A letter to us from Nate
Dec 22, 2018 8:10:38 GMT -5
via mobile
mannmade, esstan2001, and 22 more like this
Post by sportsrancho on Dec 22, 2018 8:10:38 GMT -5
As most of you saw last night mnkdfann decided to create a stir. Everything seems to have gotten deleted. Nate saw it and this is his reply.
I have to laugh when I see what lengths folks are going to these days in an attempt to subtly raise doubts about the credibility of "the messengers" who are working so hard to help investors understand what is actually going on with MannKind and how they should approach their investments in the company.
So, to clarify, in the case of my recent conversation with Mike,
1. Mike is the CEO of a publicly traded company who knows very well what he can and cannot discuss with folks like me, and he has always done an extremely good job of "staying inside the lines" when we've had conversations (and, yes - I've asked questions in the past to see how much I might be able to learn about this or that, and when the questions start get "too specific or detailed," he has always stopped and said "I can't really discuss that, Nate"... and then I say "ya, I didn't think you could"... and we move on).
2. as the publisher of an investment newsletter that not only has a performance track record that is among the best in the industry but also has what I have been told by subscribers and other observers alike is one of the best reputations for honesty and integrity in the industry, rest assured that I have no desire to ruin a good thing by getting any "inside info," especially this late in the story when it's not even needed to realize which side of the trade you want to be on.
3. to assume (or even merely speculate) that "in depth" could perhaps be synonymous with "the exchange of confidential and illegal information" seems to me to be quite a leap to make unless the goal is to intentionally raise doubts about and suspicions around the situation (see my opening observation above).
4. what Mike and I talked about could essentially be boiled down a rehash of everything that has either already been said in slides, on conference calls, or in the prospectus that was filed in conjunction with the offering - in a nutshell, he merely re-walked me through what his vision for the company going forward looks like.
In light of the current situation, as someone with a fairly sizable following of subscribers who likely own a great deal of MannKind stock (mostly on my recommendation, but some came to me after already owning MannKind, then learning about me and wanting to get in on my other ideas as well), I believe it was completely appropriate for me to get in touch with him following the announcement of the offering to say "hey - what's going on, Mike?," (and, in fact, my detractors would probably have instead accused me of letting my subscribers down and doing them a disservice if I had NOT made an attempt to talk to Mike about the situation).
5. finally, to clarify my comments about the deal being "closed," I understand that there has been a great deal of debate about whether a deal is considered closed when all sides have agreed to it... or if it is not closed until all of the money has not only been transferred to, but also settled, at a bank.
In this case, my comment was in reference the fact that the terms had been agreed to (hence the filling in of all those blanks folks saw in the initial filing earlier in the day) and they were not going to change even though the stock had fallen out of bed the next day (yes, deals can still be changed "even after the blanks have been filled in," but I have never seen it happen for a small filing like this, and so I assumed this case wouldn't be any different than the others like it that I've watched take place int the past). No, I do not know if the funds have officially settled yet, but I do feel highly confident saying that what you see in the filing is what the deal actually ended up looking like (and will be happy to stand corrected if someone happens to know otherwise).
I hope that helps put to rest some of the conspiracy theories that have been raised on this thread over the past several hours.
Thanks again for the interest in my ideas.
I have to laugh when I see what lengths folks are going to these days in an attempt to subtly raise doubts about the credibility of "the messengers" who are working so hard to help investors understand what is actually going on with MannKind and how they should approach their investments in the company.
So, to clarify, in the case of my recent conversation with Mike,
1. Mike is the CEO of a publicly traded company who knows very well what he can and cannot discuss with folks like me, and he has always done an extremely good job of "staying inside the lines" when we've had conversations (and, yes - I've asked questions in the past to see how much I might be able to learn about this or that, and when the questions start get "too specific or detailed," he has always stopped and said "I can't really discuss that, Nate"... and then I say "ya, I didn't think you could"... and we move on).
2. as the publisher of an investment newsletter that not only has a performance track record that is among the best in the industry but also has what I have been told by subscribers and other observers alike is one of the best reputations for honesty and integrity in the industry, rest assured that I have no desire to ruin a good thing by getting any "inside info," especially this late in the story when it's not even needed to realize which side of the trade you want to be on.
3. to assume (or even merely speculate) that "in depth" could perhaps be synonymous with "the exchange of confidential and illegal information" seems to me to be quite a leap to make unless the goal is to intentionally raise doubts about and suspicions around the situation (see my opening observation above).
4. what Mike and I talked about could essentially be boiled down a rehash of everything that has either already been said in slides, on conference calls, or in the prospectus that was filed in conjunction with the offering - in a nutshell, he merely re-walked me through what his vision for the company going forward looks like.
In light of the current situation, as someone with a fairly sizable following of subscribers who likely own a great deal of MannKind stock (mostly on my recommendation, but some came to me after already owning MannKind, then learning about me and wanting to get in on my other ideas as well), I believe it was completely appropriate for me to get in touch with him following the announcement of the offering to say "hey - what's going on, Mike?," (and, in fact, my detractors would probably have instead accused me of letting my subscribers down and doing them a disservice if I had NOT made an attempt to talk to Mike about the situation).
5. finally, to clarify my comments about the deal being "closed," I understand that there has been a great deal of debate about whether a deal is considered closed when all sides have agreed to it... or if it is not closed until all of the money has not only been transferred to, but also settled, at a bank.
In this case, my comment was in reference the fact that the terms had been agreed to (hence the filling in of all those blanks folks saw in the initial filing earlier in the day) and they were not going to change even though the stock had fallen out of bed the next day (yes, deals can still be changed "even after the blanks have been filled in," but I have never seen it happen for a small filing like this, and so I assumed this case wouldn't be any different than the others like it that I've watched take place int the past). No, I do not know if the funds have officially settled yet, but I do feel highly confident saying that what you see in the filing is what the deal actually ended up looking like (and will be happy to stand corrected if someone happens to know otherwise).
I hope that helps put to rest some of the conspiracy theories that have been raised on this thread over the past several hours.
Thanks again for the interest in my ideas.
