|
Post by matt on Mar 2, 2016 8:43:29 GMT -5
Write-downs such as asset impairments are not considered "operating results" because they are normally taken below the operating income line, but above the pretax profit line as "Other income or loss" or sometimes broken out onto a special line item as is commonly seen with restructuring programs. The only things that would get you a change in operating results is misstated sales or operating expenses and there has been no hint of any material changes in those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by fofos2000i on Mar 2, 2016 8:44:58 GMT -5
i dont think you can impair inventory ; held at book value, is current not obsolete and sales are continuing irrespective of the termination
the only asset that relates to the collaboration and can be subject to impairment test given sny termination is Deferred product cost (asset) (14m 9/30) that is connected to Deferred product sales (liability) (17m 9/30)
from notes to financial statements (10-Q 9/30/15)
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates or assumptions. The more significant estimates reflected in these accompanying financial statements involve assessing long-lived assets and deferred product costs for impairment, accrued expenses, valuation of stock-based compensation and the determination of the provision for income taxes and corresponding deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against net deferred tax assets. The estimation process often may yield a range of potentially reasonable estimates of the ultimate future outcomes and management must select an amount that falls within that range of reasonable estimates. This process may result in actual results differing materially from those estimated amounts used in the preparation of the financial statements.
Deferred product costs from collaboration — Deferred product costs represent the costs of product manufactured and sold to Sanofi, as long as they are not greater than the amount of deferred product sales related to the collaboration, for which recognition of revenue has been deferred. Given that the costs of inventory delivered to a customer, but for which revenue may not yet be recognized, meet both the definition and characteristics of an “asset” and the Company believes that it is probable that the amount of future revenue will exceed the amount of deferred costs (i.e., the asset would be realizable through the recognition of probable future income), the Company has elected to account for the deferred costs related to the product sold to Sanofi as an asset and carry forward to future periods until the related revenue is recognized.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 2, 2016 9:27:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 2, 2016 12:15:37 GMT -5
interesting that employee options were issued. That shows that there is confidence in the company and perhaps the late filing dated is tied to the employee grants. They couldn't publish with the grants in progress. I've been around silicon valley and tech industry long enough to know granting of stock options is no indication of future success or even confidence by management. It's a way to motivate employees, and that needs to be done in dire times as much or more than in good times. Doesn't have to mean things are dire.
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Mar 2, 2016 12:29:20 GMT -5
interesting that employee options were issued. That shows that there is confidence in the company and perhaps the late filing dated is tied to the employee grants. They couldn't publish with the grants in progress. I've been around silicon valley and tech industry long enough to know granting of stock options is no indication of future success or even confidence by management. It's a way to motivate employees, and that needs to be done in dire times as much or more than in good times. Doesn't have to mean things are dire. DBC,,,, on the other hand, is the issuing of these options, at this time, any type of sign that there is NO amazing event coming in the near term to dramatically raise the sp? If such an event occurred, it seems almost like insider trading.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Mar 2, 2016 12:35:52 GMT -5
If there's anything to take away from this, wouldn't it be that there aren't plans of selling the company currently in the works? Wouldn't it be kind of pointless to do all of this if they weren't at least trying to keep the ship afloat?
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Mar 2, 2016 12:37:39 GMT -5
I would think that the stock options are being given out as an incentive to stay at a time when people may be asked to take a pay cut.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 2, 2016 13:15:40 GMT -5
interesting that employee options were issued. That shows that there is confidence in the company and perhaps the late filing dated is tied to the employee grants. They couldn't publish with the grants in progress. I've been around silicon valley and tech industry long enough to know granting of stock options is no indication of future success or even confidence by management. It's a way to motivate employees, and that needs to be done in dire times as much or more than in good times. Doesn't have to mean things are dire. Afraid I don't know the answer to that. Companies used to play fast and loose with options in tech industry. SEC came down hard on Broadcom years ago for backdating options to pick a low priced day. Now companies probably mostly play by the book, but I'm uncertain what the rules would be regarding insider information. I would suspect that just being in negotiation for a deal would not preclude them from issuing options as no deal is done until the signatures land on the paper.
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Mar 2, 2016 13:18:15 GMT -5
Options are icing on the cake. Good people aren't going to stand around while their reputations and everything they've worked for over the past years go down the tubes. The idea that management needs options to be motivated under the current circumstances is ludicrous. It's just part of the system that when you can vote yourself a potentially large payout, you do.
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Mar 2, 2016 16:53:06 GMT -5
Trend, why is a delay or an impairment relevant or even bad news? It is all about news that have a direct impact on scripts, or a jump in script numbers, or a big upfront payment. Impairment is just book value. And a delay is just a delay. Everyone knows right now that MNKD will need some cash mid of this year. So why do you make such a fuss about it? Beside this there is nothing to analyse 'technically' with this stock. If you look at Level 2 there are literally tons of stock for every $0.01 up till $1.12, continued up to a big stopper of 546k at 1.18 then 427k at 1.25. Highest one > 99k is 100k for 1.41. This stock is so much controlled that chart analysis does not make much sense. Wasn't planning to cause a fuss, I was just reading the release and pointing out an interesting disclosure about impairment of assets. Some people might find that important. The merits or lack thereof of technical analysis have been thoroughly debated several times on this board. You may think it doesn't apply with MNKD, I think that technical analysis can provide very important insight. Let's leave it at that. Trend
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Mar 2, 2016 16:58:34 GMT -5
If there's anything to take away from this, wouldn't it be that there aren't plans of selling the company currently in the works? Wouldn't it be kind of pointless to do all of this if they weren't at least trying to keep the ship afloat? I don't think we can draw any conclusions about sale or no sale based on what is going on with options or anything else for that matter. Trend
|
|