|
|
Post by hellodolly on Apr 27, 2023 8:20:10 GMT -5
Why do you confuse "authorization of more shares" with some immediate sense of automatic dilution? It could take years before they ever fully go through the shares they're requesting to be authorized and, if they don't have enough shares (as an example) to fulfill the compensation package, which is contractually legal and binding, MNKD could be entwined in years of litigation by their own employees. How would that look? These shares have a variety of uses, as spelled out in the prospectus that was delivered to everyone who gets a proxy. Does it mean the share price won't touch $2? No. But, does it also mean that it touched $2 because of the authorization for more shares? Again, no. The conflating of the two ideas is, in my own opinion, a mistake and can easily confuse the readers. Besides, every time a request for the authorization of more shares is announced, it is by far the easiest target for shorts to pound on, especially the unsophisticated. Speaking of, I read an opinion elsewhere in this thread that the share price may be dropping because of some concerns MC must be having because the Clofazimine study "pooped out" or peds study "not doing well"? I must say, we have a lot of wild speculation that makes reading these comments very entertaining and worthy of some engagement. Still, reminds me of Yahoo and StockTwits. As an investor in this space for decades and currently in ~30 biotechs and several medical hardware device companies, I can say with absolute certainty that the short brigade have never, ever found a better piece of propaganda than using the #1 favorite "fear of dilution", even if it never happens, with so much infatuation. In fact, come to think of it, every stock position I hold in and out of biotech in my portfolio, it's the same infatuation. Because it’s just a well-known fact …what people should ask at the shareholder meeting is what are they going to be used for? People can ask. But, as is always the answer, it's based upon what is already outlined in the Prospectus and it doesn't really matter what they do with them, regardless. Once authorized they'll use them as they need them as determined by a number of economic external and internal factors, which is much different than assuming automatic fundraising. That was essentially the gist of my reply. Show me a CEO who doesn't use all of the available methods to securing the companies financial stability and I'll show you a short-timer CEO. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Apr 27, 2023 8:33:53 GMT -5
STOP! This is ridiculous ..number one, don’t tell people to sell their shares. That’s just a way to bully people into shutting up. Number two: Her investment would’ve never gone zero because she wouldn’t have let it. Number three, she’s already out! I'm very serious that I will not invest or own stock in a company I detest and whose management I do not respect. I want my money working for me at places I like where people I can respect are committing their working lives to. There is an incalculable human cost to that effort enduring frustration, time away from family, working when you don't feel well and even getting ill because of stress or exposure to viruses, et cetera.
Nobody told her to sell her shares. That was a choice she made on her own as was her choice to be invested as was her choice to bellyache about an investment she no longer has. I don't want to bully anybody. I want people to be happier, and sometimes advising them to shed themselves of an investment that is making them (and us by extension) miserable is a kindness.
|
|
|
|
Post by myocat on Apr 27, 2023 8:50:17 GMT -5
I assume you made it good, as I did when I got all out last week. I was a loyal holder until the latest proxy came out. By the time the dilution approved, PPS will probably be around $2 and it could be in the $1.00. May be I will jump back in by then. Good luck to those who hold. Why do you confuse "authorization of more shares" with some immediate sense of automatic dilution? It could take years before they ever fully go through the shares they're requesting to be authorized and, if they don't have enough shares (as an example) to fulfill the compensation package, which is contractually legal and binding, MNKD could be entwined in years of litigation by their own employees. How would that look? These shares have a variety of uses, as spelled out in the prospectus that was delivered to everyone who gets a proxy. Does it mean the share price won't touch $2? No. But, does it also mean that it touched $2 because of the authorization for more shares? Again, no. The conflating of the two ideas is, in my own opinion, a mistake and can easily confuse the readers. Besides, every time a request for the authorization of more shares is announced, it is by far the easiest target for shorts to pound on, especially the unsophisticated. Speaking of, I read an opinion elsewhere in this thread that the share price may be dropping because of some concerns MC must be having because the Clofazimine study "pooped out" or peds study "not doing well"? I must say, we have a lot of wild speculation that makes reading these comments very entertaining and worthy of some engagement. Still, reminds me of Yahoo and StockTwits. As an investor in this space for decades and currently in ~30 biotechs and several medical hardware device companies, I can say with absolute certainty that the short brigade have never, ever found a better piece of propaganda than using the #1 favorite "fear of dilution", even if it never happens, with so much infatuation. In fact, come to think of it, every stock position I hold in and out of biotech in my portfolio, it's the same infatuation. What are the reasons for authorize more shares (I won't mention DILUTION). 1. Reserve is dwindling 2. sales and royalties are not enough to be profitable 3. No additional financings now or in the near future 4. need more $ to fund programs, clinicals 5. enrich themselves - bonuses I do hope they can get $4 or more for the new authorized 400M shares, which translates to financial stability and pay off their debts. I do not see any shattering news or development to make $4-$5... |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Apr 27, 2023 9:00:40 GMT -5
When people are losing an argument they sometimes default to demanding that you “sell your shares!” It is a bullying move with the intention to silence your comments.
Authorizing a doubling of the share count will almost certainly lead to dilution. To believe otherwise is naive to put it nicely. Similarly, it would be naive to believe a reverse split is not a negative indicator. Yet there were some (only a few) who insisted otherwise.
The notion that “we would be at $0 without MC” is laughable. He didn’t take actions that any other ceo wouldn’t have taken. He listened to his financial people (like anyone would do) and he said yes to Martine (as anyone would do). Conversely, he has made many promises and representations that haven’t come true. The only certainty is increasing comp package and generous bonuses/share grants. He’s been paid handsomely to be an overseer, but how incredible would it be to have a go-getter to unlock the potential of Afrezza and TS. I’m not giving up on that hope, and at some point the BOD must realize enough is enough (if they are faithfully executing their duty, which admittedly is no guarantee).
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 27, 2023 9:15:04 GMT -5
STOP! This is ridiculous ..number one, don’t tell people to sell their shares. That’s just a way to bully people into shutting up. Number two: Her investment would’ve never gone zero because she wouldn’t have let it. Number three, she’s already out! I'm very serious that I will not invest or own stock in a company I detest and whose management I do not respect. I want my money working for me at places I like where people I can respect are committing their working lives to. There is an incalculable human cost to that effort enduring frustration, time away from family, working when you don't feel well and even getting ill because of stress or exposure to viruses, et cetera.
Nobody told her to sell her shares. That was a choice she made on her own as was her choice to be invested as was her choice to bellyache about an investment she no longer has. I don't want to bully anybody. I want people to be happier, and sometimes advising them to shed themselves of an investment that is making them (and us by extension) miserable is a kindness.
Nobody told her to sell her shares?…they most certainly did in the post right above mine. I wasn’t addressing anyone else. Everybody has a different reason for investing or for buying a stock. People are very loyal, and they bought because of Al Mann and they have hung on basically out of Hope and loyalty. This isn’t easy for them. They don’t need to be lashed out at. Yeah, but see you called it bellyaching. Get it…think about why that was. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 27, 2023 9:23:40 GMT -5
How many people wanna bet that Nate bitches about Pro-Boards on StockTwits today? Or should we call it bellyaching🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 27, 2023 9:25:42 GMT -5
Sometimes people don’t want to own up to their own failure and admit they made a poor investment decision. They want to blame and point fingers at everyone except themselves. Suggesting these same people sell and move on, who are often times seen complaining about every single company decision, and detesting management no stop, is a logical and common sense suggestion and is not in any way “bullying.”
A lot of times people will throw around words because they don’t have anything else to stand on. It’s the same thing as calling things “conspiracy theories” when in reality they are real events taking place in current time.
Anyways, I like where the company is headed and I like what clinical trials is happening and I’m still almost double my money here so yes I don’t complain and quite frankly it’s laughable that some people choose to stay comfortable in their current state of misery and complaining.
Misery loves company.
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Apr 27, 2023 9:29:40 GMT -5
I'm very serious that I will not invest or own stock in a company I detest and whose management I do not respect. I want my money working for me at places I like where people I can respect are committing their working lives to. There is an incalculable human cost to that effort enduring frustration, time away from family, working when you don't feel well and even getting ill because of stress or exposure to viruses, et cetera.
Nobody told her to sell her shares. That was a choice she made on her own as was her choice to be invested as was her choice to bellyache about an investment she no longer has. I don't want to bully anybody. I want people to be happier, and sometimes advising them to shed themselves of an investment that is making them (and us by extension) miserable is a kindness.
Nobody told her to sell her shares?…they most certainly did in the post right above mine. I wasn’t addressing anyone else. Everybody has a different reason for investing or for buying a stock. People are very loyal, and they bought because of Al Mann and they have hung on basically out of Hope and loyalty. This isn’t easy for them. They don’t need to be lashed out at. My apologies. She was indeed encouraged to help herself feel better by investing elsewhere.
That said, I assume she chose to sell her stake in MNKD without the encouragement, and I hope that it brought her some relief and that she prospers with whatever other investment choices she makes.
And those are the same sentiments I have for all of the other miserable investors. Nobody forced them to invest in MNKD and nobody can force them to sell MNKD, but kind, considerate, investors can offer advice for the miserable investors to sell some or all of their shares in hopes it helps them feel better. Like Nate Pile or not, but his advice to not own more of a stock than you can comfortably sleep owning is sound advice. (I kind of wonder if he took his own advice, but that's another story.) Best of luck to sweedee and anyone else who takes real steps to improve their emotional situation.
And the choice of word "bellyaching" was because sweedee wrote a vitriolic post after she had already sold her shares. If you're not an investor, why post? Bones asked this same question of agedhippie, and I thought it was a legitimate question then too, but also glad that agedhippie posts here regardless of his motives. And, insofar as sweedee chooses to monitor and post and possibly re-invest, that's all good, but I do want her to be in a better place for her sake and all our sakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Apr 27, 2023 9:49:04 GMT -5
OMG!! I wrote my opinions about this stock.. I've been here for years.. and that's my opinion..
You can't say anything on this board unless it's something you want to hear.. so then you have to start in with the put downs.. and snide comments.. doesn't matter that I sold. I'm happy I did..
Be in a better place? LOL I'm fine!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 27, 2023 9:58:18 GMT -5
When people are losing an argument they sometimes default to demanding that you “sell your shares!” It is a bullying move with the intention to silence your comments. Authorizing a doubling of the share count will almost certainly lead to dilution. To believe otherwise is naive to put it nicely. Similarly, it would be naive to believe a reverse split is not a negative indicator. Yet there were some (only a few) who insisted otherwise. The notion that “we would be at $0 without MC” is laughable. He didn’t take actions that any other ceo wouldn’t have taken. He listened to his financial people (like anyone would do) and he said yes to Martine (as anyone would do). Conversely, he has made many promises and representations that haven’t come true. The only certainty is increasing comp package and generous bonuses/share grants. He’s been paid handsomely to be an overseer, but how incredible would it be to have a go-getter to unlock the potential of Afrezza and TS. I’m not giving up on that hope, and at some point the BOD must realize enough is enough (if they are faithfully executing their duty, which admittedly is no guarantee). Remaining invested in a company all in the hopes the BoD will one day replace the CEO? Sounds like a terrible investment strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Apr 27, 2023 10:21:28 GMT -5
As an investor in this space for decades and currently in ~30 biotechs and several medical hardware device companies, I can say with absolute certainty that the short brigade have never, ever found a better piece of propaganda than using the #1 favorite "fear of dilution", even if it never happens, with so much infatuation. In fact, come to think of it, every stock position I hold in and out of biotech in my portfolio, it's the same infatuation. To be fair, dilution has happened in the past and at the time investors felt blindsided then. Doubling authorized shares by 400M for a company with a market cap hovering around $1B isn’t a good look. It may be prudent, but it’s not a move that screams confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 27, 2023 10:39:04 GMT -5
Thank you!
What bothers me the most is why people just don’t admit reverse splits are bearish..doubling the shares are bearish..both make the stock go down, and people wanna pretend it’s something else.
I’m not blaming anybody specific for it. It just gives you a gut feeling of oh darn.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Apr 27, 2023 10:43:35 GMT -5
As an investor in this space for decades and currently in ~30 biotechs and several medical hardware device companies, I can say with absolute certainty that the short brigade have never, ever found a better piece of propaganda than using the #1 favorite "fear of dilution", even if it never happens, with so much infatuation. In fact, come to think of it, every stock position I hold in and out of biotech in my portfolio, it's the same infatuation. To be fair, dilution has happened in the past and at the time investors felt blindsided then. Doubling authorized shares by 400M for a company with a market cap hovering around $1B isn’t a good look. It may be prudent, but it’s not a move that screams confidence. We were all blindsided "then". It was necessary and MCs explanation, when it was finally laid out along with the sale-leaseback and UTHRs partnership, improved MNKDs financial stability and is the reason the doors are still open. "Doubling authorized shares by 400M for a company with a market cap hovering around $1B isn’t a good look."Well, not going to "look" bad now. Nobody should be blinded sided by it, especially by those who are stuck on confusing/comingling "authorization" with "automatic fundraising." They can all say, "Told you so." Not like before when we were all " blindsided." "It may be prudent, but it’s not a move that screams confidence."
It's either prudent and screams confidence or, not prudent and thus lacks fiduciary accountability. So then, a lose-lose and a no win arrangement regardless for Mike? Sorry, can't swallow that argument. Can't throw shade in two directions at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 27, 2023 10:53:58 GMT -5
When people are losing an argument they sometimes default to demanding that you “sell your shares!” It is a bullying move with the intention to silence your comments. Authorizing a doubling of the share count will almost certainly lead to dilution. To believe otherwise is naive to put it nicely. Similarly, it would be naive to believe a reverse split is not a negative indicator. Yet there were some (only a few) who insisted otherwise. The notion that “we would be at $0 without MC” is laughable. He didn’t take actions that any other ceo wouldn’t have taken. He listened to his financial people (like anyone would do) and he said yes to Martine (as anyone would do). Conversely, he has made many promises and representations that haven’t come true. The only certainty is increasing comp package and generous bonuses/share grants. He’s been paid handsomely to be an overseer, but how incredible would it be to have a go-getter to unlock the potential of Afrezza and TS. I’m not giving up on that hope, and at some point the BOD must realize enough is enough (if they are faithfully executing their duty, which admittedly is no guarantee). Remaining invested in a company all in the hopes the BoD will one day replace the CEO? Sounds like a terrible investment strategy. ..everybody has a different investment strategy. You have no way of knowing what people know, what they’re thinking, or why they do what they do. It might not sound right to you, but you are not in their position. Everybody has a different financial goals. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 27, 2023 11:02:26 GMT -5
Thank you! What bothers me the most is why people just don’t admit reverse splits are bearish..doubling the shares are bearish..both make the stock go down, and people wanna pretend it’s something else. I’m not blaming anybody specific for it. It just gives you a gut feeling of oh darn. I agree the RS does suck but Matt Pfeiffer didn't have any other choice back then. I'm on the fence about the shares at the moment. Depends on what they are used for before I can determine if negatively impacted me. I feel like we've made an incredible comeback since the RS already, and I believe the PPS will reflect that, though everything is always slower than what we want or anticipate. |
|
