Warrants

[sportsrancho]

seekingalpha.com/article/4314294-mannkind-midcap-amendment-and-warrants

[joeypotsandpans]

Dec 27, 2019 13:53:52 GMT -5 sportsrancho said:

seekingalpha.com/article/4314294-mannkind-midcap-amendment-and-warrants

My response that has been filtered and not yet posted:


In your previous article you had insinuated that the rate was moved up 2% based on not meeting the covenant. I questioned you whether you were assuming or you knew. You then replied as it was essentially a foregone conclusion based on missing the covenant with MidCap.



Well just like your mentor you made statements or conjecture that didn't happen because there was an amendment agreed upon. I say like your mentor because for years he would make reference to the dire cash situation, and then poof! The unforeseen arrival of UTHR and the NON-DILUTIVE cash that came with it along with the potential income stream. Now you're stating in a factual manner that the shares will be pinned under $1.60 until June because less than half the original warrants may remain outstanding.



John do you own 1 or 10 shares of MNKD to make the "I am long disclosure" after all you would be "honest" in your disclosure if you were long 1,10, or 100 shares for that matter. Or are you technically neutral because you have sold covered calls in anticipation of the $1.60 ceiling/cap? As a savvy investor, why would one remain long and continue to write/raise negative FUD based articles? Wouldn't the opportunity loss cost more tying up those funds on an ongoing basis as opposed to finding far greener pastures? Something just doesn't pass the smell test here IMO

[sportsrancho]

Good to know, I’ll check out his answer:-)

[peppy]

Dec 27, 2019 14:45:23 GMT -5 joeypotsandpans said:

Dec 27, 2019 13:53:52 GMT -5 sportsrancho said:

seekingalpha.com/article/4314294-mannkind-midcap-amendment-and-warrants

My response that has been filtered and not yet posted:


In your previous article you had insinuated that the rate was moved up 2% based on not meeting the covenant. I questioned you whether you were assuming or you knew. You then replied as it was essentially a foregone conclusion based on missing the covenant with MidCap.



Well just like your mentor you made statements or conjecture that didn't happen because there was an amendment agreed upon. I say like your mentor because for years he would make reference to the dire cash situation, and then poof! The unforeseen arrival of UTHR and the NON-DILUTIVE cash that came with it along with the potential income stream. Now you're stating in a factual manner that the shares will be pinned under $1.60 until June because less than half the original warrants may remain outstanding.



John do you own 1 or 10 shares of MNKD to make the "I am long disclosure" after all you would be "honest" in your disclosure if you were long 1,10, or 100 shares for that matter. Or are you technically neutral because you have sold covered calls in anticipation of the $1.60 ceiling/cap? As a savvy investor, why would one remain long and continue to write/raise negative FUD based articles? Wouldn't the opportunity loss cost more tying up those funds on an ongoing basis as opposed to finding far greener pastures? Something just doesn't pass the smell test here IMO

There was a day a few years ago, that kastanes didn't know that insulin added weight. I could try and find th thread.
Kastanes spent enough time on this board and has seen enough continuous glucose monitors of afrezza users vs subq fast acting insulin to know by eyeball, that afrezza is the better acting fast acting insulin.
Do I see any use of his knowledge base in this article he has written? Kastanes doing the Spencer Osborne.
The better more informative written piece would include insurance coverage. 
An investigative piece. Why when the continuous glucose monitors show better after meal glucose control is Afrezza not covered by health insurance?
There are people on the afrezza facebook group that have had their physicians write for pre-authorians and are being denied. 
Kastanes has a tiny little platform where he could actually say something.
Which I guess takes me too my point.
Kastanes .... I am pulling the rope because this is my stop. 

[sportsrancho]

That is so true Peppy! he could use his voice for good but he doesn’t ..that’s because he’s been calling for BK for years.( Unlike Spencer).
I blocked him years ago, after many private conversations I called him a short, that is something I rarely do. To this day I don’t believe he shorts stocks but I wanted to let him know that I felt like he sounded like one. It’s my opinion that he’s obsessive about thinking Mannkind is going under.

[joeypotsandpans]

Dec 27, 2019 14:45:23 GMT -5 joeypotsandpans said:

Dec 27, 2019 13:53:52 GMT -5 sportsrancho said:

seekingalpha.com/article/4314294-mannkind-midcap-amendment-and-warrants

My response that has been filtered and not yet posted:


In your previous article you had insinuated that the rate was moved up 2% based on not meeting the covenant. I questioned you whether you were assuming or you knew. You then replied as it was essentially a foregone conclusion based on missing the covenant with MidCap.



Well just like your mentor you made statements or conjecture that didn't happen because there was an amendment agreed upon. I say like your mentor because for years he would make reference to the dire cash situation, and then poof! The unforeseen arrival of UTHR and the NON-DILUTIVE cash that came with it along with the potential income stream. Now you're stating in a factual manner that the shares will be pinned under $1.60 until June because less than half the original warrants may remain outstanding.



John do you own 1 or 10 shares of MNKD to make the "I am long disclosure" after all you would be "honest" in your disclosure if you were long 1,10, or 100 shares for that matter. Or are you technically neutral because you have sold covered calls in anticipation of the $1.60 ceiling/cap? As a savvy investor, why would one remain long and continue to write/raise negative FUD based articles? Wouldn't the opportunity loss cost more tying up those funds on an ongoing basis as opposed to finding far greener pastures? Something just doesn't pass the smell test here IMO

I find this amusing, so either Kastanes read your post or one of the puppets/messenger pigeons alerted him to it....his response was that proboard members were welcome to respond to his articles ....yet my comments/questions were conveniently omitted just like his mentor's articles....they don't get omitted on any other articles I have responded to on SA. The cop out is generally that they don't control the SA moderators lol....also I had posted something on another thread here about some have not learned to stop feeding the trolls, evidently that was pulled for whatever reason? Conflict of interest perhaps? I'm curious as to which moderator here pulled that post?




John Kastanes

Comments3575 | + Follow

Author’s reply » From sportsrancho on proboards:

That is so true Peppy! he could use his voice for good but he doesn’t ..that’s because he’s been calling for BK for years.( Unlike Spencer).

I blocked him years ago, after many private conversations I called him a short, that is something I rarely do. To this day I don’t believe he shorts stocks but I wanted to let him know that I felt like he sounded like one. It’s my opinion that he’s obsessive about thinking Mannkind is going under.

---------------------

sportsrancho - you and others on proboards are welcome to post comments on my articles.
  Evidently not as my comment which was not derogatory in the least was "selectively edited".
29 Dec 2019, 10:17 AMReply2

[sportsrancho]

I’m sure he read my post and that was just his way of letting me know he read my post... as far as your other post about the trolls I don’t I think I saw it ..I don’t remember it. and I don’t know what you’re meaning about what moderator🤷‍♀️

[mnholdem]

"...also I had posted something on another thread here about some have not learned to stop feeding the trolls, evidently that was pulled for whatever reason? Conflict of interest perhaps? I'm curious as to which moderator here pulled that post?" - joeypotsandpans

I remember you posting many of your replies that had been filtered/blocked from appearing in the SeekingAlpha response sections, joey, but I cannot say with any certainty which moderator/administrator removed some of your posts.

However, please be aware that it sometimes happens that entire groups of posts can get pulled of the main forum whenever thread posts start degrading into character attacks between ProBoard members. While sometimes good posts get tossed with the rest, all members should try to understand that these actions don't signal that moderators are taking anybody's side.  The actions are usually only taken when arguments are getting out of hand.

[ktim]

Dec 27, 2019 14:45:23 GMT -5 joeypotsandpans said:

Dec 27, 2019 13:53:52 GMT -5 sportsrancho said:

seekingalpha.com/article/4314294-mannkind-midcap-amendment-and-warrants

My response that has been filtered and not yet posted:


In your previous article you had insinuated that the rate was moved up 2% based on not meeting the covenant. I questioned you whether you were assuming or you knew. You then replied as it was essentially a foregone conclusion based on missing the covenant with MidCap.



Well just like your mentor you made statements or conjecture that didn't happen because there was an amendment agreed upon. I say like your mentor because for years he would make reference to the dire cash situation, and then poof! The unforeseen arrival of UTHR and the NON-DILUTIVE cash that came with it along with the potential income stream. Now you're stating in a factual manner that the shares will be pinned under $1.60 until June because less than half the original warrants may remain outstanding.



John do you own 1 or 10 shares of MNKD to make the "I am long disclosure" after all you would be "honest" in your disclosure if you were long 1,10, or 100 shares for that matter. Or are you technically neutral because you have sold covered calls in anticipation of the $1.60 ceiling/cap? As a savvy investor, why would one remain long and continue to write/raise negative FUD based articles? Wouldn't the opportunity loss cost more tying up those funds on an ongoing basis as opposed to finding far greener pastures? Something just doesn't pass the smell test here IMO

We've had a doubling of shares and a majority of them used, so I think "poof" is the sound made by disappearing shareholder value.  Obviously those pointing out dire financial situation have been 100% correct over the years.  It has caused significant dilution and still the lack of cash has hobbled the company's ability to effectively market Afrezza and develop the pipeline.

Many long term investors in MNKD are not polyannish.  Many have lost a lot and simply hold their position because after losing 90% or more, the remainder is small enough to almost be written off as inconsequential and despite all the headwinds for MNKD, they still believe in the basic idea that Afrezza is a good product.  If you can't understand that "smell", then you certainly don't read posts on this forum with a very open mind, because there are many of us in that same situation.