Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 7:18 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

PIMCO Total Return Active ETF Message Board

itsahorserace 900 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 23, 2015 9:04 PM Member since: Jun 4, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • itsahorserace by itsahorserace Jan 23, 2015 9:04 PM Flag

    We just can't hold our own at 60%, hence the 5 cent drop. Interestingly, we seem to hold our own at 50%. Just no volume at all today. Their algorithm becomes more efficient when no one interferes with buying. To be truly spectacular, they need to control both the bid and ask with hundreds. With no volume they can do this for long periods of time. Again, with no volume from others, they can buy 20k shares and bring it up two cents, then sell some small lots, turn the computer from looking up, and bring it down three cents for 15k shares. Now they do have to spend some shares to offset actual buying, but there is so little of it, it a mere nuance at this point. They always either pick up large blocks at the open or close, usually at the close, which I often her people refer to "as a nice finsh" or "strong close." This is shorts covering shares to pound you with tomorrow or to put in their "short bank" to run down your catalyst or break through a resistance point when needed. In short, with no volume they can use about 50k - 75k shares a day to bring us down or pocket I think. This only gets them 5 cents. So if they save up for a while they can do more. But no more dropping 2 mm shares on your head, although ,they can bring us down 6 cents for free I think or pocket the shares and add them up for greater effect later.
    As for the clsp theory, I'm watching, but have two serious problems with it: (1) Why would they cause all Their clsp (SGYP) shares to be diluted by 40%, and (2), if this makes sense, it really wouldn't matter what price they covered into themselves at because whatever they lost on their long they would make on their short in either direction forever. Only thing that has me watching is that I would try to shake out any other clsp holders before I covered in earnest, so that's possible, but becoming less so daily. Trading below 200mm at $3.11, just don't see how you can go wrong. Wake up world!

  • They're HFT'ing it down with intra day covering. So it seems.

  • itsahorserace by itsahorserace Jan 22, 2015 9:32 AM Flag

    More interesting times this week.

  • Shorts are doing this on no volume. Just trying to HFT us down lower to shake out clsp shares. Or so it seems. Yet another buying opportunity.

  • Reply to

    Fight or flight.

    by tedtech288 Jan 18, 2015 10:01 AM
    itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 18, 2015 11:23 AM Flag

    Hard to write a "be patient" post that works. Having patience isn't an exciting thing, but that's all we need here. If shorts take it down again, I'll buy more. We have tough longs here. No short post lately. Guess they don't like to advertise covering. Glta

  • Reply to

    If the clsp short theory is correct,..

    by itsahorserace Jan 14, 2015 8:51 PM
    itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 15, 2015 10:15 AM Flag

    As Beton mentioned this whole theory is speculative. If we slingshot up on Tuesday or shortly thereafter, the theory will start to look better. Not long to wait. Sorry, but I can't keep shorts off my thread.

  • I'd like to correct a post I made the other day to Beton. I thought there might be a perfect number between making money on the short side and losing money on a clsp share sale for shorts and said it looks like $3.75. It has since occurred to me that what I said was incorrect. It is simply a ratio. The more they would make on the short cover the less they would make on the clsp (SGYP) share sale. Therefore, bringing it way down doesn't make sense. They would make more on the short and lose more on the long. So why expend shares bringing it down for the cover?
    This is a troubling notion. Basically it would mean they could cover at any time or price and make the same profit. If the stock went up they would make money on the long side and lose money on the short. So why should they ever cover if this is true? As well, why would they cause all of their shares to be diluted by 45%. These are troubling thoughts for the clsp concept. Clearly, I'm trying to make sense out of the Matsusow piece. I must say its making less sense the more I think about it. It still makes some sense but not as much
    as it used to. Thoughts welcome.

  • itsahorserace by itsahorserace Jan 14, 2015 5:30 PM Flag

    If noteholders convert shares do they have to file something that will let us know that shares have been converted and, if so, how long would they have to file?

  • itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 13, 2015 7:10 PM Flag

    Still don't buy into shorts being noteholders. Why would they sell clasp shares to cover and not convert shares at $3.11 to cover the short. No loss, all gain. They also wouldn't have to trade it I reason, just convert and hand the shares to the lender at exactly $3.11. Market price transaction.
    It has also occurred to me that here is a problem with the logic as it relates to the recent dilution. Why would clsp holders force the company to dilute to the extent they did? It diluted their shares by what, 45%. Got to factor in that loss. Was that just an overkill miscalculation?
    Finally, if the 2mm trade happened in a single trade after hours, that means that only 450k shares have been covered in open trading. Hate these guys but love to watch them trade.
    I would be sad to learn shorts were noteholders.

  • itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 13, 2015 4:26 PM Flag

    Agreed. All speculation. But it makes sense. If it's true it means they need to find that perfect break even point on their position between making money on the short and losing money on the long. $3.75 seems to be a happy medium on first glance. Then up from there until after phase III when lots will sell, then on until buyout, probably first quarter 2016. Sure hope the world doesn't fall apart before then. GLTA.

  • itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 13, 2015 2:56 PM Flag

    Finally, a short thesis that makes sense. These guys are not only on each side of the bid/ask, they are long and short too. Don't know if they intended to dilute themselves with the alternative financing, but no diabolical plan is without its problems. Just bought 10k more shares. Still can't figure out how they work triple witching and cover of 2mm. Things always make sense. Never would have guessed this though it makes good sense. Looks like they sell themselves back shares clasp shares at $3.70. Getting rid of these guys will be an indescribable delight. Hold on longs. Our time is coming.

  • itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 12, 2015 5:47 PM Flag

    Think the 2 million green instead of red that day was them covering. We may be marking the lows now.

  • Reply to

    latest 8k filing out

    by cln6631 Jan 9, 2015 5:49 PM
    itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 9, 2015 6:49 PM Flag

    These new amendments taken together with the new grants of warrants should just about make insiders whole from their massive dilution. Shorts get screwed, noteholders make out with 7% interest and a $3.11 basis and longs take a hit for the cause. Clearly, they never expected the shorts to force their hand like they did. Had they seen it coming, they would have taken care of the money problem in January and February of last year when we were trading much higher. Had to raise outside Cantor, who immediately downgraded us by the way. Not that we didn't deserve it. Did you really expect diluted insiders to take it on the chin? Also, the timeline all got pushed back for sale. Clearly, as a loyal long, I'm not beyond criticizing the company.
    Having said what I think needs to be said to be truthful, I agree with most of what Hans has posted recently. Shorts are looking week right now going into clsp. This could be an illusion, but as each day go on, it looks less like they loaded up on triple witching, like last year when we ran. Shortly put, never underestimate 15mm short shares.
    I'm long. Staying until buyout, which I now think may happen early 2016. I have lowered my price target from $25 to $15-18, which was always the low end of my expectations, but within it. I look forward to a volatile but prosperous year ahead. I will certainly outlast the shorts who will not be in until buyout. By the way, it's still their move next. Whatever they do, it will be telling I think. We've got cash, a great drug pipeline, 100% of the rights, and the IRWD guy dealing with the FDA. It's all brilliant. Time will tell if this was the time to load up. GLTA .

  • itsahorserace by itsahorserace Jan 9, 2015 4:21 PM Flag

    After all these years of being shorted, they still tick me off. Shorts will burn in hell for closing us red today. EOM.

  • itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 9, 2015 12:02 AM Flag

    IRWD partnered with Forrest before phase III results were out. Also, if I recall, we have IRWD's FDA man on board so if we go longer we are assured a swift and direct course through the maze.

  • That is a Monday. So the shares wouldn't trade until at least Tuesday, absent ministerial delays. Timing wise I've been thinking that a few weeks after that may mark our low for the new year. This may be the last true short buying opportunity that presents itself. Thinking I will add some there. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the day. I'm relying on an iPad reminder.
    Another thing I may be wrong about is shorts involvement in the note offering. I just don't think its true. Wouldn't you convert 15 million shares and sell them to yourself at $3.11 if this were true. This hasn't happend. Yes it would be obvious, but not illegal. So why would they care about being obvious. Also, you have to believe that shorts go long. But I don't believe that. Shorts go short, longs go long. When shorts cover I don't think they'll hold and go long for buyout. They'll move on to another company and try to ruin it. If anyone can point to any evidence that shorts are noteholders, I would like to hear it. GLTA.

  • These guys are acting like they didn't load up shares on last triple witching. So far they are simply HFTing us down here. Too early to say for sure, have to wait for clasp, but I'm beginning to think they may not have loaded up again. Maybe there is an end to the throwing of more borrowed shares at us. I will wait these suckers out. I'm sure I can go long longer than they can go short. If they are able to bring this down one more time, I will buy more. GLTA.

  • Why let them HFT us to death on the cover. Force the cover, convert some shares, and sell some into thier covering if you want. Fewer shares at sale. Shorts crushed. Sorry,... I come up with Ideas like this from time to time.

  • Reply to

    A watched kettle never boils.

    by itsahorserace Jan 5, 2015 9:55 PM
    itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 6, 2015 8:52 AM Flag

    No, I would only feel like a moron had I written " but I guess a fool and his money is soon departed?"

  • itsahorserace by itsahorserace Jan 5, 2015 9:55 PM Flag

    Pretty much the way I feel about SGYP right now. It's the shorts move next. The short plan can't be to hold it here indefinitely. For example, they could have taken it down today much further with only modest effort and didn't. Why? Weird trading too. These rat brains are up to something. Things should become clearer shortly before or after clasp release I think. Glta

109.68+0.35(+0.32%)Jan 23 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

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.