What Motivates Dendreon Shorts?
Board: Dendreon Corp.

Related Links
Discussion Boards

By TMFBreakerTinker
June 5, 2007

Posts selected for this feature rarely stand alone. They are usually a part of an ongoing thread, and are out of context when presented here. The material should be read in that light. How are these posts selected? Click here to find out and nominate a post yourself!

True, nothing phony in it either. The surprise was that it moved the market so much with information that was already known.

The truth be told, there is something very, very fishy, about all the shorting post-AC. Even the shorting pre-AC was somewhat fishy given how long the shorts hung around as the risk/reward diminished. After the fact, the odds of profiting without being financially destroyed on shorting DNDN were quite long, and yet even more shorts piled in.

I have no proof, but it is almost as if there was someone on the insider who had the fix in, and they expected the fix to take place at the AC, but with 17 independent panel members there was no control, but with only a few decision makers within the FDA the fix was able to be implemented.

I don't know this to be the case, but it is the only thing that explains multiple facets of what transpired in DNDN from my perspective. One can explain it as a runaway bureaucracy, but then how does one explain even more money going short when the chances of approval post AC were clearly greater than 80% to any objective observer, particularly since there were and still remain no compelling reasons to do what the FDA did.

As such, I take any move in the stock now that is based upon really no news to be suspect. But it is beyond me now. It will move the way it will move and it is somewhat frightening to see that a stock can at least appear to be so corrupted.

May just be the cynic in me, but I'm still trying to understand the two things (1) the compelling reason the FDA acted as it did, and (2) what the heck would motivate so many shorts to go short when any objective observer could deduce that their chances of their not being destroyed were very small. Putting the two together finding a natural reason free of corruption and undue influence becomes even more difficult.

I can accept reasons for #1, but not combined with #2. The explanations get very difficult at that point.


Become a Complete Fool
Join the best community on the web! Becoming a full member of the Fool Community is easy, takes just a minute, and is very inexpensive.