|
|
Post by marxbuffeto on Mar 22, 2015 11:58:18 GMT -5
I wanted to point out some facts and you are free to make your own conclusions. Jay Olson recently downgraded Mannkind to sell. He did it on only a few weeks of data. How anyone forecasts sales with a product with that amount of data is beyond me. Take a class on forecasting sales and you will know exactly what I mean. Anyway, Jay Olson suddenly at around the 6.50 pps range was concerned with Mannkind's Afrezza, but he didn't have that tune just a year before during Goldman Sach's health conference where his ONLY question during that conference was the following:
"Jay Olson - Goldman Sachs
Can you just comment on your longer term vision for MannKind, what is after AFREZZA, what else is in your pipeline, and what sort of therapeutic areas can you use to build upon the Technosphere technology platform?"
Picking apart that question, you clearly see that his only concern was with Mannkind's technology. During that conference Mannkind management broke down their future outlook of what Afrezza will be in the market place once approved. He was specifically interested in Technosphere, because like many of us we know this is where the meat and potatoes will be once Afrezza proves successful.
During his downgrade he clearly stayed far from Technosphere because he knew that management CLEARLY addressed his question. The reason for his downgrade? We can go on many paths, but one truth is very clear. Jay Olson and Goldman Sachs are very BULL on Mannkind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Jun 11, 2015 0:35:02 GMT -5
Laurence Jay Olson of Goldman Sachs seemed to again reveal his bias against Mannkind with his inappropriate questions during the GS Healthcare Conference held on Wednesday, June 10. This presentation was just over three months since his "downgrade" of Mannkind based on very early and limited sales data that would have persuaded a more astute observer to consider that projections might be premature. Apparently, Mr. Olson felt quite comfortable in failing to reveal his conflict of interest in asking leading questions about Mannkind's partner Sanofi's contractual ability to withdraw from the partnership. Mr. Olson apparently does not have sufficient biological knowledge of pharmaceuticals (despite his time at Pfizer, [which, incidentally, failed in its attempt to launch a similar drug, Exubera, an inferior drug in several ways to Afrezza and its Technosphere platform] to understand why Mannkind's Afrezza has all the characteristics necessary to be a game changer. Apparently, Mr. Olson has not acquired scruples nor technological insight in his career thus far. On the other hand, it is remotely possible that Mr. Olson knows very well what Afrezza's strengths are, and is simply doing what he is instructed to do within a corporate culture that demonstrated in 2008 that it was duplicitous and untrustworthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jun 11, 2015 10:00:38 GMT -5
That's some nice writing, Chris!
|
|
|
|
Post by newmnkdinvestor on Jun 11, 2015 10:28:02 GMT -5
But at the end of the day who allowed the target to be put on their back. They should have never done the conference or at least waited iuntil script numbers were better.
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Jun 11, 2015 10:28:23 GMT -5
Laurence Jay Olson of Goldman Sachs seemed to again reveal his bias against Mannkind with his inappropriate questions during the GS Healthcare Conference held on Wednesday, June 10. This presentation was just over three months since his "downgrade" of Mannkind based on very early and limited sales data that would have persuaded a more astute observer to consider that projections might be premature. Apparently, Mr. Olson felt quite comfortable in failing to reveal his conflict of interest in asking leading questions about Mannkind's partner Sanofi's contractual ability to withdraw from the partnership. Mr. Olson apparently does not have sufficient biological knowledge of pharmaceuticals (despite his time at Pfizer, [which, incidentally, failed in its attempt to launch a similar drug, Exubera, an inferior drug in several ways to Afrezza and its Technosphere platform] to understand why Mannkind's Afrezza has all the characteristics necessary to be a game changer. Apparently, Mr. Olson has not acquired scruples nor technological insight in his career thus far. On the other hand, it is remotely possible that Mr. Olson knows very well what Afrezza's strengths are, and is simply doing what he is instructed to do within a corporate culture that demonstrated in 2008 that it was duplicitous and untrustworthy. To make matters worse, there is a management team that not only allows this but decides to go and present in front of the idiot and not truly confront him about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ashiwi on Jun 11, 2015 10:37:39 GMT -5
Another management blunder. GS, Cramer, AF, Kliff etc are all in the same camp. They are biased against MNKD and will stoop to anything to bring the pps down.
Management should never have presented at GS. After the ADA coming out party, MNKD took in on the chin the next day thanks to GS.
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Jun 11, 2015 10:52:12 GMT -5
I just wish the company would announce their next TS candidate. I don't know if them bringing in a consulting company to help them figure it out is a good thing or bad thing but what it does tell me is that management is unable to make the decision themselves. That's not good, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 11:29:57 GMT -5
I just wish the company would announce their next TS candidate. I don't know if them bringing in a consulting company to help them figure it out is a good thing or bad thing but what it does tell me is that management is unable to make the decision themselves. That's not good, imo. the consulting company could have been used to gather the numbers/viability? @least that's my assumption |
|
|
|
Post by _neil on Jun 11, 2015 11:46:32 GMT -5
That Olson has an agenda is clear as day. Rather than not attending this, I guess a bit more preparation into expecting and answering them with confidence was the minimum expectation from the MNKD team. I don't think their inability of coming up with right things to say was the reason for the latest slide but nevertheless, if I were someone they listened to - I would advice them to stay out of limelight unless they had something substantial to share. They've proven many times that answering tough questions is not in their wheelhouse. They can be bluntly honest about everything or they can stress on the positives to be shareholder friendly.
They mumble about their inability to disclose good news or meekly concede about the short term hardships without offering confidence on how these are truly not a bother. I haven't had a long (or successful) investing career as most of the others on this board but from what I've seen, this company has to be strangest combination of a great product and bad salesmen.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jun 11, 2015 13:44:37 GMT -5
If MannKind had NOT presented at Goldman-Sucks, then Olsen (and others) would have printed that MannKind management has nothing to refute Jay Olsen's evaluation that MNKD is a $2 stock.
In a lose-lose situation, it's best that you at least appear to have nothing to lose.
MannKind made the right choice by presenting IMHO. I only wish they had taken the gloves off a little more with Jay and pointed out how he erred in a few (or all) of his interpretations that have been published.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannyhuynh on Jun 11, 2015 21:01:10 GMT -5
I wish Al mann is there to biatch slap jay olson. There is some idiot on the background that keep coughing. And when Jay speak he does not cough.
|
|
