|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 15, 2016 10:21:52 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 think they postponed it because of some write offs they decided to include. Matt mentioned it yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by mike0475 on Mar 15, 2016 10:29:02 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 think they postponed it because of some write offs they decided to include. Matt mentioned it yesterday. Dont think Matt mentioned this, but what about Al's health? Could that have contributed to delay? |
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Mar 15, 2016 10:36:05 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. I listened and went back and word searched to see if I mis-heard anything. Regarding finances, he said something along the lines of "we never pre-announce financing plans." It wasn't those exact words, but that effect. I think that one of two things is happening (and I am optimistic). (1) There is something in the works that will give MNKD the money they need to continue operating or (2) they are throwing in the towel. I did not get a strong sense of urgency or desperation in the tone yesterday. My hope is that there isn't need for urgency. |
|
|
|
Post by 4allthemarbles on Mar 15, 2016 10:50:52 GMT -5
Typically, I don't like long threads. The last few pages of this raises some good points. But honestly, we are all speculating. My abbreviated 2 cents:
Matt can't say a lot about certain things. But, he was more confident. More confident than I have heard in a long time talking to analysts. Olsen is doing his job and he is usually pretty cocky. I just didn't hear the snarkiness from them that we usually see. They hired a new CCO. He's not really and M & A guy, and he's not there to help with a sale of the company. This was really the first time Matt said anything negative about SNY. Olsen could have challenged him, but he didn't.
Matt wasn't worried about money. Not even ready to tap the LOC. Sometimes he is uncomfortable discussing those topics, but he was collected about it- when have we heard that type of confidence from him? Is there something in the works? Of course, otherwise the company is done. Do we have specifics, not yet. That will come next month at some point.
I don't expect a huge payoff amount from SNY. But, they don't want to go to arbitration either. They sandbagged MNKD- that is plain as day. But there are other coals in the fire- international deal might be already worked out, just waiting for the turnover. Milestones payments from Receptor should be within the year. All of this is theory, I don't have specifics. But at this point, it does not feel like a company that is winding down.
Again, all speculation- but everyone here has been burnt by MNKD. Do I trust GS-no. But all the analysts, fudsters, pumpers, etc aren't going to be what turns this around. MNKD controls its own destiny. They either produce or die.
I haven't heard the death knel.
|
|
|
|
Post by afrizzle on Mar 15, 2016 10:56:37 GMT -5
I think criticism of any analysts that asks a question that can't be answered is fair.
First, if they are "knowledgeable" of the FDA procedures, then surely they understand that Matt can't make any deals until the NDA is returned. If they aren't knowledgeable then they could have used their listening and comprehension skills to understand when Matt said this multiple times (this call and last call)
It's a trap to ask if they have formulary deals lined up, when Matt isn't allowed to start dealing yet.
This is either ignorant or dishonest. It's not journalism.
I'm all for asking "how long will cash last at current projections" or other functional questions but they just waste everyone's time asking things that can't be answered
|
|
|
|
Post by kball on Mar 15, 2016 11:06:57 GMT -5
New shareholder slogan:
Burnt Longs Matter
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 15, 2016 11:32:04 GMT -5
I think criticism of any analysts that asks a question that can't be answered is fair. First, if they are "knowledgeable" of the FDA procedures, then surely they understand that Matt can't make any deals until the NDA is returned. If they aren't knowledgeable then they could have used their listening and comprehension skills to understand when Matt said this multiple times (this call and last call) It's a trap to ask if they have formulary deals lined up, when Matt isn't allowed to start dealing yet. This is either ignorant or dishonest. It's not journalism. I'm all for asking "how long will cash last at current projections" or other functional questions but they just waste everyone's time asking things that can't be answered I was beginning to hope that Pfeffer would come right out and ask Jay Olson, "Do you have a memory problem, Jay? Because I explained the answer to you only a few weeks ago when you asked me the same question." That would have been rich!
...and it's not like Matt needs to worry about Jay writing a bad piece.   
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdhunt on Mar 15, 2016 11:51:23 GMT -5
Yes, and I'm a little "crispy" over here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 12:00:32 GMT -5
Management acknowledged problems yet were optimistic going forward... If they can't find a parter for Afrezza the company will probably go bankrupt. Analysts aren't all bullish but it doesn't look good www.tipranks.com/stocks/mnkd |
|
|
|
Post by 4allthemarbles on Mar 15, 2016 12:21:26 GMT -5
Management acknowledged problems yet were optimistic going forward... If they can't find a parter for Afrezza the company will probably go bankrupt. Analysts aren't all bullish but it doesn't look good www.tipranks.com/stocks/mnkdSeriously? |
|
|
|
Post by sf1981 on Mar 15, 2016 12:46:51 GMT -5
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. I hate the shorts as much as you do, greg. Not forgiving them at all. But I think the failure of Afrezza to sell with SNY and MNKD's bad judgment in going for this deal is the real reason our shares are in the trash. Not the shorts - they'd be long dead if Afrezza had been more successful. Not that I would have made a better decision. But I am not the CEO of this company, just another burned investor. I will not trash management any more if it makes you feel better. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 15, 2016 14:12:34 GMT -5
I think it helps to consider what kind of partner Sanofi would have been if they HAD placed 100% priority on Afrezza. Remember that it was former CEO Chris Vehrbacher who was behind the deal and was fired after the agreement was signed? Who did the Sanofi BoD replace him with? None other than the guy who failed with Exubera.
So the rhetorical question is can we really hold MannKind management 100% to blame for a deal that went south after the huge change that occurred at the CEO spot for Sanofi? That would seem a bit unjust to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by monger on Mar 15, 2016 14:39:30 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. I think you made a very good point here, along with others who mentioned there hasn't been a filing showing increased ownership by GS themselves. And I appreciated Sportsrancho's comment about this being a pattern for GS with many stocks. Bash the stock, then buy it when it's down, then revise the ratings and help drive it up. But putting all this together, and taking the worst case, which is highly unlikely, that ALL the 7.4 million gain in the shares reported attributed to GS are coming from their customers, where do we think their customers got the bright idea to start buying MNKD? I'm pretty sure it was GS advising them. And since I doubt that all those shares were purchased by their customers anyway, this seems like one of the most bullish signs I've seen yet, i.e., GS is making their move and advising their clients to buy as well. Add in JO's lackluster performance, and it sounded like maybe he was just running out the end of his string on the bashing, and he knows that the next CC he will be asking much more bullish questions, hence no point in continuing this line. In addition, unless Matt has entered some sort of psychotic state of denial, his total lack of concern about funding just screams checks on the way. I'm guessing there will be a modest payment from SNY to wrap things up, plus the strong possibility of additional payments from one or more partners within a few months, certainly long before they run out of money, plus increased revenue from scripts through the new clinics. They've already written off a lot, so as Matt himself mentioned, the result of the write downs for impairment will be to make their ongoing costs look really good. So my guess is that in another quarter we're going to see a dramatic change in the earnings, even if the revenue is not huge, because the costs should be super low. Of course things could still fall through, but it appears to me that things are falling in place. It will still take several years to get the stock price back in the 7's with steadily increasing revenues and modest deals, unless irrational exuberance takes hold again. I also think today's recovery of the initial beat down on the share price bodes really well. Even two FUD pieces on SA today (so far) couldn't stop that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 15:55:05 GMT -5
Monger- GSCO manages over a trillion in assets. Lets say MNKD's shares cost basis is 35 million.
35,000,000 divided 1,000,000,000,000 equals a .00035%
.00035% of the portfolios money is in MNKD.
7 million shares is an enormous amount of money for any of us on this board. Its nothing to one of the largest institutions in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 15, 2016 15:55:58 GMT -5
Adnan Butt
Sure. And then one more, in terms of cash how long will current cash last, assuming things stay the same?
Matthew Pfeffer
Well things won't stay the same but if they did -- I mean if we use that as a simplifying assumption, yeah takes us into early into the second half of the year. That’s not drawing upon any of the sources that are available resources we have now. But clearly we have things underway. It's premature to announce them. I am not terribly worried about it but it's not going to get us to profitability that's for sure. So we need to do some additional things and get us to the point where we can demonstrate these strategies that we have in mind where we really have the impact on the sales and the inflection of the sales curve that we expect it will.
|
|
"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?
