|
Post by papihoyos on Oct 3, 2015 12:52:46 GMT -5
I did when the stock was $1.80.
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Oct 4, 2015 8:09:44 GMT -5
If Mann wanted to take the company private he would have done so a long time ago. I have never ever seen a patient look at the share price of the company before deciding to use a medication. Come to think of it I also have never seen a physician prescribe a medication based on share price. Mannkind will thrive or fail based on Afrezza and not on the short term share price. Why would Mann not taking the company private years ago have anything to do with him taking it private now when his legacy is struggling just before the finish line and it's at 52w lows? I have seen both the patient and physician shy from a product because of bad Public Image on CNBC and the like... the other faulty point in your argument is the fact that there will be no medication for the patient to take or the Doctor to prescribe if the company doesn't survive (or maybe Sanofi will buy up the scraps and make a killing off of the technology?). Again, the share price being divorced from the business is not a real thing except on this board in the minds of a few exuberant longs. I don't understand how buying the company at this price makes a difference on the survival of the company. Am I missing something? And it doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility that Al would buy the company to get at shareholders. That's preposterous. What would be the benefit to buy it now?
|
|
|
Post by harrys on Oct 4, 2015 10:13:25 GMT -5
Why would Mann not taking the company private years ago have anything to do with him taking it private now when his legacy is struggling just before the finish line and it's at 52w lows? I have seen both the patient and physician shy from a product because of bad Public Image on CNBC and the like... the other faulty point in your argument is the fact that there will be no medication for the patient to take or the Doctor to prescribe if the company doesn't survive (or maybe Sanofi will buy up the scraps and make a killing off of the technology?). Again, the share price being divorced from the business is not a real thing except on this board in the minds of a few exuberant longs. I don't understand how buying the company at this price makes a difference on the survival of the company. Am I missing something? And it doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility that Al would buy the company to get at shareholders. That's preposterous. What would be the benefit to buy it now? My rationale for this thought is simple, it's what I would do if I were Al faced with possible loss of billions, destruction of my most important legacy, and abuse at the hands of Wallstreet. I only think he could do this if the price fell below $2; Al would be able to take full control and steer the company the way he'd like to, flipping it for an enormous profit on his investment shortly after. I don't know who said Al was trying to "get at shareholders" but just as Al is not setting up some nefarious short squeeze scheme as has been discussed, he also would not be making billion dollar decisions to "get at shareholders", you're right as that is preposterous. On the other hand, I don't believe Al gives a ratsa$$ about shareholders, and others seem to agree. If Al sought to take this private it would be because the price is right (thanks to Wallstreet) and its a financially sound move as he could turn around and sell to big pharma, reaping all the profit. Al has not just his legacy but also his ability to fund his charities in perpetuity at stake here, a nobler cause than any of us investors. This is the last time I'll be talking on this subject as it seems to be to much for most to handle here, I find personal attacks and accusations often follow...
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Oct 4, 2015 12:21:17 GMT -5
I don't understand how buying the company at this price makes a difference on the survival of the company. Am I missing something? And it doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility that Al would buy the company to get at shareholders. That's preposterous. What would be the benefit to buy it now? My rationale for this thought is simple, it's what I would do if I were Al faced with possible loss of billions, destruction of my most important legacy, and abuse at the hands of Wallstreet. I only think he could do this if the price fell below $2; Al would be able to take full control and steer the company the way he'd like to, flipping it for an enormous profit on his investment shortly after. I don't know who said Al was trying to "get at shareholders" but just as Al is not setting up some nefarious short squeeze scheme as has been discussed, he also would not be making billion dollar decisions to "get at shareholders", you're right as that is preposterous. On the other hand, I don't believe Al gives a ratsa$$ about shareholders, and others seem to agree. If Al sought to take this private it would be because the price is right (thanks to Wallstreet) and its a financially sound move as he could turn around and sell to big pharma, reaping all the profit. Al has not just his legacy but also his ability to fund his charities in perpetuity at stake here, a nobler cause than any of us investors. This is the last time I'll be talking on this subject as it seems to be to much for most to handle here, I find personal attacks and accusations often follow... Please continue the conversation. I'm not one to personally attack...bad/useless for debate. I still don't see how that would work. Why is he faced with a possible loss of billions? If he can flip the company for more later, that means the company will be worth more then. If the company is worth more then, it will be worth more regardless of what the stock price is now, and regardless of whether he buys the company now or not. So, that wouldn't affect him wanting to buy the company any more than it did a year ago. If the company won't be worth anything, then he'll be losing even more money by buying it out. Also, I fail to believe that Al would wait until it's even cheaper, then buy shareholders out. Remember, his friends (and mentee) Matt Pfeffer, Hakan, the MannKind board, and all the officers and employees of Mannkind would all be on the losing end of that situation. Al wouldn't do that. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by harrys on Oct 4, 2015 12:32:01 GMT -5
My rationale for this thought is simple, it's what I would do if I were Al faced with possible loss of billions, destruction of my most important legacy, and abuse at the hands of Wallstreet. I only think he could do this if the price fell below $2; Al would be able to take full control and steer the company the way he'd like to, flipping it for an enormous profit on his investment shortly after. I don't know who said Al was trying to "get at shareholders" but just as Al is not setting up some nefarious short squeeze scheme as has been discussed, he also would not be making billion dollar decisions to "get at shareholders", you're right as that is preposterous. On the other hand, I don't believe Al gives a ratsa$$ about shareholders, and others seem to agree. If Al sought to take this private it would be because the price is right (thanks to Wallstreet) and its a financially sound move as he could turn around and sell to big pharma, reaping all the profit. Al has not just his legacy but also his ability to fund his charities in perpetuity at stake here, a nobler cause than any of us investors. This is the last time I'll be talking on this subject as it seems to be to much for most to handle here, I find personal attacks and accusations often follow... Please continue the conversation. I'm not one to personally attack...bad/useless for debate. I still don't see how that would work. Why is he faced with a possible loss of billions? If he can flip the company for more later, that means the company will be worth more then. If the company is worth more then, it will be worth more regardless of what the stock price is now, and regardless of whether he buys the company now or not. So, that wouldn't affect him wanting to buy the company any more than it did a year ago. If the company won't be worth anything, then he'll be losing even more money by buying it out. Also, I fail to believe that Al would wait until it's even cheaper, then buy shareholders out. Remember, his friends (and mentee) Matt Pfeffer, Hakan, the MannKind board, and all the officers and employees of Mannkind would all be on the losing end of that situation. Al wouldn't do that. Plain and simple. Thank you for being civil in your response even though we disagree. I should mention that I don't believe we will see sub $2, if we do at some point in the future I'll be sure to revisit this subject and discuss it further as I believe it would only be relevant at that point in time. I will also say to answer part of your question that just as we see the company absurdly under valued, Al probably has a much stronger sense of this and the means to act on it.
|
|
|
Post by sla55 on Oct 7, 2015 7:15:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tonyz on Oct 7, 2015 10:59:30 GMT -5
Every time I come across an article I think would be worth sharing on this board someone has already posted it. Don't know why I bother looking anywhere else.
Good positive read on the layoffs and the outlook for Afrezza. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by tmann on Oct 7, 2015 15:56:09 GMT -5
Always good to hear from David Kliff and his OC outfit.
|
|