|
Post by bioexec25 on Jan 12, 2016 0:29:11 GMT -5
I hope he doesn't have time to read it as he is finalizing a game-changing presentation, but I wrote him a letter that I hope he agrees with. Matt, Congratulations on your new role as CEO. You already heard from us who are down over 90%, our hopes, fears, frustration and often stunned disbelief at both the actions of our enemies and the silence and lack of effective response from Mannkind. The days of silent ineffectiveness and, honestly, complacent incompetence, must be behind us forever. I look forward to your presentation on Wednesday. I know you will come out with a complete, coherent, clear, confident plan, with multiple positive updates as to what Mannkind has been working on these many months. I hope Al sees this as a personal fight and he will use all his influence to gain allies who will help us fight. You’re going to be in MBA textbooks, like it or not. You can be the CEO that defeated big pharma, the HFT / Dark Pool / Short Sellers cabal and made the lives of millions of diabetics far better than it would have been if you had not taken over as CEO. Make history. Save Mannkind. Eloquently put, albeit the brutal facts sting a bit. A leaders number one job is to define reality and establish a clear way forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 0:33:48 GMT -5
Hedge funds defeated us because they have more money which gives them access to better information.
After being an investor on the wrong side of this trade I now understand why shorting is healthy for the market. I think instead of saying it was manipulation and big pharma we should learn to not invest in companies with no income with absurd market caps. This company had no business ever having the share price it did and I hope all of you have learned from this like I have. A great drug does not mean the success of a company.
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Jan 12, 2016 0:40:40 GMT -5
Hedge funds defeated us because they have more money which gives them access to better information. After being an investor on the wrong side of this trade I now understand why shorting is healthy for the market. I think instead of saying it was manipulation and big pharma we should learn to not invest in companies with no income with absurd market caps. This company had no business ever having the share price it did and I hope all of you have learned from this like I have. A great drug does not mean the success of a company. All true but does a company with an approved drug praised by early adopters deserve to be pile driven into the dirt. Two sides to your lesson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 0:44:27 GMT -5
Hedge funds defeated us because they have more money which gives them access to better information. After being an investor on the wrong side of this trade I now understand why shorting is healthy for the market. I think instead of saying it was manipulation and big pharma we should learn to not invest in companies with no income with absurd market caps. This company had no business ever having the share price it did and I hope all of you have learned from this like I have. A great drug does not mean the success of a company. All true but does a company with an approved drug praised by early adopters deserved to be pile driven into the dirt. Two sides to your lesson. Yes, if it is not generating any income. Thats the point of selling goods, right? To make money. Its not making any money.
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Jan 12, 2016 0:55:14 GMT -5
All true but does a company with an approved drug praised by early adopters deserved to be pile driven into the dirt. Two sides to your lesson. Yes, if it is not generating any income. Thats the point of selling goods, right? To make money. Its not making any money. Yes but over a debated timeframe. Hard to argue a pure play view. But this is more disruptive than the average therapeutic drawing big enemies. Yes sure hold it to the same adoption curve with that resistance then you win that argument tactically. Doesn't mean it's right nor over yet. Seen it before.
|
|
|
Post by dictatorsaurus on Jan 12, 2016 8:41:57 GMT -5
All true but does a company with an approved drug praised by early adopters deserved to be pile driven into the dirt. Two sides to your lesson. Yes, if it is not generating any income. Thats the point of selling goods, right? To make money. Its not making any money. A product doesn't generate any profit when the party trusted to market and sell it is clearly sandbagging. They priced it too high and threw it under the bus every time they got the opportunity. By the way, where are the TV ads??? Most diabetics and endos don't even know the drug exists, so how do you expect it to sell and succeed.
|
|
|
Post by themarlin on Jan 12, 2016 10:40:51 GMT -5
Here's some crazy inferential logic for you to consider... Duane DeSisto's hiring announcement said that MNKD was prepared to defend him if Insulet pressed an NDA suit, but his hiring was withdrawn for just that reason. It seems unlikely that MNKD was kidding, or that they didn't analyze his NDA agreement correctly, or that Insulet filed a cease-and-desist that surprised MNKD. It also seems unlikely that Duane wanted to back out, and he and MNKD decided the best way to avoid losing face was to blame it on Insulet. Instead, perhaps circumstances changed post the SNY announcement, and DeSisto suddenly acquired an actual NDA conflict of interest. A buy out wouldn't do it since that would reduce his NDA exposure. But a new partnership could be a reason for increased NDA exposure. A new TS partnership wouldn't have been a surprise, but a new Afrezza partnership could have been a surprise. Therefore, perhaps we will hear some better news when/if that partnership is announcement. I'm thinking that a Medtronic Afrezza partnership would be the type of event that would cause this type of reaction by DeSisto and MNKD, but that's purely speculative on my part. As I said at the beginning "crazy inferential logic." I'm not so sure anymore that Mannkind and DeSisto getting together wasn't in fact very risky. Omnipod is an insulin delivery system, as is Afrezza. So the competition issue is there, certainly. Why they said they were 'prepared to defend him if Insulet pressed the issue', but in fact they didn't, THAT's the question now.
Possible answers: 1) DeSisto wanted to back out and they used the NDA as cover. (I don't think so - DeSisto has been up to the fight ahead, imo) 2) Insulet objected and mentioned a long ugly expensive lawsuit larger than Mannkind was actually prepared to defend. (Possibly, but I don't think so - Insulet and DeSisto I believe are on good terms, and there had to be some legal consultation about the issue before he was hired (would hope so!), and the legal team saw the threat of serious unmanageable lawsuit as minimal, but were wrong; it's possible) 3) An 3rd party, a partner for Mannkind or a partner (Lily) for Insulet came into play that Mannkind didn't know about and that partner wasn't going to tolerate the competition issue.
|
|
|
Post by themarlin on Jan 12, 2016 10:45:39 GMT -5
Duane jumped off the titanic..... They can spin it all they want! If that were true then MNKD outright lied in their press release since they said that MNKD withdrew the offer because of Insulet. I doubt that they would create that cover story knowing the lie might become a liability in the event of future lawsuits. I think it much more likely that something happened post his hiring that created a real conflict of interest with regards to DeSisto's NDA with Insulet. As a result, MNKD could not defend what was not defensible and the offer had to be withdrawn. That's an explanation that would be both truthful and defensible. Bill why do you think that Mannkind seemed very well prepared to defend him but then didn't? Did Mannkind legal advisors get it wrong, and were surprised by the clout and weight of Insulet's case? I see the breach of NDA being very clear from the start - both companies have an insulin delivery system. How could they not see that or think they could live with or defend that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 10:50:10 GMT -5
Yes, if it is not generating any income. Thats the point of selling goods, right? To make money. Its not making any money. A product doesn't generate any profit when the party trusted to market and sell it is clearly sandbagging. They priced it too high and threw it under the bus every time they got the opportunity. By the way, where are the TV ads??? Most diabetics and endos don't even know the drug exists, so how do you expect it to sell and succeed. I get that but it will hold no weight during negotiations. Put yourself in that board room while MNKD is negotiating with another BP for a partner or BO. Thats the disconnect I feel like a lot on this board are ignoring. I fully believe SNY sandbagged however IMO it doesnt help the value of Afrezza. Only sales and traction will help the value.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Jan 12, 2016 11:14:51 GMT -5
FWIW - I think Matt has the ability to pull off a good presentation. And from what I've seen (limited tho it is), he seems hungry for it.
This one will determine how much his hands have been tied either for legal/business reasons, or as a result of management directives.
We shall see. There's also no guarantee that a good presentation will make any material difference - we've seen that before too.
I think for those that haven't yet capitulated, many are simply too wounded to hold hope outwardly any longer.
Good luck Matt. The last of us standing need you to pull this off.
|
|