|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 31, 2019 14:30:48 GMT -5
I definitely believe the stock is circling the drain, but I believe there’s a huge disconnect between that and the true valuation of the company. We should be at $8 IMO.
Let’s see what happens in the next few weeks and if paying off Deerfield makes a difference. A partner would be a big plus to take some of the load off, or a new loan...in my opinion either one would crush the shorts!
|
|
|
|
Post by wyattdog on May 31, 2019 14:45:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pat on May 31, 2019 19:06:54 GMT -5
It’s May...
We’re funded through the first part of 2020.
That’s 7 months - 28 weekly script reads.
Did I miss the announcement where sales didn’t increase in the rest of 2019?
|
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on May 31, 2019 19:17:19 GMT -5
It’s May... We’re funded through the first part of 2020. That’s 7 months - 28 weekly script reads. Did I miss the announcement where sales didn’t increase in the rest of 2019? Yeah.. I think I missed something too.. cuz I don't see that things are that much different now than they have been for some time. I see that we've made progress.. Albiet not as much as some expected.. but progress none the less..and I believe scripts will continue to rise. |
|
|
|
Post by morfu on May 31, 2019 19:44:59 GMT -5
I definitely believe the stock is circling the drain, but I believe there’s a huge disconnect between that and the true valuation of the company. We should be at $8 IMO. Let’s see what happens in the next few weeks and if paying off Deerfield makes a difference. A partner would be a big plus to take some of the load off, or a new loan...in my opinion either one would crush the shorts! Like all the other analysts, I wonder what you base your 8$ share price on beside gut feeling!? Personally, I believe that within 3 years 1$ EPS is possible (based on the steady increase in sales over the last 24+months) and I don't see any problem the company surviving until then without the great management having to dilute our stock anymore. They might have to take on some more debt, but that is just a pain along the way. Also, I don't see 1$ EPS to be any limit, just a number to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 31, 2019 20:02:13 GMT -5
It’s a guess on what someone would be willing to pay for the company looking five years out. 1 1/2 b. But that’s just as things stand now there’s a lot of things that could happen to really accelerate the situation in a good way. Do you not think a partner would send the stock over $7? IDK..
I think if we had over a year’s funding that it would be more, but I do not see how we’re going to make it to 2020 without the warrants being exercised. Unless they cut off a lot of direct to consumer advertising.
There’s so many unknowns like the undisclosed molecule. Opportunities could pop up at any time it’s really hard to decipher.
|
|
|
|
Post by golfeveryday on May 31, 2019 20:27:27 GMT -5
It’s a guess on what someone would be willing to pay for the company looking five years out. 1 1/2 b. But that’s just as things stand now there’s a lot of things that could happen to really accelerate the situation in a good way. Do you not think a partner would send the stock over $7? IDK.. I think if we had over a year’s funding that it would be more, but I do not see how we’re going to make it to 2020 without the warrants being exercised. Unless they cut off a lot of direct to consumer advertising. There’s so many unknowns like the undisclosed molecule. Opportunities could pop up at any time it’s really hard to decipher. I expect Deerfield to be paid off and for them to take on debt to fund activities, plus UTHR molecule, and hopefully an Afrezza partner of some kind - CGM company, BP, other entity |
|
|
|
Post by letitride on May 31, 2019 20:30:50 GMT -5
I believe the volume is fine everyone should jump in. But I have been here awhile so it could just be that I feel like I have done this before.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 31, 2019 20:33:01 GMT -5
It’s a guess on what someone would be willing to pay for the company looking five years out. 1 1/2 b. But that’s just as things stand now there’s a lot of things that could happen to really accelerate the situation in a good way. Do you not think a partner would send the stock over $7? IDK.. I think if we had over a year’s funding that it would be more, but I do not see how we’re going to make it to 2020 without the warrants being exercised. Unless they cut off a lot of direct to consumer advertising. There’s so many unknowns like the undisclosed molecule. Opportunities could pop up at any time it’s really hard to decipher. I expect Deerfield to be paid off and for them to take on debt to fund activities, plus UTHR molecule, and hopefully an Afrezza partner of some kind - CGM company, BP, other entity 👍🏻🙏🏻 Absolutely best case scenario! |
|
|
|
Post by morfu on Jun 1, 2019 8:34:08 GMT -5
I expect Deerfield to be paid off and for them to take on debt to fund activities, plus UTHR molecule, and hopefully an Afrezza partner of some kind - CGM company, BP, other entity 👍🏻🙏🏻 Absolutely best case scenario! I could not possibly disagree more strongly!
Let me counteroffer a scenario where we keep some debt (or even a lot of it, its just peanuts compared to possible earnings), the earnings raise slower, costing about one extra year to reach green (optimistic estimates talk about 2-3 years from now), but we avoid dilution and keep all earnings to ourself instead of 1/3 like in the Sanofi deal!
Also, I say we make just as little of these renting out technology to UTHR deals as we need to survive until we have a strong negotiation position.. they want this superior technology badly, they should pay for it!
Apparently, 2/3 of the earnings can be asked for by a senior partner . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by scottmnkd on Jun 1, 2019 8:35:43 GMT -5
The way I see it is that Mannkind has done a lot of things right as an R&D and manufacturing firm. Yes. There were problems early on (pre-approval) with the FDA regarding the delivery platform, but those problems were ironed out and Afrezza was eventually approved. Also, I'm not an accounting wiz, but it also seems that the company's finances have been put on as solid ground as the situation dictates. The CFO is doing his job.
Where Mannkind continues to struggle is with marketing and insurance coverage. I never thought the TV ad would be effective as it was simply a "dorkey" commercial. WTF? So, "my take on it" is that if Mannkind becomes as effective at selling its product as it is in other areas, the company will eventually thrive. That's the "if" that everyone needs to be aware of and invest accordingly.
Mannkind isn't going anywhere soon; it's a waiting game.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jun 1, 2019 8:44:08 GMT -5
👍🏻🙏🏻 Absolutely best case scenario! I could not possibly disagree more strongly!
Let me counteroffer a scenario where we keep some debt (or even a lot of it, its just peanuts compared to possible earnings), the earnings raise slower, costing about one extra year to reach green (optimistic estimates talk about 2-3 years from now), but we avoid dilution and keep all earnings to ourself instead of 1/3 like in the Sanofi deal!
Also, I say we make just as little of these renting out technology to UTHR deals as we need to survive until we have a strong negotiation position.. they want this superior technology badly, they should pay for it!
Apparently, 2/3 of the earnings can be asked for by a senior partner . . .
Why would we do something like the SNY deal? that’s my number one question. Also in your scenario how do we do it without dilution? If we can do it without dilution great, if not the stock is too low to make that even possible at this point.. |
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Jun 1, 2019 9:57:29 GMT -5
Endocrinologists are not convinced. That is the bottom line. I had a consult about my nephew with a pediatric endocrinologist who recently worked for MNKD for a year. He barely mentioned Afrezza, and only in response to my questions. The feeling is that there are patients who have lived long lives with T1d. There are plenty of athletes who compete successfully even though they have T1d. They all use subcutaneous insulin. Many problems with managing T1d therapy are psychological. They can be overcome with the right attitude.
Then there are the medical claims about Afrezza. Doctors believe in "evidentiary medicine" (which is really an ideal more than a practice). And so they only want to believe what has been proven in clinical studies and published in reputable journals. For instance, TIR ("time in range") an concept unknown to most doctors, even endos. There is no study showing that more time in range has long term benefits for patients with the same HbA1c. Is lower HbA1c a cause of better outcomes, or just a correlation without causation? Common sense would say that there is a benefit to more TIR, but the history of medicine is filled with common sense ideas that have been proven wrong. So endos just stick with what works and what they know. To all of MNKD's claims they might say, "That sounds interesting. Now prove it."
The psychological struggles of families do not show up in double blind studies, where complete compliance is a given meant to eliminate uncontrolled variables. If a parent is getting up every night to check on their child, that doesn't show up on any graph. And so when families talk about their struggles and anxieties managing T1d doctors suggest strategies for managing them, not a new form of treatment.
I still believe that Afrezza is a breakthrough in diabetes treatment. But beyond convincing doctors, there is insurance coverage, and there are other barriers to overcome, so it has taken a long time. And why do patients stop using Afrezza? If those who tried it all kept using it the Rx numbers would be increasing at a more consistant rate. Finally, it seems Rx numbers might be taking off, but that has been said before.
|
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Jun 1, 2019 9:58:05 GMT -5
I could not possibly disagree more strongly!
Let me counteroffer a scenario where we keep some debt (or even a lot of it, its just peanuts compared to possible earnings), the earnings raise slower, costing about one extra year to reach green (optimistic estimates talk about 2-3 years from now), but we avoid dilution and keep all earnings to ourself instead of 1/3 like in the Sanofi deal!
Also, I say we make just as little of these renting out technology to UTHR deals as we need to survive until we have a strong negotiation position.. they want this superior technology badly, they should pay for it!
Apparently, 2/3 of the earnings can be asked for by a senior partner . . .
Why would we do something like the SNY deal? that’s my number one question. Also in your scenario how do we do it without dilution? If we can do it without dilution great, if not the stock is too low to make that even possible at this point.. Sports, we would take on debt rather than additional dilution. I still believe those $1.60 warrants will be exercised at year’s end, but that dilution is already figured in. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jun 1, 2019 10:05:50 GMT -5
Why would we do something like the SNY deal? that’s my number one question. Also in your scenario how do we do it without dilution? If we can do it without dilution great, if not the stock is too low to make that even possible at this point.. Sports, we would take on debt rather than additional dilution. I still believe those $1.60 warrants will be exercised at year’s end, but that dilution is already figured in. Right that’s why I posted about paying off Deerfield and getting another nondilutive financing loan. We need to be funded for way over a year before we get any respect from Wall Street. |
|
