Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 16:43:29 GMT -5
there is no point in selling. I don't see Al allowing MannKind falling into bankruptcy because of a lack of cash; for that reason I will not sell.
I realize shorts are creating a wall of worry causing shareholders to sell. I feel your pain, but I will not allow a bunch of Wall Street firms to force me to take a loss when the long term prospects look extremely promising.
|
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 16, 2015 16:52:11 GMT -5
there is no point in selling. I don't see Al allowing MannKind falling into bankruptcy because of a lack of cash; for that reason I will not sell. I realize shorts are creating a wall of worry causing shareholders to sell. I feel your pain, but I will not allow a bunch of Wall Street firms to force me to take a loss when the long term prospects look extremely promising. Awhile ago, when I worked for an employee owned company, and an independent auditor would establish the share price (because the shares could not be traded) for the purpose of buying out shares from departing employees, retirement benefits, etc.... In your opinion @kastanes (or anyone else who has been studying and holding), what would an independent auditor say about the current share price? (Supposing for the moment that AF or GS had no interest in share price destruction and that manipulation did not exist --- and of course, that SEC was impartial and diligent about protecting shareholders). |
|
|
|
Post by wmdhunt on Nov 16, 2015 16:55:27 GMT -5
You're not alone... I hope we are both vindicated in the long run and still alive to see it. I have one of Al's pacemakers and it is really getting a workout with his stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Nov 16, 2015 16:57:40 GMT -5
there is no point in selling. I don't see Al allowing MannKind falling into bankruptcy because of a lack of cash; for that reason I will not sell. I realize shorts are creating a wall of worry causing shareholders to sell. I feel your pain, but I will not allow a bunch of Wall Street firms to force me to take a loss when the long term prospects look extremely promising. Awhile ago, when I worked for an employee owned company, and independent auditor would establish the share price (because the shares could not be traded). In your opinion @kastanes (or anyone else who has been studying and holding), what would an independent auditor say about the share price? (Supposing for the moment that AF or GS had no interest and that manipulation did not exist --- and of course, that SEC was impartial and diligent about protecting shareholders). You think an auditor would be better at determining market value than the market? If so that would be a highly desirable market skill (ie: a bit like Buffet!). And what if you get 10 auditors? I would guess much of the future value of the company would be based on assumprions of future Afrezza sales no? And what would an auditor know about the future of Afrezza more than the market? |
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Nov 16, 2015 17:04:18 GMT -5
there is no point in selling. I don't see Al allowing MannKind falling into bankruptcy because of a lack of cash; for that reason I will not sell. I realize shorts are creating a wall of worry causing shareholders to sell. I feel your pain, but I will not allow a bunch of Wall Street firms to force me to take a loss when the long term prospects look extremely promising. Awhile ago, when I worked for an employee owned company, and an independent auditor would establish the share price (because the shares could not be traded) for the purpose of buying out shares from departing employees, retirement benefits, etc.... In your opinion @kastanes (or anyone else who has been studying and holding), what would an independent auditor say about the current share price? (Supposing for the moment that AF or GS had no interest in share price destruction and that manipulation did not exist --- and of course, that SEC was impartial and diligent about protecting shareholders). Have you ever seen the movie "The Butterfly Effect"? Well, every one of the variables you note in and of themselves would have such a profound effect on valuation, your question is impossible to answer. Look at the FDA for one. IF, and and I can't capitalize that enough, they were playing on a level field, we would not see the label restrictions, the bad trial designs, etc. that we are living with now. This alone would change how Afrezza is being marketed, which would make a huge difference in uptake thus impacting valuation significantly. Take each of your variables and add the "truth filter" to them and the outcome for MNKD and Afrezza would be so different, and most likely far better than where we sit today. |
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 16, 2015 17:05:15 GMT -5
jpg Griffin Securities seems a lot more logical, insightful and maybe informed than nearly every other analyst (and they agree with us  ) --- so they are neutral but maintain a hold at a higher valuation. I can't find the actual text at the moment but they seem to have knowledge that big pharmas made deals with insurers over the past year to lock in discounts for injectables. That's the kind of analysis I would like to see--- obviously they know a lot more than what I have seen on all the message boards if what they are writing is true. Of course that kind of collusion probably won't last if prescribing physicians continue to grow, and luminous early adopter reports continue to get attention. Insider knowledge about Rest of World plans and timing would probably result in a good share price estimate (within a factor of two or three I would guess). Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 16, 2015 17:08:43 GMT -5
Awhile ago, when I worked for an employee owned company, and an independent auditor would establish the share price (because the shares could not be traded) for the purpose of buying out shares from departing employees, retirement benefits, etc.... In your opinion @kastanes (or anyone else who has been studying and holding), what would an independent auditor say about the current share price? (Supposing for the moment that AF or GS had no interest in share price destruction and that manipulation did not exist --- and of course, that SEC was impartial and diligent about protecting shareholders). Have you ever seen the movie "The Butterfly Effect"? Well, every one of the variables you note in and of themselves would have such a profound effect on valuation, your question is impossible to answer. Look at the FDA for one. IF, and and I can't capitalize that enough, they were playing on a level field, we would not see the label restrictions, the bad trial designs, etc. that we are living with now. This alone would change how Afrezza is being marketed, which would make a huge difference in uptake thus impacting valuation significantly. Take each of your variables and add the "truth filter" to them and the outcome for MNKD and Afrezza would be so different, and most likely far better than where we sit today. if there had been no Shrekeli delaying approval if big pharma had not met with insurers to line up discounts for injectables if the FDA chief had not been the wife of a hedgie? All of that and SO MUCH MORE... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 17:12:25 GMT -5
I can't give you a market value for Afrezza and Technospere, but it is my belief that the value is higher than the current market capitalization.
Time will tell who is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 16, 2015 17:16:45 GMT -5
I can't give you a market value for Afrezza and Technospere, but it is my belief that the value is higher than the current market capitalization. Time will tell who is correct. If Griffin is correct about the discounts from competing big pharma, the writing on the wall for Sanofi is clear--- compete. |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Nov 16, 2015 17:33:53 GMT -5
I can't give you a market value for Afrezza and Technospere, but it is my belief that the value is higher than the current market capitalization. Time will tell who is correct. Well if you believe that, you better be backing up the truck. |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Nov 16, 2015 19:27:13 GMT -5
jpg Griffin Securities seems a lot more logical, insightful and maybe informed than nearly every other analyst (and they agree with us ) --- so they are neutral but maintain a hold at a higher valuation. I can't find the actual text at the moment but they seem to have knowledge that big pharmas made deals with insurers over the past year to lock in discounts for injectables. That's the kind of analysis I would like to see--- obviously they know a lot more than what I have seen on all the message boards if what they are writing is true. Of course that kind of collusion probably won't last if prescribing physicians continue to grow, and luminous early adopter reports continue to get attention. Insider knowledge about Rest of World plans and timing would probably result in a good share price estimate (within a factor of two or three I would guess). Your thoughts? We don't even know how much money they have... We are so in the dark (as with many companies you may say) that it is almost impossible to make informed decisions other that: 1. Does the drug work? Yes. 2. Is the drug a potential paradigm shift and could be a big block buster? Yes. 3. Do you trust Mannkind management to do good things for Afrezza and us by extension? My answer used to be yes but I've grown sceptical (as you may tell...) as to their skill in figuring out the very basics of running a biotech company. Again when you can't get the simple principle that biotechs should always raise money when the sun is shining because it might not be in the not to distant future then you fail biotech 101. It's sadly as simple as that. My bad for ignoring this simple principle but like I said I thought them not raising capital at 10$ was a sign they were clearly certain (i.e.: confidentiality agreement) of excellent funding (Sanofi, new partnerships, new investors and maybe even Al) but seeing they can't do basic math is a bit of an eye opener. I cannot put enough emphasis on how basic this is in biotech. It's as if Mannkind has an attraction to being constantly near bankrupt. And this with a 90 year old 'sugar daddy' who may not be as rich as he once was (who knows past his stated LOC commitment?) and certainly not getting any younger (or healthier). Do we even have a clear understanding how the biggest shareholder's stake will be administered when he passes away? We need Al as much as ever and will his different trustees fight it out for control or vote against each other as to what to do? Will they fund stuff if things go badly? This is all very material when the company is near constantly bankrupt. So my answer to # 3 is no I do not have faith in Mannkind management or on the post Al structure of who controls the company. The major shareholder would need to give us an explanation and road map for me to regain Mannkinds confidence (and it's not Matt's or Hanken's call as I doubt it was their decision to fly so close to the sun: again...). 4. Do you trust Sanofi? I never really trusted them that much but felt that they got Afrezza cheap (save that 8000 patent mister trial) and stood to make a killing if right. The January 2016 termination clause did give me pause as does the continuous delay of starting it (while starting minor very inexpensive trials). The maximum extension of a decision on the trial is or seems to be March 2016 (strangely near the January 2016 cutoff). Hmmm. The change of CEO was a biggie. Not only for the possible loss of faith of the CEO for Afrezza but as a reaffirmation of all that used to be wrong at Sanofi. Why would someone put a 'not sellable' clause in (and get the drug so cheap)? You put that kind of early clause in if you think there could be issues. Have there been issues? Yeah! And why did Mannkind not prepare/ raise funds at 10$ again? So this was possibly at least partially predictable (one of the analysts who gave us a market perform seemed to think there was a deal with different prandial makers and insurers). Again why did Mannkind not know about this or hedge with funding? The Sanofi CC call last Friday was another piece of damning evidence for me. No need to reemphasis that bad call or the crappy documents (for Afrezza) that accompanied the call. Will Sanofi dump us in January? No clue but they certainly don't inspire me to think they valued Afrezza, have big plans for Afrezza or care in the least for Mannkind. It wouldn't be very hard (or costly strategically or financially) for Sanofi to give struggling Mannkind an token to bring back to Mannkind shareholders and future investors. Some may say this is not material to Sanofi or the JV. I would respond that this is why I would much rather we had partnered with aBP that respects it's partners (like some other do) than Sanofi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 20:58:11 GMT -5
If Sanofi walks, the $200 million paid is non-refundable and Afrezza would be used against Sanofi to accelerate their decreasing diabetes revenues.
That is suicidal for a new CEO.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Nov 17, 2015 10:53:12 GMT -5
If Sanofi walks, the $200 million paid is non-refundable and Afrezza would be used against Sanofi to accelerate their decreasing diabetes revenues. That is suicidal for a new CEO. Does Brandicourt have a track record of good business decisions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 11:20:57 GMT -5
I don't know the background of the new CEO, but I do know that Afrezza is contributing to Sanofi's revenues and will only increase over time. I don't see the logic of Sanofi walking.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Nov 17, 2015 11:51:38 GMT -5
I doubt they walk in the near future. However if DTC (among other things) don't work in script numbers rising I could see them reassessing in late 2016.....
|
|
) --- so they are neutral but maintain a hold at a higher valuation. I can't find the actual text at the moment but they seem to have knowledge that big pharmas made deals with insurers over the past year to lock in discounts for injectables.
