|
|
Post by BD on May 22, 2015 13:53:17 GMT -5
400-500 does seem a lot more in line with the size of the building, even if it's built out more. In hindsight, it's pretty funny that none of us asked the question that would immediately clarify the number then and there. I think we all heard "forty-five hundred" and thought we heard it correctly...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 13:53:39 GMT -5
Is he quoted accurately? "Pfeffer noted that the company has about 225 employes working at the Danbury facility. Once the plant is at full capacity, the company would need about 4,500 employees, he said." What on earth? I had the same feeling. So I highlighted the numbers for consideration by you guys. If we have to add 4,200 people, at $100,000 per person per year, that will come to $420 million, at $75,000 per person, that will come to $315 million. So hopefully that was a misquote (or typo) and 4,500 employees was really meant to be 450 employees. If we have to add 225 people, at $100,000 per person per year, that will come to $22.5 million, at $75,000 per person, that will come to $16.875 million. Can someone who were at the meeting clarify on this point? Ya theres noway thats possible. Why would you need 20 x more people to run 10 more lines. It *HAS* to be a misquote. With $1 billion in rev from selling out danbury, over half of that gone to increased labor costs seems like a losing proposition. |
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on May 22, 2015 13:54:14 GMT -5
Is he quoted accurately? "Pfeffer noted that the company has about 225 employes working at the Danbury facility. Once the plant is at full capacity, the company would need about 4,500 employees, he said." What on earth? probably an extra 0 typo. as of yesterday, I think they said they had 28X (X from 0 to 9) total both coasts |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 22, 2015 13:56:10 GMT -5
Honestly, I thought I heard 4500. But now that I've seen numerous people question this, maybe he said 4 to 500 employees. Might be worth a confirmation from Matt. Thanks, liane. I think most likely Matt meant to say 4 to 500 employees. 4,500 employees does not make sense given that we all understand the production is supposed to be highly automated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 13:56:14 GMT -5
400-500 does seem a lot more in line with the size of the building, even if it's built out more. In hindsight, it's pretty funny that none of us asked the question that would immediately clarify the number then and there. I think we all heard "forty-five hundred" and thought we heard it correctly... Ya if it was said as "forty-five hundred", it could have been misspoke or misheard, since "for to five hundred" is pretty close. However, if he said four thousand, five hundred. Thats a different story. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by kball on May 22, 2015 14:04:04 GMT -5
400-500 does seem a lot more in line with the size of the building, even if it's built out more. In hindsight, it's pretty funny that none of us asked the question that would immediately clarify the number then and there. I think we all heard "forty-five hundred" and thought we heard it correctly... Wouldnt they need close to 1500 parking spaces for that number (4500)? Anyone notice how big the lot was? Maybe people heard 4500, but what was said was 4 to 500? EDIT: Just saw Fugs response earlier than my post. What he said |
|
|
|
Post by liane on May 22, 2015 14:04:17 GMT -5
I sent him an email just now.
|
|
|
|
Post by liane on May 22, 2015 14:37:49 GMT -5
And here's the reply (that was quick!):
|
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 22, 2015 14:44:57 GMT -5
And here's the reply (that was quick!): Thanks, liane. That's pretty fast response from Matt. Shareholder friendly. Like that.  |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on May 22, 2015 15:31:19 GMT -5
They respond fast to the easy questions!
|
|
|
|
Post by EveningOfTheDay on May 22, 2015 17:45:20 GMT -5
They respond fast to the easy questions! That has been my experience too. The more controversial comments or questions normally are not answered at all. Of course, they do not have to necessarily answer all questions and probably simply can not answer many of them, other than to say, we pray it will be this or that way. There is a few things that make little sense though. Mannkind is shouldering its part of the launch costs with a loan from Sanofi at 8.5%, but they have no saying or information on how Sanofi is moving to solve the known issues? If this was the real case, you have a clear argument to be made that management is, then, fairly incompetent, which I do not believe they are. It too makes little sense to me that having acknowledged that they are 8 weeks behind expectations they are not demanding some sort of explanation from Sanofi on the commercialization efforts and timing, especially when you consider there are associated costs to all this. At the same time, it is clear, from the ASM and previous interactions, that management seems quietly confident (other than perhaps Hakan). My general impression is that all interactions seem to show a management that understands that they are sitting on a winner, even if it will take time to show. Furthermore, they are not worried about the refinancing of the notes, they are unfazed about the 8 weeks behind schedule in Rxs and they are fairly relaxed about many of the other issues that seem to be driving long retail investors into a bit of a frenzy. If anything you could probably accused management of being a bit callous about retain investors interests, but definitely not of incompetence. Time will tell, but I am willing to bet a good amount of money I am right... wait a minute, I already am betting a good amount of money on it  |
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on May 23, 2015 10:45:07 GMT -5
Is he quoted accurately? "Pfeffer noted that the company has about 225 employes working at the Danbury facility. Once the plant is at full capacity, the company would need about 4,500 employees, he said." What on earth? My thoughts exactly. How can 1 line need 225 employees, but 12 lines (full capacity) need 4500? 12 x 225 would only be 2700. You mean to tell me they would need 1800 more that would essentially be overhead? It's even worse if they have 225 for 3 lines. Head count should decrease per line as you expand because you have overlap in roles. I hope it was a misprint. Edit: Should have read the entire thread first... |
|
|
|
Post by als57 on May 23, 2015 14:17:59 GMT -5
If you payed attention to the amenities, it was my observation that there was a pleasant amount of "eye candy" to ensure that the meeting was a success, because there wasn't any earth-shattering news - hoped for or not!
|
|
|
|
Post by BD on May 23, 2015 15:33:17 GMT -5
If you payed attention to the amenities, it was my observation that there was a pleasant amount of "eye candy" to ensure that the meeting was a success, because there wasn't any earth-shattering news - hoped for or not! I doubt many who traveled to attend the meeting were expecting earth-shattering news (or much of any news, for that matter); that's not usually the purpose of these meetings. There was that one time when GMCR put out an extremely juicy PR on the morning of their annual meeting, and the stock shot up 40%-ish that day. I do not expect to ever get to experience something like that again. It's truly a once-in-a-lifetime event. The reason I attended the meeting was to chat with people, get a first-hand view of their tone/attitude/disposition. That applies to management, employees, fellow shareholders, and special folks such as Eric Fenar. If, when the dust has settled, I have the impression that management gave an honest representation of where they and the company are at, then that's what qualifies the meeting as having been a success. And by that measure, I do believe it was a success. There are aspects of the truth of the situation that we may not like, but I certainly did not get the impression that management is trying to yank shareholders around. Mistakes have, are, and will probably continue to be made, those mistakes embolden the shorts and cost us money. There are surely better ways of timing one's MNKD investment than the way I've timed it. In the end, if the product is recognized for having the value we all know it has, none if that will matter--so long as we've been able to hold on for the required duration. I plan on looking back at this period and be patting myself on the back for recognizing the true value of Afrezza. I'd like to be doing that sooner rather than later, but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on May 23, 2015 16:40:46 GMT -5
Back to the 4-500 part of the thread, did anyone else catch that he said FDA approved in February - rather than "launched" (or released) … ? Wish it was a bit more factually on …..
|
|
