with your family’ line and the other is ‘leaving to pursue other interests,’ ” said Hal Reiter, chairman and chief executive of Herbert Mines Associates, an executive recruiting firm in New York. “But who are they kidding?”

(More at link.) 

Hmmm, I wonder is that is actually true. 

It may be the case that some exchanges may refuse to trade / delist shares of a stock at a negative value, but they could go OTC and be traded with a negative price there. Or be traded privately. 

I think the belief was that futures could never trade at a negative value, until WTI crude oil futures traded at a negative price a little over two years ago. 

That was because people were so afraid to take delivery of oil, as there was no storage capacity, that they paid others to buy it from them. Hence, a negative price resulted. 

How could this happen with stock in a company? This is a thought experiment more than anything. 

But imagine a successful and profitable company was suddenly discovered to have something horrible going on behind the scenes (e.g. political assassinations, or human trafficking). 

If it was bad enough, and there were not enough people willing to buy the shares at a zero or near zero price, some institutional investor might be willing to pay others to buy the stock from them in order to dissociate itself from the evil company. 

As I said, maybe these shares would have to trade OTC or privately, but I can imagine there would be some risk loving investors taking the shares if they were paid to do so. 

It is important to note that no one would be forcing anyone else to sell at a negative price. So the most anyone would have to lose is what they paid for the shares. But some investors may be willing to lose more that that (i.e. by paying others to take the stock) if it would harm their reputation to keep holding the shares. 

It worked for me just now. Here it is again, in case I mistyped something. Try reloading if it doesn't work right away. Or just google the headline I gave. 

cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-trader-doubles-portfolio-in-a-month-betting-against-jim-cramer/