|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 25, 2015 14:14:21 GMT -5
ricguy I bet we haven't, it can only get much worse, I believe Goldman has every intention of hitting their seemingly "magical" price target. dreamboatcruise and peppy I can't see how Mann won't* take MNKD private once we hit a Market Cap of $500mil (which were heading), how could he not?! I sure would if I were him, even if he sold the company today at a 50% premium (which is pretty steep) we'd only be looking at about $3.68, would Al even cover his principal on that? Why would he sell it now and only make 50% on his 40% share of ownership when he could take it private and make 50% on the entire worth of the company? What am I missing here? Well, the game plan of purposely being passive and allowing share price to drop with the intent to do that is a clear violation of fiduciary duty. Even without that plan a piori, it raises suspicion of such and potential for litigation. Though others have certainly gotten away with doing exactly that, often backed by private equity only to have an IPO again in relatively short period of time at much higher valuation. "purposely passive" --- what a term. Is that like "willful blindness" ?? It might qualify under scrutiny. Right now, equity valuation and debt is a fraction of what's been invested. Goldman tripled their position last quarter. Will they do it again this quarter? Correct me if I am wrong, but shorting for the purposes of price manipulation is illegal but the SEC is essentially the de facto govt branch of GS. And we point our fingers at China for corruption. Laugh of the day! (I just laughed, did you?)
|
|
|
Post by doodyfree on Nov 25, 2015 14:21:56 GMT -5
ricguy I bet we haven't, it can only get much worse, I believe Goldman has every intention of hitting their seemingly "magical" price target. dreamboatcruise and peppy I can't see how Mann won't* take MNKD private once we hit a Market Cap of $500mil (which were heading), how could he not?! I sure would if I were him, even if he sold the company today at a 50% premium (which is pretty steep) we'd only be looking at about $3.68, would Al even cover his principal on that? Why would he sell it now and only make 50% on his 40% share of ownership when he could take it private and make 50% on the entire worth of the company? What am I missing here? Well, the game plan of purposely being passive and allowing share price to drop with the intent to do that is a clear violation of fiduciary duty. Even without that plan a piori, it raises suspicion of such and potential for litigation. Though others have certainly gotten away with doing exactly that, often backed by private equity only to have an IPO again in relatively short period of time at much higher valuation. There's nothing in Al's history that suggests he would do this (especially at this age). Most of his fortunes were made from fighting through times like these, and not financial engineering.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2015 14:29:52 GMT -5
Well, the game plan of purposely being passive and allowing share price to drop with the intent to do that is a clear violation of fiduciary duty. Even without that plan a piori, it raises suspicion of such and potential for litigation. Though others have certainly gotten away with doing exactly that, often backed by private equity only to have an IPO again in relatively short period of time at much higher valuation. "purposely passive" --- what a term. Is that like "willful blindness" ?? It might qualify under scrutiny. Right now, equity valuation and debt is a fraction of what's been invested. Goldman tripled their position last quarter. Will they do it again this quarter? Correct me if I am wrong, but shorting for the purposes of price manipulation is illegal but the SEC is essentially the de facto govt branch of GS. And we point our fingers at China for corruption. Laugh of the day! (I just laughed, did you?) Sorry, clarification... my comment was regarding the part about Al potentially taking the company private. As stated above, I've previously been burned by management teams that seemingly sat by doing nothing "passive" while they reported discouraging results (truthful) with no plan or outlook and got beat up by analysts... then they end up partnering with some private equity, buying the company on cheap and 18 months later miraculously they are out saying how amazingly bright their future is as they do an IPO far higher than the price I got paid for my shares. I do not for a moment think they did not have a plan to allow the the share price to tank... but it is very difficult to prove intent when the action was "lack of action". I DO NOT believe Al would do this. Though it sure seems that MNKD could become an excellent candidate for that... presuming that those that really know pharma have insight into how the barriers to adoption will be resolved.
|
|
|
Post by jeremg on Nov 25, 2015 14:30:41 GMT -5
ricguy I bet we haven't, it can only get much worse, I believe Goldman has every intention of hitting their seemingly "magical" price target. dreamboatcruise and peppy I can't see how Mann won't* take MNKD private once we hit a Market Cap of $500mil (which were heading), how could he not?! I sure would if I were him, even if he sold the company today at a 50% premium (which is pretty steep) we'd only be looking at about $3.68, would Al even cover his principal on that? Why would he sell it now and only make 50% on his 40% share of ownership when he could take it private and make 50% on the entire worth of the company? What am I missing here? Well, the game plan of purposely being passive and allowing share price to drop with the intent to do that is a clear violation of fiduciary duty. Even without that plan a piori, it raises suspicion of such and potential for litigation. Though others have certainly gotten away with doing exactly that, often backed by private equity only to have an IPO again in relatively short period of time at much higher valuation. I don't question Al's integrity but I absolutely think he considers a higher calling when evaluating his next move, I really don't think Al has any love for shareholders and am beginning to question whether our interests even align any longer. For instance, Al will need to finance MNKDs survival as a public company and the only way he would do this is through massive dilution like we've never seen before with an enormous equity component. Why would he choose to finance this operation as a public entity with all that entails as opposed to taking it private (which he absolutely could at these prices) and then benefit off of full ownership. I find it ironic that we are where we are currently after seeing the idea pop up in the past about Al taking the company private and the author of such an idea was always booed off stage as a "basher", I was of the opinion this would never be a possibility and always wrote these ideas off as nonsense, but now, feeling like a Grade-A idiot.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 25, 2015 14:34:18 GMT -5
ricguy I bet we haven't, it can only get much worse, I believe Goldman has every intention of hitting their seemingly "magical" price target. dreamboatcruise and peppy I can't see how Mann won't* take MNKD private once we hit a Market Cap of $500mil (which were heading), how could he not?! I sure would if I were him, even if he sold the company today at a 50% premium (which is pretty steep) we'd only be looking at about $3.68, would Al even cover his principal on that? Why would he sell it now and only make 50% on his 40% share of ownership when he could take it private and make 50% on the entire worth of the company? What am I missing here? Well, the game plan of purposely being passive and allowing share price to drop with the intent to do that is a clear violation of fiduciary duty. Even without that plan a piori, it raises suspicion of such and potential for litigation. Though others have certainly gotten away with doing exactly that, often backed by private equity only to have an IPO again in relatively short period of time at much higher valuation. jeremg, to answer your question; I have been digging for days. I relaxed today when I saw this: screencast.com/t/xuecdFUPi screencast.com/t/HUNAFigK screencast.com/t/71tA7ZPHnjVs screencast.com/t/Vlx5pcJZ screencast.com/t/Gxfbnv02p71 screencast.com/t/wlqvltasM4 screencast.com/t/48GRokdv56
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No one is talking about it but I am wondering if Al Mann is selling up a sale.
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 25, 2015 14:42:25 GMT -5
"purposely passive" --- what a term. Is that like "willful blindness" ?? It might qualify under scrutiny. Right now, equity valuation and debt is a fraction of what's been invested. Goldman tripled their position last quarter. Will they do it again this quarter? Correct me if I am wrong, but shorting for the purposes of price manipulation is illegal but the SEC is essentially the de facto govt branch of GS. And we point our fingers at China for corruption. Laugh of the day! (I just laughed, did you?) Sorry, clarification... my comment was regarding the part about Al potentially taking the company private. As stated above, I've previously been burned by management teams that seemingly sat by doing nothing "passive" while they reported discouraging results (truthful) with no plan or outlook and got beat up by analysts... then they end up partnering with some private equity, buying the company on cheap and 18 months later miraculously they are out saying how amazingly bright their future is as they do an IPO far higher than the price I got paid for my shares. I do not for a moment think they did not have a plan to allow the the share price to tank... but it is very difficult to prove intent when the action was "lack of action". I DO NOT believe Al would do this. Though it sure seems that MNKD could become an excellent candidate for that... presuming that those that really know pharma have insight into how the barriers to adoption will be resolved. dreamboatcruise I agree, and am willing to give everyone, and I mean everyone, the benefit of a doubt, if they finally step up to the plate to stop this attack (which appears to be illegal manipulation, at least during instances of naked shorting and there have been dozens!). The way I see it, a few hundred people took on the challenge normally reserved for a big pharma, made progress and then: 1. Were thwarted by Shrekeli's letters to FDA, delaying approval for a couple of years while Shrekeli made money shorting. Why is this guy not in jail? 2. Relocated facility. 3. Got Afrezza approved, then came under incessant, relentless attack by various hedge funds which continues to this day. How to stop the vicious cycle, that's the question. The stock is worth 5-10x as much if the manipulation stopped. If I were a candidate for the CEO position, I'd probably have some detectives looking into what the threats have been and continue to be, what the options are to deal with them, and "how can I provide my services to you, Dr. Mann? Can we talk?" That's way out of my league, way way out, but we all know, including SEC that repetitive manipulation is ongoing ( multiple offenses ) so, that's one of the first orders of business. Everything else is small potatoes (or yams or gravy as the case may be).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 14:45:02 GMT -5
peppy.. can you connect the dots for me and post your thesis? i am all out of ink for the past few months by the cryptic messages here lol
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 25, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -5
Wonderful peppy. I wonder if compound26 would think those worthy of a sidebar on the website? That's the kind of stuff the world needs to see.
|
|
|
Post by jeremg on Nov 25, 2015 14:49:18 GMT -5
So you think he may be preparing the company to be sold by bolstering the patent portfolio?
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 25, 2015 14:50:34 GMT -5
peppy.. can you connect the dots for me and post your thesis? i am all out of ink for the past few months by the cryptic messages here lol I have no real clue, just guessing here. These are some of the patents. particularly interesting because they have to do with cancer and immunology. Now speculation and speculation is frowned upon. consider the time has come these patents could be important. consider al secures afrezza lives at an affordable price point and sells the rest. Just a thought that passed through. tell me what is wrong with my thinking.
|
|
|
Post by jeremg on Nov 25, 2015 14:58:46 GMT -5
Al selling the company before year-end with the holidays (and my Birthday) right around the corner would be the best gift I could possibly ask for. If he could somehow eek out $2bil+ (I know, complete and utter wishful speculation) I would happily walk away and never look back at Biotech or individual securities for as long as I lived, so help me god. I think if he cares about his legacy more than the amount of money lost/made, he may consider selling off to a BP who can give Afrezza and Technosphere a real shot, this would entail him ceding defeat to Wall Street though and he may not be willing to do this.
|
|
|
Post by jeremg on Nov 25, 2015 15:02:00 GMT -5
Well, the game plan of purposely being passive and allowing share price to drop with the intent to do that is a clear violation of fiduciary duty. Even without that plan a piori, it raises suspicion of such and potential for litigation. Though others have certainly gotten away with doing exactly that, often backed by private equity only to have an IPO again in relatively short period of time at much higher valuation. There's nothing in Al's history that suggests he would do this (especially at this age). Most of his fortunes were made from fighting through times like these, and not financial engineering. Al is a smart enough man where history should not dictate what moves he is willing or not willing to make in his business ventures. It would not be immoral for Al to make the move which is best for himself and his legacy, it would just be painful for us as speculators in this stock.
|
|
|
Post by doodyfree on Nov 25, 2015 15:24:13 GMT -5
There's nothing in Al's history that suggests he would do this (especially at this age). Most of his fortunes were made from fighting through times like these, and not financial engineering. Al is a smart enough man where history should not dictate what moves he is willing or not willing to make in his business ventures. It would not be immoral for Al to make the move which is best for himself and his legacy, it would just be painful for us as speculators in this stock. What's more likely? A person making a decision based on their personality and past behavior, or doing something totally out of character? You're proposing this based on your logic and behavior, not his. I don't think Al "cares" about shareholders, at the same time, he's not motivated by money. More on his work and simply because he wants to win, I don't see him capitulating to recover loss. Also, MNKD has billions in tax credits + patents + afrezza. I don't buy the discussion about 500M valuations.
|
|
|
Post by jeremg on Nov 25, 2015 15:33:58 GMT -5
Al is a smart enough man where history should not dictate what moves he is willing or not willing to make in his business ventures. It would not be immoral for Al to make the move which is best for himself and his legacy, it would just be painful for us as speculators in this stock. What's more likely? A person making a decision based on their personality and past behavior, or doing something totally out of character? You're proposing this based on your logic and behavior, not his. I don't think Al "cares" about shareholders, at the same time, he's not motivated by money. More on his work and simply because he wants to win, I don't see him capitulating to recover loss. Also, MNKD has billions in tax credits + patents + afrezza. I don't buy the discussion about 500M valuations. I think you are still confusing Al's best interest with your own. It's not about the money for Al, its about his legacy and the success of his product. As long as MNKD is traded on WS, its value is dictated by WS, so if WS give it a $500mil valuation, this is what a buyer of this publicly traded company would be willing to pay (plus a small premium). It doesnt really matter if you "buy the discussion about 500M valuations" just as a few months ago I'm sure you wouldn't have bought the discussion about a $900mil valuation. This idealistic thinking is not for me.
|
|
|
Post by doodyfree on Nov 25, 2015 15:58:51 GMT -5
What's more likely? A person making a decision based on their personality and past behavior, or doing something totally out of character? You're proposing this based on your logic and behavior, not his. I don't think Al "cares" about shareholders, at the same time, he's not motivated by money. More on his work and simply because he wants to win, I don't see him capitulating to recover loss. Also, MNKD has billions in tax credits + patents + afrezza. I don't buy the discussion about 500M valuations. I think you are still confusing Al's best interest with your own. It's not about the money for Al, its about his legacy and the success of his product. As long as MNKD is traded on WS, its value is dictated by WS, so if WS give it a $500mil valuation, this is what a buyer of this publicly traded company would be willing to pay (plus a small premium). It doesnt really matter if you "buy the discussion about 500M valuations" just as a few months ago I'm sure you wouldn't have bought the discussion about a $900mil valuation. This idealistic thinking is not for me. Read my response again. "I don't think Al "cares" about shareholders, at the same time, he's not motivated by money." Where did you get that I'm aligning his interest with my own? Its not a serious discussion when its all about your ideas/agenda; and you don't bother to read responses. Your theory is as much a guess as mine, they are not facts either. My post was about past-history and personality; and what's he's more likely to do. How is that bias? And why am i idealistic? Because I'm pointing out his past behavior, or because I'm pointing out that anyone buying MNKD can take advantage of its tax credits?
|
|