|
|
Post by kdaddyfresh2000 on Oct 10, 2015 4:55:09 GMT -5
From a regular MNKD troll/ basher: Who is Melissa? See bashers can be useful at uncovering FUD. Go to the address for Kyle Campbell on Twitter. It's not the same picture he purports here. I don't know what he did but it is not what Twitter has. |
|
|
|
Post by tt123 on Oct 10, 2015 8:19:45 GMT -5
"K, Kdaddy, here's about as pure and constructive a comment you'll ever get. If you believe Melissa (and why wouldn't you as you referenced her as part of your serious DD) and mrcoleslaw from SA (and why wouldn't you as your referenced him as part of your serious DD); and if you believe there is little or no SNY commitment (as indicated by the gist of your comments), then I highly recommend you dump this stock now. $3 per share is better than $0 per share. And, by keeping your $$$$$ tied up in MNKD, you're missing all the other opportunities that I'm sure you've already identified. Why wouldn't you dump the stock? Based upon your insights and beliefs, there can be no other answer for you.
I'd be highly interested in exactly your reasons for being long in this stock. What positive reasons counter (<= please note, "counter", not just some random positive reasons) your negative views above? And why no mention of those reasons in your analysis? In other words, what exactly is your long thesis? Because if you can describe a long thesis that keeps you in the stock given all the calamities that you describe and imply, then I know my decision on this stock is rock solid. I'm looking forward to you sharing. If you have no cogent reasons to counter the dismal circumstances you describe above, then I guess I should probably re-evaluate my own position. Your earliest comment would be greatly appreciated."
You have to lose the sarcasm. That in itself if not constructive and, while perhaps emotionally satisfying to you and others, does nothing to address the issues I raised. My post was not a comprehensive pro- and con- analysis. It was meant to relate some sobering information to shareholders and seek some factual input, discussion, and counter-arguments. First off, you must acknowledge that I specifically qualified that the posters I referenced may be lying. It is the internet. That does not mean that everyone is posting lies, e.g., kevinmik on YMB got mercilessly bashed and called a liar for recounting his phone conversation with Matt 2 weeks ago. Yesterday, he was vindicated by Matt, down to "I am working out of moving boxes" from Matt verbatim repeated at the conference yesterday that kevinmik mentioned in his post 2 weeks ago.
Simply, I am a long that (1) believes in Al Mann based on his track record in science and business and (2) in the Afrezza product itself from an objective scientific basis, a la CGM readings on Twitter, patient testimony, etc. However, I have concerns about SNY's execution of Afrezza's marketing and sales. If the layoffs, the flat script numbers (we have been hovering at 500 for the last 4 straight months), and the comments by Matt himself don't tell you there are problems with sales and marketing, then I don't know what will.
With respect to Melissa on Twitter, I find it implausible that a short-seller created a very long-existing and involved fraudulent Twitter profile, simply to drop an offhand remark about Afrezza. (Same with mrcoleslaw, but his profile is much more spartan so a bit more suspect.) Melissa told me that she worked for SNY. I believe her. I recounted what she said to me, mentioning that in spite of the botched initial launch, SNY "was on it" to rectify it - a positive you must acknowledge I mentioned in my post. That is the reason that keeps me long.
PS The whole "dump the stock if you are not happy" admonition is a clever way to squash legitimate discussion and, yes, debate on this board, which I thought was the whole purpose of this board. If I am wrong about this, let me know. I don't like to be negative but I also have to call it like I see it.
- You're right, your post was not a comprehensive analysis, it was simply a negative aspersion
- If you are in fact seeking some factual input, discussion and counter-arguments, then why not begin with cfeld's very well presented exposition of the strategy behind marketing, as well as the numerous posts stating, re-emphasizing and re-iterating the tactical and logical reasons for why Afrezza has not yet gone gangbusters. Such continuous re-posting of these same ideas, mind you, is having to respond to the incessant soft bashing which appears to simply ignore this valuable information. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you've read none of these insights, as well as the numerous links that have been provided in this forum describing modern drug launches
- So you believe in Al Mann and in Afrezza itself, but it's SNY's execution that has you concerned. But isn't it SNY's execution (or lack thereof) that will determine the success in your investment and not whether Al Mann is a genius or Afrezza works astoundingly well?! So how does your belief in these two counter your SNY concern? This isn't a long thesis.
- Layoffs, flat scripts and Matt's comments? Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are truly seeking information here and you haven't actually been following things too closely. (1) Layoffs - Last summer, MNKD partnered with SNY to launch Afrezza. With regard to Afrezza, MNKD is simply a manufacturing company. Are you really suggesting MNKD maintain staffing positions for functions it no longer requires? As a long myself, I'd actually prefer them to eliminate those positions. (2) Flat scripts - If you spend some time reviewing this forum, you'll understand that there are a few things that SNY needs to accomplish prior to an all-out push for Afrezza, not the least of which is (i) Tier 2 designation, (ii) improved labeling and (iii) dovetailing with its Lantus replacement in a cohesive marketing strategy. None of these three issues could have been accomplished prior to launch by their very definition. I can't think of a more efficient and effective way for SNY to do unburdened clinical research than seeking out the feedback and experience of a select number of doctors, which feedback will greatly assist in (i), (ii) and (iii), above. So, maybe, just maybe, having few dozen physicians, and a few dozen only, actively prescribing Afrezza (for the reasons above) could be the reason scripts are flat. Or, I could take your position and assume the flat scripts are because of SNY's lack of execution. (3) Matt's comments - again, if you review this forum, the MNKD-SNY agreement and research a little into the investment world, you'll see that Matt is somewhat hamstrung by what he can and cannot say. This is a special burden for MNKD as they've been burned once in trying to be overly informative.
- Melissa - OK. I can't debate with you there. You believe her, I don't know her from Adam. I guess it's plausible that she has the complete inside scoop that institutional investors are missing.
- I did not say to "dump the stock" if you're "not happy." You're trying to put words in my mouth, a very bad habit of some posters here. I said "dump the stock" if you believe Melissa (you do), believe mrcoleslaw (you may or may not) and if you believe there is little or no SNY commitment (you believe that as well). In other words, dump the stock if your long thesis no longer holds. Contrary to being "a clever way to squash legitimate discussion," it is probably one of the greatest truisms a successful investor can embrace.
So, this board is full of factual input if you can wade through the soft bashing and there are legitimate reasons for where Afrezza is at this stage. If these things support your long thesis, then stay long. If you believe Melissa and don't believe in SNY's commitment, then dump it. But whatever you do, I'm begging you not to (no matter how subtle you may think you are) tout your "longness" and then rehash every innuendo you can think of to bash the stock, management, partner, etc. It's unbecoming.
Somebody on Stocktwits calling Melissa out. She claimed work for Sanofi yet saying that Mannkind was responsible for the marketing of Afrezza. stocktwits.com/JoeyBagadonuts/message/43221757Here is Melissa on Stocktwits. |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Oct 10, 2015 9:09:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by backwash on Oct 10, 2015 13:48:17 GMT -5
I didn’t care for the presentation.
MNKD needs a Jack Welsh (GE) type of personality as a front-man.
I love the technology; however, I am not keen on management. They do not articulate the message well, which is why they do not have firm support on the “street”. When it comes to stock price and communication the current CEO & team thus far have failed miserably. Investors invest in leadership.
We all know the major risk for biotech’s is the process (Phase 1, 2 & 3)..... will an applicant obtain approval and have the funding to get to the mkt. All that should be behind MNKD ……I am still fuzzy on what they will do with the technology outside of Afrezza ( I hear pain, pulmonary etc no facts)? Whatever it may be……….. it will take years.
There is only one exit strategy for MNKD and that’s sell the company-they need to sell out now as they lack the management & the money to steer this company to profitability. Because of the likelihood of that occurrence and the positive attributes of Afrezza (fast in and fast out) …..I will stay the course-for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by me on Oct 13, 2015 8:43:23 GMT -5
Actually, we are not arguing in circles. I made 2 very specific points in my discussion that you now refuse to address. I really thought you were interested in "factual input, discussion and counter-arguments," your words, not mine. My points were that (i) your proposed long thesis of Mann/Afrezza coupled with lack of SNY commitment doesn't equate to a long thesis and I was seeking an elucidation on that point, and (ii) the explanations for the layoffs, flat scripts and Matt's comments (or lack thereof) were all reasonably consistent with a long thesis, so why would you imply these are necessarily some dark cloud following MNKD around? You can choose to not continue in this discussion, as it's a free world. But if you're going to default to, "let's have a debate here," whenever you get pushback, then let's have a debate. Saying, "I have said what I wanted to say," without engaging my specific questions does not at would do that. Geesh, what is it with Columba livia domestica and an 8 x 8 grid? OK. The debate was devolving into accusiatiions of me engaging in innuendo and casting aspersions when I did neither but raised valid points that I listed. I am aware of your counter-arguments you listed but I am becoming skeptical of the arguments supporting the slow-launch rationale as we are 9 months into the launch with 4 months stuck at 500 scripts and very little word on increased insurance coverage (hence SNY subsidizing Tier 3 per Matt's comments yesterday.). Mind you, the slow launch arguments are not what Matt himself is using anymore. Again, he says script uptake is slower than expected. (1). My long thesis is follows the Warren Buffett corollary, "Pick the stock of a company an idiot could run, because someday it will happen." Now are MNKD/SNY mgmt idiots? No, of course not. However, I think the point Buffett was making was that a great product can survive poor mgmt/poor launch/poor marketing etc. I think Afrezza is such a great product and I think it will (eventually) make it into the hands of patients and become some shade of successful on some unknown timeline. My concern is that I prefer not to test this corollary out but may have to anyway if things don't change. Nevertheless, I mentioned before I am long because I believe SNY is trying to turn the ship around. (2). We will agree to disagree on layoff significance. I am not entirely convinced it was solely due to "right-sizing" but I am hoping you are right. It will certainly be good for cash flow burn rate in any event. Regarding scripts and Matt's being hamstrung on speaking about scripts, Matt did speak. He spoke on the issue of scripts and he said there was slow uptake. Period. There is no way fit those words into the slow launch rationale I keep hearing. In other words, even if there was a calculated slow launch, the uptake is still below those expectations. Thank you for responding to my points directly this time. I do appreciate that. I agree with Buffet's philosophy as well. With regard to MNKD and Afrezza (more on Technosphere below), MNKD management's true responsibility now is only manufacturing, while SNY is doing all the heavy lifting for Afrezza. I am fairly confident in SNY's capabilities in the diabetes space, especially with such a game-changing product such as Afrezza, hence my long thesis (I got into MNKD only last fall after approval). As for the legitimacy of the slow launch rationale, my own position relies on (i) my view of SNY above and the highly plausible (ii) time requirement to gain Tier 2 designation, (iii) further testing to seek improved labeling and (iv) a strategy to dovetail the marketing with its Lantus replacement in a cohesive marketing strategy. As I said previously, none of these last three issues could have been accomplished prior to launch by their very definition. And regarding the flat number of scripts over the prior 4 months, this makes sense (to me), since I see it as effective way for SNY to do unburdened clinical research seeking out the feedback and experience of a SELECT number of doctors, which feedback will greatly assist in (iii) and (iv), above. I invested in MNKD without regard to Technosphere - my only focus was Afrezza. Is MNKD's management capable enough to deliver the promise of Technosphere? I'm not certain at this point only because I haven't researched it that far. Upon only a cursory review, they appear to have the technical expertise (or are willing to hire the technical expertise) to move forward with other products. To the extent they are even modestly successful with Technosphere, then that is only gravy for my investment. My overarching view on Afrezza is that true longs are frustrated with the only news they are privy to, and just as importantly, with the sometimes shaky delivery (I'm not referring to Matt) of that news. I'm long, but I'm not frustrated as I am waiting to see how (ii), (iii) and (iv) above play out. Kdaddy, I want to again thank you for this last response. It was refreshing. Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/3681/negative-on-matts-presentation-mornings?page=5#ixzz3oSDamzmO |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 13, 2015 11:49:19 GMT -5
Management's willingness to hire technical expertise to lead pipeline development has already been demonstrated by hiring the new CMO, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by me on Oct 13, 2015 13:59:23 GMT -5
mnholdem, I agree with you to the extent the new CMO in fact has all the requisite skills to do that. I was only remarking that I have not delved in too deeply in this part of my analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by vissertrades on Nov 21, 2015 8:34:45 GMT -5
We as investors own a piece of this company and entrust Management to act in good faith on our behalf. I believe it's called fiduciary duty. Management is payed to manage the company and products on our behalf and this includes their flagship product AFREZZA. BOD is in place to keep management in check but I get the feeling they are asleep and we are watching a train wreck unfold. With so much on the line management should be all over this with forward thinking plans of contingency and corrective action in place to mitigate risk. Seems they are reactive and not proactive. I've trusted for 5 years and am continually dissapointed. Time for the "A" team and BOD are the only ones that can make this change. An effective CEO would be a great start. Perhaps we craft a letter to BOD on behalf of shareholders? Dreams do come true. Feeling a bit uneasy about Al driving at his age so hopefully he has some talented help in place soon... |
|
