|
|
Post by barnstormer on Nov 9, 2019 14:46:53 GMT -5
So from what I am hearing in the posts above is that Mike continues to pat himself on the back for getting Mannkinds finances in order is just a smoke & mirrors fluff made to support his raise? So his new financing package was based on covenants that his personal ( he won't speak to guidance) guidance thought was a lock based on his personal forecast of Afrezza sales? Shocking! If he put as much concentration and creativity into Afrezza sales as he does other things (which I won't mention) we should be seeing much stronger scrip/retention numbers than the paultry production we are seeing now. I was a strong supporter of Mike's, but sooner or later you have to take a reality check. It's a shame that Mannkind is being attacked by outsiders because the Commercialization Officer now CEO can't get the flagship product on a more stable course than where it is 3+ years into his tenure.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Nov 9, 2019 15:41:51 GMT -5
spencerosborne 8/9/19, 10:08 AM $MNKD I see the monthly MidCap minimum afrezza net revenue covenants as critical. The way I see it, it is very important for net revenue from Brazil to come in. In a perfect world, relying on Brazil would not be an issue. On US sales, I estimate that MNKD falls out of compliance by $1m in November, and is $3m out of compliance by the march 31 test. If that is the case, the $10m for tranche 2 cannot happen, and the interest rate on the $40m loan goes up by 2 points. By my estimation, a ramp in US sales is needed as well as a very good Brazil launch. Dont hate.. I am simply being realistic. MC already conceded that “I believe we have a strong relationship with MidCap, and we will successfully work together to resolve any issues that may rise throughout the term of our loan.”It's hard not to imagine that is a warning that he doesn't expect to meet the covenants. How many chunks of flesh will be necessary from shareholders for the successful resolution is left to be seen. I'd concur with SO on falling out of compliance though I'd say more like by half a million for Nov rather than one million. Of course one variable with doing recognition of revenue on shipment to distribution is changes in inventory levels within the distribution chain. Best case scenario would be that there were glitches in stocking and inventories were depleted somewhat last quarter leading to higher than normal stocking this quarter. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Nov 9, 2019 21:09:00 GMT -5
spencerosborne ... IMHO, MidCap is merely a bridge loan which tides Mnkd over until after 12/27/19 when the toxic 1.6 Warrants expire. Then UT, PEs like CG, JE May take an equity stake in Mnkd. They don’t want to be diluted by Warrants. MidCap loan may be used as a leverage in such negotiations. That could be why MC seems unconcerned, almost cavalier about covenants. Maybe it is obvious and I am having an early senior moment, but what do UT and PE stand for in the text above? |
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Nov 9, 2019 21:20:33 GMT -5
UTHR. PE: Private Equity fund, Activist Investor. SO mentioned initials of activist investors CG, JE.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 9, 2019 21:21:56 GMT -5
spencerosborne ... IMHO, MidCap is merely a bridge loan which tides Mnkd over until after 12/27/19 when the toxic 1.6 Warrants expire. Then UT, PEs like CG, JE May take an equity stake in Mnkd. They don’t want to be diluted by Warrants. MidCap loan may be used as a leverage in such negotiations. That could be why MC seems unconcerned, almost cavalier about covenants. Maybe it is obvious and I am having an early senior moment, but what do UT and PE stand for in the text above? United Therapeutics ands Private Equity firms. |
|
|
|
Post by bones1026 on Nov 9, 2019 23:01:11 GMT -5
UTHR. PE: Private Equity fund, Activist Investor. SO mentioned initials of activist investors CG, JE. So that is his CG reference before? And which activist investor is it? |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 10, 2019 0:26:16 GMT -5
UTHR. PE: Private Equity fund, Activist Investor. SO mentioned initials of activist investors CG, JE. So that is his CG reference before? And which activist investor is it? From Spencer.......Aug 31st, 7:13 pm @whiskyqueen not a reference to Carlyle Group. mnkd.proboards.com/post/187774 |
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Nov 10, 2019 1:00:22 GMT -5
CG: Christer Gardell, Founder, managing partner of Cevian Capital, Backed by Carl Icahn JE: Jeffrey Eberwein, Founder & CEO of Lone Star Value Management www.carriedin.com/activist-investors/ |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 10, 2019 11:52:54 GMT -5
CG: Christer Gardell, Founder, managing partner of Cevian Capital, Backed by Carl Icahn JE: Jeffrey Eberwein, Founder & CEO of Lone Star Value Management www.carriedin.com/activist-investors/ |
|
|
|
Post by cedafuntennis on Nov 10, 2019 12:18:33 GMT -5
What is an "actavist"?
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 10, 2019 12:33:49 GMT -5
An activist investor is an individual or group that purchases large numbers of a public company's shares and/or tries to obtain seats on the company's board to effect a significant change within the company.Jun 25, 2019
|
|
|
|
Post by cedafuntennis on Nov 10, 2019 18:49:45 GMT -5
An activist investor is an individual or group that purchases large numbers of a public company's shares and/or tries to obtain seats on the company's board to effect a significant change within the company.Jun 25, 2019 Thanks for the explanation. I knew what an activist was but I was pointing out the "actavist" misspelling twice in the same paragraph... |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 10, 2019 19:31:33 GMT -5
I thought it was that but I wasn’t sure🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on Nov 11, 2019 8:27:53 GMT -5
It should be "actavist investur."
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Nov 13, 2019 7:28:26 GMT -5
There is a saying I learned as a young adult from a sage ex-in-law; “Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”
I 100% understand being agitated at the pace of progress in Mannkind’s business plans. i.e., the slow growth of Afrezza marketing partnerships and domestic sales, publications, trials, and TechnoSphere pipeline development. And an elephant in the room is the lack of insurance coverage for Afrezza. Someone mentioned recently that it looked like we (longs) will get “our large T2 trial” in India. Maybe Matt or someone can comment on that trial and how well information gained there can translate into leverage with the FDA and domestic insurance providers. I do not expect a trial in India somehow obviates the need/requirement for a similar trial in the U.S., a trial (or trials) that should have been done by Sanofi under the original $1B+ global marketing agreement of 2014.
But with respect to cash infusion from an activist investment, there is risk. Everything carries risk including the steady-as-she-goes existing business plan, but one risk I am particularly concerned about as a long time buy-and-hold investor is the risk of an early buyout at pennies on the dollar. One thing I think I know about current management and the Board of Directors is they firmly want to succeed as an independent company. I’ve known entrepreneurs who’ve created companies important within an industry sector that sold out and others who held tight to what they had created. Both paths have pros and cons, but for my investment at this stage, because I bought too much too early, I want the company to remain independent and ultimately convert on the success that is the development and FDA approval of Afrezza. Dr. Mann and team delivered on Dr. Mann’s vision. It took two decades and billions of dollars. Marketshare is the key and insurance coverage is a main challenge. Only a management team that undertands the opportunity and cares about overcoming these challenges will make my investment flourish. A management team that is composed of investors whose goal is to turn a good profit on their activist investment can understandably be satisfied with a substantial increase in the value of their investment in what I will call an early buyout. That will be good for those wealthy investors, and I will get more value from my investment than it is currently worth, but nowhere near what it CAN be worth if the management team continues to strive towards what Mannkind can ultimately be worth if it remains an independent going concern.
|
|
