|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Nov 17, 2021 0:23:51 GMT -5
So I guess he was WRONG ... because he could have bought shares at 80 cents and looking at 600% gains today. Today up 9 cents ... so I can buy 2 new Infiniti Q50s today !!!
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Nov 17, 2021 6:01:04 GMT -5
When it comes to equities, successful investors focus on Fundamentals, fundamentals, fundamentals. Insider buys should be viewed as incidental. I'll be the first to admit that I let "slam dunk" emotion get in the way of due diligence when I first invested in MNKD. I had no idea that they were ill prepared for the delays that predated approval and the debacles and headwinds that followed after approval. On this board, most attention is directed toward the CEO, who garners the lion's share of the compensation. But all CEOs need committed and competent team members on their leadership team, and these women and men tend to be real people with families, mortgages and kids. They have a job to do, and their discretionary income is often plowed into things like low risk college savings plans for their kids, deferred compensation and tax sheltered annuities. I don't fault them for not throwing additional income at company stock for the sake of making an impression on shareholders. It's a lot more than "incidental". Insiders don't buy for the heck of it. Insider buying usually means the ones that know the most about the company are willing to put their own money on the line because they believe the stock is undervalued. Just look at how David Kendall never purchased shares even though he came in with such enthusiasm and stated early on at that first shareholder meeting he would be buying ASAP. Well, he probably saw the difficulties and knew it would not be a good use of his money. Yes it really is that simple. When insiders are spending their hard earned money on shares, it means they are convinced shares are priced at a bargain. Strange that the concept is difficult to grasp, for some of the same people who repeatedly assert that critical message board posts have a significant impact on share price. So they would have us believe that message board criticism is more relevant than inside share purchases. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 17, 2021 6:26:51 GMT -5
When Steve Wynn was still at WYNN and he thought the stock was undervalued he would start buying. That put a floor under the stock almost every time. I traded that stock for years by following his lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Nov 17, 2021 7:27:50 GMT -5
When Steve Wynn was still at WYNN and he thought the stock was undervalued he would start buying. That put a floor under the stock almost every time. I traded that stock for years by following his lead. It’s interesting that the anecdotal purchase of shares I most often see are multi-billionaires buying stock in their own companies that they established. I expect that for the very wealthy, it’s throwing a bone to the investors who lack confidence and who feel bolstered when they see a purchase by an insider who plainly isn’t investing and who can easily afford to lose the money. Why people argue this is important and influential evades me. It’s a nice to have. It is not objectionable but the insistence on the importance of it questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Nov 17, 2021 8:18:30 GMT -5
IMO, following insider buying can be a useful component of a strategy. I can't recall it ever moving the needle with MNKD except once when a large quantity was purchased by Kent Kresa. Even then the pps movement was temporary. Speculation can be endless as to why individual leaders might buy or sell, it just doesn't seem to matter with this company...at least not yet  |
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Nov 17, 2021 11:37:46 GMT -5
IMO, following insider buying can be a useful component of a strategy. I can't recall it ever moving the needle with MNKD except once when a large quantity was purchased by Kent Kresa. Even then the pps movement was temporary. Speculation can be endless as to why individual leaders might buy or sell, it just doesn't seem to matter with this company...at least not yet Well, Kresa's buy was part of an orchestrated fundraise and pump and dump so there were other factors at play there. It wasn't a big open market standalone purchase. |
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Nov 17, 2021 12:25:36 GMT -5
IMO, following insider buying can be a useful component of a strategy. I can't recall it ever moving the needle with MNKD except once when a large quantity was purchased by Kent Kresa. Even then the pps movement was temporary. Speculation can be endless as to why individual leaders might buy or sell, it just doesn't seem to matter with this company...at least not yet Well, Kresa's buy was part of an orchestrated fundraise and pump and dump so there were other factors at play there. It wasn't a big open market standalone purchase. Yes. That was the only exception I can recall and it didn't even fit the strategy of following insider buys with this company which is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by castlerockchris on Nov 17, 2021 14:04:50 GMT -5
I have always liked that Chris-C guy, and not just because of his name.
As a former senior executive at several public companies where I had options and personal holdings in my companies, there comes a point where you look at your net worth (Musk is doing this right now), and you assess the risk presented by holding more or less of your company's stock. There is a point where the company represents too much of your net worth and 100% of your income. You may have the highest conviction in the world that your company's valuation is going to the moon and it just doesn't matter because you already "own enough" and adding more is simply too risky. CEO's are accountable to their partners, spouses and families, and none that I know who were worth their salt valued anything more than their families and what those members thought of them. I have friends who went all in on their company, believing they had a great pulse on the company, were close to the CEO, etc. only to lose it all due to a drastic and unforeseeable reversal in the company's position, the economy, or world events (think the internet bubble, 9/11, 2007/2008 - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, COVID and the number companies it sank).
I don't blame anyone with options and existing holdings in their company for not adding more, or selling for that matter. There simply comes a point where the risk is too great and you have to protect it. If you don't you risk having a very uncomfortable conversation at the dinner table one day. What is the old saw, "Bulls make money, bears make money, but hogs get slaughtered." I admire those who avoid being slaughtered.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Nov 17, 2021 14:40:43 GMT -5
I have always liked that Chris-C guy, and not just because of his name. As a former senior executive at several public companies where I had options and personal holdings in my companies, there comes a point where you look at your net worth (Musk is doing this right now), and you assess the risk presented by holding more or less of your company's stock. There is a point where the company represents too much of your net worth and 100% of your income. You may have the highest conviction in the world that your company's valuation is going to the moon and it just doesn't matter because you already "own enough" and adding more is simply too risky. CEO's are accountable to their partners, spouses and families, and none that I know who were worth their salt valued anything more than their families and what those members thought of them. I have friends who went all in on their company, believing they had a great pulse on the company, were close to the CEO, etc. only to lose it all due to a drastic and unforeseeable reversal in the company's position, the economy, or world events (think the internet bubble, 9/11, 2007/2008 - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, COVID and the number companies it sank). I don't blame anyone with options and existing holdings in their company for not adding more, or selling for that matter. There simply comes a point where the risk is too great and you have to protect it. If you don't you risk having a very uncomfortable conversation at the dinner table one day. What is the old saw, "Bulls make money, bears make money, but hogs get slaughtered." I admire those who avoid being slaughtered. Well said. What I want to see is Mike execute on the plan which he has outlined. I am not sure between current shares Mike owns and options he holds which could be executed what Mike's holding would be worth if the pps was $10; $20; $50. If Mike signs the deal with a world wide partner who can really delivery on Al Mann's afrezza vision is $100pps really out of the question and if not what is Mike worth? |
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on Nov 29, 2021 15:25:52 GMT -5
I have always liked that Chris-C guy, and not just because of his name. As a former senior executive at several public companies where I had options and personal holdings in my companies, there comes a point where you look at your net worth (Musk is doing this right now), and you assess the risk presented by holding more or less of your company's stock. There is a point where the company represents too much of your net worth and 100% of your income. You may have the highest conviction in the world that your company's valuation is going to the moon and it just doesn't matter because you already "own enough" and adding more is simply too risky. CEO's are accountable to their partners, spouses and families, and none that I know who were worth their salt valued anything more than their families and what those members thought of them. I have friends who went all in on their company, believing they had a great pulse on the company, were close to the CEO, etc. only to lose it all due to a drastic and unforeseeable reversal in the company's position, the economy, or world events (think the internet bubble, 9/11, 2007/2008 - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, COVID and the number companies it sank). I don't blame anyone with options and existing holdings in their company for not adding more, or selling for that matter. There simply comes a point where the risk is too great and you have to protect it. If you don't you risk having a very uncomfortable conversation at the dinner table one day. What is the old saw, "Bulls make money, bears make money, but hogs get slaughtered." I admire those who avoid being slaughtered. Well said. What I want to see is Mike execute on the plan which he has outlined. I am not sure between current shares Mike owns and options he holds which could be executed what Mike's holding would be worth if the pps was $10; $20; $50. If Mike signs the deal with a world wide partner who can really delivery on Al Mann's afrezza vision is $100pps really out of the question and if not what is Mike worth? Yeah!!! That's what I'm talkin bout! Somebody needs to get SayHey on Social Media platforms world-wide, hand him a huge freakin microphone and turn up the volume with those big honkin deafening speakers! We'll name the show "Al Mann's Vision, starring SayHey"! Here we come, Facebook Live! I certainly don't think $100/share is too much. And, don't ask me how much Mike is worth, cuz a few people around here wouldn't like my answer. But, I'm always hopin he proves me wrong. Go Mike! Drive the price up to $100 by Christmas and I'll buy us matching Mercedes.  |
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Dec 2, 2021 15:27:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Dec 2, 2021 20:19:11 GMT -5
Loved hearing him rip the analysts. The insider buy doesn't seem to have had any positive effect on the pps. Maybe that was the basis for his complaint.
|
|
|
|
Post by mymann on Dec 2, 2021 21:20:47 GMT -5
When a ceo buys shares out of his own money not rewarded through company says ceo is putting his own skin in the game speaks volumes. Mike how about you?
|
|
|
|
Post by phdedieu12 on Dec 2, 2021 21:37:25 GMT -5
Now that you put it this way I clearly see how effective that move is. Perfect analogy between Goncalves (worth $100M) and Mike who made $600K the past few years, I think he should sell everything he has and buy stock to show you just how much he believes in the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Dec 2, 2021 23:01:02 GMT -5
Now that you put it this way I clearly see how effective that move is. Perfect analogy between Goncalves (worth $100M) and Mike who made $600K the past few years, I think he should sell everything he has and buy stock to show you just how much he believes in the company. Goncalves’s net worth is like 90+% CLF stock. Mike was gifted millions in stock. Comparison is fine. |
|
