|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 7, 2020 11:09:10 GMT -5
Look we can argue about this all day but there’s no doubt my mind that you need to set guidance and beat it! You need to under promise and over deliver. I’ve traded stocks for 10 years... that’s just the way it is.
|
|
bkdmd
Researcher
Posts: 79
|
Post by bkdmd on Jan 7, 2020 11:29:55 GMT -5
YThe goal is always under promise and over deliver unless you want to be like Mike and the others at MNKD. They have constantly over promised and under delivered then ask for raises, bonuses, golden parachutes, etc etc etc after making all of the excuses and talk about transparency going forward.
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jan 7, 2020 12:12:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jan 7, 2020 12:20:31 GMT -5
BIOMM S.A. (“Company” or “Biomm”), in compliance with the provisions of Securities Commission No. 358 of January 3, 2002, as amended, has been communicate to its shareholders and the general market that will start next week the marketing and distribution of the drug Afrezza® (inhaled human insulin powder) in all over Brazil. Commercial activities begin with the receipt of the letter from the Board of Regulation of the Drug Market - CMED informing about the approval of the factory price registration of the medicinal product in question. The Company will keep its shareholders and the general market updated on the subject matter
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 7, 2020 12:54:45 GMT -5
Guidance might be overrated in some circumstances. It is probably less important for a company that actually can consistently give strong guidance and meet it... those companies likely have lots of analysts that are confident in their own numbers from channel checks and the like.
For better or for worse MNKD recently has been pretty easy to forecast reasonably well, but the growth rate is simply not enough to get mainstream investors interested. In that case is it better to give honest mediocre guidance or none at all? Personally I think the current management suffers from lack of credibility and a perception of lack of candor. There has been too much blowing smoke, and not just that time of missing the guidance that I think they likely didn't believe in themselves (it would worry me even more if I thought they were clueless rather than simply engaging in hyping they knew to be such). But, I think at a certain point they need to try to regain trust. Being willing to give guidance, even if mediocre, I think would be a good start. Let's face it, the reduced loan covenants are likely to be taken as guidance by anyone paying attention, so what do they have to lose now by showing that they are willing to be candid and hold themselves to normal shareholder expectations?
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jan 7, 2020 13:08:54 GMT -5
According McKinsey and Co. forward guidance offers practically nothing for long term investors, but may attract short-term investors who like to trade on news, etc...
It certainly has no meaningful influence on PPS, again, according to McKinsey and Co. who are certainly no flakes.
I conclude that those nit-picking about forward guidance with MannKind are just nit-picking, since it means absolutely nothing for me as a MNKD Long.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 7, 2020 13:36:25 GMT -5
According McKinsey and Co. forward guidance offers practically nothing for long term investors, but may attract short-term investors who like to trade on news, etc... It certainly has no meaningful influence on PPS, again, according to McKinsey and Co. who are certainly no flakes. I conclude that those nit-picking about forward guidance with MannKind are just nit-picking, since it means absolutely nothing for me as a MNKD Long. I'm assuming a vast number of things at MNKD over the years would fly in the face of "according to McKinsey and Co" standard operating procedure. You are a "faith based" investor in MNKD. For you it wouldn't matter what management said, whether they say one thing and turn around and do another, don't give guidance, give guidance and miss it, etc. You certainly aren't a mainstream investor though. If you want your investment to pay off, you probably should be concerned with what the mainstream investors would look for to invest in MNKD. If you and the few other "faith based" investors here collectively have enough money to bid up MNKD shares without mainstream investors, please by all means go ahead. I'd certainly give profuse thanks. I haven't taken sides in the whole HFM thing, but I can see where management has sowed the seeds creating it by poor choices in communication to shareholders. What does McKinsey have to say about when you're a struggling, underfunded, money losing small company dependent on equity for funding and you've managed to alienate a lot of your investors.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jan 7, 2020 13:42:09 GMT -5
According McKinsey and Co. forward guidance offers practically nothing for long term investors, but may attract short-term investors who like to trade on news, etc... It certainly has no meaningful influence on PPS, again, according to McKinsey and Co. who are certainly no flakes. I conclude that those nit-picking about forward guidance with MannKind are just nit-picking, since it means absolutely nothing for me as a MNKD Long. I'm assuming a vast number of things at MNKD over the years would fly in the face of "according to McKinsey and Co" standard operating procedure. You are a "faith based" investor in MNKD. For you it wouldn't matter what management said, whether they say one thing and turn around and do another, don't give guidance, give guidance and miss it, etc. You certainly aren't a mainstream investor though. If you want your investment to pay off, you probably should be concerned with what the mainstream investors would look for to invest in MNKD. If you and the few other "faith based" investors here collectively have enough money to bid up MNKD shares without mainstream investors, please by all means go ahead. I'd certainly give profuse thanks. I haven't taken sides in the whole HFM thing, but I can see where management has sowed the seeds creating it by poor choices in communication to shareholders. What does McKinsey have to say about when you're a struggling, underfunded, money losing small company dependent on equity for funding and you've managed to alienate a lot of your investors. You’d have to ask McKinsey about that (in bold), not sure. Not sure why you assume all those things about me simple because I agree with McKinsey that “Our analysis of the perceived benefits of issuing frequent earnings guidance found no evidence that it affects valuation multiples, improves shareholder returns, or reduces share price volatility.” McKinsey clearly states they found NO evidence that frequent forward guidance improves shareholder value. I assume you plan to provide evidence of the contrary since you appear to be advocating for it.
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jan 7, 2020 14:05:34 GMT -5
Hey Mango. Just ignore the attack in bold. That's the kind of perspective and debate we used to see a lot on the old message board. One of my favorite posters was Opie who I always thought was Shkreli. Maybe he got a computer for good behavior
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 7, 2020 14:09:29 GMT -5
I'm assuming a vast number of things at MNKD over the years would fly in the face of "according to McKinsey and Co" standard operating procedure. You are a "faith based" investor in MNKD. For you it wouldn't matter what management said, whether they say one thing and turn around and do another, don't give guidance, give guidance and miss it, etc. You certainly aren't a mainstream investor though. If you want your investment to pay off, you probably should be concerned with what the mainstream investors would look for to invest in MNKD. If you and the few other "faith based" investors here collectively have enough money to bid up MNKD shares without mainstream investors, please by all means go ahead. I'd certainly give profuse thanks. I haven't taken sides in the whole HFM thing, but I can see where management has sowed the seeds creating it by poor choices in communication to shareholders. What does McKinsey have to say about when you're a struggling, underfunded, money losing small company dependent on equity for funding and you've managed to alienate a lot of your investors. You’d have to ask McKinsey about that (in bold), not sure. Not sure why you assume all those things about me simple because I agree with McKinsey that “Our analysis of the perceived benefits of issuing frequent earnings guidance found no evidence that it affects valuation multiples, improves shareholder returns, or reduces share price volatility.” McKinsey clearly states they found NO evidence that frequent forward guidance improves shareholder value. I assume you plan to provide evidence of the contrary since you appear to be advocating for it. No, I've dealt with the McKinsey's of the world enough to know it isn't worth my time even reading that report. I do give management consulting firms a lot of credit for being amazingly good at extracting money from companies. They'll take it for reorganizing you one day and then organizing you back to where you were the next time... and often a nice revolving door situation with corporate management. And by the way, even without reading it, I'm guessing the data they are citing basically show what I said above, that in circumstances where companies are large and stable and can give reliable guidance, it is probably less important that they actually do. Take Apple, has their decision about removing unit volume guidance hurt them... obviously no. MNKD ain't no Apple. It's credibility has been stretched (that's being very generous in wording). What do you think McKinsey would say about agreeing to revenue covenants that have to be renegotiated within the first three months? I bet there is some McKinsey report that would also say that CEO's giving themselves bonuses don't ever anger shareholders by doing so. I've done my own investor relations at smaller companies and I know management of information with investors is absolutely crucial when you are still dependent on equity based financing.
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Jan 7, 2020 14:31:11 GMT -5
Patience or Patients ? Take your pick. Guidance will come at the year end conference call ... or, you can continue to go round and round and drive yourselves insane.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Jan 7, 2020 14:43:14 GMT -5
Look, you guys complain endlessly about how Wall Street and the big bad shorts treat MannKind like crap, and we're just explaining why they do that. There is no transparency and there is no trust. Also, LOL at bringing up dividends into the discussion.
Whether or not you want to believe guidance is useful or not... Missing guidance -> BAD Cutting guidance right after missing guidance -> BAD Missing loan covenants a few months after setting it -> BAD
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Jan 7, 2020 14:49:41 GMT -5
Dividends? Can't be talking to me because I didn't mention dividends.
But, pps going up again ... >GOOD
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jan 7, 2020 14:53:02 GMT -5
Look, you guys complain endlessly about how Wall Street and the big bad shorts treat MannKind like crap, and we're just explaining why they do that. There is no transparency and there is no trust. Also, LOL at bringing up dividends into the discussion. Whether or not you want to believe guidance is useful or not... Missing guidance -> BAD Cutting guidance right after missing guidance -> BAD Missing loan covenants a few months after setting it -> BAD A series of medical health insurance companies that have negotiated medical pharmaceutical company kickbacks to increase profits and help control their benefactors markets - > BAD That the health insurance companies / FDA control which pharmaceutical companies that make it through a series of pay to play - > BAD That a physician can not decide which non-inferior insulin to put their patient on - > BAD
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jan 7, 2020 14:57:27 GMT -5
Look, you guys complain endlessly about how Wall Street and the big bad shorts treat MannKind like crap, and we're just explaining why they do that. There is no transparency and there is no trust. Also, LOL at bringing up dividends into the discussion. Whether or not you want to believe guidance is useful or not... Missing guidance -> BAD Cutting guidance right after missing guidance -> BAD Missing loan covenants a few months after setting it -> BAD According to McKinsey, there is no evidence that guidance improves shareholder value. It may be bad to a short-term investor since they rely on news, announcements, and, of course guidance as well, but it has no meaningful impact on PPS, period. MannKind not practicing forward guidance has no meaningful impact, good or bad, on the PPS. Awesomo:Strong guidance has the biggest influence on share price because it signals strength going forward from the management team. Mike doesn't even give guidance, and you wonder why Wall Street "hates" us. McKinsey:Our analysis of the perceived benefits of issuing frequent earnings guidance found no evidence that it affects valuation multiples, improves shareholder returns, or reduces share price volatility. The only significant effect we observed is an increase in trading volumes when companies start issuing guidance—an effect that would interest short-term investors who trade on the news of such announcements but should be of little concern to most managers, except in companies with illiquid stocks. I of course invite you to provide evidence of the contrary, but my chips are on McKinsey’s expertise and not yours. 😉
|
|