|
Post by rockstarrick on May 30, 2017 20:21:54 GMT -5
And the funniest thing was the shorts knew this, they knew it because BP was, and still is funding the short. This is one of those things that gets continually repeated which is flatly untrue. There is no way BP could fund a short if they wanted to, the simple mechanics of getting the money to the shorts precludes it. If Afrezza really was seen as a threat they would simply have a price war, that's how large well funded companies crush the small fry. The reality is that shorting Mannkind has been extremely profitable so there is no need for any wizard behind the curtain to fund shorts. If a company cannot manage to sell it's products and is short of cash it is going to get heavily shorted, that's a fact of being a public company. Aged, we were sitting around 50 million shares short before approval, as our share price increased, so did our short interest. It doesn't make good sense to short a company that is rising, like from $4/share with 50 million short all the way up to $11.75/share with close to a 100 million shares short. This is not typical shorting in my opinion, this was an attempt by someone with a lot of money, to destroy Mannkind and afrezza. Also, the confidence the shorts displayed as our share price increased, they knew Sanofi was going to screw us, they even told us, we just didn't want to believe it. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it on this subject. Take care
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on May 30, 2017 20:34:07 GMT -5
100% spot-on Rock. Sanofi had it in for us on Day 1 and window dressed an empty cupboard with no Afrezza sales to speak of, under a smoke & mirrors cover. Then, the coast became clear for Sanofi to try and BK MNKD once Viehbacher was ousted & Al passed on. I will never, ever, forget that harsh lesson forced upon me. I never saw the deceit coming and trusted our partner as Al did, remaining a vocal supporter of Sanofi & ignoring the warning signs. I was so wrong! Well guess what? Sanofi is already regretting cutting MNKD loose. Their dastardly attempt to buy Afrezza on the cheap after trying very hard to BK MNKD has failed miserably, the worm is beginning to turn, and now it's Sanofi that must live the consequences of their horrific actions! And, don't think for a NY second that Michael C isn't aware of the true story here. Looking forward to his visionary leadership to take Afrezza to the next level. We lost a few battles that were very tough to endure, but we are going to win this! The winds of war shifted in our favor today. Onwards! Oh I bought it too, I defended the "soft launch", stuck up for Sanofi every time anybody tried to call their bluff. I was caught completely off guard. After listening to the Adcom, and hearing the testimonials from Everybody, then getting the voting results, what could possibly go wrong, probably the same thing Al was thinking, we got this. And then along came Sanofi. I hope Mike C sends it through the roof. I remember the day it was announced the partnership was ending, the share price dipped to .64/share, people were bailing out. I purchased another 10,000 shares. Try explaining that to your wife 😜 Good Luck Everybody
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 30, 2017 20:41:34 GMT -5
I still want to see where Matt lands. I think that will be meaningful information, one way or another. Specifically, was he pushed out or was it his own decision. Sadly, he seems to have a history of leaving companies soon before they collapse and after he's sucked about as much out of them as he could.
|
|
|
Post by reality on May 30, 2017 21:03:55 GMT -5
I am not so sure that Sanofi sabotaged Mannkind as many believe. I spent a good hour talking to a pharma phd who was supposed to be one of the people charge of the Afrezza unit at Sanofi in Bridgewater, NJ back in 2015. I was complaining about the slow sales, the lack of DTC etc etc..The issues of that day that Mannkind kept bringing up. Basically they did think that Afrezza was a good product yet they were not able to get traction on it. Why, I couldn't tell, but they were committed to sales staff and trying very hard to get the script counts up. Remember these were experts too. They did feel it was a novel product yet they also felt that Drs were not prescribing it. They did want it to succeed. If you think about it, if they didn't, why would they have spent $150M upfront and a commitment of $750M thereafter? the issue was indeed that they did switch CEOs' but this had to do with their own situation and nothing to do with Mannkind. Let's please get that clear.
As far as Mannkind and Matt, they were way (and STILL) are way too slow to react. Matt has been living in the past and in the shadows of Al Mann for many years. Sometimes the people that hurt you the most are the people that you trust the most. Al Mann never found that out, but in hindsight it was as clear as day.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 30, 2017 21:59:53 GMT -5
This is one of those things that gets continually repeated which is flatly untrue. There is no way BP could fund a short if they wanted to, the simple mechanics of getting the money to the shorts precludes it. If Afrezza really was seen as a threat they would simply have a price war, that's how large well funded companies crush the small fry. The reality is that shorting Mannkind has been extremely profitable so there is no need for any wizard behind the curtain to fund shorts. If a company cannot manage to sell it's products and is short of cash it is going to get heavily shorted, that's a fact of being a public company. Aged, we were sitting around 50 million shares short before approval, as our share price increased, so did our short interest. It doesn't make good sense to short a company that is rising, like from $4/share with 50 million short all the way up to $11.75/share with close to a 100 million shares short. This is not typical shorting in my opinion, this was an attempt by someone with a lot of money, to destroy Mannkind and afrezza. Also, the confidence the shorts displayed as our share price increased, they knew Sanofi was going to screw us, they even told us, we just didn't want to believe it. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it on this subject. Take care I can accept being wrong. I invested in DVAX as well, another sterling choice. I got into Mannkind in mid-2015 so the ADCOM moves were before my time. Looking at the example you gave I take it that is the period from late March to mid June 2014. Looking at the history that goes between a Feurestein hit piece and the peak following the ADCOM. I have a couple of thoughts on that chart. If the driver for believing Afrezza would fail is because Exubera failed then that spike is an opportunity rather than a threat. The other thought is that it peaked at a multi-year high but very close to where it had peaked before. If you were riding the trade up that would be an exit point. Now I do think that the stock price is/has been manipulated but that is almost inevitable for a company the size of Mannkind. I could easily see speculators selling into that rise to average up if they believed it would fall again (not an unreasonable assumption given history). Of course the danger for shorts is that it may seem logical that a stock will fall but the danger is in that old saying - the market can remain illogical longer than you can remain solvent. So why not BP? The amount of money involved is to large to hide so it would come to light really fast. If over three months the short went up 50M and the price went up $7 then I cannot see the revenue from shorting being much under $200M. That's a lot of cash to hide in a quarter. The story would have leaked, it's just to big. That's my justification
|
|
|
Post by wgreystone on May 31, 2017 0:16:29 GMT -5
I am not so sure that Sanofi sabotaged Mannkind as many believe. I spent a good hour talking to a pharma phd who was supposed to be one of the people charge of the Afrezza unit at Sanofi in Bridgewater, NJ back in 2015. I was complaining about the slow sales, the lack of DTC etc etc..The issues of that day that Mannkind kept bringing up. Basically they did think that Afrezza was a good product yet they were not able to get traction on it. Why, I couldn't tell, but they were committed to sales staff and trying very hard to get the script counts up. Remember these were experts too. They did feel it was a novel product yet they also felt that Drs were not prescribing it. They did want it to succeed. If you think about it, if they didn't, why would they have spent $150M upfront and a commitment of $750M thereafter? the issue was indeed that they did switch CEOs' but this had to do with their own situation and nothing to do with Mannkind. Let's please get that clear. As far as Mannkind and Matt, they were way (and STILL) are way too slow to react. Matt has been living in the past and in the shadows of Al Mann for many years. Sometimes the people that hurt you the most are the people that you trust the most. Al Mann never found that out, but in hindsight it was as clear as day. $150M for 65% right of a FDA approved drug which caused $1.8B to develop was just totally a bad deal. You can't find any deal worse than this. Even if you discount the development cost to $1B (as MNKD did made some mistake along the way), Sanofi should still pay at least $650M upfront fee. With market cap around $4B at that time, just don't understand why MNKD didn't keep going-alone as an option.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on May 31, 2017 1:22:24 GMT -5
I am not so sure that Sanofi sabotaged Mannkind as many believe. I spent a good hour talking to a pharma phd who was supposed to be one of the people charge of the Afrezza unit at Sanofi in Bridgewater, NJ back in 2015. I was complaining about the slow sales, the lack of DTC etc etc..The issues of that day that Mannkind kept bringing up. Basically they did think that Afrezza was a good product yet they were not able to get traction on it. Why, I couldn't tell, but they were committed to sales staff and trying very hard to get the script counts up. Remember these were experts too. They did feel it was a novel product yet they also felt that Drs were not prescribing it. They did want it to succeed. If you think about it, if they didn't, why would they have spent $150M upfront and a commitment of $750M thereafter? the issue was indeed that they did switch CEOs' but this had to do with their own situation and nothing to do with Mannkind. Let's please get that clear. As far as Mannkind and Matt, they were way (and STILL) are way too slow to react. Matt has been living in the past and in the shadows of Al Mann for many years. Sometimes the people that hurt you the most are the people that you trust the most. Al Mann never found that out, but in hindsight it was as clear as day. $150M for 65% right of a FDA approved drug which caused $1.8B to develop was just totally a bad deal. You can't find any deal worse than this. Even if you discount the development cost to $1B (as MNKD did made some mistake along the way), Sanofi should still pay at least $650M upfront fee. With market cap around $4B at that time, just don't understand why MNKD didn't keep going-alone as an option. What hyperbole - I don't think I've ever seen a bigger hyperbole. But one thing, if they had gone it alone, they would have short-circuited things - we may have known by now if we were rich or busted.
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on May 31, 2017 3:22:39 GMT -5
Aged, we were sitting around 50 million shares short before approval, as our share price increased, so did our short interest. It doesn't make good sense to short a company that is rising, like from $4/share with 50 million short all the way up to $11.75/share with close to a 100 million shares short. This is not typical shorting in my opinion, this was an attempt by someone with a lot of money, to destroy Mannkind and afrezza. Also, the confidence the shorts displayed as our share price increased, they knew Sanofi was going to screw us, they even told us, we just didn't want to believe it. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it on this subject. Take care I can accept being wrong. I invested in DVAX as well, another sterling choice. I got into Mannkind in mid-2015 so the ADCOM moves were before my time. Looking at the example you gave I take it that is the period from late March to mid June 2014. Looking at the history that goes between a Feurestein hit piece and the peak following the ADCOM. I have a couple of thoughts on that chart. If the driver for believing Afrezza would fail is because Exubera failed then that spike is an opportunity rather than a threat. The other thought is that it peaked at a multi-year high but very close to where it had peaked before. If you were riding the trade up that would be an exit point. Now I do think that the stock price is/has been manipulated but that is almost inevitable for a company the size of Mannkind. I could easily see speculators selling into that rise to average up if they believed it would fall again (not an unreasonable assumption given history). Of course the danger for shorts is that it may seem logical that a stock will fall but the danger is in that old saying - the market can remain illogical longer than you can remain solvent. So why not BP? The amount of money involved is to large to hide so it would come to light really fast. If over three months the short went up 50M and the price went up $7 then I cannot see the revenue from shorting being much under $200M. That's a lot of cash to hide in a quarter. The story would have leaked, it's just to big. That's my justification I had a long conversation with the lead chemist for Exubera. IMO he is a very creditable guy and very aware of what BP was trying to do to afrezza. In short he said BP threw the kitchen sink at MNKD to BK it and end afrezza. I always assumed and maybe incorrectly that SNY hired GS to short the stock with a $1.50 target. Then Schwarz went in the Onduo direction which won't be launching until 2018 and allowed SNY to put afrezza in the freezer. I assumed and again could be wrong this allowed further shorting to drive MNKD into BK which would allow SNY to pick up afrezza for nothing. But, they then gave MNKD enough $$$ to keep the lights on. Why? Where they just keeping MNKD under control until they were ready? Then along comes Tim Cook and Dachis. I think this may have blind sided Schwarz and his SNY plans. We will see but Apple without even knowing may have saved MNKD and gotten it out from under the thumb of SNY. IMO, don't take your eye off of Dachis. He is high energy and IMO from the ASM sees the value in afrezza and MNKD. What is clear today is afrezza should be prescribed for all T1s for occasional "correction" use. Mike C should be all over this and every Endo should be writing that script today. This would help in paying the electric bill. There is no excuse that his sales guys can't close that deal. For the T2s which is the huge market, if Ondou and/or Cook are successful for the first time T2s and T2s who did not even know they were T2s will be seeing their post meal BG hitting the 200+s. Afrezza stands alone at addressing the T2 root issue. Onduo/Cook are still a year away but WHO is showing up for the big show in a few days at ADA 2017 for the "Should T2s be using CGM discussion"? Mike C should be working with Kevin Sayer to pack the hall. In the mean time lets hope Matt and Mike have a few international deals and this will be Matt's farewell tribute to Al.
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on May 31, 2017 6:54:56 GMT -5
100% spot-on Rock. Sanofi had it in for us on Day 1 and window dressed an empty cupboard with no Afrezza sales to speak of, under a smoke & mirrors cover. Then, the coast became clear for Sanofi to try and BK MNKD once Viehbacher was ousted & Al passed on. I will never, ever, forget that harsh lesson forced upon me. I never saw the deceit coming and trusted our partner as Al did, remaining a vocal supporter of Sanofi & ignoring the warning signs. I was so wrong! Well guess what? Sanofi is already regretting cutting MNKD loose. Their dastardly attempt to buy Afrezza on the cheap after trying very hard to BK MNKD has failed miserably, the worm is beginning to turn, and now it's Sanofi that must live the consequences of their horrific actions! And, don't think for a NY second that Michael C isn't aware of the true story here. Looking forward to his visionary leadership to take Afrezza to the next level. We lost a few battles that were very tough to endure, but we are going to win this! The winds of war shifted in our favor today. Onwards! How do you know Sanofi has regrets? When did Sanofi attempt to buy Afrezza? I agree that the new CEO did not want to continue with Afrezza, but I don't now how you can make those claims as fact.
|
|
|
Post by kuka on May 31, 2017 8:05:57 GMT -5
Here is my theory ... Mike knew about the impending AMGEN Buyout ..there for he was not allowed to keep buying stock. I think he bought once on the open market. By making him CEO and BOD member he will allowed legally to buy stock via options once the Buy out is announced ...by the way...I think its going to be soon.
just my two cents ....
|
|
|
Post by promann on May 31, 2017 8:12:55 GMT -5
Here is my theory ... Mike knew about the impending AMGEN Buyout ..there for he was not allowed to keep buying stock. I think he bought once on the open market. By making him CEO and BOD member he will allowed legally to buy stock via options once the Buy out is announced ...by the way...I think its going to be soon. just my two cents .... Why such cheap comments at least give us a dime worth :-). If you are right it better be for enough for most of us stock holders way under water to make a profit. like at least 60.00 per share.
|
|
|
Post by gamblerjag on May 31, 2017 8:30:54 GMT -5
Here is my theory ... Mike knew about the impending AMGEN Buyout ..there for he was not allowed to keep buying stock. I think he bought once on the open market. By making him CEO and BOD member he will allowed legally to buy stock via options once the Buy out is announced ...by the way...I think its going to be soon. just my two cents .... Why such cheap comments at least give us a dime worth :-). If you are right it better be for enough for most of us stock holders way under water to make a profit. like at least 60.00 per share. hey pro. Being a gambling man and looking at odds I would seriously look at anyone saying buyout is in the works and look at their history on how often they have been incorrect on guesses but in saying that I agree with you that it better be $60 minimum if that was ever going to happen continued good luck
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on May 31, 2017 9:27:24 GMT -5
Why such cheap comments at least give us a dime worth :-). If you are right it better be for enough for most of us stock holders way under water to make a profit. like at least 60.00 per share. hey pro. Being a gambling man and looking at odds I would seriously look at anyone saying buyout is in the works and look at their history on how often they have been incorrect on guesses but in saying that I agree with you that it better be $60 minimum if that was ever going to happen continued good luck I hope it's in stock and not cash. Sell it if/when we get it, but I don't want to be forced out of my position of any company that picks up Afrezza/Mannkind.
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on May 31, 2017 12:25:25 GMT -5
But at what price if your assumption is correct? I think if scripts can continue to rise & MNKD has the MONEY to stay afloat, don't sell yet. We won't get our investment back since we are so far down. My .02
|
|
Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on May 31, 2017 12:28:03 GMT -5
hey pro. Being a gambling man and looking at odds I would seriously look at anyone saying buyout is in the works and look at their history on how often they have been incorrect on guesses but in saying that I agree with you that it better be $60 minimum if that was ever going to happen continued good luck I hope it's in stock and not cash. Sell it if/when we get it, but I don't want to be forced out of my position of any company that picks up Afrezza/Mannkind.Well said and this is probably the singularly most important statement that Long Term Shareholders (LTS) ought to consider very carefully and voice when/if the opportunity presents itself. Every LTS who has been holding MannKind stock since the IPO ought to be carefully considered by MannKind Corporation's BOD and properly recognized for their belief in Afrezza for diabetics and at some point later, the future promise of Technosphere. That said, should a much larger company come to the table with our Board of Directors, then the Board must deal from the perspective of the LTS of MannKind Corporation. In my view, the BOD needs to ensure any potential new owner truly recognize that a MannKind's LTS is a different breed of investor. Many MNKD LTS have been steadfast in their belief of the future of Afrezza and new TS combinations despite the deep errosion of the value of their MNKD investment. Some may see MNKD LTS as 'silly' but the MannKind Board should know their LTS are nothing but dead serious. The last thing the BOD should do is to agree to a cash offer alone. It would be unconscionable on their part to exclude individual LTS from the future value of the stock they've held for years. It would be wrong in my view. Rather, MannKind's BOD should work with any potential new owner to carve out a specific stock conversion offer for LTS including employees of MannKind who've held shares via a stock purchase plan (*and not options which are awarded at no cost). If your own money is not invested, then you do not count as a LTS. Naturally, they would need to define what constitutes a MannKind LTS. If I were to make such a decision, I would say that at the very least, any individual LTS who can show they've held XXX shares for a minimun of no less than 2 full years, then, those shares would be considered eligible for conversion. All other shares would be offered to be purchased with cash. I think that the above would be fair given the approval of Afrezza was in 2014. Then, LTS which meet such criteria could be offered a stock exchange option for some/all of their shares and only cash for those which do not meet this criteria. There needs to be a cut off right? Obviously, a stock exchange option would need to take into consideration the recent 5:1 reverse split, the value of the buying company's stock price with a % factored in for targeted sales of Afrezza through 2024 (10 years out from initial Approval). We need to be fair on this all around right? My point is, a LTS does not run when the going gets tough and they should be appropriately recognized for their steadfast loyalty in the event of a buyout offer. A partnership would be better at this point in time and down the road, LTS would benefit from a cash buyout once Afrezza sales reaches a significant level in 2024.
|
|