|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 2, 2014 20:27:17 GMT -5
Very well said jpg. Let's have you record that statement and then we can try to hack into the webcast replay site and edit it in as Mannkind's response. I'm done hacking into Sony so I have some free time. [Note to FBI and NSA: just kidding ]
|
|
|
Post by noonen on Dec 3, 2014 2:12:07 GMT -5
I just managed to listen to the entire thing. I think another important statement made by Matt is that the $175M loan to cover their share of the losses before profits start was padded and that they anticipate their share of the losses should be significantly less... i.e. we're not likely to get close to where shorts can claim more dilutive equity issuing will be done. The weakest part I thought was when basically confronted with questioning that implied... "you've just stated you view your biggest opportunity as the needle phobic but given that the stick for a blood sugar meter is now as painful or worse than the prandial pens, how is that a strong selling point?" [my paraphrasing into a much more direct, confrontational question than the way it was really asked] The response was basically... "well, Sanofi would be the ones to know that." I think that could have been answered more positively given feedback they've received from patients... perhaps also talking about social aspects of injecting in public and long term physical detrimental effects of injections beyond the simple feel of an individual stick. hope they're right about the significant padding. re the needle phobic approach, aren't we kind of hamstrung now that the fda approved affreza as "rapid" acting, not "ultra rapid" acting? so all the benefits of the fast in / fast out, lack of super spikes/troughs evidence can't really be used for marketing? out of my depth on what's just giving information vs. what's marketing with repsect to fda approved drugs, but that would make sense to me. like many have said, maybe some new trials (unfortunately not immediately) will allow for some label enhancement. and q1 sales will be in the trillions.
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Dec 3, 2014 3:54:23 GMT -5
I just managed to listen to the entire thing. I think another important statement made by Matt is that the $175M loan to cover their share of the losses before profits start was padded and that they anticipate their share of the losses should be significantly less... i.e. we're not likely to get close to where shorts can claim more dilutive equity issuing will be done. The weakest part I thought was when basically confronted with questioning that implied... "you've just stated you view your biggest opportunity as the needle phobic but given that the stick for a blood sugar meter is now as painful or worse than the prandial pens, how is that a strong selling point?" [my paraphrasing into a much more direct, confrontational question than the way it was really asked] The response was basically... "well, Sanofi would be the ones to know that." I think that could have been answered more positively given feedback they've received from patients... perhaps also talking about social aspects of injecting in public and long term physical detrimental effects of injections beyond the simple feel of an individual stick. hope they're right about the significant padding. re the needle phobic approach, aren't we kind of hamstrung now that the fda approved affreza as "rapid" acting, not "ultra rapid" acting? so all the benefits of the fast in / fast out, lack of super spikes/troughs evidence can't really be used for marketing? out of my depth on what's just giving information vs. what's marketing with repsect to fda approved drugs, but that would make sense to me. like many have said, maybe some new trials (unfortunately not immediately) will allow for some label enhancement. and q1 sales will be in the trillions. They can't sell it using the wording 'ultra rapid' but they can and have to refer to the dynamics/ kinetics of the drug which to any half knowledgable MD (the vast majority) is the equivalent of saying ultra rapid. I'm tasking a guess here but those that don't get the kinetics of Afrezza would probably not be prescribing even basal insulin anyway? The problem is it takes a few minutes to listen to that information while ultra rapid acting is easier to digest... From my point of view they can and will do much better with the new studies then simply add a ultra before the rapid wording. JPG
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Dec 3, 2014 8:17:02 GMT -5
Disclose in a bulk fashion like a sale of the company in February 2015 to MDT. Is that why Matt was wearing a shirt with the Medtronic logo? It is interesting (at least to me : the different takes one can get from the same event. I have always been in the MDT / SNY buyout camp, but I kind of took away from yesterday that they may be going this alone (technosphere). Also thought they could have come across a bit more excited and optimistic about sales. I realize to a degree that Matt was baited into the accounting of the SNY payments, but to bring up even the possibility of non success wasn't too smart IMO. Just curious as to why you and kc thought it points to MDT? Hope you are right, btw
|
|
|
Post by kc on Dec 3, 2014 9:29:31 GMT -5
Amphstar said on their call today, That they became instantly profitable based on the deal they made to supply insulin to mannKind. I missed part of the call so I don't know if they talked earlier about that purchased by mankind but I thought it was good that it was mentioned about their profitability was based on their contract and future sales to MannKind. I went back and listened to the call again. They said that they had 9 billion in the pipeline on generic products using their inhalation side of their business. They particularly stated that they were working on PARTICULE ENGINEERING of complex molecules. They view their inhalation side of the business with a higher value. That Amphstar would do the science side and that a Pharm partner would do the sales and marketing side. Makes me wonder if they are going to use the Technosphere on some generic drugs. I would encourage you go listen to the call and give your opinion. I found the call interesting. this part was in the last 7 or 8 mins of the call. Next up on Wed Morning at 9:00 am ET. is Amphstar. I wonder if any questions about the MannKind insulin buy will be asked. Dec 3, 2014
9:00 AM ET Piper Jaffray 26th Annual Healthcare Conference www.media-server.com/m/p/2gfypwe8perhaps worth listening to it. (this information below was from the Amphstar presentation they gave back in October.)
■ Recombinant Human Insulin (RHI) − Signed supply agreement with MannKind to supply RHI for AFREZZA® − Agreement specifies minimum annual sales of 24 million euros annually for 5 years from 2015 - 2019 − Further amounts may be purchased
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 3, 2014 11:14:14 GMT -5
Is that why Matt was wearing a shirt with the Medtronic logo? It is interesting (at least to me : the different takes one can get from the same event. I have always been in the MDT / SNY buyout camp, but I kind of took away from yesterday that they may be going this alone (technosphere). Also thought they could have come across a bit more excited and optimistic about sales. I realize to a degree that Matt was baited into the accounting of the SNY payments, but to bring up even the possibility of non success wasn't too smart IMO. Just curious as to why you and kc thought it points to MDT? Hope you are right, btw To your question... Hints: To my knowledge there is no video or images of the conference. Lizards are sometimes sarcastic. The reason he brought up non success was that it really was the only way of addressing the question about why they couldn't book the milestones as revenue immediately. I suppose he could have danced around it, but if the questioner had been persistent then it gets to the point of seeming evasive. Going straight to the worst case prevents a persistent interviewer from dragging it out. I think the takeaway you got is the correct one that you've realized in spite of those glasses you wear being MDT tinted. I think in one camp we have lots of evidence and in the other camp wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 3, 2014 12:07:16 GMT -5
Amphstar said on their call today, That they became instantly profitable based on the deal they made to supply insulin to mannKind. I missed part of the call so I don't know if they talked earlier about that purchased by mankind but I thought it was good that it was mentioned about their profitability was based on their contract and future sales to MannKind. I went back and listened to the call again. They said that they had 9 billion in the pipeline on generic products using their inhalation side of their business. They particularly stated that they were working on PARTICULE ENGINEERING of complex molecules. They view their inhalation side of the business with a higher value. That Amphstar would do the science side and that a Pharm partner would do the sales and marketing side. Makes me wonder if they are going to use the Technosphere on some generic drugs. I would encourage you go listen to the call and give your opinion. I found the call interesting. this part was in the last 7 or 8 mins of the call. It would seem that all of the inhalation technology they are talking about is in house and has to do with producing equivalent versions of products already on the market. They mentioned suspensions as replacing earlier CFC. They did mention dry powders. The talk of their particular engineering, however, had to do with the fact that it was needed for generics of drugs on the market to show that they were not only chemically the same compound but also that the particles were the same size/shape and that e.g. the flow dynamics of an inhaler would be identical to the product already on the market for which they are claiming equivalency. Most all of this would seem to point away from any use of Technosphere in these inhalation generics markets that they quoted as being $9B existing market. IMO
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Dec 3, 2014 20:15:44 GMT -5
Agreed. Amphastar's inhalable technology is completely different than Technosphere. Some smart people work there... almost as smart as the engineers at MannKind.
|
|
|
Post by brentie on Dec 4, 2014 9:00:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 4, 2014 16:29:38 GMT -5
Time for Matt Pheiffer to move on. Maybe Al can transfer him to his new IPO EYES. if there is any one person responsible for the poor performance of Mannkind stock, it is Matt Pheiffer. If I didn't know better, I'd say he was employed by one of the short hedge funds. He just doesn't know what to say to Wall Street investors. And most of the time he sounds like a bumbling fool. I say, bring in a new experienced CFO to manage Wall Street and come up with a strategy to deal with the huge short interest. Matt is too inexperienced to be managing the financial aspects of a 4 billion dollar entity. We deserve better.
Trend
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 4, 2014 17:08:18 GMT -5
Personally I think the main thing to blame for the poor performance is that the multiple delays in FDA approval have tainted the stock. The history of significant dilution is real. Maybe someone could do a better job of offsetting for this history with more Wall Street friendly presentations. But on the other hand, I think Matt is constrained in what he is saying because of real risks of lawsuits with regard to what material is presented. Would it make a huge difference if the same material were presented in a slicker way? I suspect Matt will start sounding pretty good when he's rattling off tens or hundreds of millions in quarterly profits.
|
|
|
Post by afrezzamiracle on Dec 4, 2014 17:36:39 GMT -5
I don't understand the Matt Pfeffer bashing. I think he does a great job, and I don't know what he could really do better or how anyone else could do a better job as CFO. I always look forward to everything he has to say. Matt alone doesn't control the stock price. He doesn't even really have much impact on it at all. Anyway what the CEO/Founder Al Mann says always carries far more weight than what a COO or CFO has to say. Can you name any amazing "All Star" CFO's of any other companies? Didn't think so!
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Dec 4, 2014 18:00:42 GMT -5
I think people are venting their frustration of the share price on management and like our lizard friend said when the cash will flow in investors will think management is brilliant regardless what they say or how badly they present it. They could walk up to a podium, make a really bad presentation and run out of the room and no one will care when the numbers are good. I do think that a better PR strategy could have to some degree decreased dilution requirements in the past and that a bit better PR handling overall would serve everyones (except the shorts) interests.
MNKD is and will remain an unusual biotech company. Few biotech companies are founded by a billionaire who put up a very significant part of the money. The controlling shareholder clearly stated the company wouldn't be bought out unless someone was willing to pay what no CEO of a BP could get his board to pay. Basically no buyout risks. On top of that management is asked by shareholders to give as much strategic information away as possible but at the same time this exposes timelines that shorts and lawyers can exploit.
Everyone knows there will be no buyout anytime soon. We now know there is little or no risk of a surprise TI deal announcement till February. We also knew sales will start in Feb or March and that it will take 6 months to get a good idea as to how well sales will go. Every piece of added information basically reassures the shorts that they have time to milk this puppy. Eventually if we longs are right (sales go well, studies/ partnerships for TI start showing up etc.) time will run out and there will be staggeringly big short positions to cover. JPG
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 4, 2014 19:20:56 GMT -5
Each member of management has a job to do, and the only member of management I have an issue with is Matt Pheffer. Being a former CPA myself, and having personally spoken with him I just don't believe he is the right person for managing the crucial role of communicating with Wall Street and Mannkind's own CPA's. I will present examples of what I mean:
1. His past statements about the MNKD's ability to utilize the existing insulin inventory was at best misleading. 2. His statement at the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference on September 10, 2014 was just plain stupid "Mannkind was starved for cash and just made it to the finish line" 3. His failure to push back to his own CPA's about the accounting treatment for the $150,0000,000 milestone and future milestone payments. Although the 3rd qtr 10-Q states that "in order for revenue to be recognized, the Sellers price to the buyer must be fixed, determinable and not subject to refund or adjustment.". Clearly the $150,000,000 meets those criteria. Yet Mannkind has chosen to go along with the most conservative accounting treatment possible, which is " the Company has determined that it does not have the ability to determine the costs that would be associated with the loss share agreement and therefore the requirement for revenue recognition has not been met." That is a ridiculous interpretation. Using that standard might mean that the company will never be able to recognize milestone payment revenue. And his explanation to the Wall Street folks was almost unintelligible leaving the open the possibility that the $150,000,000 milestone payment and other milestone payments might be refundable. 4. His statement that any announcement of future agreements regarding Technosphere will have to wait until after the launch of Afrezza. That statement is just fodder for the shorts. Surely he could have left investors with a better takeaway. 5. He has no strategy to deal the large short position, in fact almost everything he says plays right into their hands. 6. Take a look at his resume, his inexperience as a CFO is weak.
In conclusion there are great CFO's out there in the biotech world that are both respected by Wall Street and feared by short interest hedge funds. What we have is a $4 billion company whose dealings with Wall Street are being managed by a minor leaguer.
Trend
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Dec 4, 2014 19:37:06 GMT -5
Hi Trend,
Why do you say 4 billion? With 400-450 million shares at 5.41$ we are fat from that market cap for now. Then again being a CFO of a 10 billion $ company with money is probably easier then being CFO of a 100 million $ company without any money!
|
|