Dew, I think that zipjet will concur that it is indeed highly likely that the poster in question not only has the ability to take a large short position in MNTA, but likely would not fabricate such a story simply for the sake of message board banter.
MNTA - >>you didn’t screw anything up, but I have a hard time believing that the poster in question was/is really short.
Agree. This whole thread over on the RPRX board is completely bogus. It is clear that the level of understanding of the company, their markets/products etc is negligible. I know more about MNTA than the supposed "deep pocket short" and I have no position and don't even follow it.
I think this is simply transparent retaliation at Thomas and Dew for your occasional guest spots over on the RPRX board questioning the investment thesis for that company.
>>I have a hard time believing that the poster in question was/is really short.
Doc has not told me he shorted MNTA. But it looked like he was saying so on the RPRX thread. I do know and like him.
He is well informed on RPRX.
His appreciation of MNTA is flawed. But I would not expect that to keep him or other hedge funds from shorting a money-burning biotech that has been rejected by the FDA and had a dead-cat bounce. That is what it looks like - however superficial that view may turn out to be.
Add to the mix that the shorts made a bundle on the stock, have reduced the shorting by millions of shares and see the opportunity to heavily short it again at a point in time where institutional holders have reduced their support. What will the price of the stock do if another 4 million shares are shorted opportunistically with no uptick rule? BS seems to support the short trade with their comments. Since no significant* news is expected in the next couple of months there is time for the shorts to develop this trade.
ij
* BTW - I do not consider the Appeal a significant news item if the lower court decision is upheld. A reversal or another new trial would be a significant negative.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
