You can see it that way. I like to see net because it gives me an overall picture. Looking only at sold out positions vs new positions doesn't paint the picture for longer term holders that were adding in the same quarter. Giving a 3:1 ratio paints a much uglier picture than saying the net change was 6M share sold for ALL Institutional holders which would indicate very little NET activity. My original purpose for posting this info is to provide data that people can go look at for themselves and to counter the unsubstantiated claims by some that there has been a stampede out of the doors by institutional investors.
Where are you seeing 3:1? Are you conveniently leaving out the INCREASE in shares by existing holders? Bottom line is there was a net change in Institutional ownership of about 6M shares or under 7%. Hardly the stampede out the doors as some would suggest.
Yeah, that's true. No one to counter the moves of the shorts. However, I've been buying in blocks of 20K and every time I buy they drop the price a minute later.
I think primedice has part of it right. I think the market may be aware that producing more may result in bigger losses. However, the market wants to see IF they can even go at full production. IF they can prove they can produce at full capacity and then decide strategically to cap production due to pricing that is a completely different story than not being able to reach full production because of problems. I think that is why everyone wants to see full production and what it does to the numbers. Of course if it doesn't make sense to produce more, then they should reduce production. The PPS reflects the uneasiness in the market with the lack of clarity. IMHO if they can prove they can reach full capacity, the share price would jump knowing that if they wanted to and when REE prices got better, they could become profitable. Right now we just don't know.
Everyone should take a look at the OFFICIAL Institutional Ownership numbers and activity. Please google "MCP institutional ownership" and look at it for yourselves. Contrary to popular belief and posting by many here, Institutional Ownership is not significantly changing.
As of last reported information:
- There are 198 Institutional Owners
- 86,898,243 total shares
- 35.5% of float owned by Institutions
- There was a net decrease of about 6,000,000 shares last quarter
- 69 Institutions increased positions and 79 decreased positions
- 18 new positions and 32 sold off their positions
- All of the big names are included.
- Top 5 holders are:
-- State Street Corp with 12,444,437 shares they added 4,648,254 shares last quarter.
-- Vanguard Group is second with 10,658,372 shares they added 53,368 shares last quarter
-- Barclays is third with 5,457,344 shares they added 205,486 shares last quarter
-- Capwealth Advisors is fourth with 4,684,625 shares they added 1,737,625 shares last quarter
-- Blackrock Funds is fifth with 4,102,534 shares they sold 154,314 shares last quarter
I've been following the institutional numbers for a while.
Yup, been buying since I saw Molymet comments on Molycorp in their quarterly results. It's been funny, every time I buys some, they drop the price. Today that did not happen. Much more interesting to see what they see going forward. Sure does seem like they are positioning for a merger.
Now that Dec. 2, is gone and number of shares has been calculated, will they let the share price rise again or will the bondholder who converted dump the shares driving prices lower?
If you were a bond holder and you were confident the company would turn around, it all depends on what you think the stock price will do versus what your bonds will do.
If you think the stock price will double from these levels, then it makes absolute sense to trade the bonds in for stocks.
Some people will do it and some will not, it all depends on your outlook, and risk tolerance.
I too am disappointed with Q3, but given the really low guidance they have given for Q4, does anyone think they might be setting up for a positive surprise?
I also don't like the lack of details, but maybe, just maybe, they are setting expectations low so that they can beat for Q4. It would be the right timing for them to do that. IF Leach 2.0 is operating well, and IF the Chlor-Alkali issue gets fixed, then their production should go up significantly. Sure, they said they will ramp up slowly but they also said that they would do it faster if everything went well..
I would rather they set expectations lows and beat then to set them high and fail AGAIN.
I'm buying at these prices...and riding the waves when the opportunity arises.
You might have made money, but you were not correct. You called .90 opening bid for Thursday and it was 1.25. Just plain wrong.
Looks like you won't win either way. If it is true, then you just leaked inside information. If not, then you just made it up. I think making it up would be the choice I would take. Remember, they can track anybody posting.
What I don't understand is the timing. Why 11/14? They should be reporting the results the week before right? Would they want to get out before results come out?
What is the term used to describe the difference between how much volume it takes for the bid to move up or down versus the ask to move up or down. I just can't remember what it is called.