Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 11:38 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

crapnebula 38 posts  |  Last Activity: 22 hours ago Member since: Mar 5, 2012
  • Be careful here kids. It could be a good while before FDA approval and plenty of time for "fun and games" by all the wrong people if you know what I mean.

  • crapnebula crapnebula Jun 2, 2014 9:36 PM Flag

    That sounds like a good strategy Lynnxx. I commend your vision and I welcome to the EXAS board where all points of view are of benefit despite what might be implied by the board "trolls" (bullies).
    So good luck with your MNKD. I too have followed that company through it's ups and down and it's never looked better. I know your strategy will be a positive experience for you regardless of how high EXAS goes from here, MNKD will undoubtedly go higher - IF they get FDA approval (and I think that's a given for both companies). As to the revenue generating capabilities of each, the statistics are in, and the incidence of diabetes is unfortunately astronomical and growing at an alarming rate. So much so in fact, that it dwarfs even that of colo-rectal cancer.
    Best of luck Lynxx and please do keep posting. We need alternative viewpoints around here -badly.

  • Reply to

    Some of you may never get your money back.

    by zeeme101 May 29, 2014 12:41 PM
    crapnebula crapnebula Jun 1, 2014 3:04 PM Flag

    More Blabber from mstevens, jealous pumptard

  • Reply to

    Some of you may never get your money back.

    by zeeme101 May 29, 2014 12:41 PM
    crapnebula crapnebula Jun 1, 2014 2:24 PM Flag

    For You NON believers, check out the SEC filings of
    GILDER GAGNON HOWE & CO. LLC of NEW YORK NY
    , a broker-dealer,futures commission merchant
    They are described as:

    Advisor Fees/Compensation: Percentage of assets under management,Commissions,INTEREST ON CASH POSITIONS OF OPEN SHORT STOCK in EXAS
    Amount of client funds and securities: $317,760,000.00
    Total Number of Clients: 2
    Amount of client funds and securities by related persons: 317,760,000
    Total Number of clients from related persons: 2

  • Reply to

    cr@pnebulous armchair fud theory

    by quaffer42 May 30, 2014 8:50 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 30, 2014 5:28 PM Flag

    KC may be "no dummy" but he's not superman either. The right entity need only lobby and acquire 50.01% of the voting shares from the other large holders and the company must then accept the offer or a competing offer with or without KCs approval. With a mere 134k shares, Conroy hasn't the voting wherewith to prevent any 51% agreement made between the mutual and hedge fund stake holders. These are the #$%$ who represent any serious threat to this stock ever rising past 30.00 per share. Besides, with the poison pill in place, he and his cronies will get bought of in the most lucrative of terms and probably remain onboard to run the new 'division'.

  • Reply to

    cr@pnebulous armchair fud theory

    by quaffer42 May 30, 2014 8:50 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 30, 2014 12:06 PM Flag

    Im not claiming to KNOW this, but what I've witnessed (not participated in but witnessed) in the past is the actual payment by an acquiring entity to the holder of 3rd party voting shares. Since there is no such thing as a "negative vote" to correspond to the short shares, then "votes" can be acquired with a boxed hedge that makes no money on the underlying one way or the other - but the VOTES have value if you own enough of them! So what harm can come to an entity or entities who employ this method of holding boxed hedges to be "sold" to the highest bidder once a proxy fight evolves?

    If enough shares are garnered by a potential acquirer in favor or against a buyout before the final verdict, then it's a "no contest" when the showdown at the OK Coral commences- he's got the votes he needs to guarantee his buyout price (or block as the case may be). In exchange for acting as a holders of votes, a 3rd party "proxy" firm takes a standard 10% fee of the amount held.

    So lets say just 12 of the 24 million short shares were in fact proxy holders, at 10.00 (say) average price per share they represent 120 Million Dollars. If their fee is 10% they recieve 12 million dollars for putting on a riskless trade where the cost of carrying their long side of the hedge is offset to within 1/2 % by the infusion of cash into their short account - they lose a half percent on the 10% in a risk free trade.
    This kind of arb is ONLY reasonable when there is a relative amount of certainty that a buyout WILL occur.
    I think that this has certainly been the case ever since the AdCom.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    SI, lol . . .

    by livinginsv May 27, 2014 4:22 PM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 30, 2014 10:12 AM Flag

    Wax, you're too smart for your own good. Do you actually believe that Wall St analysts are honest?
    They are CLEARLY acting at the behest of a large client. One way or another.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    cr@pnebulous armchair fud theory

    by quaffer42 May 30, 2014 8:50 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 30, 2014 10:06 AM Flag

    Don't feel bad Quaff,
    You're no dumber than the average retail client.
    Im not saying the entire 20 million, never said that. I just used examples to point to a practice that is widely accepted and yes the big brokers can participate as 3rd party proxies if they are hired to do so. It happens all of the time. Which of course gives rise to the Wedbush downgrade. What do you make of that?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    shorts only lost over 10 million yesterday

    by lowtech1988 May 29, 2014 10:22 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 30, 2014 2:56 AM Flag

    Go back and READ quaffer. My god your comprehension is poor. The "entity" is actually multiple entities under the umbrella of a single benefactor. These accounts are called "PROXIE" accounts for a reason. Go do your homework son and then give us a report.

  • Reply to

    shorts only lost over 10 million yesterday

    by lowtech1988 May 29, 2014 10:22 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 29, 2014 8:33 PM Flag

    Yes, I can be juvenile but you should see the things I've had to put up with.To clarify my veiw, the acquirer will likely only be purchasing the position (both sides) in exchange for the voting rights held within the long side of the hedge. Once the buyout occurs and a price has been set, the two sides will be swapped out of existence. In the meantime the hedger makes 2.7% overnight bank money on the funds brought into his account by the short - cancelling out his cost of carrying the long side. In addition, riskless option strategies can be employed from both sides simultaneously for additional income. In the end, the hedger can also make up to 10% in facilitating the deal- agreed up front to paid by the acquiring entity -all at no risk to the hedger and all while providing anonymity to the acquiring company.
    This is not exactly how it will go down here. Nobody has a crystal ball, but I can assure you there are at least SOME players currently engaged in the aforementioned strategy re: EXAS

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    shorts only lost over 10 million yesterday

    by lowtech1988 May 29, 2014 10:22 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 29, 2014 10:32 AM Flag

    If the shorts are still fully hedged, then I think it's safe to say they made/ lost nothing....

  • Reply to

    34% of outstanding shares shorted

    by quaffer42 May 28, 2014 9:19 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 29, 2014 12:11 AM Flag

    I can see that some of you are either newbies or of low mental acumen, as you still fail to understand.
    Let me spell it out for you in its simplest form:
    1) The Mega Hedger opens up two accounts
    A) Long Account
    B) Short Account
    Because the mega hedger is mainly interested in the company AFTER it succeeds or fails (as the case may be) but does not want to take on any risk -yet, he goes long and short EQUAL numbers of shares in both account.
    If he is long 10 Million shares in account A, then he is short 10 Million Shares in account B.
    (this is done over a long period of time and ultimately guarantees him a seat at the table)
    To satisfy your point, the shares that he is short in Account B are not HIS shares, they are the shares of OTHER longs that have been "loaned out" to his broker for the purpose of his shorting them.
    A couple of points here:
    HE COLLECTS INTEREST ON THE MONEY HE BRINGS INTO ACCOUNT B, HIS SHORT ACCOUNT.
    HE DOES NOT LOSE ANY VOTING RIGHTS IN ACCOUNT A (which has nothing to do with account B)

    When he loses a dollar in Account A, He makes a dollar in Account B and Vice Versa.

    When the time comes and large buyer or seller emerges, he uses stock in his possession to control the market (using HFT ALGOS) which ever side of the coin toss wins. Usually he augments this with option selling. Once in control, he either goes 100% long or 100% short, but drives the value of the side he chooses to keep thru the roof because he dominates the poor suckers like drc388, livingsv and the other relatively small potato,amateur hour pumptards.
    I hope this clears things up for you.
    BTW, the assumption that I am only a short is entirely unfounded and offbase. I have been long as often as not and made significantly more than the buy and go into a coma crowd of the past 4 years.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    34% of outstanding shares shorted

    by quaffer42 May 28, 2014 9:19 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 28, 2014 2:31 PM Flag

    Quaffer, do as the lady says and go have another beer - with your "popcorn" lol.
    It's clearly over your head. Their strategy is far from the simplistic "win or lose" "black and white" scenario you make it out to be. If everyone were as naive as you, we would all be broke.

  • Reply to

    34% of outstanding shares shorted

    by quaffer42 May 28, 2014 9:19 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 28, 2014 2:15 PM Flag

    "So far, they have spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars to do so" - Not entirely accurate earwax. Perhaps they've tied up that amount of money putting on their position, but they are likely evenly hedged and "delta neutral", and until their exit strategy commences, they stand a 99% chance of getting back every penny less commissions and holding costs. If things go their way, they profit by much much more. To say that they would gladly buy the stock at todays prices once the product has succeeded, without risking a dime to the downside if it does not? Well that IS pure brinksmanship! Examples? Just dig around into the financial records of a little company called BlackRock. For most of the big hedge funds, these types of dealings are commonplace and could not exist without the creation of multiple sub corporation accounts under separate tax ID's.

  • Reply to

    34% of outstanding shares shorted

    by quaffer42 May 28, 2014 9:19 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 28, 2014 12:47 PM Flag

    The holders of 27 Million Short shares says one of two things about this stock and it's product:
    1) There's a BETTER competitive product out there that we don't know about...yet.
    OR
    2) Somebody is actively taking shares OFF the market, without extending their risk level by owning both sides of the game, in boxed hedged accounts. But why?
    As for the latter, as I have stated previously on this message board, I see the opportunity for the holder of the boxed hedge to accumulate a massive voting block of shares that can move the stock only in the direction of their choosing. In the case of an unsolicited buyout offer resulting in a proxy fight, they have huge leverage in deciding the price and the ultimate ownership.

    As far as Im concerned there can only be two groups of people who have the motive (and the money to pull off a trade of this magnitude), and that would be large hedge funds acting in unison to guarantee their profit in a sale to Big Pharma. If the product proves successful? They'll be right in there covering their shorts using algo's to prevent a massive rise on the first 80% and then simply paying up without reservations to cover the remaining 20% of their short position while a much larger move in share price unfolds. Additionally this allows them HUGE profit if and when a buyout comes as they have the opportunity to dictate a reasonable buyout price as opposed to having the buyout price dictated to them.

    The Flip side is big pharma's hired proxies who have been given a mandate to HOLD down shareprice making their ultimate offer look attractive by comparison.

  • Reply to

    devaluating the short interest effect . . .

    by livinginsv May 22, 2014 1:25 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 22, 2014 7:58 PM Flag

    Can a long BE a short in a separate sub corporation with the sole purpose of locking up voting shares?
    Of COURSE !

  • Reply to

    Pancreatic Cancer Testing

    by merigoldman May 20, 2014 8:55 AM
    crapnebula crapnebula May 20, 2014 3:44 PM Flag

    Puhlleeaze!! Don't you realize this is simply going to be their next "vehicle" for scamming funds out of the accounts of unwitting dolts? This is their "safety Net" / "Next Big Thing once the stool hits the fan re: Cologuard. This is key to the continued paychecks for the BOD of EXAS and their crony pals at the Mayo IMO.

  • Thats a FIRST in over 7 quarters folks.
    Is it possible that the 2's are long gone and the 3's will soon be in the year view mirror?
    Methinks yes.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

SLW
26.43-0.06(-0.23%)Jul 23 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.