|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 23, 2023 12:03:08 GMT -5
The day before he was appointed CEO, we were trading at $1.28. That was 6.25 years ago. Using today's closing we're sitting on 255% gain since then, or 22.5% annualized. Granted, NASDAQ is up 172% over the same period... 17.3% annualized. I suspect Mike's outperformance will look even better by end of year. ktim, your analysis fails to account for share value dilution since 2017. I've owned the bulk of my shares since before then, so provided share count expansion from 110M shares post reverse split to today's count of 268M and growing, my shares have been diluted by 58%. So, what looks like 255% on paper in fact for LTS' may look like 125%, at best, and for many much worse. This translates to a 13.9% rate of return inclusive of dilution, so underperforming the NASDAQ throughout the length of his term. Hence LTS frustration and impatience. I do hope that by year's end MC's performance won't just look better, but will in fact actually (dilution included) be better than the NASDAQs performance since he was elevated to CEO from the CCO position in 2017. It would be a welcomed change. Your numbers are simply wrong. The share price is what the share price is... and most sites that list historic data provide adjusted values that account for splits and reverse splits, though that has not happened during Mike's term as CEO. I have no idea where you are coming up with 13.9% rate of return for his tenure as CEO. During that period nothing happened to your shares. The value of your holdings is simply the number of shares you held multiplied by the share price... both at the day he became CEO and now. No adjustments for dilution are necessary. I went through all of that also, being a very longtime investor. However, you were coitizing Mike specifically. And from the time he became CEO, the returns I stated are actual. Yes, some of us bought at the wrong time, but can't blame Mike for that. I was way underwater at one point. I blame Sanofi for that, and I blame myself for aggressive averaging down when it was clear to all looking at the actual financials at the time that there was much further to drop. Many seem to wish Mike could wave a hand and make the prior damage from FDA delays and Sanofi debacle disappear. Sadly that would require magic, not business acumen. He's done well with what was handed to him. And I'm not a Mike amazing sort of person either. I've criticized him here as well, such as the size of the new share authorization request. But the performance for shareholders is what it is. At the end of the day the share price trumps all the arm chair CEOing we all tend to engage in. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 23, 2023 12:11:48 GMT -5
Well said. Mango mentioned what I was going to counter agedhippie with. Mike (or at least MannKind management) decided to prioritize the development and Phase 1 trial of treprostinil on TechnoSphere which we now call United Therapeutic’s Tyvaso DPI. That was strategic and paid off and is paying off in a big way.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 23, 2023 12:23:30 GMT -5
What Mike did was what any business advisor would tell you to do. If you are running out of money to operate your choices are sell assets or borrow money. There was no capacity for further borrowing, the physical assets were already mortgaged, the only remaining asset was the stock so Mike did the obvious and expanding and selling off the float. This is really 101 stuff and not the work of a genius CEO. In my view what saved MNKD was Martine. Until that time Mike was attempting (and failing) to relaunch Afrezza, dipping toes in the water with some drugs but lacking the funds to follow through, and keeping the business afloat by diluting the shareholders - it wasn't Mike that saved the company it was you long term shareholders! Oddly, it was also the traders because without the volume that there was nobody would have bought the share placements. Volume meant that there was liquidity and you could get in and out of a position. This was pretty awful for investors, you keep getting your stock devalued, but it kept the company afloat. TLDR? Mike is a pretty average CEO who got a lucky break. Although as a CEO I knew once said, success is remaining in business until the lucky break that lets the company take off. Having served as a CEO (and COO) with small companies going through difficult periods, often the necessary course of action is pretty obvious. Though usually not quite as clear cut as you imply. What separates the good leaders from the bad is the ability to retain, motivate and focus employees through the bad times. Sometimes that remaining in business part is a much harder challenge than faced by many CEO that take over growing companies and simply accelerate the growth. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 23, 2023 13:00:57 GMT -5
Well said. Mango mentioned what I was going to counter agedhippie with. Mike (or at least MannKind management) decided to prioritize the development and Phase 1 trial of treprostinil on TechnoSphere which we now call United Therapeutic’s Tyvaso DPI. That was strategic and paid off and is paying off in a big way. Look at the timelines between LQDA phase 3 trial, and the MNKD phase 1 trial. That feels like this was driven by UTHR who suddenly needed a counter for Yutrepia (they had just listed it in their 10K as a business risk for the first time). The original work on TreT dates back to 2016 and predates Mike becoming CEO. Then in the start of 2018 there is a sudden flurry of activity following the announcement of the LQDA phase 3 trial. I think mnholden deserves Kudos for his prediction in response to pantaloon thought that a BP may be interested: I think that you are correct that there could be a partner interested in collaborating with MannKind on the development of TreT. As Castagna pointed out, Trepostinil(TS) comes with a relatively low-cost pathway to NDA in 2020. It could be sooner if some partner with deeper pockets than MannKind hooks up.mnkd.proboards.com/post/137270 |
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Aug 23, 2023 13:18:55 GMT -5
You all are just rehashing old news. Time to get out of the negativity and start to see the sunshine and smell the roses.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Aug 23, 2023 17:16:16 GMT -5
Well said. Mango mentioned what I was going to counter agedhippie with. Mike (or at least MannKind management) decided to prioritize the development and Phase 1 trial of treprostinil on TechnoSphere which we now call United Therapeutic’s Tyvaso DPI. That was strategic and paid off and is paying off in a big way. Look at the timelines between LQDA phase 3 trial, and the MNKD phase 1 trial. That feels like this was driven by UTHR who suddenly needed a counter for Yutrepia (they had just listed it in their 10K as a business risk for the first time). The original work on TreT dates back to 2016 and predates Mike becoming CEO. Then in the start of 2018 there is a sudden flurry of activity following the announcement of the LQDA phase 3 trial. I think mnholden deserves Kudos for his prediction in response to pantaloon thought that a BP may be interested: I think that you are correct that there could be a partner interested in collaborating with MannKind on the development of TreT. As Castagna pointed out, Trepostinil(TS) comes with a relatively low-cost pathway to NDA in 2020. It could be sooner if some partner with deeper pockets than MannKind hooks up.mnkd.proboards.com/post/137270I agree with you that UTHR needed a counter. MannKind management had the foresight to position themselves to be that counter to LQDA and Yutrepia. Mike's said this year, more than once, "What you're seeing now is the result of decisions we made a few years ago." That might be an acknowledgement that the decision to test treprostinil on technosphere predated Mike's tenure as CEO, but it is most certainly an acknowledgement that the management team is responsible. As we learned from Oliver Brandicoot at Sanofi, a new CEO can cause a disaster, or they can provide leadership when its needed most. Mike inherited a disaster and unequivocally provided the leadership that's helped position them for success. |
|
|
|
Post by markado on Aug 23, 2023 20:49:41 GMT -5
ktim, your analysis fails to account for share value dilution since 2017. I've owned the bulk of my shares since before then, so provided share count expansion from 110M shares post reverse split to today's count of 268M and growing, my shares have been diluted by 58%. So, what looks like 255% on paper in fact for LTS' may look like 125%, at best, and for many much worse. This translates to a 13.9% rate of return inclusive of dilution, so underperforming the NASDAQ throughout the length of his term. Hence LTS frustration and impatience. I do hope that by year's end MC's performance won't just look better, but will in fact actually (dilution included) be better than the NASDAQs performance since he was elevated to CEO from the CCO position in 2017. It would be a welcomed change. Your numbers are simply wrong. The share price is what the share price is... and most sites that list historic data provide adjusted values that account for splits and reverse splits, though that has not happened during Mike's term as CEO. I have no idea where you are coming up with 13.9% rate of return for his tenure as CEO. During that period nothing happened to your shares. The value of your holdings is simply the number of shares you held multiplied by the share price... both at the day he became CEO and now. No adjustments for dilution are necessary. I went through all of that also, being a very longtime investor. However, you were coitizing Mike specifically. And from the time he became CEO, the returns I stated are actual. Yes, some of us bought at the wrong time, but can't blame Mike for that. I was way underwater at one point. I blame Sanofi for that, and I blame myself for aggressive averaging down when it was clear to all looking at the actual financials at the time that there was much further to drop. Many seem to wish Mike could wave a hand and make the prior damage from FDA delays and Sanofi debacle disappear. Sadly that would require magic, not business acumen. He's done well with what was handed to him. And I'm not a Mike amazing sort of person either. I've criticized him here as well, such as the size of the new share authorization request. But the performance for shareholders is what it is. At the end of the day the share price trumps all the arm chair CEOing we all tend to engage in. ktim, what your numbers don't take into account is a shareholders dilution in % of company owned. 1 share out of 110M shares is not the same as 1 share out of 268M. The dilution comes from the reduction in % ownership sacrificing to the other new owners, and that is a real loss in value that is not captured in the that was then, this is now dollar calculation. Otherwise, if share count had not expanded, those who owned the 110M shares back in 2017 would be sitting at $10+ per share, now. That said, I hope it's water under the bridge and eventually we all get to where we hope this is going. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 24, 2023 14:22:22 GMT -5
markadoWhen the dilution occurred, before Mike became CEO, the price of the shares dropped. If there were no dilution then the price when Mike became CEO would have been higher and the price now would be higher. Roughly speaking one would expect the same 255% gain... i.e. one would expect the market cap of the company to grow by the same amount regardless of how many shares there are. But bottom line, the value of your holdings was equal to the number of shares you hold times the stock price when Mike became CEO and is now worth an amount equal to the number of shares times the current price... and that dollar value of your holdings went up 255% during that period (as of when I posted 2 days ago) even if that value is a smaller % of the company than it was when you originally invested. You are correct that without the dilution your shares would be worth more now, but that doesn't alter the fact that the value of your shares went up by 255% during the period stated. Please anyone that can explain this in a better way feel free to jump in.
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Dec 6, 2023 21:06:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Dec 6, 2023 23:10:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BD on Dec 7, 2023 11:13:13 GMT -5
Or not... ' Probation officers asked a federal judge to take no action, given Shkreli's "otherwise positive adjustment."' |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Dec 7, 2023 12:38:16 GMT -5
Thanks for demonstrating reading comprehension skills, BD. Shkreli got a total hall pass for hanging out with his pal Tucker Carlson, not even a slap on the wrist. Moreover, he came out of it with compliments for his "positive adjustment."
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Dec 7, 2023 15:59:29 GMT -5
Or not... ' Probation officers asked a federal judge to take no action, given Shkreli's "otherwise positive adjustment."' The article was poorly written. Seems like the probation officers are overworked, underpaid, and uninterested in doing anything more than they have to and are not inclined to haul Shkreli's white-collar criminal butt back into court for violating the terms of his parole. One thing that seemed like classic Shrkeli was his disregard for his probation terms and his rationalization that he didn't alert his probation officer about the travel to Maine to sit in Tucker Carlson' home studio (basement?) and get interviewed because his former probation officer had been unresponsive to requests for travel. Who gives a rat's ass what his former probation officer(s) did or didn't do?
Gotta say though, this is the right thread for a discussion of that AH ex-convict Martin Shkreli.
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Dec 9, 2023 14:01:55 GMT -5
Maybe instead of "Moms for Liberty" out searching for threesomes, we could have "Moms for Afrezza" out advocating for their children....
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Dec 29, 2023 16:14:24 GMT -5
Phfffffffft not phenomenal - nothing but the denoument of an inflated air release.
Have any lawsuits been announced, yet? Founded or unfounded, successful or unsuccessful, they would become one more set of distractions that our traction-less CEO and we shareholders just can't afford.
Hoping for MAJOR change for the better in 2024.
|
|
