Afrezza® (insulin human) Inhalation Powder Receives Pricing

[sportsrancho]

www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/06/quarterlyearningsstrategies.asp

Watch Those Estimates
A company's ability to hit earnings estimates is important to the price of its stock. If a company exceeds expectations, it's usually rewarded with a jump in its share price. If a company falls short of expectations, or even if it just meets expectations, the stock price can take a beating.

Beating earnings estimates says something about a stock's general well-being. A company that routinely exceeds expectations quarter-after-quarter is probably doing something right. Consider the performance of Cisco Systems in the 1990s. For 43 quarters in a row, the internet equipment player beat Wall Street's expectations for higher earnings. All the while, its share price saw a huge increase between 1990 and 2000. As a general rule, companies with predictable earnings are easier to assess and are often better investments.

Conversely, a company that consistently falls short of estimates for several consecutive quarters likely has problems. One example is Lucent Technologies. Between 2000 and 2001, the technology giant repeatedly missed earnings estimates—in many cases by wide margins. It turned out Lucent was unable to cope with shrinking sales, rising inventories, bloated cash outlays, and other woes that sent its share value plunging from $80 to 75 cents in two years. As this example suggests, disappointing earnings news is often followed by more earnings disappointments.

[slugworth008]

Jan 7, 2020 23:32:32 GMT -5 sportsrancho said:

www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/06/quarterlyearningsstrategies.asp

Watch Those Estimates
A company's ability to hit earnings estimates is important to the price of its stock. If a company exceeds expectations, it's usually rewarded with a jump in its share price. If a company falls short of expectations, or even if it just meets expectations, the stock price can take a beating.

Beating earnings estimates says something about a stock's general well-being. A company that routinely exceeds expectations quarter-after-quarter is probably doing something right. Consider the performance of Cisco Systems in the 1990s. For 43 quarters in a row, the internet equipment player beat Wall Street's expectations for higher earnings. All the while, its share price saw a huge increase between 1990 and 2000. As a general rule, companies with predictable earnings are easier to assess and are often better investments.

Conversely, a company that consistently falls short of estimates for several consecutive quarters likely has problems. One example is Lucent Technologies. Between 2000 and 2001, the technology giant repeatedly missed earnings estimates—in many cases by wide margins. It turned out Lucent was unable to cope with shrinking sales, rising inventories, bloated cash outlays, and other woes that sent its share value plunging from $80 to 75 cents in two years. As this example suggests, disappointing earnings news is often followed by more earnings disappointments.

  Well that's sunny and bright - lol - So ready for this stock to stop being a soap opera.

[prcgorman2]

I said talking about guidance is a religious debate. For every article anyone can find promoting guidance I can either find a counter-ariticle or give counter-examples to why the promotion is wrong and illogical. I said the professor in corporate finance was persuasive to me in discounting guidance because my experience was consistent with what we all know but sometimes wish to believe isn’t true - NOBODY has a crystal ball with which to predict the future. Every single statement about business plans in every single earnings report has a fat paragraph with caveats about forward looking statements. Those may boiler-plate but for goodness sakes, they’re not misleading. What they tell you is forward-looking information is not guaranteed to be an accurate predictor of actual results. Trying to set and meet guidance is a fool’s errand because it’s short-sighted. Do you want the company to execute on the best strategy for greatest increase in shareholder value? Then quit trying to make the management operate quarter to quarter.

[prcgorman2]

And another thing. If I am trying to set business plans, and I have a little company trying to eat away at my marketshare, what I want is for that company to set guidance because that helps me know what efforts I can employ and how much I should exert into disrupting their plans and preserving my marketshare. I’ve said time and again I believe there is predatory investment activity and I think anyone who ignores that threat is putting blinders on. A company’s performance should be based on two main categories; how they execute on their key core operational competencies, and how they manage the cost of their captial. As a competitor I can disrupt both. I can offer short-term discounts that make sales harder. I can short my competitors stock to artificially dilute the float to devalue their stock and make it difficult to raise operating capital. Those are only two easy obvious examples of ways to use my resources to legally and meaningfully shoulder out competitors. My competitor setting guidance helps me have an opportunity to further disrupt their business by working to ensure they miss guidance because we know the investors religious about guidance will punish them for missing it, and because it’s damned hard to offer material positive guidance and actually hit it; especially if you’re a struggling little start-up. And for those that argue Mannkind is not a start-up, let me remind them of the exceedingly long drug development timelines and that many biopharma companies, and little Mannkind was amongst them, drug pipeline development, not drug marketing, is their business. This is why Mannkind partnered with Sanofi. Afrezza was supposed to be marketed by Sanofi and act as the cash cow that funded the TechnoSphere pipeline. TreT is proof, so far at least, that there is real reason to believe in what the TS pipeline can deliver. Inhalable drugs are a real thing. UTHR’s PAH drug Tyvaso, Flonase, and albuterol being various common obvious examples. So here we are, investors in a tiny BP start-up that has sprouted a very small but provably effective marketing arm (thanks in very large part to Dr. Castagna) as compared to the results of the global marketing team at Sanofi. After all of this are we anywhere close to being where we want to be? Actually, yes. We’re about half-way there as can be seen by Earl Grey’s most recent performance charts. But much remains to be done. Are we at a point where setting sales guidance is a good idea? I personally think it’s a horrible idea and I don’t care if management ever sets sales guidance. I don’t need them to or want them to if it means they need to be aggressive to please investors for the short-term. I can plot a trend line as well as the next guy. The guidance is in the trend easily identified watching results from IMS and Symphony. The guidance in those results are why ktim, aged, and I, and many other investors all viewed the MidCap covenants as being a near guarantee of higher interest rates and reduced liklihood of access to the 3rd tranche. OK, I’ve made my points. Continue the religous debate if you like.

[Actual Investor]

In the spirit of the discussion, Amen Brother!

[akemp3000]

Providing guidance is right up there with predicting weather. Science and technology has only recently gotten decent in predicting weather about seven days out as opposed to three. Anything beyond that is an educated guess at best. This comes from a close friend who is a nationally known meteorologist on TV every day. Same goes for guidance. Too many variables, any of which can change everything without notice. No worries though if someone prefers to believe in the Farmer's Almanac, stock analysts or horoscopes. When they're right, it feels magical. When they're wrong, just ignore it

[liane]

prcgorman2 - A few paragraph breaks would make your posts more readable

[sportsrancho]

For the record I’m not promoting giving guidance. I even agreed with Mike that scripts coming out every week was not a way to run a company at this stage. What I’m saying is what my opinion is on how the market reacts to no guidance. I’m not arguing if it’s the right thing to do or not. The idea of not giving guidance is probably a good one. I just don’t think the market has evolved into that way of thinking.

[wgreystone]

Jan 8, 2020 4:56:31 GMT -5 akemp3000 said:

Providing guidance is right up there with predicting weather. Science and technology has only recently gotten decent in predicting weather about seven days out as opposed to three. Anything beyond that is an educated guess at best. This comes from a close friend who is a nationally known meteorologist on TV every day. Same goes for guidance. Too many variables, any of which can change everything without notice. No worries though if someone prefers to believe in the Farmer's Almanac, stock analysts or horoscopes. When they're right, it feels magical. When they're wrong, just ignore it

Predicting sales in pharma companies is much more reliable than predicting weather. You can just check some companies to see that. Mannkind hasn't find the right recipe to sell Afrezza yet, so the performance of sales reps and the prescription pattern of current prescribers are not yet predictable.

[rockstarrick]

The “estimates” or Projections, for a Company like Mannkind are always going to be a trap shoot until some of the Insurance coverage issues are solved.
You almost need to have more than 1 set of numbers. Obviously if insurance coverage improves, so will sales.
I think a lot of people will be surprised to see how many PWD are just waiting for coverage to improve before making the change, or at least giving Afrezza a try.
You can have all the programs and savings coupons in the world, but if you want the majority to try your product, good across the board coverage is the way.
Get the insurance issues solved by the time the FDA approves Afrezza for kids and we’ll be golden.
Nothing else even matters until we fix the Insurance problems.

[celo]

This stock is in the tank because they keep giving share sales to Caymen island crap companies. Look at Afrezza sales. The slope of the line has been almost completely straight for the last 2 years. Guidance is unimportant. Raising funds through shady companies that manipulate the share price to make a profit, stifles share price growth. No firm wants to buy shares of a company that dilutes out of nowhere with sharks. We are all stuck in the mud until Mannkind stops doing that.

[agedhippie]

Jan 8, 2020 14:48:16 GMT -5 celo said:

This stock is in the tank because they keep giving share sales to Caymen island crap companies. Look at Afrezza sales. The slope of the line has been almost completely straight for the last 2 years. Guidance is unimportant. Raising funds through shady companies that manipulate the share price to make a profit, stifles share price growth. No firm wants to buy shares of a company that dilutes out of nowhere with sharks. We are all stuck in the mud until Mannkind stops doing that.

The problem is that they don't have an choice while the company continues to lose money. The loan collateral it tapped out, the revenue is nowhere near enough to support the company, that leaves the shareholders via dilution as the only viable option.