|
|
Post by lojothehus on Aug 14, 2019 8:32:08 GMT -5
With everything being said, I would hate to be on the wrong side (interpretation) of a Freudian slip.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Aug 14, 2019 8:58:33 GMT -5
Because Martine has a law degree (and I think practiced law in telecommunications regulation), I looked up the term “in-licensing” which has the look of a legal term. It is. An article on in-licensing in the pharma sector written earlier this year observed that in-licensing is becoming more popular with companies as compared to outright acquisition. That observation I think largely explains the slip made by Martine. In-licensing and acquisition then are two sides of the same coin as it were and it would be natural for Martine to think of them in the same breath (literally). And as usual when there are two legitimate approaches to accomplish the same thing, there are trade-offs. One of them is the accounting for the in-licensing costs. The licenses are considered an intangible asset so the costs associated with them are considered an expense negatively affecting the balance sheet. And, royalties dilute earnings. The deal on TreT is inked. IF there was going to be a move towards an acquisition I think it would be triggered by follow-on considerations such as the unnamed molecule. And I don’t know how to judge how important that is to Martine and UTHR. The development projects with UTHR, in addition to being sources of material revenue, are great fodder for speculation. I shared the ”working link” only because I knew how to find it easily, and the original link didn't work, not for me anyway. Don't shoot the messenger, we need him to play Bass 🎸 I think we can all agree, the UTHR call was great! It is what it is, or maybe, it was what iT was 😎 |
|
|
|
Post by figglebird on Aug 14, 2019 11:26:15 GMT -5
Have not listened to the lqda presentation but did browse their 10q issued today... First and foremost, this variable of their dpi trep is really interesting and cannot be predicted as to how it will impact BUT - lqda certainly has some issues - for one, there are new safety concerns listed that could/should complicate their atttempt to usher in a quick approval... beyond this lqda is facing other potential obstacles to mkt.
1. comprehensive patent opposition from both uthr's initial nubalizer filing as well as mnkd's orange book status.
2. Law suits challanging infringement of ip
3. decentralized manufacturaing and a reliance on third parites which in itself has a potential host of further fda based complications.
4. dual device revisions issued by fda
the list is longer but these are just a few... again for anyone interested read the 10q read fda revised guidelines on dpi's read morningstar's coverage on uthr read uthr's asm filing desribing patent ext w respect to mnkd...
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 14, 2019 11:31:05 GMT -5
Are you all NUTS??? There won't be a buy out and I don't want one. MNKD is headed in the right direction ... I don't see a problem ... onwards and upwards ... to $200+ pps But, that's mytakeonit Absolutely right! Why would you want to sell shares of a company which currently grows more than 50% per year? Whatever price you get might be a joke in a few years! Afrezza is not growing 50% per year. It is basically growing at a linear rate. You can't fit an exponential curve to something that is basically linear and have it be meaningful. As for the non-Afrezza revenue, the upfront money we currently know about isn't increasing and ceases at some point, and we don't know how quickly the royalties will kick-in and grow. Bottom line, if MNKD revenue could reasonably be modeled as 50% per year on ongoing basis, the share price would not be where it is today. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 14, 2019 11:38:56 GMT -5
Instead of an aquisition by UTHR, the smarter play imho and one which I have been mentioning ever since the deal was announced is to replicate a deal similar to Sanofi/Regeneron.
UTHR buys 30% of mnkd for approximately $70m at todays pps.
That investment is immediately recouped with the announcement as mnkd pps soars.
UTHR secures a seat at the table for future development of its own molecules.
Mnkd gets much needed cash (current refinancing not withstanding) to accelerate TS molecule deveopment
Longs finally get to relax and watch... GLTAL's
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 14, 2019 11:44:18 GMT -5
Martine a genius? Yes. You’re interpretation of acquisition, not so. Can the clowning around please stop? You’re a grouch. I didn’t post the link, and I wasn’t the first to make the observation about the “acquisition” remark. The word was said and corrected by Martine. All we’re doing is speculating what would be the result if acquisition was actually intended. UTHR has acquired other companies and SO speculated it was because they represented a competitive threat. The deal with UTHR was inked AFTER Mannkind had begun a TreT trial. How about instead of implying I’m a clown, you try contributing usefully to the conversation. A simple, “I respectfully disagree” is a good start to a counter-argument. And yes, I’m guilty of not always being sufficiently polite so I’m guilty of a certain amount of hypocrisy. We’re all a work in progress. Sometimes, it's hard to know who is clowning here and who isn't. Obviously talking about $200 per share is clowning. For many of us, all the talk of UTHR buying MNKD out does seem like inside joking or "playful dreaming" sort of thing among longtime members here. If you want a serious response on it, mine would be, look at the history of companies that license technology and then turn around and decide to buy the source company before the resultant product even comes to market... how many can you find? Would it make sense for UTHR to pay cash to a 3rd party for development work, if in reality their real plan is simply an acquisition? Also, remember that there was this same sort of speculation about RLS buying MNKD... was that joking or serious but in laughable way. Obviously UTHR acquisition can't be said it is an impossibility, but it seems implausible at this point, notwithstanding being fun to dream about. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 14, 2019 11:56:42 GMT -5
Thank you ktim. There is some playfulness going on for fun, but I'm not clowning around (intentionally). The comparison of in-licensing versus acquisition was an article I can find again if you want to read it. It made the claim in-licensing is a recently (last few years I assumed) more popular approach to developing a portfolio with shared capital burden and risk/reward. It does seem more like the modus operandi of Martine Rothblatt than would be acquisition.
Your comment about looking for other examples of in-licensing followed by acquisition is persuasive. The only reasons to engage in speculative chat (other than boredom) are the verbal slip of "acquisition, or or, in-licensing" made by Martine yesterday, and to your point I think that means evaluating whatever is after TreT because TreT is already locked down in an existing agreement that I assume follows the in-licensing model. And, as I said, I cannot guess how much the unnamed molecule is valued by UTHR and whether it would drive a re-look acquisition as compared to in-licensing.
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 14, 2019 12:02:18 GMT -5
Instead of an aquisition by UTHR, the smarter play imho and one which I have been mentioning ever since the deal was announced is to replicate a deal similar to Sanofi/Regeneron. UTHR buys 30% of mnkd for approximately $70m at todays pps. That investment is immediately recouped with the announcement as mnkd pps soars. UTHR secures a seat at the table for future development of its own molecules. Mnkd gets much needed cash (current refinancing not withstanding) to accelerate TS molecule deveopment Longs finally get to relax and watch... GLTAL's Very interesting. How would the 30% purchase be executed? Open market? If so, then that assumes I think a slow acquisition up to 5% (the SEC reporting threshold) and then what? A large market buy order or set of buy orders? (Not trying to be a "clown". I really genuinely don't know how such things are done and assume I'm just ignorant - so I ask.) |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 14, 2019 12:20:09 GMT -5
Thank you ktim. There is some playfulness going on for fun, but I'm not clowning around (intentionally). The comparison of in-licensing versus acquisition was an article I can find again if you want to read it. It made the claim in-licensing is a recently (last few years I assumed) more popular approach to developing a portfolio with shared capital burden and risk/reward. It does seem more like the modus operandi of Martine Rothblatt than would be acquisition. Your comment about looking for other examples of in-licensing followed by acquisition is persuasive. The only reasons to engage in speculative chat (other than boredom) are the verbal slip of "acquisition, or or, in-licensing" made by Martine yesterday, and to your point I think that means evaluating whatever is after TreT because TreT is already locked down in an existing agreement that I assume follows the in-licensing model. And, as I said, I cannot guess how much the unnamed molecule is valued by UTHR and whether it would drive a re-look acquisition as compared to in-licensing. Acquisition is a fairly broad term. If she had said, "we acquired a new formulation from MNKD", I think that would be perfectly accurate statement referring to the license deal in place. I suspect she meant it in that sense and then quickly realized it did leave room for misinterpretation and tightened up the wording. Amazing one inartful sentence can cause such a stir. |
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Aug 14, 2019 12:22:30 GMT -5
Yes. That was the purpose of the recent manufacturing capability build. Martine is shrewd but no way would she try to harm Mannkind or their shareholders. So, again, Martine said “acquisition”. It leaves it out there hanging ripe for speculation. Let’s speculate. I’ll start. MNKD hit $6 last year, but that was before some amount of dilution but that event as a point of speculation of what MNKD can (has) acheived on it’s own under “normal” market forces and can be reasonably argued is achievable again although the timeframe is always a question and a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow. Dr. Mann said he wouldn’t sell another of his companies for less than 10x what he had in it, but there is no way anyone will offer $10B+ at this stage. $3 would be $650M for the Afrezza franchise, Technosphere, the pipeline such as it is, the manufacturing facilities, and the substantial pool of IPR. UTHR also acquires the debt, but not much of an issue and I assume just goes against UTHR, not MNKD. Yeah, seems too cheap still. $4 enough? Not for me, but I suspect somewhere between $4 and $10 and closer to $4. Hope y’all been averaging down if your cost basis is higher than that. So a buyout offer of say $4. That will cause a substantial gap up in the MNKD stock price. What happens to a share price for a company with nearly a month of time to cover short positions that has a sudden and significant gap up? Something about Volkswagen comes to mind. You would have to add 26 million warrants to the equation. The shorts would just cover at the buyout price and no VW short squeeze. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 14, 2019 12:23:25 GMT -5
Instead of an aquisition by UTHR, the smarter play imho and one which I have been mentioning ever since the deal was announced is to replicate a deal similar to Sanofi/Regeneron. UTHR buys 30% of mnkd for approximately $70m at todays pps. That investment is immediately recouped with the announcement as mnkd pps soars. UTHR secures a seat at the table for future development of its own molecules. Mnkd gets much needed cash (current refinancing not withstanding) to accelerate TS molecule deveopment Longs finally get to relax and watch... GLTAL's Very interesting. How would the 30% purchase be executed? Open market? If so, then that assumes I think a slow acquisition up to 5% (the SEC reporting threshold) and then what? A large market buy order or set of buy orders? (Not trying to be a "clown". I really genuinely don't know how such things are done and assume I'm just ignorant - so I ask.) I'm sure he's talking about private placement so money actually goes to MNKD. Interesting idea, but even with getting a solid backer and likely leading to share price increase due to that, I'm not overly thrilled at that level of dilution at this price level. Also, don't think UTHR is really in a position to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Aug 14, 2019 12:28:41 GMT -5
Instead of an aquisition by UTHR, the smarter play imho and one which I have been mentioning ever since the deal was announced is to replicate a deal similar to Sanofi/Regeneron. UTHR buys 30% of mnkd for approximately $70m at todays pps. That investment is immediately recouped with the announcement as mnkd pps soars. UTHR secures a seat at the table for future development of its own molecules. Mnkd gets much needed cash (current refinancing not withstanding) to accelerate TS molecule deveopment Longs finally get to relax and watch... GLTAL's Very interesting. How would the 30% purchase be executed? Open market? If so, then that assumes I think a slow acquisition up to 5% (the SEC reporting threshold) and then what? A large market buy order or set of buy orders? (Not trying to be a "clown". I really genuinely don't know how such things are done and assume I'm just ignorant - so I ask.) Sounds like what mannmade is speaking of is a direct placement similar to a secondary, but at market price, so additional shares to the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 14, 2019 12:40:41 GMT -5
Yes. That was the purpose of the recent manufacturing capability build. Martine is shrewd but no way would she try to harm Mannkind or their shareholders. So, again, Martine said “acquisition”. It leaves it out there hanging ripe for speculation. Let’s speculate. I’ll start. MNKD hit $6 last year, but that was before some amount of dilution but that event as a point of speculation of what MNKD can (has) acheived on it’s own under “normal” market forces and can be reasonably argued is achievable again although the timeframe is always a question and a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow. Dr. Mann said he wouldn’t sell another of his companies for less than 10x what he had in it, but there is no way anyone will offer $10B+ at this stage. $3 would be $650M for the Afrezza franchise, Technosphere, the pipeline such as it is, the manufacturing facilities, and the substantial pool of IPR. UTHR also acquires the debt, but not much of an issue and I assume just goes against UTHR, not MNKD. Yeah, seems too cheap still. $4 enough? Not for me, but I suspect somewhere between $4 and $10 and closer to $4. Hope y’all been averaging down if your cost basis is higher than that. So a buyout offer of say $4. That will cause a substantial gap up in the MNKD stock price. What happens to a share price for a company with nearly a month of time to cover short positions that has a sudden and significant gap up? Something about Volkswagen comes to mind. You would have to add 26 million warrants to the equation. The shorts would just cover at the buyout price and no VW short squeeze. Spell it out for me TraderDennis. I think you are saying the 26M warrants represent an opportunity to quickly and cheaply cover that portion of the 38.5M shares sold short, leaving 12.5M shares left to be covered which averages out to 6.5 days to cover.
I think this assumes that 100% of the warrants are held by people with an equal quantity of short shares. I'm unsure how likely that is, but pretty sure you can tell me. :-)
Even so, 12.5M shares seems like a lot of buying pressure added to ordinary retail, and potentially institutional investor buying. What should be the assumptions with regard to the prices at which those 12.5M shares were sold short? Does that add to the buying pressure?
I can agree that VW class short squeeze is unlikely, but what is the likely price action? I assume it has to go beyond $4 at least briefly, like a pig working through a python if that makes any sense. But happy to learn as always.
|
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Aug 14, 2019 12:46:11 GMT -5
Hard for me to say ... but, ktim is right. $200 pps is WAY TOO LOW !!! And my daughter said she likes $400 pps better. Also ... Freudian slip = sports telling boca that she will be opening my front door when she knocks.  Oops !!! But, that's mytakeonit |
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Aug 14, 2019 12:54:21 GMT -5
Mnkd made a strategic mistake for not allowing Sanofi buying 10% stake in 2014. Mnkd would have huge cash to dev pipeline. Al was over confident on Afrezza with bad Label. Sanofi would have expanded more effort on Afrezza. Al didn’t diversify. Don’t think Mnkd will make the same mistake again. 10% for $50M or 20% for $100M to dev pipeline ? If UTHR is smart, they would offer to acquire Mnkd in whole. TS is very critical to their future dominance. They have a golden chance to avoid paying large royalties in the future and to attack new markets such as CBD, CF,... by paying a reasonable price upfront. Mnkd would become an R&D and manufacturing arm of UTHR.
UTHR would out license Afrezza for a manufacturing contract and royalty to partially recoup the deal.
TS is the goose which lays golden eggs they are after, not Afrezza.
I don’t know how much Mnkd would be willing to accept if UTHR offers. In this market, based on Kevinmik’s findings, my guess is $750M - $1B.
|
|
Oops !!!