|
|
Post by hellodolly on Mar 20, 2019 14:35:07 GMT -5
If uthr's future is so dependent on a little company like mnkd, wouldn't it be prudent for uthr to try to acquire or merge with said little company? (Not the first time I suggested this.) Additionally, It seemed odd to me that another companies CEO would speak so highly of a product they don't own? Maybe they want TS and/or Afrezza, too? Was she telegraphing some C-Suite dialogue? |
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Mar 20, 2019 14:56:46 GMT -5
IMO, IF both CEOs are recognizing the same potential and future value, then Mike C would be smart to take the position that Mannkind is simply not for sale...yet. He keeps the company moving forward until such time that many CEOs in the biotech space are finally recognizing the same future value before considering a sale. Would still love to see a significant buy in by UTHR. It would be both a nice relationship and a hedge position for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 20, 2019 15:17:07 GMT -5
If uthr's future is so dependent on a little company like mnkd, wouldn't it be prudent for uthr to try to acquire or merge with said little company? (Not the first time I suggested this.) Additionally, It seemed odd to me that another companies CEO would speak so highly of a product that they don't own or have first right of refusal to buy? Buy-in IMO. Laying the groundwork to SH maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Mar 20, 2019 15:56:39 GMT -5
Since the deal was first announced I have thought that UTHR was the best suited partner for a equity buy in of say 20% to 30% of mannkind similar to the relationship between Sanofi and Regeneron.
With approximately 187m mnkd shares outstanding at $2.25 it would cost UTHR only a bargain $81,000,000 to own 20% of mannkind. An investment by UTHR that would most likely be profitable and then some upon the annoucement of such as transaction as it would likely send the value of mnkd stock way up and possibly initiate that unicorn which we call a short squeeze.
That $81,000,000 investment is less than they paid for one molecule and a whole lot less than they paid for their other deal and would likely provide an immediate profit and ensure a very long and profitable relationship between the two.
I cannot beleive if it is so obvious to this board why it has not happened... Or perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by mannupnow on Mar 20, 2019 16:04:09 GMT -5
So listening to the UTHR presentation on their investor's web page here is my poor attempt at transcription...
At 16:30 to 18:05 - TreT summary. Reduces burden from a nebulizer down to a small device. Will provide substantial life style benefits to patients. Easy to administer. mobile and more convenient.
Clinical study for switching from Tyvaso to Treat, plus pharmacokenetics study
Plan to develop TreT for ILD and COPD (that I think they had issues covering before)
|
|
|
|
Post by mannupnow on Mar 20, 2019 16:05:17 GMT -5
The presentation was at the Oppenheimer conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Mar 20, 2019 16:07:16 GMT -5
Since the deal was first announced I have thought that UTHR was the best suited partner for a equity buy in of say 20% to 30% of mannkind similar to the relationship between Sanofi and Regeneron. With approximately 187m mnkd shares outstanding at $2.25 it would cost UTHR only a bargain $81,000,000 to own 20% of mannkind. An investment by UTHR that would most likely be profitable and then some upon the annoucement of such as transaction as it would likely send the value of mnkd stock way up and possibly initiate that unicorn which we call a short squeeze. That $81,000,000 investment is less than they paid for one molecule and a whole lot less than they paid for their other deal and would likely provide an immediate profit and ensure a very long and profitable relationship between the two. I cannot beleive if it is so obvious to this board why it has not happened... Or perhaps? Phase 3 > Approval? |
|
|
|
Post by wsulylecoug on Mar 20, 2019 17:23:10 GMT -5
So listening to the UTHR presentation on their investor's web page here is my poor attempt at transcription... At 16:30 to 18:05 - TreT summary. Reduces burden from a nebulizer down to a small device. Will provide substantial life style benefits to patients. Easy to administer. mobile and more convenient. Clinical study for switching from Tyvaso to Treat, plus pharmacokenetics study Plan to develop TreT for ILD and COPD (that I think they had issues covering before) <iframe width="36.07999999999993" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 36.07999999999993px; height: 4.840000000000003px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_58556564" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="36.07999999999993" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 36.08px; height: 4.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1731px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_67971583" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="36.07999999999993" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 36.08px; height: 4.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 181px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_66472334" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="36.07999999999993" height="4.840000000000003" style="position: absolute; width: 36.08px; height: 4.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1731px; top: 181px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_16733064" scrolling="no"></iframe> New information to me was the relative youth of the PAH disease classification itself which came about in the 90's and continues to evolve. WHO Group 1 is relatively well-treated (approx 30,000 patients)...but Group 2 (~35,000 patients) & 3 (~250,000 patients) were referred to as "virgin territory" by Martine and is what the pipeline is focused on. The P3 studies aimed at Groups 2 & 3 are all using Tyvaso as the primary treatment or a component of treatment. Tyvaso = TreT. During the Cowen presentation it was stated that UT planned to double in size within a few years and double again in size in the 2020's on the back of TreT. That was great to hear, but I was sort of left scratching my head at how that was going to happen. These patient numbers clear that up a bit...and I sure like low double digit royalties of that expansion going to MNKD! |
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Mar 20, 2019 19:06:06 GMT -5
That is the most accurate and succinct analysis I have heard in a long time. Here’s another one... Mannkind is a 2021 story but the easy money will be made this year and the first part of next:-) If could do it all over again I’d b going in big now, take half off at $10 and let the rest ride. I agree on the 2021 timeline. And yeah that "if" factor is significant. Had I not been so eager to invest in this company I wouldn't have lost so much. But then, hindsight is 20-20 isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Mar 20, 2019 20:14:18 GMT -5
Since the deal was first announced I have thought that UTHR was the best suited partner for a equity buy in of say 20% to 30% of mannkind similar to the relationship between Sanofi and Regeneron. With approximately 187m mnkd shares outstanding at $2.25 it would cost UTHR only a bargain $81,000,000 to own 20% of mannkind. An investment by UTHR that would most likely be profitable and then some upon the annoucement of such as transaction as it would likely send the value of mnkd stock way up and possibly initiate that unicorn which we call a short squeeze. That $81,000,000 investment is less than they paid for one molecule and a whole lot less than they paid for their other deal and would likely provide an immediate profit and ensure a very long and profitable relationship between the two. I cannot beleive if it is so obvious to this board why it has not happened... Or perhaps? I have lost track of shares authorized versus shares issued. What does the scorecard say?
I don't see UTHR doing such a deal buying shares from the street where the money would not go directly into the MNKD treasury. |
|
|
|
Post by markado on Mar 20, 2019 20:37:05 GMT -5
Do we know that UTHR didn't buy in at the dilution in December? If it was less than 10% of the company, they wouldn't have to report it. But since it came with a warrant per share purchased, if they then exercised the warrants, they'd have to disclose the position and their intent, right? I think this is where it's heading, but in due time. By the end of 2019, if they want the warrants, right? And, if they wait until December, and the share price is well up by then, UTHR shareholders would be that much more apt to approve?
No matter how constructed, I wouldn't be surprised to see UTHR owning 20% by year's end. JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by jlaw277 on Mar 20, 2019 21:16:53 GMT -5
Since the deal was first announced I have thought that UTHR was the best suited partner for a equity buy in of say 20% to 30% of mannkind similar to the relationship between Sanofi and Regeneron. With approximately 187m mnkd shares outstanding at $2.25 it would cost UTHR only a bargain $81,000,000 to own 20% of mannkind. An investment by UTHR that would most likely be profitable and then some upon the annoucement of such as transaction as it would likely send the value of mnkd stock way up and possibly initiate that unicorn which we call a short squeeze. That $81,000,000 investment is less than they paid for one molecule and a whole lot less than they paid for their other deal and would likely provide an immediate profit and ensure a very long and profitable relationship between the two. I cannot beleive if it is so obvious to this board why it has not happened... Or perhaps? It still may be possible that UTHR bought a piece of the last offering. We have never been told who the strategic investor was that participated in the December deal. As long as it was less than a 5% stake, the buyer doesn't have to disclose. Who knows, maybe they bought 4.99% and then when and if they execute the warrants they will be forced to disclose their ownership stake. mnkd.proboards.com/post/166677/thread |
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Mar 21, 2019 7:49:36 GMT -5
I remberber Mike saying the investor(s) buying the December dilution wanted to ensure that the company would survive.
UTHR and RLS could both have been buyers because they have a vested interest in MNKD’s survival. And if they in fact were buyers in Dec., would they be shorting the stock now to take advantage of the warrants? I don’t think so. Those $1.60 warrants may not be as limiting on stock price movement as some on this board would have us believe. And I believe it is possible that those $1.60 warrants get exercised well in advance of December.
I’m looking forward to April 9 to see where we stand with the $2.38 warrant expiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Mar 21, 2019 8:48:09 GMT -5
I remberber Mike saying the investor(s) buying the December dilution wanted to ensure that the company would survive. UTHR and RLS could both have been buyers because they have a vested interest in MNKD’s survival. And if they in fact were buyers in Dec., would they be shorting the stock now to take advantage of the warrants? I don’t think so. Those $1.60 warrants may not be as limiting on stock price movement as some on this board would have us believe. And I believe it is possible that those $1.60 warrants get exercised well in advance of December. I’m looking forward to April 9 to see where we stand with the $2.38 warrant expiration. less than 3 weeks from now! |
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Mar 21, 2019 9:33:12 GMT -5
Since the deal was first announced I have thought that UTHR was the best suited partner for a equity buy in of say 20% to 30% of mannkind similar to the relationship between Sanofi and Regeneron. With approximately 187m mnkd shares outstanding at $2.25 it would cost UTHR only a bargain $81,000,000 to own 20% of mannkind. An investment by UTHR that would most likely be profitable and then some upon the annoucement of such as transaction as it would likely send the value of mnkd stock way up and possibly initiate that unicorn which we call a short squeeze. That $81,000,000 investment is less than they paid for one molecule and a whole lot less than they paid for their other deal and would likely provide an immediate profit and ensure a very long and profitable relationship between the two. I cannot beleive if it is so obvious to this board why it has not happened... Or perhaps? That's interesting. Do they call those 'dangling participles" or you just dangling the obvious "eyes wide shut" going on behind the scenes...that can't be talked about, yet? |
|
