|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 2:20:34 GMT -5
Position of strength? The fact that we are even in the position of having to effect a reverse should tell you about the competence of management. The CEO can kiss my ass. If the company had anything at all lined up that might avoid delisting then it wouldn’t be asking for this option. Its got nothing. MNKD 2.0 was a bust. Now they are revamping again. Three times a charm?
Our CEO, has developed a pattern of waiting until the last minute to rescue the company and it's no way to run a company at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if its repeated in the not too distant future. I said as much in another thread and got attacked because there’s too much cognitive dissonance on this board. The thread got removed
Anyways, the proxy vote indicates that there are two options the board may elect to choose. A 1 for 3 or a 1 for 10.The question is why is the 1 for 3 even there. If the reverse is just to help avoid delisting then the 1 for three might be enough to do it. But they couldn’t dilute effectively after that on a 1 to 3 as far as I can see. A 1 to 3 wouldn’t be as bad and as much as I hate reverses (I have been through enough of them thanks very much) even I could tolerate that.But if they elect to go 1 for 10 then I suspect that dilution will follow not to soon after. If you're more than marginally under water you can probably kiss your investment goodbye for a long long long time.
Now the 1 for 3 could be a smoke screen that they never intend to follow and have the intention of using the delisting issue as a opportunity to set up conditions favourable for dilution. And in my opinion the company wouldn’t blink twice about sacrificing the shareholders who have been here for a while. Would be nice to know if the reverse is solely to deal with the delisting issue but even now in this situation management hasn’t the integrity to be transparent with its own shareholders. Pathetic.
Maybe someone should ask the CEO; not that we’ll get a straight answer but you never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Feb 3, 2017 6:06:21 GMT -5
I see the problem with a 1 for 3 being a short term solution. That would take us to the $1.75 range. A 40% haircut from that (after the wolves drive the price down) and we're right back to the one dollar range. A 1 for 10 puts us at mid 3's after a similar decline. Why would they want to be right back to de-listing range after the reverse? I don't see a 1 for 3 happening. Of course trying to forecast what this management does is pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 3, 2017 7:27:04 GMT -5
What are your reverse stock split options?
Reasons for a Reverse Split
Corporations initiate reverse splits for several reasons, among them respectability. Companies with low stock prices are often regarded with derision by investors and analysts. A low price raises the specter of bankruptcy and liquidation – not a winning profile for a company. By raising the stock price through a reverse split, a company is looking to increase interest in the stock. It also may raise the stock price above the minimum required for margin investing – usually $5 per share. Margin investing involves borrowing part of a stock’s purchase price from a broker.
Reevaluating Your Position
In light of a reverse split, it makes sense to re-examine the stock and verify that it is still worth holding. Your original analysis may have predicted a rise in the stock price, but the reverse split usually indicates that stock prices have fallen. You also want to ascertain the company’s credit risk to determine if it can it pay its debt or if it's suffered a credit rating downgrade. A high debt-to-equity ratio may be a red flag that signals an inability to make interest payments. If earnings are down or sales margins have dropped, it may be time to unload your shares.
Option One: Sell the Stock
If you reevaluate the stock and find it wanting, you can simply sell the stock and invest your money in a safer company. If you feel the stock is a real loser, you can take more aggressive steps, such as shorting the stock or buying put options – both of these strategies profit from stock price declines. Shorting involves selling borrowed shares and repurchasing them later at a lower price. Put options give you the right to sell the shares at a price that may be above the future market price.
Option Two: Stand Pat
If you're undecided about the stock, you can wait for further clarity before taking action. If your opinion is slightly negative, you can sell covered calls against the shares. Each call you sell may obligate you to deliver 100 shares of your stock for the stated strike price. In return, you keep the premium paid by the call buyer for the option. Your benefit from instant income, which can cushion a stock price decline, but you give up any gains should the stock move above the strike price.
Option Three: Buy More
You may conclude that the reverse split is part of a winning strategy that will boost the long-term value of the stock. Buying more shares is an affirmation that you feel the company is sound and won't be undergoing bankruptcy. If a competitor company reaches the same conclusion, it may attempt a takeover, which will cause your stock to rise sharply.
---
Source: Zacks Investment Research
|
|
|
|
Post by cgiscgis on Feb 3, 2017 7:34:58 GMT -5
Matt is incompetent, period! Every time I write about his failures my posts get deleted as well. So much for free speech!
|
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 12:00:31 GMT -5
I see the problem with a 1 for 3 being a short term solution. That would take us to the $1.75 range. A 40% haircut from that (after the wolves drive the price down) and we're right back to the one dollar range. A 1 for 10 puts us at mid 3's after a similar decline. Why would they want to be right back to de-listing range after the reverse? I don't see a 1 for 3 happening. Of course trying to forecast what this management does is pointless. Dont you think management is aware of this? So, I'll ask again... Why is the 1 to 3 there then? Let's assume its a short term solution to the delisting issue only which the 1 to 10 is as well but only a little longer. If, and that's a big if, MNKD in the next 4 weeks is able to get the share price closer to $1 by closing some deal, distribution, co promotion, scripts up or anything then the 1 to 3 brings us to around $3 without the slaughter that the 1 to 10 promotes. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2017 14:03:40 GMT -5
Position of strength? The fact that we are even in the position of having to effect a reverse should tell you about the competence of management. The CEO can kiss my ass. If the company had anything at all lined up that might avoid delisting then it wouldn’t be asking for this option. Its got nothing. MNKD 2.0 was a bust. Now they are revamping again. Three times a charm? Our CEO, has developed a pattern of waiting until the last minute to rescue the company and it's no way to run a company at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if its repeated in the not too distant future. I said as much in another thread and got attacked because there’s too much cognitive dissonance on this board. The thread got removed All probably know I'm not a cheer leading "real long", but characterizing the past year as a bust I think is overly pessimistic. Yes, script count is basically dreadful. However, the improvement in payer coverage (and PA success rate) is a significant accomplishment, as well as cleaning up the balance sheet... and hopefully figuring out how to minimize new patient attrition with better titration/education. YES... all of that has to start moving needle on scripts ASAP or we are all facing significant dilution. I do agree that CEO has that pattern. I would suspect this is rooted in a predilection for being overly optimistic. I think MNKD has put together a management team that is dedicated and enthusiastic about the prospects for Afrezza and MNKD. It takes a really skilled CEO to feed and nourish that sort of enthusiasm and optimism on a daily basis as is needed in a turn around situation, and yet very soberly prepare for the worst. If/when Matt turns around MNKD, he probably will be much better when he is hired as CEO of another company needing a turn around  |
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 15:40:10 GMT -5
Position of strength? The fact that we are even in the position of having to effect a reverse should tell you about the competence of management. The CEO can kiss my ass. If the company had anything at all lined up that might avoid delisting then it wouldn’t be asking for this option. Its got nothing. MNKD 2.0 was a bust. Now they are revamping again. Three times a charm? Our CEO, has developed a pattern of waiting until the last minute to rescue the company and it's no way to run a company at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if its repeated in the not too distant future. I said as much in another thread and got attacked because there’s too much cognitive dissonance on this board. The thread got removed All probably know I'm not a cheer leading "real long", but characterizing the past year as a bust I think is overly pessimistic. Yes, script count is basically dreadful. However, the improvement in payer coverage (and PA success rate) is a significant accomplishment, as well as cleaning up the balance sheet... and hopefully figuring out how to minimize new patient attrition with better titration/education. YES... all of that has to start moving needle on scripts ASAP or we are all facing significant dilution. I do agree that CEO has that pattern. I would suspect this is rooted in a predilection for being overly optimistic. I think MNKD has put together a management team that is dedicated and enthusiastic about the prospects for Afrezza and MNKD. It takes a really skilled CEO to feed and nourish that sort of enthusiasm and optimism on a daily basis as is needed in a turn around situation, and yet very soberly prepare for the worst. If/when Matt turns around MNKD, he probably will be much better when he is hired as CEO of another company needing a turn around I was addressing the success of MNKD 2.0 in the context of discussion of the reverse and possible dilution not as a general assessment summary of their accomplishments in the last six months so in this sense it was a bust and I believe more accurate than overly pessimistic. I didnt say that everything they tried to do in 2.0 was a bust just like I didnt say that the 1 for 3 or the 1 for 10 splits were the only options on the table.I assume that people have read or will read the proxy and was considering both outside split options. The thread is about the split and possible dilution not about MNKD 2.0 in general. I have posted elsewhere that they have accomplished quite a bit under horrible conditions. |
|
