Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 13:25:52 GMT -5
Ive made him aware but they dont buy it. So they are thinking Mann is a direct investor, or possibly just help bring the group together that did invest? Al isn't worth what he used to be, so it doesn't seem like he could be the primary financial backer... and I don't think MNKD would lie about his involvement if he were either a director or investor. Do they have anything concrete... or is this all just through rumor mill and from sources that have in the past possibly been right. Nothing concrete at all pure speculation. They just think Al's situation is desperate and will do anything to create a squeeze.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 13:27:32 GMT -5
(tax loss carryforward). It's an asset. The carryforwards expire after 20 years, so losses for 1994, if any, are no longer able to be carried forward now...and they fall off each year. The NOLs are discounted because anytime there is a greater than 50% ownership change (measured strangely), you have a limit on the use of the NOLs prior to that point...and virtually all companies have such ownership changes. In our case, because Al has maintained his very large ownership, there is a very good chance there is no previous NOL use limits. So the only limit would be the one on a buyout. Limits are the equity value of a company times rate published by government every month...currently about 4%. So if bought out for $1B, you can use 40M a year until exhausted/expired. There are other issues that can lower/increase NOL limit, but let's just keep it simple for now. Long story short; MNKD is likely different when it comes to NOLs (because of AL)...so there should be value to the NOLs. That said...it's gravy in a buyout....not the main dish. So don't dwell too much on it. Thank you for this.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Jan 27, 2016 14:14:42 GMT -5
(tax loss carryforward). It's an asset. The carryforwards expire after 20 years, so losses for 1994, if any, are no longer able to be carried forward now...and they fall off each year. The NOLs are discounted because anytime there is a greater than 50% ownership change (measured strangely), you have a limit on the use of the NOLs prior to that point...and virtually all companies have such ownership changes. In our case, because Al has maintained his very large ownership, there is a very good chance there is no previous NOL use limits. So the only limit would be the one on a buyout. Limits are the equity value of a company times rate published by government every month...currently about 4%. So if bought out for $1B, you can use 40M a year until exhausted/expired. There are other issues that can lower/increase NOL limit, but let's just keep it simple for now. Long story short; MNKD is likely different when it comes to NOLs (because of AL)...so there should be value to the NOLs. That said...it's gravy in a buyout....not the main dish. So don't dwell too much on it. Thank you for this. And gravy helps with leverage. Which would help just about now.
|
|
|
Post by trondisc on Jan 27, 2016 14:34:53 GMT -5
6 months to a year for a deal to close and hopefully Technosphere/MannKind will blossom their intellectual property to help keep contributing to modern medicine/wireless health monitoring.
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Jan 28, 2016 0:34:26 GMT -5
Difficult day for shorts? What about the devastating 18 months for longs? If this is really your question then why do you answer it yourself? I can not answer these questions in the contest of raised cost of borrowing and present lack of shares to borrow. If this is a catty comment I suggest you reflect on your intention.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jan 28, 2016 16:52:03 GMT -5
The title of this thread is so great. Talk about a collector's piece when this is all over!
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Jan 28, 2016 17:30:06 GMT -5
The title of this thread is so great. Talk about a collector's piece when this is all over! So true. One for the books, if not textbooks. :-)) All good analogies fall down under scrutiny, but I recall one MBA case study in 1998 where we were given a series of tactical and strategic questions around whether to race a Nascar in the final race of the season. On paper the risk / reward looked worth taking, e.g. huge sponsorship next year etc. The limited downside was our engine was known to have a small chance to fail at temps below 40. Long story short, most of the class voted to race on a brisk 35 degreee morning. The data looked great, the odds of failure were extremely small and the suppliers and race team mgmt were anxious to get the car out there. After we all submitted the case work, the professor came in and said congratulations class, you've collectively just launched the Challenger Shuttle. The case study used the exact numerical factors that Nasa faced, but put in a scenario of deciding to race a Nascar to hide the story and focus the students on the analytics. I thought of that story as today was the anniversary of that fateful flight. I still remember where I was when the news came on.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Jan 28, 2016 17:56:16 GMT -5
The title of this thread is so great. Talk about a collector's piece when this is all over! So true. One for the books, if not textbooks. :-)) All good analogies fall down under scrutiny, but I recall one MBA case study in 1998 where we were given a series of tactical and strategic questions around whether to race a Nascar in the final race of the season. On paper the risk / reward looked worth taking, e.g. huge sponsorship next year etc. The limited downside was our engine was known to have a small chance to fail at temps below 40. Long story short, most of the class voted to race on a brisk 35 degreee morning. The data looked great, the odds of failure were extremely small and the suppliers and race team mgmt were anxious to get the car out there. After we all submitted the case work, the professor came in and said congratulations class, you've collectively just launched the Challenger Shuttle. The case study used the exact numerical factors that Nasa faced, but put in a scenario of deciding to race a Nascar to hide the story and focus the students on the analytics. I thought of that story as today was the anniversary of that fateful flight. I still remember where I was when the news came on. Great story. Worth a blog post somewhere. I remember where I was too. People remember these moments like JFK, etc. I think we must have some for MNKD. I remember where I was when the FDA approval came through and the price initially cratered ...
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 28, 2016 18:29:55 GMT -5
The title of this thread is so great. Talk about a collector's piece when this is all over! So true. One for the books, if not textbooks. :-)) All good analogies fall down under scrutiny, but I recall one MBA case study in 1998 where we were given a series of tactical and strategic questions around whether to race a Nascar in the final race of the season. On paper the risk / reward looked worth taking, e.g. huge sponsorship next year etc. The limited downside was our engine was known to have a small chance to fail at temps below 40. Long story short, most of the class voted to race on a brisk 35 degreee morning. The data looked great, the odds of failure were extremely small and the suppliers and race team mgmt were anxious to get the car out there. After we all submitted the case work, the professor came in and said congratulations class, you've collectively just launched the Challenger Shuttle. The case study used the exact numerical factors that Nasa faced, but put in a scenario of deciding to race a Nascar to hide the story and focus the students on the analytics. I thought of that story as today was the anniversary of that fateful flight. I still remember where I was when the news came on. I think you did not have all the data to make a comparable analysis, unless the professor told you that the downside included the death of the driver and pit crew. Well, what you said about "All good analogies fall down under scrutiny" I guess. I remember I was interviewed for my first grown-up / big-boy job at an actuarial consulting firm the day Challenger launched.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 28, 2016 20:08:09 GMT -5
Today wasn't so bad for the shorts. They were like:
|
|