|
|
Post by mannmade on Jul 13, 2019 11:14:30 GMT -5
My personal opinion on Mike's compensation, and this isn't related to how I feel about his leadership as CEO, as to me that is an entirely different discussion, although this subject could be part of it, is as follows:
I have run four start ups now and been invloved in a fifth as a senior business development executive. I never took a salary that was more than I felt fair to the employees and anyone else involved in the company. As an equity owner in all five of the companies, I always chose to bet on myself and the upside.
I understand the need to compensate key employees differently and the need to make sure sales related positions have the proper incentives.
However, in Mike's case I just don't understand how he cannot see that his salary and stock incentives are out of whack for the current position mnkd finds itself in. He can justify it any way he wants, but it also shows a lack of sensitivity to the long time shareholders such as those here.
Even CEO's of some of America's biggest companies take less in base pay than Mike ,with the bulk of their annual compensation coming with a year end bonus mostly in the form of company stock.
I put my money where my mouth is. I am newly employed with a 6th start up that did 3.5m in its first year and is on track to do 12m in sales this year and have yet to take a dime in salary after 3 months. Instead I have taken a minority equity position and will not be paid until we become cash flow positive.
Mike should do something similar in my opinion. GLTAL's!!!
|
|
bkdmd
Researcher
Posts: 79
|
Post by bkdmd on Jul 13, 2019 11:17:59 GMT -5
The stock price is reflective of the execution of the management team. That is what it is. I have put more of my money into buying stock of this company than MC has and he makes significantly more than I do. I have taken significantly less from this company less than MC has....I have taken zero. He takes.
And I make significantly less than MC does. If MC really believed in MNKD, he would be putting more of his money into the company instead of taking from it.
I would be embarrassed to take more from this company when the market cap is where it is at. In my mind it says a lot about a person's character to not deliver, but keep taking more.
Actions speak louder than words. MC actions speak so loud that I can't hear what he says any more.
I think MC would be a good career politician. Never delivers on promises. And keeps taking more....and is never be willing to be held accountable.
|
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Jul 13, 2019 12:23:40 GMT -5
I still support Mike at this point. He took over this company when many thought we were left for dead. MNKD is still here, not in a perfect form, but the pieces are slowly being put together. This has been a big test of patience for many of us. I still think he can get this done. It will take more time. I totally agree ! I just hope that everyone here can be a little more patient and allow Mike C the time to reiterate his position in the next quarterly CC.  It'll also give me more time to build capital to buy more shares. But, that's mytakeonit |
|
|
|
Post by stockwhisperer on Jul 13, 2019 13:37:09 GMT -5
While the decision for pay - no pay, etc., concept occurs in many companies, I do not know if it applies to small cap biotechs. I know nothing about how their pay and bonuses are set in relationship to other biotechs or otherwise. I think the BODs are generally involved and common sense would say, they are based on meeting specific goals & objectives along w/bringing SH value but I am sure there is more to it. Does anyone know specifics? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 13, 2019 13:49:31 GMT -5
While the decision for pay - no pay, etc., concept occurs in many companies, I do not know if it applies to small cap biotechs. I know nothing about how their pay and bonuses are set in relationship to other biotechs or otherwise. I think the BODs are generally involved and common sense would say, they are based on meeting specific goals & objectives along w/bringing SH value but I am sure there is more to it. Does anyone know specifics? Thanks. No idea, but I have noticed that Vanguard consistently votes against the Mannkind Compensation Committee. It's typically the only negative vote they cast. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jul 13, 2019 14:05:38 GMT -5
Some corporations (but I'm guessing a strong minority) appoint their CEOs with defined term limits.
I assume if Mannkind did that with MC, we would have heard it by now. But does anyone know for sure?
|
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Jul 13, 2019 14:06:42 GMT -5
My personal opinion on Mike's compensation, and this isn't related to how I feel about his leadership as CEO, as to me that is an entirely different discussion, although this subject could be part of it, is as follows: I have run four start ups now and been invloved in a fifth as a senior business development executive. I never took a salary that was more than I felt fair to the employees and anyone else involved in the company. As an equity owner in all five of the companies, I always chose to bet on myself and the upside. I understand the need to compensate key employees differently and the need to make sure sales related positions have the proper incentives. However, in Mike's case I just don't understand how he cannot see that his salary and stock incentives are out of whack for the current position mnkd finds itself in. He can justify it any way he wants, but it also shows a lack of sensitivity to the long time shareholders such as those here. Even CEO's of some of America's biggest companies take less in base pay than Mike ,with the bulk of their annual compensation coming with a year end bonus mostly in the form of company stock. I put my money where my mouth is. I am newly employed with a 6th start up that did 3.5m in its first year and is on track to do 12m in sales this year and have yet to take a dime in salary after 3 months. Instead I have taken a minority equity position and will not be paid until we become cash flow positive. Mike should do something similar in my opinion. GLTAL's!!! You sound like you are probably much older than Mike and have more money than he does. Am I right? Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. First off, he's got a wife and daughter to consider. Id hate to consider the wrath my wife would have brought down upon me if I told her I was leaving a BP to go work for free. Aye pobrecito! He gave up a VP position to come here, probably with the intent to become CEO for the first time in his career. My guess is, this is the most Mike has ever earned. By the way, he only started to get his big paychecks for a couple years Now. It takes a while to feel flush enough to stop taking a salary. Especially after California taxes! As far as the level of salary and the stock options go. The compensation committee already published their rationale and the real world peers they used for comparison. Also, from the filing: • Our stockholders approved, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers, as disclosed in our definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019. The tabulation of votes on this matter was as follows: shares voted for: 39,066,556; shares voted against: 18,802,298; shares abstaining: 455,603; and broker non-votes: 105,785,750. That's a 3:1 majority stating they were alright with the compensation. Heck, it was almost 5:1 for Mike on the BOD vote. That's the reality of the guidance for this company. It just is what it is. If that's a deal breaker for you then you have some decisions to make. I wouldn't begin to tell you what to do. I'm not that arrogant. But, it seems to me if you've lost most of your investment already, unless you need a kidney, holding is the only option. It is frustrating, I know, to feel so helpless sitting here on the sidelines. But, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Many of us can see it. Look, is Mike going to be perfect? No. Never said that. But does he have the pedigree to develop into a great CEO? I think so. He does purchase shares at a rate of about 10% of his earnings. That's a steady commitment for a young executive. Look, I hope you are overwhelmingly compensated for your frustration lo these many years. I just don't expect so much charity from our CEO, or any CEO for that matter, until they are much farther along their career path. GLTY |
|
|
|
Post by wgreystone on Jul 13, 2019 14:10:31 GMT -5
The stock price is reflective of the execution of the management team. That is what it is. I have put more of my money into buying stock of this company than MC has and he makes significantly more than I do. I have taken significantly less from this company less than MC has....I have taken zero. He takes. And I make significantly less than MC does. If MC really believed in MNKD, he would be putting more of his money into the company instead of taking from it. I would be embarrassed to take more from this company when the market cap is where it is at. In my mind it says a lot about a person's character to not deliver, but keep taking more. Actions speak louder than words. MC actions speak so loud that I can't hear what he says any more. I think MC would be a good career politician. Never delivers on promises. And keeps taking more....and is never be willing to be held accountable. People may not notice the other type of dilution: large grant of stock options to the management team at this very low SP. The longer SP stays at this level, the more shares the management team will get. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Jul 13, 2019 14:23:33 GMT -5
My personal opinion on Mike's compensation, and this isn't related to how I feel about his leadership as CEO, as to me that is an entirely different discussion, although this subject could be part of it, is as follows: I have run four start ups now and been invloved in a fifth as a senior business development executive. I never took a salary that was more than I felt fair to the employees and anyone else involved in the company. As an equity owner in all five of the companies, I always chose to bet on myself and the upside. I understand the need to compensate key employees differently and the need to make sure sales related positions have the proper incentives. However, in Mike's case I just don't understand how he cannot see that his salary and stock incentives are out of whack for the current position mnkd finds itself in. He can justify it any way he wants, but it also shows a lack of sensitivity to the long time shareholders such as those here. Even CEO's of some of America's biggest companies take less in base pay than Mike ,with the bulk of their annual compensation coming with a year end bonus mostly in the form of company stock. I put my money where my mouth is. I am newly employed with a 6th start up that did 3.5m in its first year and is on track to do 12m in sales this year and have yet to take a dime in salary after 3 months. Instead I have taken a minority equity position and will not be paid until we become cash flow positive. Mike should do something similar in my opinion. GLTAL's!!! 👍👍 |
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Jul 13, 2019 14:39:39 GMT -5
I'm not qualified to comment on most of this stuff, but I can say that of you are unhappy with mike's compensation you should blame the board not mike.
|
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jul 13, 2019 16:02:21 GMT -5
I'm not qualified to comment on most of this stuff, but I can say that of you are unhappy with mike's compensation you should blame the board not mike. I know he has a seat on the board. Does he sit on the compensation committee, have a vote, and how many make up that committee? Questions I can’t answer. If you could vote yourself a raise, would you? How much input did he have in convincing the compensation committee members that raises were critical to keeping key executives, himself included? |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jul 13, 2019 16:16:09 GMT -5
If I were him I would just take a pay cut until things get rolling in shareholders interest. It seems like it would be in “his” best interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Jul 13, 2019 16:18:42 GMT -5
You have to understand guys, CEO's get stock options and grants. That is universal. These low prices are because of the minimum 5 years required to turn this ship around after Sanofi......(gulp, keep it together, Rad)........let's just say, ..exercised their exit option. Wall Street knows this and, except for the big time shorting hedge funds, they will stay away until profitability is a proven sure thing. They've got other fish to fry in the meantime. So, the stock stays low, volatile and tradable.
These options and grants attract talent and are standard perks of the profession. I like it because they are motivated beyond just a paycheck to ensure success. We lose, they lose. Even an "overpaid" (your opinion, not mine) millionaire, as some of you consider him, would like to see his wealth multiply exponentially with shares. The only perk to coming to Mannkind, besides gaining the title of CEO, as well as the occasional 100 hour work weeks, was the chance to get in at the ground floor with options.
|
|
bac
Lab Rat
Posts: 37
|
Post by bac on Jul 13, 2019 16:31:43 GMT -5
The CEO of MannKind (Castagna, MC) has two top objectives:
1. Increase Afrezza retention rate
2. Increase Afrezza scripts rate
For the last two years, the MC has failed to deliver on these top objectives.
Granted MannKind botched the Afrezza clinical trials, which has resulted in Endos reluctant to prescribe Afrezza. If Afrezza clinical trials had resulted in a superior label, scripts and retention would not be a problem. MNKD would be profitable by now. MannKind needs a CEO with prior insulin experience and Endo connections to have a run at the top two objectives.
MC has great school degrees; financial (Wharton) and a Pharma PhD. However these degrees and his past work experience have not prepared him to achieve progress on MannKind's top two objectives. In two years there has been no progress that I can see. Granted I do not have numbers on Afrezza retention rate, but the Symphony weekly scripts are (painfully) pathetic for the last 2.5 years.
I am guessing that the DTC scripts, when added to Symphony scripts only average 5.3 scripts per week increase, which will not result in Afrezza profits covering the burn rate for many years. My guess is that DTC scripts are cannibalizing Symphony weekly scripts. Indeed, Symphony plots of weekly scripts shows a drop (discontinuity) when the DTC campaign was launched early this year.
radgray68 said “The problem with our stock is, in the minds of Wall Street, Mannkind has absolutely NO credibility.”
My answer is that increasing Afrezza retention and scripts can quickly give MannKind Wall Street credibility. So we need a CEO that will deliver on the two top priorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Jul 13, 2019 16:32:40 GMT -5
I'm not qualified to comment on most of this stuff, but I can say that of you are unhappy with mike's compensation you should blame the board not mike. I know he has a seat on the board. Does he sit on the compensation committee, have a vote, and how many make up that committee? Questions I can’t answer. If you could vote yourself a raise, would you? How much input did he have in convincing the compensation committee members that raises were critical to keeping key executives, himself included? He can sit in on the discussion but he doesn't have a vote. It's in the corporate governance tab on the Mannkind website. |
|
It'll also give me more time to build capital to buy more shares.
