Don't waste your brain cells trying to make sense of basher logic. We knew when the FDA approved Afrezza that they would have to come up with all sorts of negative slant. Their strategy is to confuse everybody and create chaos. They sometimes look effective simply because they are not bound by any moral or ethical obligations. They've been wrong all along and they will be wrong all the way to oblivion. At the very minimum, there is no need to bash a stock if you don't like it. The drug works and they have no decency to want to see it help anyone.
The data was wrong and completely misleading. They were probably looking at $dollar amounts instead of units. Conceivable the $amounts of Exubera was higher simply because Exubera was too expensive.
dblbgy, the general accounting rule applied is that the milestone payment cannot be booked as revenue until the sale is certain and there is certainty as a "going concern". I suppose the independent accountants need proof that Afreeza will be a success. Does it really matter when they book the revenue? They have the cash on hand. The can call it a "deferred liability" or a Deferred Revenue. People that really know the business know that it's the same thing.
I don't see any 15,000 $17 Jan16 calls. The total outstanding is just 16K. Are you sure you are on the right message board?
Don't forget the diabetes camps happening during the summer. These are were the kids with diabetes go for summer camps. I know that would be off-label use but some kids are 18 or older so its not all off-label. I have a friend attending this type of camp and she will keep me posted if anyone shows up with Afreeza and how it affects others still using their injectibles.
afreezauserchinese, if you have to ask an a message board how to invest on options, I suggest you don't invest on options. Even as an individual expert it is an uphill battle to play against large institutions. Stick to what you know. Biotech is already in the highest risk area of the stock market. Don't quadruple your risk by investing on something you have no idea how it works.
Mattew, I agree with most of what you said, I just don't want to see us hit a huge home run and half the retail investors taken to the cleaners because they "loaned their shares". The banks are not to be trusted. It's always the retail investors that get crushed. I would not be surprised if there is a clause that says you only get the value of the shares at the time of the loan or that in the event the shares cannot be returned, the bank will pay you the original cost of your shares - a guarantee that banks can't lose even if their customers file for bankruptcy.
matthew, I disagree with your statement " we are a drop in the bucket" - we, retail investors are the largest block of investors at 39% (Insiders own 39% and institutional is 22%). However, retail investors are divided and conquered very easily by even the smallest short hedge fund.
We, the retail investors, are the group that kept MNKD afloat in its darkest times.
Trusting these banks that they will make your shares available even when loaned is a big gamble, in my opinion. Are you sure that when this finally pops to $20, $30, or more, that your shares will be returned? Did you read all the fine print? Are you being penny smart and pound foolish?
dh4, I got the same solicitation from Scwab. So I can confirm 20% is what they are offering. I can't get myself to loan my shares because I have learned to trust no one. What if I missed a fine print that says I can't sell if I wanted to; or that there are exceptions when they cannot return my shares such as a major run up? I just can't bear to think that we've come this far and then for want of a horseshoe, lose the horse. Or in another analogy, trip just before the finish line.
Thanks for the post Lakers. I figured instead of reading through each 4K, I'd just go to this message board and find someone who has done it. Of course if these were bad it would be in the top. But its buried on page 4. Very predictable of the desperate shorts.
ddbikes, the shorts have no interest in science. Nor do they care if the drug works or not. They look at what can make them money. A year ago, it was a bet that the drug will be rejected by the FDA. They have since been the bagholders. I understand your doubt, as we all have it. But if you have dealt with crooks and addicts, you know that they do not base their decisions on logic. So stop making sense of their behavior. They make money because they cheat. It's always easier when you make your own rules. Until of course, you can't make the rules anymore and you are stuck.
teampt, if retail and institutional holdings went up, who sold their shares? The only remaining party is AL.
kevin, "Good stocks don't fall from $11 to $3 solely from shorts"-that is an incorrect statement. It is a simple supply and demand principle at work. The supply of shares should be 400M but an artificial 110M shares pumped into the equation caused the equilibrium to be pushed down in the absence of increased demand.
"Shorts didn't cause the price to fall...frustrated longs selling caused the price to fall." - also incorrect. The fact is that the retail holdings have remained the same at 39%. Institutional holdings remained the same. The only stat that changed is the short volume and there is a direct correlation between short volume and pps.
112M short volume = 27% of shares outstanding; or near 45% of float;
1. Short volume used to match the shares owned by institutions. However, institutions own only 22% and SV = 27%. So either the inst holding data is not updated (1 quarter behind) or retail investors are also loaning their shares out;
2. Retail investors own 39% of all shares (409 X 39% = 160M shares); Al owns 160M shares; the rest (90M shares) owned by institutions. If retail investors don't loan out their shares, it will help keep the short volume down to 90M and help bring the price back up to $7s or $8s.
3. If you add all the uncovered calls, the total short volume is over 150M shares today. The higher the pps the uncovered calls in the money will have to be covered thereby fueling more volume
4. For many of the shorts, it's not that they won't cover. Covering means using cash to cover - the dreaded request that has to be made to senior management. Incurring the loss would mean they would have to be fired from their jobs. So, covering is not an option for most middle level managers. Covering is not an option for rouge traders and solo traders as they don't have the cash. My wild guess is about 30M to 40M shares can't cover without filing for BK; 30M to 40M will only cover if the fund manager is fired; and only 30M can really cover based on rational decision. Wild guesses but plausible.
letsroll, I'm not surprised. This is as of May 15 - before the run-up. Some of the upward trend the past 3 to 4 days we are seeing may be short covering. My guess, as of today - 106M (7M covered the past 3 to 4 days). Still looking good. To get back to 100M, it will have to go back to $6s. So the theory holds, the price is held down by shorts. My theory is $11 pps is the right price at about 40M-50M short volume - back to where we were before. If you are a math or statistic major, you may want to run the correlation between short volume and pps and predict the exact price as the short volume declines. Add the uncovered Calls (around 30M to 40M shares) that will need to cover.
Other possible triggers:
- Announcement of new partners for TS trials. Shannon rejoins MNKD from GSK to spearhead this.
- Announcement of DTC ads including TV spots, starting June-July
- Announcement of EU filing and approval
- Announcement of sales in various countries (wait for Israel's sales volume)
- Announcement of SNY buying 5% of MNKD shares as allowed in the agreement
- Announcement of yet another milestone payment to MNKD
- 2nd Quarter financial results - finally, real sales report
- Finally, guidance as to the rest of 2015 and forecast for 2016 - this should seal the fate of our good friend shorts
cp, I think that my be the plan. Shannon's return gives credibility to the TS oncology use. That would mean he may be able to draw a partner that would invest on the trials, if he didn't already have a partner in tow. Regardless, it is definitely a good sign and opens possibilities.