|
|
Post by kball on Mar 14, 2016 19:40:49 GMT -5
Also sounded to me like all other TS work has been scrapped for now. That may mean layoffs have happened to conserve cash.
And a thought on Jay Olsen, at least he finally got matt to admit sanofi didnt do much in so many words which i found surprising given things/settlement not wrapped up yet
.
Actually thought Jay's questions were ones i wanted to know as well and remember thinking if matt could have answered any/all of them, no other cc questions would have even been necessary as they covered the bases
|
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 14, 2016 19:44:41 GMT -5
Hmm, wish they had Dr Urbanski talk about the trial abstracts... I was waiting for Hakan to quickly interupt Matt to give out his personal cell number for anyone interested in partnering with them. |
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 14, 2016 19:48:05 GMT -5
Also sounded to me like all other TS work has been scrapped for now. That may mean layoffs have happened to conserve cash. And a thought on Jay Olsen, at least he finally got matt to admit sanofi didnt do much in so many words which i found surprising given things/settlement not wrapped up yet . Actually thought Jay's questions were ones i wanted to know as well and remember thinking if matt could have answered any/all of them, no other cc questions would have even been necessary as they covered the bases Why is GS paying Jay a salary? Anyone who has followed the Afrezza story knows that Sanofi did minimal work in advertising Afrezza and yet Jay, a so called analyst, thinks Sanofi spent a lot to get Afrezza's name out there. It also sounded like Jay was recovering from a hangover and craving a few lines of coke. The guy is a disgrace. |
|
|
|
Post by 4allthemarbles on Mar 14, 2016 20:13:28 GMT -5
Also sounded to me like all other TS work has been scrapped for now. That may mean layoffs have happened to conserve cash. And a thought on Jay Olsen, at least he finally got matt to admit sanofi didnt do much in so many words which i found surprising given things/settlement not wrapped up yet . Actually thought Jay's questions were ones i wanted to know as well and remember thinking if matt could have answered any/all of them, no other cc questions would have even been necessary as they covered the bases Why is GS paying Jay a salary? Anyone who has followed the Afrezza story knows that Sanofi did minimal work in advertising Afrezza and yet Jay, a so called analyst, thinks Sanofi spent a lot to get Afrezza's name out there. It also sounded like Jay was recovering from a hangover and craving a few lines of coke. The guy is a disgrace. I gotta agree here. Usually Olsen is a little cocky bastard. Matt was confident and Olsen didn't eat his Wheaties. Or Coke. |
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Mar 14, 2016 22:07:44 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to take what is likely to be an unpopular position and say I thought Jay Olsen was just doing his job. Analysts have their financial models that they need to update as things change. He was asking questions that would address what adjustments needed to be made. I thought Matt did a good job with his responses but I didn't hear the bullying and smackdown dynamic that others have referenced. To me it was just an analyst asking questions that he figured wouldn't be answered and the CEO not answering them. Fact is, we'd all like to know the answers. Hopefully Matt already has them but his financial model is also likely a work in progress. We'll find out soon enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Mar 14, 2016 22:48:15 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to take what is likely to be an unpopular position and say I thought Jay Olsen was just doing his job. Analysts have their financial models that they need to update as things change. He was asking questions that would address what adjustments needed to be made. I thought Matt did a good job with his responses but I didn't hear the bullying and smackdown dynamic that others have referenced. To me it was just an analyst asking questions that he figured wouldn't be answered and the CEO not answering them. Fact is, we'd all like to know the answers. Hopefully Matt already has them but his financial model is also likely a work in progress. We'll find out soon enough. Are you sure you belong on this message board, shorty? Unless an analyst prefaces each question with a "Praise Al!" it is clear he has an axe to grind. . . . Just kidding, of course. And actually I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Mar 14, 2016 23:10:40 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to take what is likely to be an unpopular position and say I thought Jay Olsen was just doing his job. Analysts have their financial models that they need to update as things change. He was asking questions that would address what adjustments needed to be made. I thought Matt did a good job with his responses but I didn't hear the bullying and smackdown dynamic that others have referenced. To me it was just an analyst asking questions that he figured wouldn't be answered and the CEO not answering them. Fact is, we'd all like to know the answers. Hopefully Matt already has them but his financial model is also likely a work in progress. We'll find out soon enough. So it was "his job" to base his question about marketing on the obviously false premise (I'm paraphrasing) that Sanofi had done an outstanding, well-financed, major league job promoting Afrezza and how on earth could MannKind come even close to that effort with its meager resources? That may have been the job of a dedicated short, but not of a supposedly objective analyst. |
|
|
|
Post by sccrbrg on Mar 14, 2016 23:37:09 GMT -5
The only smack down I saw was against SNY. Matt barely answered Jay's questions, and I thought they were legitimate concerns.
I can't help but feel like a lamb being led towards the slaughter with Matt's comments. It's always "we don't anticipate..." and then it happens.
With practically zero internal progress aside from a few hiring someone and a 3rd party clinic deal - how can he sits there and say that he doesn't anticipate BK??
The answer - he's the CEO of a publicly held company. Of course he's not going to publicly admit BK as a possibility.
Not reassured at all by this conference call. They don't need afrezza back to secure financing, even though that's what they made it sound like.
|
|
|
|
Post by myocat on Mar 14, 2016 23:39:17 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to take what is likely to be an unpopular position and say I thought Jay Olsen was just doing his job. Analysts have their financial models that they need to update as things change. He was asking questions that would address what adjustments needed to be made. I thought Matt did a good job with his responses but I didn't hear the bullying and smackdown dynamic that others have referenced. To me it was just an analyst asking questions that he figured wouldn't be answered and the CEO not answering them. Fact is, we'd all like to know the answers. Hopefully Matt already has them but his financial model is also likely a work in progress. We'll find out soon enough. So it was "his job" to base his question about marketing on the obviously false premise (I'm paraphrasing) that Sanofi had done an outstanding, well-financed, major league job promoting Afrezza and how on earth could MannKind come even close to that effort with its meager resources? That may have been the job of a dedicated short, but not of a supposedly objective analyst. MNKD can't do it alone but don't forget the RLS card. |
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Mar 14, 2016 23:56:18 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to take what is likely to be an unpopular position and say I thought Jay Olsen was just doing his job. Analysts have their financial models that they need to update as things change. He was asking questions that would address what adjustments needed to be made. I thought Matt did a good job with his responses but I didn't hear the bullying and smackdown dynamic that others have referenced. To me it was just an analyst asking questions that he figured wouldn't be answered and the CEO not answering them. Fact is, we'd all like to know the answers. Hopefully Matt already has them but his financial model is also likely a work in progress. We'll find out soon enough. So it was "his job" to base his question about marketing on the obviously false premise (I'm paraphrasing) that Sanofi had done an outstanding, well-financed, major league job promoting Afrezza and how on earth could MannKind come even close to that effort with its meager resources? That may have been the job of a dedicated short, but not of a supposedly objective analyst. Think about the context of the question, lefty. Maybe there was a subtext but I think his point was that Sanofi already spent more money on marketing than MannKind has, so how was the company going to pay for something comparable or better? I'd be surprised if he was instead nominating Sanofi for the Drug Marketing Hall of Fame. |
|
|
|
Post by sf1981 on Mar 14, 2016 23:58:48 GMT -5
The only smack down I saw was against SNY. Matt barely answered Jay's questions, and I thought they were legitimate concerns. I can't help but feel like a lamb being led towards the slaughter with Matt's comments. It's always "we don't anticipate..." and then it happens. With practically zero internal progress aside from a few hiring someone and a 3rd party clinic deal - how can he sits there and say that he doesn't anticipate BK?? The answer - he's the CEO of a publicly held company. Of course he's not going to publicly admit BK as a possibility. Not reassured at all by this conference call. They don't need afrezza back to secure financing, even though that's what they made it sound like. Feeling exactly the same to be honest. Bankruptcy has been called an option of last resort in the RBC call just three weeks ago, so it is definitely not fully ruled out by Matt. And you guys who are bashing Jay Olson, just let it go. The critics are not responsible for where the share price is. Hakan Edstrom signed the SNY contract, with consent by Al and by Matt, not the shorts. Matt had almost a year to sell shares at USD 4, 5, or even 6. He did not. Now he is fighting for survival and still has not even fully used the ATM, hoping for better days. I think that is reckless to the shareholders and to the employees as well. This is what happens when you only have stock options. You either care for a big payoff or none at all. You are more inclined to play it risky than play it safe. If he really cared for patients first, why in the world hasn't he raised capital much earlier! |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Mar 15, 2016 0:06:29 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to take what is likely to be an unpopular position and say I thought Jay Olsen was just doing his job. Analysts have their financial models that they need to update as things change. He was asking questions that would address what adjustments needed to be made. I thought Matt did a good job with his responses but I didn't hear the bullying and smackdown dynamic that others have referenced. To me it was just an analyst asking questions that he figured wouldn't be answered and the CEO not answering them. Fact is, we'd all like to know the answers. Hopefully Matt already has them but his financial model is also likely a work in progress. We'll find out soon enough. You're giving Olsen and other analysts way too much credit. First, I would remind you that it was almost exactly a year ago when this same Olsen slashed in half all of his revenue and share-price targets based on three or four weeks of scripts data. There were at least two problems with this. One, he had zero basis for making his projections, which, absurdly, went out to 2025. Two, beyond the FACT that he had zero basis for making his projections in the first place, how does one credibly slash in half projections based on such skimpy data. In any case, needless to say, his projections, both initial and revised, proved to be garbage. Second, you say his questions were necessary for him to update his financial model... Do you seriously believe that Olsen has a financial model for MNKD now? And if he does, what is the value of that model, when he has virtually nothing to input into that model? Olsen's only job from the very beginning was to undermine MNKD, pure and simple, and you're fooling yourself if you try to give him credit for anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Mar 15, 2016 0:23:03 GMT -5
The only smack down I saw was against SNY. Matt barely answered Jay's questions, and I thought they were legitimate concerns. I can't help but feel like a lamb being led towards the slaughter with Matt's comments. It's always "we don't anticipate..." and then it happens. With practically zero internal progress aside from a few hiring someone and a 3rd party clinic deal - how can he sits there and say that he doesn't anticipate BK?? The answer - he's the CEO of a publicly held company. Of course he's not going to publicly admit BK as a possibility. Not reassured at all by this conference call. They don't need afrezza back to secure financing, even though that's what they made it sound like. Feeling exactly the same to be honest. Bankruptcy has been called an option of last resort in the RBC call just three weeks ago, so it is definitely not fully ruled out by Matt. And you guys who are bashing Jay Olson, just let it go. The critics are not responsible for where the share price is. Hakan Edstrom signed the SNY contract, with consent by Al and by Matt, not the shorts. Matt had almost a year to sell shares at USD 4, 5, or even 6. He did not. Now he is fighting for survival and still has not even fully used the ATM, hoping for better days. I think that is reckless to the shareholders and to the employees as well. This is what happens when you only have stock options. You either care for a big payoff or none at all. You are more inclined to play it risky than play it safe. If he really cared for patients first, why in the world hasn't he raised capital much earlier! There's so much wrong with your comment but I'll just address two: The notion that the critics are not responsible for the current share price is absurd. Obviously MNKD and SNY certainly deserve their share of blame as well, but absent the constant bashing, by folks including Olsen, MannKind would've been able to resolve its debt issue with far less pain and may even have been able to raise more capital without (edited to add out) the fear of onerous dilution. The 100 million-plus short interest and the constant bashing go hand in hand, and for you to suggest there's no connection between that and where the price is now suggests you either have no clue or choose to ignore reality. Truth be told, re-reading your comment, I think you have no clue. As for the comment that you "don't need Afrezza back to secure financing," which you agree with, how on earth would you suggest MNKD secure Afrezza-related financing, which will most likely derive from some marketing agreement, without have the rights to Afrezza back. If you're a prospective partner, would you sign a deal with MNKD before MNKD got the rights back, keeping in mind that SNY currently has all the intellectual property and data associated with the Afrezza NDA? And if you're MNKD, do you announce the possible deal before it's actually been signed to satisfy folks like you, knowing that you'll probably be the first to cry foul if things fall through. |
|
|
|
Post by sf1981 on Mar 15, 2016 0:39:47 GMT -5
Feeling exactly the same to be honest. Bankruptcy has been called an option of last resort in the RBC call just three weeks ago, so it is definitely not fully ruled out by Matt. And you guys who are bashing Jay Olson, just let it go. The critics are not responsible for where the share price is. Hakan Edstrom signed the SNY contract, with consent by Al and by Matt, not the shorts. Matt had almost a year to sell shares at USD 4, 5, or even 6. He did not. Now he is fighting for survival and still has not even fully used the ATM, hoping for better days. I think that is reckless to the shareholders and to the employees as well. This is what happens when you only have stock options. You either care for a big payoff or none at all. You are more inclined to play it risky than play it safe. If he really cared for patients first, why in the world hasn't he raised capital much earlier! There's so much wrong with your comment but I'll just address two: The notion that the critics are not responsible for the current share price is absurd. Obviously MNKD and SNY certainly deserve their share of blame as well, but absent the constant bashing, by folks including Olsen, MannKind would've been able to resolve its debt issue with far less pain and may even have been able to raise more capital without (edited to add out) the fear of onerous dilution. The 100 million-plus short interest and the constant bashing go hand in hand, and for you to suggest there's no connection between that and where the price is now suggests you either have no clue or choose to ignore reality. Truth be told, re-reading your comment, I think you have no clue. As for the comment that you "don't need Afrezza back to secure financing," which you agree with, how on earth would you suggest MNKD secure Afrezza-related financing, which will most likely derive from some marketing agreement, without have the rights to Afrezza back. If you're a prospective partner, would you sign a deal with MNKD before MNKD got the rights back, keeping in mind that SNY currently has all the intellectual property and data associated with the Afrezza NDA? And if you're MNKD, do you announce the possible deal before it's actually been signed to satisfy folks like you, knowing that you'll probably be the first to cry foul if things fall through. No need for any personal attacks. Just to clarify. Sure, shorts have been a depressant to the share price, not denying that and I agree they have tried to manipulate the share price. But still the fact that it is down here is mainly due to Afrezza failing to sell. Be honest, what was your estimate for first year revenue when you invested? Mine was USD 300m or so. Instead we got maybe USD 10m. I lost a lot of money. This is why. Not because of a large conspiracy. It makes sense to come to peace with reality first of all. Why didn't Matt raise capital at USD 5 or USD 6 where shares traded for a long time in spite of the shorts being there? Why not rebase the convertible to say USD 3 or USD 4 for it to go through without using up cash. You provide no answers on that and chose instead to insult. My theory is he was too optimistic, just like us. As a CFO of a company, he has more responsibility towards employees and patients than a retail investor does. He made a big mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by kball on Mar 15, 2016 1:16:06 GMT -5
I'll even put forth another unpleasant theory...
I think Mannkind may have delayed the full year reporting just so they could at least introduce the new guy in hopes of preventing further stock price erosion with the company's precarious financial position and lack of any answers to any questions that they knew would be asked.
Or is it just a coincidence that he started literally the same day as the rescheduled date?
That's my theory anyway.
Feel free to agree or disagree
|
|
