|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 2, 2019 20:03:03 GMT -5
They got fined, but it was for getting information from an insider on Medicare/Medicaid decisions. It wasn't anything to do with Mannkind (this is the SEC Press Release). I will have a trawl and see if I can find anything about Deerfield and Mannkind, but I honestly don't remember it.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 2, 2019 20:22:27 GMT -5
They got fined, but it was for getting information from an insider on Medicare/Medicaid decisions. It wasn't anything to do with Mannkind (this is the SEC Press Release). I will have a trawl and see if I can find anything about Deerfield and Mannkind, but I honestly don't remember it. they did. they got FDA inside information on MNKD. additionally, that google search looked like a long rap sheet, although the fines the major banks paid during the financial melt down look the same. the system in this country seems to be, let them do it and then collect the fine.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 2, 2019 20:31:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 2, 2019 20:36:00 GMT -5
keep looking the secretarial staff has left the board
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 2, 2019 20:51:28 GMT -5
keep looking the secretarial staff has left the board It is your claim to support, or not, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Jun 2, 2019 20:59:07 GMT -5
keep looking the secretarial staff has left the board LOL
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 2, 2019 21:09:18 GMT -5
They got fined, but it was for getting information from an insider on Medicare/Medicaid decisions. It wasn't anything to do with Mannkind (this is the SEC Press Release). I will have a trawl and see if I can find anything about Deerfield and Mannkind, but I honestly don't remember it. they did. they got FDA inside information on MNKD. additionally, that google search looked like a long rap sheet, although the fines the major banks paid during the financial melt down look the same. the system in this country seems to be, let them do it and then collect the fine. That wasn't Deerfield that got the FDA inside information on Mannkind. I went back over the SEC press releases and there is nothing from the SEC who prosecute this sort of thing. Deerfield and their like are definitely no angels. However Deerfield didn't need inside information to make out like bandits with Mannkind, that was all Mannkinds's own work!
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 2, 2019 22:03:03 GMT -5
they did. they got FDA inside information on MNKD. additionally, that google search looked like a long rap sheet, although the fines the major banks paid during the financial melt down look the same. the system in this country seems to be, let them do it and then collect the fine. That wasn't Deerfield that got the FDA inside information on Mannkind. I went back over the SEC press releases and there is nothing from the SEC who prosecute this sort of thing. Deerfield and their like are definitely no angels. However Deerfield didn't need inside information to make out like bandits with Mannkind, that was all Mannkinds's own work! heh. yes, I have learned betting against an independent company being able to compete with Pharma is an industry. especially with a hold on patents like MNKD patents. someone is going to end up with those. let's not kid ourselves they are beneficial and probably what it is partly about. I am a bitch now. The world so corrupt to my eyeballs, with the exception of the love between a parent and a child.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 2, 2019 22:06:08 GMT -5
That wasn't Deerfield that got the FDA inside information on Mannkind. I went back over the SEC press releases and there is nothing from the SEC who prosecute this sort of thing. Deerfield and their like are definitely no angels. However Deerfield didn't need inside information to make out like bandits with Mannkind, that was all Mannkinds's own work! heh. yes, I have learned betting against an independent company being able to compete with Pharma is an industry. especially with a hold on patents like MNKD patents. someone is going to end up with those. let's not kid ourselves they are beneficial and probably what it is partly about. I am a bitch now. The world so corrupt to my eyeballs, with the exception of the love between a parent and a child. Love you aged.... toe to toe buddy. oh brother. www.reuters.com/article/usa-crime-healthcare-leaks/deerfield-management-agrees-to-settle-charges-related-to-insider-trading-idUSL2N1L7193" CMS, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees government health insurance programs. The confidential information included advance notice about rules cutting reimbursement rates for radiation cancer treatment and dialysis, allowing Deerfield to make bets in the stock market on healthcare companies that would be affected by the new reimbursement rates." The scheme yielded $3.9 million in profits, according to the SEC. MNKD insurance info was gotten as well.
|
|
|
Post by morfu on Jun 2, 2019 23:29:29 GMT -5
>> it's more like 6 years to profitability.
Well, if you look at the member section "Afrezza Script Counts and Other Metrics" there is a rather new entry labeled "Afrezza Charts II" In there you can see, that the Afrezza Gross revenue for 2017 was 15mil$ followed by 36mil$ in 2018.
This year it will be higher beside a seemingly slow start, likely around 50mil$ (its 20mil$ in the first 5month) + of course any other profit Mannkind will generate. That leads other poster to the conclusion that end 2020 might be a possible date for green numbers, I am more careful and add a year. What is the basis for your 6 years? Gut feeling? We seem to have a few of them around here... A simple linear projection of the revenue growth. Granted, picking starting and ending points shifts that one way or the other. Using your numbers it seems gross revenue (and I believe you mean retail gross, not actual gross revenue to Mannkind, correct?) is increasing roughly $15M this year. All told that gets cut in half for MNKD net revenue... so $25M net this year growing at $7.5M per year give or take? Seems getting to profitability in 3 years would require NRx to break out of stagnation and thus TRx starting to rise faster than linearly. Yeah .. I always get confused . . However, page 42 of the last Mannkind annual report (http://investors.mannkindcorp.com/static-files/010691ae-19bf-496d-9e22-3c24fcd9a63b) states total expenses of 105Mil$ (2018) and 120mil$ (2017), we would need about 4 years of linear growth from now in the gross revenue to reach these numbers, if no other source income is found (which we know is already happening for this year and likely will continue), so I say we are back to green in under 3 years! A simple Model would be, that along the way we generate 50+65+80 is about 200mil$ from the US adult Afrezza revenue and we need about 300-350mil$, we have about 40mil$ and another 30(??) coming from the already agreed dilutions, so we would need about another 50Mil$ from other sources.. that`s about 4 UHTR milestones..
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jun 3, 2019 5:36:25 GMT -5
Why would a pwd take one dose and assume it does not work for them when they often bolus or take subsequent dose's on RAA's? I have never understood this. It's the difference between what people should do and what they actually do. With RAA you are told to test after two hours and correct if necessary - I don't know anyone who actually does that! You hardly ever need that second dose so it just gets forgotten. Most meters even include (or used to) an alarm function that you are meant to set to two hours to remind you to retest. What tends to happen is you get on with your life and don't bother to check up to the point where you are starting to feel something is wrong and then you test and correct if necessary. This doesn't happen as often as you might think because the tail cleans up a lot of messes. Looking at STAT results it seems like that second dose is required with Afrezza because there is a short tail so when people behave the same as they do with RAA and skip the second dose they get non-optimal results. Why is the length of the insulin tail important? Because carbs also have a tail and this is why endos don't see RAA's tail as a bad thing. You can only absorb carbs at a certain rate (there is a standardized curve for this), but it is made more complex if what you are eating deviates from the ideal meal that curve is based on. Fat and complex carbs will extend carb absorption beyond that curve. Some foods like burgers or pizza outlast even the RAA tail and pumps use automatic follow up boluses to extend the tail (you tell the pump to split the bolus, some now and some later). Some artificial pancreas systems like Loop can handle the variable carb tail duration by using a dynamic carb absorption rate - they spot when the carbs are not having the impact expected and flatten the curve accordingly which produces a lower carb absorption rate and a longer tail. If you are really bored there is a good explanation how it's done here - github.com/LoopKit/Loop/pull/507 (the technical side) and here seemycgm.com/2017/07/25/loop-dynamic-carb-absorption/ (how it affects their daughter) Aged - everyone using a CGM tests after two hours. In fact they are looking every 10 - 15 minutes with a CGM. Now, who in their right mind wants to take a second shot and stack RAA insulin. I would say no one. No one wants to manage a tail and it is in no way a benefit, NEVER, EVER. No one likes playing Russian roulette. Thats the difference between the RAA and afrezza - they can and will do take the second and third puff, cost aside.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 3, 2019 8:21:36 GMT -5
It's the difference between what people should do and what they actually do. With RAA you are told to test after two hours and correct if necessary - I don't know anyone who actually does that! You hardly ever need that second dose so it just gets forgotten. Most meters even include (or used to) an alarm function that you are meant to set to two hours to remind you to retest. What tends to happen is you get on with your life and don't bother to check up to the point where you are starting to feel something is wrong and then you test and correct if necessary. This doesn't happen as often as you might think because the tail cleans up a lot of messes. Looking at STAT results it seems like that second dose is required with Afrezza because there is a short tail so when people behave the same as they do with RAA and skip the second dose they get non-optimal results. Why is the length of the insulin tail important? Because carbs also have a tail and this is why endos don't see RAA's tail as a bad thing. You can only absorb carbs at a certain rate (there is a standardized curve for this), but it is made more complex if what you are eating deviates from the ideal meal that curve is based on. Fat and complex carbs will extend carb absorption beyond that curve. Some foods like burgers or pizza outlast even the RAA tail and pumps use automatic follow up boluses to extend the tail (you tell the pump to split the bolus, some now and some later). Some artificial pancreas systems like Loop can handle the variable carb tail duration by using a dynamic carb absorption rate - they spot when the carbs are not having the impact expected and flatten the curve accordingly which produces a lower carb absorption rate and a longer tail. If you are really bored there is a good explanation how it's done here - github.com/LoopKit/Loop/pull/507 (the technical side) and here seemycgm.com/2017/07/25/loop-dynamic-carb-absorption/ (how it affects their daughter) Aged - everyone using a CGM tests after two hours. In fact they are looking every 10 - 15 minutes with a CGM. Now, who in their right mind wants to take a second shot and stack RAA insulin. I would say no one. No one wants to manage a tail and it is in no way a benefit, NEVER, EVER. No one likes playing Russian roulette. Thats the difference between the RAA and afrezza - they can and will do take the second and third puff, cost aside. No, everyone on a CGM does not check after 2 hours, I know because I don't for one! As I said, I don't know anyone who does the 2 hour follow up and they are all on CGMs. Nor do they check every 10 minutes. People have lives to live rather than obsessing over their diabetes. The whole tail/stacking argument is just wrong, but I doubt I am going to change anyone's mind on that one. Tails have a use and are not the invitation to sudden death (Russian roulette!) that they are made out to be. I say that from a few decades of experience.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jun 3, 2019 11:46:27 GMT -5
A simple linear projection of the revenue growth. Granted, picking starting and ending points shifts that one way or the other. Using your numbers it seems gross revenue (and I believe you mean retail gross, not actual gross revenue to Mannkind, correct?) is increasing roughly $15M this year. All told that gets cut in half for MNKD net revenue... so $25M net this year growing at $7.5M per year give or take? Seems getting to profitability in 3 years would require NRx to break out of stagnation and thus TRx starting to rise faster than linearly. Yeah .. I always get confused . . However, page 42 of the last Mannkind annual report (http://investors.mannkindcorp.com/static-files/010691ae-19bf-496d-9e22-3c24fcd9a63b) states total expenses of 105Mil$ (2018) and 120mil$ (2017), we would need about 4 years of linear growth from now in the gross revenue to reach these numbers, if no other source income is found (which we know is already happening for this year and likely will continue), so I say we are back to green in under 3 years! A simple Model would be, that along the way we generate 50+65+80 is about 200mil$ from the US adult Afrezza revenue and we need about 300-350mil$, we have about 40mil$ and another 30(??) coming from the already agreed dilutions, so we would need about another 50Mil$ from other sources.. that`s about 4 UHTR milestones..
Seems you are not factoring in COGS and gross to net adjustments. The post I was replying to was about profitability solely based on Afrezza. It of course is quite true that other revenue sources can alter that. If we get other meaningful revenue that would be great to be profitable in under 3 years! TrepT seems like the only viable thing that might generate meaningful revenue in that short of a period. I wouldn't speculate on probabilities on that knowing as little as I do about trial plans, marketing plans, etc. Afrezza alone is much longer than 3 years, however. Don't forget Amphastar commitments when calculating coming cumulative expenses.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jun 3, 2019 11:54:58 GMT -5
Aged - everyone using a CGM tests after two hours. In fact they are looking every 10 - 15 minutes with a CGM. Now, who in their right mind wants to take a second shot and stack RAA insulin. I would say no one. No one wants to manage a tail and it is in no way a benefit, NEVER, EVER. No one likes playing Russian roulette. Thats the difference between the RAA and afrezza - they can and will do take the second and third puff, cost aside. No, everyone on a CGM does not check after 2 hours, I know because I don't for one! As I said, I don't know anyone who does the 2 hour follow up and they are all on CGMs. Nor do they check every 10 minutes. People have lives to live rather than obsessing over their diabetes. The whole tail/stacking argument is just wrong, but I doubt I am going to change anyone's mind on that one. Tails have a use and are not the invitation to sudden death (Russian roulette!) that they are made out to be. I say that from a few decades of experience. It would seem the tail of RAA would require one to tailor food intake somewhat to match the tail (slower digesting meal and/or snacks), correct? Seems both RAA and Afrezza have their unique drawbacks... either tailoring food to insulin or tailoring multiple insulin doses to the food. This does seem like an argument the two of you will likely never reach agreement on
|
|
|
Post by morfu on Jun 3, 2019 12:19:35 GMT -5
Yeah .. I always get confused . . However, page 42 of the last Mannkind annual report (http://investors.mannkindcorp.com/static-files/010691ae-19bf-496d-9e22-3c24fcd9a63b) states total expenses of 105Mil$ (2018) and 120mil$ (2017), we would need about 4 years of linear growth from now in the gross revenue to reach these numbers, if no other source income is found (which we know is already happening for this year and likely will continue), so I say we are back to green in under 3 years! A simple Model would be, that along the way we generate 50+65+80 is about 200mil$ from the US adult Afrezza revenue and we need about 300-350mil$, we have about 40mil$ and another 30(??) coming from the already agreed dilutions, so we would need about another 50Mil$ from other sources.. that`s about 4 UHTR milestones..
I listed my sources and numbers, if you have different ones please share them and explain the relevance and please don't talk in acronyms! I like "Central Ohio Ghost Squad"... It is easy to extend my model for another year: 50+65+80+105 is about 300mil$ from the US adult Afrezza revenue and we need about 400-450mil$, so it would still need about 50mil$, nut we have one more year to find it..
|
|