|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 20, 2019 22:27:15 GMT -5
The last time Pfizer tried to sell inhaled insulin it ended in complete failure with them taking a $2.8 billion charge. Politically you are not going to get anyone to suggest selling inhaled insulin again any time soon. I am quite comfortable being emphatic about that - institutional memory works like that. Ok big dog, maybe you will explain your vast insight into the other companies listed and why they will bypass this with pediatric approval. Moderators.....come on! Big dog! I get that you don't like what I say, but I am still waiting for you to say why I am wrong. Meanwhile, to answer your question; None of these companies will buy Mannkind or Afrezza with or without pediatric approval for solid reasons and that is because - Biogen. Look at the mission statement, line 1; At Biogen, our mission is clear: we are pioneers in neuroscience. Neuroscience, not endocrinology. Eli Lilly. They are just about to launch URLi so the last thing need is a competing insulin line. Amgen. I can't believe people are still pushing Amgen. Amgen has zero presence in the diabetes space. Their focus is oncology. Merck. They are focused entirely on the Type 2 drug mass market of which they own a large chunk of with Januvia, and now they have their new SGLT2 that they are partnering with Pfizer on. Gilead. Not what they do. Look at both their products and their pipeline, they have tightly focused specialty areas. Their operating model is picking off unmet needs and diabetes does not fit that profile, as it's heavily competitive. Feel free to tell me which I got wrong, and more importantly, why.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 20, 2019 22:42:04 GMT -5
I don’t really want to sell anything either. Does a buy-in from United limit other partnerships? Getting 4 drugs partnered would be ideal. 6 months to a year sounds ideal also. Vdex is doing well and ready to roll:-) Enough funding for leasing,.... that was just in my perfect world scenario. I’d love to see clinics open up in multiple states quickly, but what’s more important is how many providers are at each clinic. And they are training those providers now. As you are close to Bill I will assume he has significant funding to "lease" Afrezza. When is the deal getting done? Investor's savings are two fold if a deal is done. Dedicated saleaforce is let go and all associated costs. Additionally, upfront money. Unless. Bill only wants rights to territories where said salesforce is not active. Less savings, but still some money upfront, possibly. Personally, while not a VDEX supportor nor a detractor, if Bill has cash and is willing, why not a direct and straightforward approach? No more Youtube. MC has stated we have had 100+ partners approach us, but NONE of them willing to PAY! Could that possibly be why MC was unwilling to discuss details with VDEX and Bill? Regardless. Till death do us part. I just can’t speak to that and I don’t know the answer but what I don’t understand is the comment about 100+ parters wanting to partner? who are these people? Partner how?
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Aug 20, 2019 23:07:55 GMT -5
Ok big dog, maybe you will explain your vast insight into the other companies listed and why they will bypass this with pediatric approval. Moderators.....come on! Big dog! I get that you don't like what I say, but I am still waiting for you to say why I am wrong. Meanwhile, to answer your question; None of these companies will buy Mannkind or Afrezza with or without pediatric approval for solid reasons and that is because - Biogen. Look at the mission statement, line 1; At Biogen, our mission is clear: we are pioneers in neuroscience. Neuroscience, not endocrinology. Eli Lilly. They are just about to launch URLi so the last thing need is a competing insulin line. Amgen. I can't believe people are still pushing Amgen. Amgen has zero presence in the diabetes space. Their focus is oncology. Merck. They are focused entirely on the Type 2 drug mass market of which they own a large chunk of with Januvia, and now they have their new SGLT2 that they are partnering with Pfizer on. Gilead. Not what they do. Look at both their products and their pipeline, they have tightly focused specialty areas. Their operating model is picking off unmet needs and diabetes does not fit that profile, as it's heavily competitive. Feel free to tell me which I got wrong, and more importantly, why. I will, soon, but you won't be here. It will be very clear where you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 21, 2019 8:08:38 GMT -5
... Feel free to tell me which I got wrong, and more importantly, why. I will, soon, but you won't be here. It will be very clear where you were wrong. Not sure why you think I won't be here, and I await your explanation as to which will buy Afrezza and why with interest. One of those companies does deserve a deeper look, and that is Merck. Merck has the big advantage of being in the diabetes space. The down side though is that they are focused exclusively on Type 2 and given the SOC prandial insulin is not a priority. Merck dipped into the basal insulin market in a deal with Samsung to develop a Lantus biosimilar which makes sense since that's the third step and they don't have it covered. However Merck bailed on that deal at the end of last year and paid $155M for the right to leave. The talk at the time was that the margins made it uncompetitive so they cut their losses. In my view having just lost $155M on basal insulin they are unlikely to be in any hurry to jump into the smaller and equally competitive prandial insulin market. Right now their focus in the diabetes space is the far larger non-insulin dependent Type 2 market with their shiny new SGLT2.
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Aug 21, 2019 8:16:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 21, 2019 8:22:07 GMT -5
Where is aged going?
That’s probably why all the gossip papers use Merck.
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Aug 21, 2019 8:49:06 GMT -5
Where is aged going? That’s probably why all the gossip papers use Merck. To bash whoever purchases Afrezza. It is his passion?? He admittedly only discredits one diabetes product online, not to invest, not to use......what other reason could it be? I imagine it pays well.
|
|
|
Post by lennymnkd on Aug 21, 2019 8:58:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 21, 2019 9:30:05 GMT -5
When dealing with large companies it all comes down to portfolio strategy. The days when pharmas had broad portfolios are over and most now focus on three to five therapeutic categories, which is down from ten to fifteen in the early 1990's. If a drug doesn't fit with one of the remaining therapeutic categories then a big pharma is not going there, and metabolic diseases are not nearly so popular as they once were. Even Pfizer, who had some huge hits from their metabolic portfolio (Lipitor, Viagra, Benicar, Norvasc) has moved on due to the cost of developing follow-on products and the difficulty of launching any new drug in the face of some generic drugs (many of which were former Pfizer branded drugs) that perform very well for more than 90% of the patient population. Big pharma is looking to move their top line and that generally requires a drug that can account for at least 5% of future sales within a few years without diluting the gross profit margin. Pfizer, for example, sold $53 billion last year with an 80% gross margin so they are looking at new drugs with a $3 billion sales potential and at least 80% gross margins. That is not a good description of Afrezza.
The other reason big pharmas spend money is to protect franchises, which is why Sanofi get into bed with MNKD in the first place. There is little doubt in my mind that they looked ahead at the patent cliff for Lantus and wanted something to fill that hole, but for a variety of reasons Afrezza did not work out for them. I am not sure Lilly or Novo have the same problem as Sanofi did so they are going to be very much less motivated to take a flyer on Afrezza.
It is not enough to be a good investment opportunity; Afrezza must be the best investment opportunity and be aligned with the portfolio strategy of the company. As the pharma world increasingly chases after neurological, cancer, and pain drugs, finding great partners for new metabolic drugs is going to be tough.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 21, 2019 9:30:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lennymnkd on Aug 21, 2019 10:02:34 GMT -5
God only knows what would have been said about united therapeutics before MIKE landed that deal Pulmonary this pulmonary that .. etc / come on , a lot and I mean a lot of circumstance out there we don't have the vision for or are prevlige of understanding
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 21, 2019 10:34:06 GMT -5
God only knows what would have been said about united therapeutics before MIKE landed that deal Pulmonary this pulmonary that .. etc / come on , a lot and I mean a lot of circumstance out there we don't have the vision for or are prevlige of understanding We knew MNKD had elected to take TreT through Phase I trials and completed them with seemingly quite positive results, so that is one thing that was being said... and if I remember correctly UTHR was even mentioned as likely target. Likewise, prior to the SNY deal, they were mentioned as a likely partner here on proboards. And now we have the context of Mike explaining that in most circumstances they wouldn't get the value they'd be looking for out of a deal prior to phase I trials. Things like that we don't need "visions" for, we can just listen to what management is telling us. Unexpected things can always happen, but one of the main reasons I participate here is to get people with experience in various aspects of business, markets and science weighing in on what is likely and what is not. Some wish to have that insight to adjust their investment in MNKD (up, down or sideways). Of course some that just plan on buying, buying, buying regardless may not have interest in that sort of insight, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Aug 21, 2019 11:37:43 GMT -5
God only knows what would have been said about united therapeutics before MIKE landed that deal Pulmonary this pulmonary that .. etc / come on , a lot and I mean a lot of circumstance out there we don't have the vision for or are prevlige of understanding And how would you ever have proved them wrong? Yes, bashing is easy word play.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 21, 2019 12:16:15 GMT -5
And to be clear. I am not saying Mannkind will never get a partner, be bought out, etc. What I am saying is that those companies listed are not going to be the ones to do it. That begs the question if not them then who? My answer is I don't believe there are currently any obvious candidates right now other than possibly UTHR.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 21, 2019 12:52:13 GMT -5
God only knows what would have been said about united therapeutics before MIKE landed that deal Pulmonary this pulmonary that .. etc / come on , a lot and I mean a lot of circumstance out there we don't have the vision for or are prevlige of understanding And how would you ever have proved them wrong? Yes, bashing is easy word play. What people post here is in general a permanent record. So, seems pretty easy to prove when someone has been generally wrong... i.e. simply point out that they have poor track record of predictions using the evidence. If someone is truly "bashing" (i.e. saying negative things far removed from reality) then they undoubtedly will be contradicted by outcomes sometimes. Wrong also can have shades. Someone giving reasons they don't think something is likely is different from someone asserting that they think something can't possibly happen. People here have certainly been wrong both on the optimistic side and the pessimistic side. Likely to remain the case as anyone that can really predict the future with any degree of accuracy probably are going to have better things to do than follow this board
|
|