|
Post by spiro on Jan 20, 2014 10:15:34 GMT -5
So Baba, would a major partner only slightly relieve your concerns also? Some believe that the road ahead for Afrezza after approval is a nasty one. For me, I wouldn't have a penny of my money in this stock, if I believed that the road ahead after a major partner and FDA approval was anything less than a new 12 lane super expressway. Biotech investing is just too risky to feel otherwise. I know what it feels like to be on that superhighway, but I was only in a go cart that time. This time, I am driving an 18 ft Ryder rental. Some like Rak and Ashiwi are driving 18 wheelers. BTW, they were also on that same super expressway with me. Ashiwi was also in a go-cart, but Rak was driving a VW Beetle. In the unlikely event that I will be wrong about MNKD and Afrezza, my wife has already purchased a one-way ticket to Siberia for me. I wonder if they have the internet in Siberia?
Spiro
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jan 20, 2014 11:20:03 GMT -5
I would be soooooo relieved with a major partner, far more than slightly, but would still worry mightily about PDUFA, as it is my nature (it's not a good thing, I don't know what went wrong in my childhood - LOL). A major partner before AdCom would very likely put me in a position to protect myself in the event of a terrible surprise on PDUFA. As you know, I've been harping about the importance of a major partner for some time now, so I'll be really pleased and will breathe easier for at least 48 hours after such a revelation!
With a major partner and an approval, it would be difficult to imagine MNKD not being a huge success. Like jpg said on the other currently active thread, weird stuff happens, but the chances for Afrezza to become the drug that Al Mann has envisioned for years would be very high!
You, rak and Ashiwi know what it's like to back a big biotech winner in a meaningful way; I would love to be initiated!
|
|
mnkdnyc
Lab Rat
Posts: 48
Sentiment: Long
|
Post by mnkdnyc on Jan 20, 2014 13:11:52 GMT -5
Ashiwi, you will either retire young or work til you 80.
|
|
|
Post by ashiwi on Jan 20, 2014 19:05:17 GMT -5
If I have to work until 80, I may not live that long. I'm shooting for 58.
|
|
|
Post by biotec on Jan 21, 2014 9:52:45 GMT -5
Chris, You look young so Im sure you can bounce back. I would never let it all ride on a single stock, And then you add a bio stock to boot, Your looking for trouble. I know 2 Enron guy's, one works as a greater at Walmart, The other is 70 and works at my local dump. You say your watching very closely, All it takes is an Stock holt, or after hour pr. You can have a tight stop loss, it will blow right past your target. I have 30% in MNKD and for me thats being very positive on what I think MNKD will achieve. Just some friendly advice.
Bio
|
|
|
Post by slushy on Jan 23, 2014 17:45:59 GMT -5
Chris, just so you don't feel too alone as the only "bad investor", I'm all in on MNKD as well. I don't think it's a poor investment strategy as many say, as long as you acknowledge the higher level of risk and you balance it against a theoretically higher rate of return. For me, the level of risk on MNKD is relatively low for my average share price compared to the high level of return given even a simple FDA approval let alone partnership/acquisition. I'll probably diversify my portfolio once I get out of MNKD, but I think MNKD is in a unique situation (depending on when you jumped into the pool) and is a compelling candidate for an all-in investment strategy.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jan 23, 2014 20:07:01 GMT -5
With all the respect in the world, Slushy, what you describe only exists after the fact. But, if a fellow has a net worth of $X, and his stock portfolio is 15% of that net worth, then I can imagine an "all in" on 15% or so of one's net worth. The greater percentage of your net worth at risk, especially once you've actually built up a "net worth" and/or are becoming ancient, the less benignly I'd look at the decision.
The above is an important point, and if people disagree, I wish they would chime in. I'm not here to try to have someone be late to the dock when their ship comes in. but I like to think there is some camaraderie here and a certain unity of purpose, that is to make as much as we can with this investment, but not be grievously wounded if things don't turn out the way we plan.
|
|
|
Post by alcc on Jan 23, 2014 21:18:39 GMT -5
Absolutely agree. Imo, to put even 10% of one's liquid net worth into a single what has to be deemed high-risk biotech stock is not something I would advise, even assuming entry at the trough and best case 10+ bagger return. That's gambling, not investing. The key to long term success is patience and having enough left to fight another day. On a stock like MNKD, as much as I believe (and want to believe) in its story, it has to be viewed as an all or nothing deal. Sure, we all like to focus on the "all" part. But we should not forget the "nothing" part. Thus, whatever you have in it you should be prepared to lose and still be okay -- depressed, but okay -- the day after.
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Jan 23, 2014 21:21:36 GMT -5
Babaoriley is giving very wise advice on this issue. !5% -20% of one 's net worth should indeed be a maximum risk in the stock market. But I also agree with taking a chance with MNKD being the only stock in that portfolio, Hopefully you are young enough to recover if you are wrong. Dang, why isn't MNKD over $10. by now?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2014 22:19:16 GMT -5
Baba, Alc and Spiro you are absolutely right. I'm 22 and a recent graduate but in order to break through sometimes you have to take a calculated risk that is still recoverable from... I will never ever, ever be this overweight in a single position in the future. Yet, I will never be at a position to make such a foolish and hopefully brilliant move if ever. I only invested the amount I could care to lose. I still have cash in my portfolio to continue trading even if MNKD tanks completely. I'm not riding all my shares through approval. If MNKD fails, I won't be homeless, I'll still have my car, I'll still have my job and other means of generating cash and most importantly support from family (that are aware of what I'm doing). I'll be fine. I'm in a strangely unique circumstance that allows me to make this move. I sincerely thank you all for having my interest in mind.
|
|
|
Post by alcc on Jan 23, 2014 23:28:51 GMT -5
Chris: At 22, I had not one clue nor grain of interest in the stock market. So you are way ahead of me there. Otoh, I am not sure trying to invest/speculate in the stock market at your age is necessarily the best way to spend your time and energy either. Seems to me you should be investing in yourself (education, passion, profession etc.) Besides, investing takes a good deal of maturity; there is no substitute for battle scars. That said, I think Buffet started quite young, so... YMMV!
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Jan 24, 2014 3:13:38 GMT -5
At 22 taking this kind of risk seems intelligent and separates future very rich people from future well off people. You don't become rich by following some simplistic rule. You get rich by having time to learn to be a good investor and learn how to calculate risk benefit.
At 22 I had a net worth of zero. At 28 I had a net worth of almost zero but a really good profession and no clue what to do with the significant cash flow I was generating. What a waste... Win or lose ( and I so hope we win) you certainly are ahead of the curve as far as I am concerned. If I can influence my young son he will understand money and investments young and understand at your age what you seem to grasp: risk, time, understanding the game and reward.
Thank you all for the interesting exchange and perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by alcc on Jan 24, 2014 16:19:30 GMT -5
I don't think we should be dispensing personal advice to strangers. Best to change this discussion into an intellectual discourse among strange friends. In that context, (a) I know people who made making money their primary (even sole) objective. None of them are rich (yet). Otoh, I know people who are (already) rich and none of them made making money their primary objective. (b) Of the people I know or know of who are rich, none of them became rich from the stock market. They made their money from starting and building a business, or joining a business at the right time. In other words, most rich people became rich from stocks in their own company, not from stocks they pick off the street. Not to say you cannot make money by investing in stocks. But I submit it is very hard to become rich that way. As even the best investors like Buffet and Lynch will caution you, in the long run, it is tough to best the averages. You can make good returns on a compounded 7-10% a year. But unless you are already rich, you ain't gonna get rich that way.
|
|
|
Post by slushy on Jan 24, 2014 16:49:03 GMT -5
Once again, I completely agree with Chris because I'm in basically the same situation. I'm in my 20's, I have less than 15% of my networth invested in stocks (which currently 100% of it is in MNKD), and I'm only playing with money I'm able to lose and bounce back. But as Chris said, "in order to break through sometimes you have to take a calculated risk"... and that's all I was saying.
|
|
|
Post by alcc on Jan 24, 2014 17:00:27 GMT -5
If 15% is not large in absolute dollars, I suppose you are right re the affordability. Then the question is, assuming you "breakthrough", then what? Hold on to your gains and see it as a one-time event, or emboldened to put your gains towards another breakthrough?
|
|