|
Post by brentie on Nov 6, 2013 19:31:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raydonovan on Nov 6, 2013 23:24:49 GMT -5
Probably because the share count increased from 300MM to 357MM. If so, they are saying they think the overall value is a little higher, since 300MM at 11 would be a market cap of 3.3BB, and at 10 would be 3.57BB.
|
|
|
Post by MnkdMainer (MM) on Nov 7, 2013 12:59:26 GMT -5
The increased share count is not new information; it was a known fact given the sale of the warrants last year. So I don't think it explains the lower price target if the first price target came within the last year.
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Nov 7, 2013 14:23:33 GMT -5
Do these things even remotely matter in the end? What I am certain of is that all these analysts will be collectively wrong...
JPG
|
|
|
Post by rtccpa on Nov 11, 2013 9:34:55 GMT -5
Right or wrong, I think that there is nothing for any of us to do except wait til April 15th.
Most of the forum members here know all the relevant facts about MNKD.
Nothing can be added at this point except ad nauseam speculation.
Just have to wait.
(In the meantime, if any one gets truly bored, you can always visit the YMB.)
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 11, 2013 12:50:47 GMT -5
rtccpa,
You well could be right, but I'm going to disagree with you for the following reason. For the sake of the share price post April 15, and for several months thereafter, we need a partnership well before April 15. With no partner, an approval won't do for us (me, anyway) what we want, a big push in the share price at that time. First, with no partnership, the rise into April 15 will be muted (just imagine the articles, sponsored by shorts or not, that will come out in that last two or three weeks before 4/15). And, assuming approval, we will get a smaller pop that we expect (deserve?), and when the nego articles come out upon approval, whatever pop we got will be gone and turn into a loss. I don't have to go into what those articles will say, you all know that drill, and without big time marketing in place, those articles will be very, very credible. Without a BP partner(s), MNKD will have one heck of a time convincing investors that they can handle the launch (especially after they now continually talk about how they do need a partner, those words will be flung right back at them).
Also, a partnership announcement may well give some of us, so inclined, to take a little off the table (perish the thought, LOL). Approval is no sure thing, even at 75% chance, stuff happens!
So, rather than April 15, as a shareholder (rather than a diabetic), I want to see a partnership soon, and that's what I'm waiting for. April 15 will take care of itself, but the partnership gives investors a chance to not get absolutely decimated by an adverse decision by the FDA.
|
|
|
Post by rtccpa on Nov 12, 2013 16:04:26 GMT -5
Bab- I hope you're right, and I agree with your scenario that you've laid out. My gut tells me if Al doesn't get the terms he wants he will go it alone. This will lead to further dilution for all of us. I agree with you, a partnership of some sort is the way to go. I just get the feeling that no partner is willing to accept Al's terms at this point, so he's basically saying " Hey BP, if you don't pay me now what I want, it's going to cost you more in the future, once my product starts eating into your revenue stream".
Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 12, 2013 16:20:08 GMT -5
Yes, Al may well be saying that very thing, I believe he's said it before, but my hope is that the hiring of the "high class" broker (oxymoron?), signals some softening by Al on that front. Of course, it could all work out to shareholders benefit eventually, but a decent partnership deal could really help the retail shareholder in terms of mitigating some risk prior to the PDUFA date, while leaving us all with the opportunity to make a very tidy return in the longer run.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 13, 2013 1:49:47 GMT -5
Just testing my ability to post from home computer; seems like it will work. Changed browser to Google Chrome, I think the version of IE I was using (7) was too old.
|
|
|
Post by biotec on Nov 13, 2013 7:47:13 GMT -5
I agree with bab, I believe will see a partner soon, At least well before April. Theres a lot of work to get afrezza in the hands of patients. I have a feeling we are already behind the curve. If afrezza wants to launch by late summer we need to work on getting the word out asap.
|
|
|
Post by rak5555 on Nov 13, 2013 7:53:29 GMT -5
It encourages me that Greenhill will be compensated on a contingency fee basis. No deal = no fee. They are smart and they are motivated and they would not have accepted this engagement if they thought no deal could be structured. More likely, not only do they know the chances of a deal getting done, they also know who the most likely partner and the value of the deal.
|
|
|
Post by biotec on Nov 13, 2013 8:12:38 GMT -5
I know, It would be nice being a fly on the wall for one day at Greenhill.
|
|
|
Post by brentie on Nov 13, 2013 9:37:35 GMT -5
"It encourages me that Greenhill will be compensated on a contingency fee basis. No deal = no fee."
Rak, that is encouraging. I read that on the Yahoo board but I haven't seen it anywhere that's reliable. Do you know this to be a fact?
|
|
|
Post by alcc on Nov 13, 2013 9:46:35 GMT -5
Such i-bank M&A and partnership representation are almost always on a contingency fee basis, unless the deal size is very small.
|
|
|
Post by brentie on Nov 13, 2013 9:57:06 GMT -5
Thanks, alcc. I'll have to take your word for it because I know nothing about this kind of stuff.
|
|