|
Post by awesomo on Apr 22, 2020 11:00:10 GMT -5
Originally I was going to vote against the additional authorized shares if there was nothing significant announced before ASM or share price was under $2. The current COVID19 situation has changed that because the business can be threatened due to doctor office limitations to see patients. I will vote yes to authorize additional shares to help the company stay alive. Anyone claiming to be long and voting against the increase of authorized shares during this crisis obviously does not mind their investment going to zero. Well, I would wager a strong bet that nothing significant would have been announced by ASM, the share price would be under $2, and they would have asked for more shares with or without the pandemic. So yeah, you can keep giving them excuses, but don't insinuate anything about a shareholder voting against more shares.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 22, 2020 11:44:21 GMT -5
Originally I was going to vote against the additional authorized shares if there was nothing significant announced before ASM or share price was under $2. The current COVID19 situation has changed that because the business can be threatened due to doctor office limitations to see patients. I will vote yes to authorize additional shares to help the company stay alive. Anyone claiming to be long and voting against the increase of authorized shares during this crisis obviously does not mind their investment going to zero. Well, I would wager a strong bet that nothing significant would have been announced by ASM, the share price would be under $2, and they would have asked for more shares with or without the pandemic. So yeah, you can keep giving them excuses, but don't insinuate anything about a shareholder voting against more shares. I just don’t see why long shareholders would vote no for the shares. I voted yes for the two new BOD members, no to the compensation, and a definite yes to the shares in three different accounts. We need the shares, even if mnkd fired Mike and everybody that shareholders are upset with, the Company and the new CEO would need shares to work with. Not getting the shares would not be good for anybody, it would surely force a reverse split as that would be the only way to fatten our shareprice. Those that vote no are asking mnkd to do a job without their most essential tool. I don’t understand the logic, some are letting their disregard for Mike allow them to make decisions that only slow the growth of the Company. Regardless of why, it’s not the right thing to do if you’re invested. You’re shooting yourselves in the foot. Good Luck regardless. ✌🏻😎
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Apr 22, 2020 11:54:49 GMT -5
Well, I would wager a strong bet that nothing significant would have been announced by ASM, the share price would be under $2, and they would have asked for more shares with or without the pandemic. So yeah, you can keep giving them excuses, but don't insinuate anything about a shareholder voting against more shares. I just don’t see why long shareholders would vote no for the shares. I voted yes for the two new BOD members, no to the compensation, and a definite yes to the shares in three different accounts. We need the shares, even if mnkd fired Mike and everybody that shareholders are upset with, the Company and the new CEO would need shares to work with. Not getting the shares would not be good for anybody, it would surely force a reverse split as that would be the only way to fatten our shareprice. Those that vote no are asking mnkd to do a job without their most essential tool. I don’t understand the logic, some are letting their disregard for Mike allow them to make decisions that only slow the growth of the Company. Regardless of why, it’s not the right thing to do if you’re invested. You’re shooting yourselves in the foot. Good Luck regardless. ✌🏻😎 Because I can absolutely guarantee it will pass, common shareholders will not influence the voting at all. I'm voting "no" to send a message the only way I can that they should be more judicial with their authorized shares unlike last time. Oh, and if they get more shares (which they will) and dilute soon after like last time, we are headed to a reverse split anyways.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 22, 2020 12:19:49 GMT -5
I just don’t see why long shareholders would vote no for the shares. I voted yes for the two new BOD members, no to the compensation, and a definite yes to the shares in three different accounts. We need the shares, even if mnkd fired Mike and everybody that shareholders are upset with, the Company and the new CEO would need shares to work with. Not getting the shares would not be good for anybody, it would surely force a reverse split as that would be the only way to fatten our shareprice. Those that vote no are asking mnkd to do a job without their most essential tool. I don’t understand the logic, some are letting their disregard for Mike allow them to make decisions that only slow the growth of the Company. Regardless of why, it’s not the right thing to do if you’re invested. You’re shooting yourselves in the foot. Good Luck regardless. ✌🏻😎 Because I can absolutely guarantee it will pass, common shareholders will not influence the voting at all. I'm voting "no" to send a message the only way I can that they should be more judicial with their authorized shares unlike last time. Oh, and if they get more shares (which they will) and dilute soon after like last time, we are headed to a reverse split anyways. Well said, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by cedafuntennis on Apr 22, 2020 12:24:50 GMT -5
Agreed. 0.5% confidence in whatever he will answer to that question. Sorry but Mike has lost all credibility with me and I was a big supporter of him since the start.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Apr 22, 2020 13:00:10 GMT -5
Let’s start a list of questions for the annual shareholder meeting..... 1.....Mike, “how soon before you need to use those shares?” I seem to recall that question addressed to Mike a couple years ago. If my memory is correct, he had a slide of various instruments the company was exploring for raising cash. The last bullet point on that slide was a public stock offering and Castagna emphasized that would be a least preferable/last resort option. MannKind's CEO knew during the conference call - although he played it down to investors and, some may argue, even made it sound like it may not happen at all - that the company's public offering would announced the very next day. Is there any reason to believe what CEO Castagna will be more forthcoming with investors this time?
|
|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Apr 22, 2020 14:10:23 GMT -5
Facts:
COVID19 is negatively impacting most businesses in USA, including doctor offices and their ability to see patients.
It is unknown how long COVID19 related business closures will last.
Afrezza new prescriptions and sales team are directly impacted by COVID19.
Mannkind's ability to move forward with various business developments is directly impacted by COVID19.
Most of the large short position still remains, even though stock hit 52 week low .80 recently.
Assumptions:
Short side is not satisfied with a 30-40% gain to exit their positions, they want to see this company destroyed.
Short side views additional authorized shares as a means for the company to continue doing business long term, not as a means of a future 30-40% dilution.
Short side will be voting against additional authorized shares, to make sure that the company does not have means for survival.
Voting against additional authorized shares in light of COVID19 situation only benefits short side.
Definitions:
Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict. Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[2] Bullying is the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally, or emotionally.
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Apr 22, 2020 14:42:01 GMT -5
Real facts: The executive team's business development was lacking long before COVID19. Shorts benefit greatly from dilution which is the most likely scenario from more authorized shares. Shorts cannot proxy vote. Our votes don't matter. They will get their authorized shares. It's amazing how people are arguing that shareholders voting against more shares are destroying the company.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 22, 2020 16:04:23 GMT -5
🤷♀️ It makes no sense whatsoever. I wonder if somebody from management has expressed concern?
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 22, 2020 17:12:41 GMT -5
... Assumptions: Short side is not satisfied with a 30-40% gain to exit their positions, they want to see this company destroyed. ... I think the shorts are making far to much money off Mannkind to want to see it destroyed. The IRR of running short term shorting is way over 40% annual.
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Apr 22, 2020 22:40:11 GMT -5
I voted no on everything except for Jennifer and Hooper. Same here....but I did reluctantly vote for the additional shares.
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Apr 22, 2020 22:42:43 GMT -5
The shares need to be authorized - if you are long term and understand the conceptual formula that is playing out, the company must be allotted a degree of flexibility correlated with their slow growth approach towards bresk even. Tortoises move faster than MKND -
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Apr 22, 2020 22:46:31 GMT -5
Agreed. 0.5% confidence in whatever he will answer to that question. Sorry but Mike has lost all credibility with me and I was a big supporter of him since the start. And if we had a real BOD - They would have replaced him by now - JMHO (assuming someone proven and competent wanted the job)
|
|
|
Post by bones1026 on Apr 22, 2020 23:11:47 GMT -5
Let’s start a list of questions for the annual shareholder meeting..... 1.....Mike, “how soon before you need to use those shares?” I seem to recall that question addressed to Mike a couple years ago. If my memory is correct, he had a slide of various instruments the company was exploring for raising cash. The last bullet point on that slide was a public stock offering and Castagna emphasized that would be a least preferable/last resort option. MannKind's CEO knew during the conference call - although he played it down to investors and, some may argue, even made it sound like it may not happen at all - that the company's public offering would announced the very next day. Is there any reason to believe what CEO Castagna will be more forthcoming with investors this time? Facts. Can’t argue that one.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 23, 2020 8:17:06 GMT -5
Biopharmaceutical companies only have two reliable sources of cash within their control, debt and equity. Cash injections from partnership deals like UTHR are nice, no doubt, but those events happen at the whim of the partner and are only partially in MNKD's control so those events are not something management can rely on to pay the bills.
The sad fact is that Afrezza is not a commercial success and may never be. The balance sheet is significantly overleveraged as it is and even the most charitable banker would characterize the company as high risk. Face it, the company simply is not a prime credit risk which is why it has had to borrow from the likes of Deerfield and Mid-Cap with covenant heavy agreements. As the amount of cash on the balance sheet declines, and the debt markets have become less than friendly even to the best borrowers, adding more debt is not a feasible alternative.
Shareholders are left with more equity dilution or liquidation of the company. Neither option is attractive, but dilution is the less painful of two unpleasant alternatives.
|
|