|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 16:50:29 GMT -5
SO has been projecting sales forward using a simple trend approach. Nate says it’s nonsense and to expect a hockey stick. Announcements like this are why SO projections are nonsense. There is no forward looking variable in what he does. Entirely based upon historical performance. Instead of his commentary along the lines that this is one less excuse for MNKD if they can’t sell. Why not “this could really change my prior projections by....” He presents what he is doing honestly. If you don't want analysis based on what has happened to date, simply don't read him. He's a numbers guy. There are plenty of sources for speculation about a wide range of what could happen in the future... and mostly they've gotten MNKD wrong so far, both the negative end of the spectrum and the positive.
|
|
|
Post by cedafuntennis on May 4, 2018 17:02:45 GMT -5
CVS inclusion has been announced a few weeks ago. The FDA news is a few days old. It is always a large gap between when an insurance changes coverage and when it is reported, hence I strongly believe that it has NOTHING to do with the REMS removal. The two have to be looked at separate positive events driven by separate decisions. Both should contribute in their own way to the sales, with the insurance being higher up on the totem pole than the REMS in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by cedafuntennis on May 4, 2018 17:04:58 GMT -5
Yes, I was not on Spencer's side, but I read him as he was always very informed and generally accurate. This was a positive article and more so, his answers to comments by other detractors were very good. This is meaningful in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 17:06:13 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there are restrictions on changing formularies midyear for the Exchange plans? It seems odd there would be such a drastic change in Commercial plans but not Exchange, since the Exchange plans are offered by the same companies. Why would UnitedHealth Group have 89% Covered for Commercial and 77% Not Covered for their Exchange plans. I would think it's the same committees/board that decides the formularies. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by celo on May 4, 2018 17:07:16 GMT -5
SO has been projecting sales forward using a simple trend approach. Nate says it’s nonsense and to expect a hockey stick. Announcements like this are why SO projections are nonsense. There is no forward looking variable in what he does. Entirely based upon historical performance. Instead of his commentary along the lines that this is one less excuse for MNKD if they can’t sell. Why not “this could really change my prior projections by....” I would say most times he rehashes all the prior negative data points concerning Afrezza for the last few years. He didn't do that this time. Made for a more positive sounding article.
|
|
|
Post by veritasfiliatemporis on May 4, 2018 17:09:58 GMT -5
Sorry I do not agree.. numbers are numbers but there are different ways to read it... scripts numbers also A1C numbers you can pick the ones you like.. I pick the second ones... he picked always the first ones... I suppose
|
|
|
Post by pat on May 4, 2018 17:14:01 GMT -5
DBC - he’s not a numbers guy. That’s my point.
His approach is simplistic and miss leading.
But you have a point about not reading him.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 17:40:29 GMT -5
DBC - he’s not a numbers guy. That’s my point. His approach is simplistic and miss leading. But you have a point about not reading him. SO presents way more data analysis than most anyone else talking about MNKD, Nate and MK inclusive. He explains what he's doing, so I don't see where you think he is misleading. Yes, he doesn't factor in a hockey stick into his sales model, but Nate has never even had a model where he tries to predict sales growth over some period... he merely says he believes in the hockey stick theory and thus don't worry about doing analysis on past data (my paraphrasing of what he seems to be saying). If there begins to be evidence of exponential growth (and the data doesn't seem to support that yet), I'm sure SO will adjust his models. To me it seems pretty straight forward what he's presenting (i.e. the opposite of misleading). If you don't want to look at the status quo reality and prefer to focus on the might be's of the future, he's not your guy. I used to do my own modeling similar to what SO was doing to try to ascertain cash burn and working capital requirement over time. Now that management is giving guidance on cash burn, I'm willing to accept that rather than bothering to estimate myself.
|
|
|
Post by digger on May 4, 2018 17:48:46 GMT -5
Can anyone check this website -- lookup.decisionresourcesgroup.com It looks like an alternative to formularylookup. I tried myself but form some reason it won't cooperate; every drug I tried came up with a little red "x" beside it.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 18:05:38 GMT -5
Can anyone check this website -- lookup.decisionresourcesgroup.com It looks like an alternative to formularylookup. I tried myself but form some reason it won't cooperate; every drug I tried came up with a little red "x" beside it. You have to scroll down below the drugs and select up to 5 insurance plans. They don't have ability to show summary info. I guess it's meant for consumers to be able to check on the plans their employers offer to see if there drugs are covered. It appears that most of the United Health plans are showing as Not Covered. So looks like there is discrepancy between this site and formularylookup.com. Though I guess if there really were a change just now, some sites might update quicker than others. Hoping improvement is real... but not yet jumping on board with celebration.
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on May 4, 2018 18:52:23 GMT -5
DBC - he’s not a numbers guy. That’s my point. His approach is simplistic and miss leading. But you have a point about not reading him. SO presents way more data analysis than most anyone else talking about MNKD, Nate and MK inclusive. He explains what he's doing, so I don't see where you think he is misleading. Yes, he doesn't factor in a hockey stick into his sales model, but Nate has never even had a model where he tries to predict sales growth over some period... he merely says he believes in the hockey stick theory and thus don't worry about doing analysis on past data (my paraphrasing of what he seems to be saying). If there begins to be evidence of exponential growth (and the data doesn't seem to support that yet), I'm sure SO will adjust his models. To me it seems pretty straight forward what he's presenting (i.e. the opposite of misleading). If you don't want to look at the status quo reality and prefer to focus on the might be's of the future, he's not your guy. I used to do my own modeling similar to what SO was doing to try to ascertain cash burn and working capital requirement over time. Now that management is giving guidance on cash burn, I'm willing to accept that rather than bothering to estimate myself. SO does ZERO analysis and has little understanding of diabetes. SO is a numbers recorder and makes "projections" based on simple regression. Historical performance will not predict future results when it comes to MNKD. It seems all the bad news is now behind MNKD, studies have been found and MNKD has on board a huge player in the community. The only question is when will sales take off; 1 year; 2 years; or 3 years. Brandicourt said 2020 which is 2 years. Until then cash will continue to come into the company as needed through additional offerings. How many is the question; 1; 2; or 3. Mike has kept the ship afloat and now has a real navigator in Dr. Kendall who can get MNKD to the promised land. None of that in SO analysis but it is in Nates.
|
|
|
Post by kball on May 4, 2018 19:05:36 GMT -5
Have to say its been a while since i've been following every twist and turn (squirm) with mannkind...
but this news sounds absolutely outstanding.
Certainly nice news going into shareholder meeting
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 19:14:06 GMT -5
SO presents way more data analysis than most anyone else talking about MNKD, Nate and MK inclusive. He explains what he's doing, so I don't see where you think he is misleading. Yes, he doesn't factor in a hockey stick into his sales model, but Nate has never even had a model where he tries to predict sales growth over some period... he merely says he believes in the hockey stick theory and thus don't worry about doing analysis on past data (my paraphrasing of what he seems to be saying). If there begins to be evidence of exponential growth (and the data doesn't seem to support that yet), I'm sure SO will adjust his models. To me it seems pretty straight forward what he's presenting (i.e. the opposite of misleading). If you don't want to look at the status quo reality and prefer to focus on the might be's of the future, he's not your guy. I used to do my own modeling similar to what SO was doing to try to ascertain cash burn and working capital requirement over time. Now that management is giving guidance on cash burn, I'm willing to accept that rather than bothering to estimate myself. SO does ZERO analysis and has little understanding of diabetes. SO is a numbers recorder and makes "projections" based on simple regression.
Historical performance will not predict future results when it comes to MNKD. It seems all the bad news is now behind MNKD, studies have been found and MNKD has on board a huge player in the community. The only question is when will sales take off; 1 year; 2 years; or 3 years. Brandicourt said 2020 which is 2 years. Until then cash will continue to come into the company as needed through additional offerings. How many is the question; 1; 2; or 3. Mike has kept the ship afloat and now has a real navigator in Dr. Kendall who can get MNKD to the promised land. None of that in SO analysis but it is in Nates. LOL... so building models on past data is NOT analysis... OK. One must use a Ouiji board to qualify as analysis? If you want to believe historical data has no relevance to MNKD... fine. You can believe that for any company and to the extent its true for any company then analysis and model building on past data won't be useful. Don't knock someone for simply presenting the reality of the here and now. You claim SO isn't a numbers guy and give as evidence that he doesn't speculate that Dr. Kendall will get us to the promised land? I think you have a very different concept of numbers than most people. I'm an engineer by training, so numbers analysis absolutely doesn't involve dreaming about the promised land. I engage in that sometimes being a long suffering shareholder, but I certainly can separate wishful thinking from looking at the reality of a company's current financial situation.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 4, 2018 19:35:46 GMT -5
RisingSkeptic is not happy:-)
“I would SERIOUSLY question the results offered by formularylookup. I have looked up many of the formularies where they alleged there was tier 3 coverage only to find afrezza wasn't even ON the formulary.”
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 19:55:05 GMT -5
Skeptic... it's right there in his name. Are you skeptical that he is sincere?
|
|