|
|
Post by greg on Mar 15, 2016 4:53:34 GMT -5
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. Why is it that you're quick to blame Matt for not making perfect decisions with the benefit of hindsight but are also so willing to essentially forgive and forget the short sellers and manipulators who've undermined MannKind every step of the way for years?  "they have tried to manipulate the share price." How do you get "tried?" How many small companies have had trash written about their stocks almost daily? How many small companies have the short interest that this one does, a good portion of that of the naked variety? As for my estimate for first year sales, I'll "be honest," as you suggest. I had no estimate, because I had no idea when Afrezza was going to be launched; I had no idea what it was going to be priced at; I had no idea when insurance was going to kick in; I had no idea what the impact of spirometry requirement was going to be; I had no idea how many sales folks Sanofi was going to deploy. I basically had no basis for making any sales estimate. Perhaps you can explain how you came up with $300 million. As to why Matt didn't do a better job with the converts, perhaps it's because foresight isn't as good as hindsight. Absent all the trash talking by the shorts and their surrogates, ideally, the debt would've converted at the original conversion price. How would you have felt if the company sold stock at four or five bucks and the debt eventually converted at $6.80??? I'm guessing you would've trashed Matt for diluting unnecessarily. Without all the trash from the short sellers and slightly better scrips, the debt would've been retired painlessly and the company would have some $60 million more in its coffers. If that were the case, would the stock be where it is, even with Sanofi running away??? Not likely. So complain and trash management all you want, but wouldn't it be nice if you practiced what you preached and tried to be a little more consistent. |
|
|
|
Post by ashiwi on Mar 15, 2016 5:36:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Mar 15, 2016 6:54:28 GMT -5
Exactly!!! Bottom line is GS added. This will turn around and do so quickly IMO - as soon as SNY is completely out of the picture. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 15, 2016 7:23:43 GMT -5
Exactly!!! Bottom line is GS added. This will turn around and do so quickly IMO - as soon as SNY is completely out of the picture. I would be careful. I do not know where that number comes from but there has been no new 13F filed. |
|
|
|
Post by kbrion77 on Mar 15, 2016 7:43:43 GMT -5
Exactly!!! Bottom line is GS added. This will turn around and do so quickly IMO - as soon as SNY is completely out of the picture. I would be careful. I do not know where that number comes from but there has been no new 13F filed. Multiple sites have quoted that 7,368,359 increase so it must be coming from somewhere. Also that was adding during Q4-15 where the price range was $1.45-$3.08, the Q1-16 numbers for MNKD will be extremely telling IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 15, 2016 7:44:35 GMT -5
Exactly!!! Bottom line is GS added. This will turn around and do so quickly IMO - as soon as SNY is completely out of the picture. I would be careful. I do not know where that number comes from but there has been no new 13F filed. and no idea what the shares are being used for and to automatically think it means they are bullish on MNKD. Their rating of the stock says otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by kbrion77 on Mar 15, 2016 7:47:28 GMT -5
I would be careful. I do not know where that number comes from but there has been no new 13F filed. and no idea what the shares are being used for and to automatically think it means they are bullish on MNKD. Their rating of the stock says otherwise. I agree with this as well, I don't necessarily think these big institutions are our friends with how lucrative the securities lending business is. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 15, 2016 8:02:40 GMT -5
I thought the lack of questioning by analysts about RLS (or mention by Matt) to be rather odd. Not sure what to make of it. RLS may be in play here. A licensing deal. Not being talked about. MNKD potential licensing.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylor810dn on Mar 15, 2016 8:02:57 GMT -5
Wouldn't it have been exciting if Matt had asked J. Olsen to explain the share buying while bashing? Just fantasizing.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 15, 2016 8:57:31 GMT -5
Not defending Olsen or GS, but asking tough questions and making estimates and forecasts on skimpy data is what he is paid to do. Anybody can wait two or three quarters to see how a new product is shaping up before making a recommendation, but by then the profitable trades are gone. Olsen works for GS and, indirectly, for clients of GS and has no obligation to do anything other than call them like he sees them.
Do be careful when reading the tea leaves based on "institutional ownership". The numbers as reported are a function of the reporting rules under the Investment Companies Act of 1940 and don't necessarily reflect reality. If I were to own a brokerage and any of you were clients of my brokerage, the shares you bought in MNKD would be reflected in my quarterly reports as buys despite the fact that the brokerage itself sold shares or the holding were unchanged. A lot of things get rolled into the reported number; index funds, sector funds, self-directed IRAs, corporate pension funds for which GS is the custodian, trading house inventory, client managed accounts, and many more where GS is 100% uninvolved with the investment decision.
A larger number for a diversified financial giant like Goldman does not mean that Goldman believes in MNKD any more than a smaller number means they have turned sour on MNKD. The only institutional numbers that mean anything are those of "pick and hold" fundamental investment funds who are showing their true opinions in their share counts, and there are precious few of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 15, 2016 9:04:28 GMT -5
Exactly!!! Bottom line is GS added. This will turn around and do so quickly IMO - as soon as SNY is completely out of the picture. This is reality! This is what they do. They downgrade and get all the little people out. Then they buy. When they get all they want they upgrade. They did it when I was in KBH in 2010. C not long after that. JCP a year ago. All were said to be going under. Don't be fooled! It's their MO. |
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 15, 2016 9:05:47 GMT -5
Not defending Olsen or GS, but asking tough questions and making estimates and forecasts on skimpy data is what he is paid to do. Anybody can wait two or three quarters to see how a new product is shaping up before making a recommendation, but by then the profitable trades are gone. Olsen works for GS and, indirectly, for clients of GS and has no obligation to do anything other than call them like he sees them. Do be careful when reading the tea leaves based on "institutional ownership". The numbers as reported are a function of the reporting rules under the Investment Companies Act of 1940 and don't necessarily reflect reality. If I were to own a brokerage and any of you were clients of my brokerage, the shares you bought in MNKD would be reflected in my quarterly reports as buys despite the fact that the brokerage itself sold shares or the holding were unchanged. A lot of things get rolled into the reported number; index funds, sector funds, self-directed IRAs, corporate pension funds for which GS is the custodian, trading house inventory, client managed accounts, and many more where GS is 100% uninvolved with the investment decision. A larger number for a diversified financial giant like Goldman does not mean that Goldman believes in MNKD any more than a smaller number means they have turned sour on MNKD. The only institutional numbers that mean anything are those of "pick and hold" fundamental investment funds who are showing their true opinions in their share counts, and there are precious few of those. Listening to a Mannkind CC is like Groundhog day. It's just reliving the same thing over and over. There never is any guidance and Wall Street knows that the questions they ask won't and can't be answered to their liking. I think we all wish Mannkind would be at a place where they can forecast but they can't for obvious reasons. And that is why Wall Street is so negative on the stock. |
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Mar 15, 2016 9:28:13 GMT -5
My takeaway is this. Given the information that we know, the situation is dire and they could run out of cash in the near future. Yesterday, Matt seemed fairly confident, and he did not seem to be worried at all about the cash situation. The optimist in me would like to think that Matt knows that there is a check on the way that we don't know about, but my optimism has let me down on this stock.
I am not sure what to think of the absence of Technosphere from the discussions. It's probably that there is nothing new to report here, and they did not want to take time to talk about it. I hope it doesn't mean that future TS applications have been put on hold.
There are a lot of different things that could spark this stock. We need one of them to happen in the near term.
|
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 15, 2016 9:51:51 GMT -5
My takeaway is this. Given the information that we know, the situation is dire and they could run out of cash in the near future. Yesterday, Matt seemed fairly confident, and he did not seem to be worried at all about the cash situation. The optimist in me would like to think that Matt knows that there is a check on the way that we don't know about, but my optimism has let me down on this stock. I am not sure what to think of the absence of Technosphere from the discussions. It's probably that there is nothing new to report here, and they did not want to take time to talk about it. I hope it doesn't mean that future TS applications have been put on hold. There are a lot of different things that could spark this stock. We need one of them to happen in the near term. Did you hear Matt or did you read the transcript? Matt couldn't say whether or not something is in the works but he didn't sound worried about the company's finances going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 15, 2016 10:11:25 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 I don't think it's a unpleasant theory. But I don't believe in coincidence:-) No doubt in my mind. Lol |
|
"they have tried to manipulate the share price." How do you get "tried?" How many small companies have had trash written about their stocks almost daily?
