Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 16:00:56 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.
This has been haunting me today. I observed confidence in Matt like I have never heard before. I have been siting on the side lines for the past month but I am wondering if they have something lined up. If they get money to last a few years shorts would have to add a longer time frame to their investment and the question becomes will MNKD fail? The short squeeze could be violent depending on what matt has up his sleeve. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Mar 15, 2016 16:11:17 GMT -5
Peppy
Well, having just listened to the conference call (that occurred while I was on a cross country flight from the West Coast), my impression was similar. Matt did seem like he had a degree of confidence and expectation for reasons that could not be revealed at this time.
I hope this is the case. Because without a partner I don't foresee much chance of this company continuing as a going concern. I'd like to think that the company deserves better breaks than they have been getting, but sometimes bad breaks simply seem to pile on in improbable ways. This is not to say that more competent execution on many fronts could have avoided some of the current pain, but there is no value in fretting about water under the bridge.
I continue to wish the company well, but my optimism, after years of expectation, is muted. I'm still holding all of my shares, and like so many here, deeply underwater.
Chris C
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 15, 2016 16:21:22 GMT -5
Chris, have always loved your posts. I was wondering what your thoughts are, if any, on M&A?
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 15, 2016 16:41:07 GMT -5
Chris, have always loved your posts. I was wondering what your thoughts are, if any, on M&A? I think Matt needs to get the revenue up a bit before he considers buying any companies  |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 15, 2016 17:05:27 GMT -5
You remind me of the cc where Al Mann quipped that MannKind may buy Merck some day.  |
|
|
|
Post by kc on Mar 15, 2016 17:37:52 GMT -5
Peppy Well, having just listened to the conference call (that occurred while I was on a cross country flight from the West Coast), my impression was similar. Matt did seem like he had a degree of confidence and expectation for reasons that could not be revealed at this time. I hope this is the case. Because without a partner I don't foresee much chance of this company continuing as a going concern. I'd like to think that the company deserves better breaks than they have been getting, but sometimes bad breaks simply seem to pile on in improbable ways. This is not to say that more competent execution on many fronts could have avoided some of the current pain, but there is no value in fretting about water under the bridge. I continue to wish the company well, but my optimism, after years of expectation, is muted. I'm still holding all of my shares, and like so many here, deeply underwater. Chris C Think about clamp study papers to be presented at ADA. No booth yet but presenting papers. They have a partner and or a plan. Can't be revealed just yet. Matt was confident on cash and no more dulution for shareholders. I believe him. |
|
|
|
Post by obamayoumama on Mar 15, 2016 18:07:50 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. Matt, you are just plain wrong! Shares held in client's accounts are NOT included in GS's numbers. If your statement was correct, then why oh why is Al Mann's shares not showing up in Merrill's holdings? Merrill is holding Al Mann's shares, duh! GS is buying up MNKD in their own investment account. If it was in one of their funds it would show up in the fund holdings not GS's holdings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 18:50:06 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. Matt, you are just plain wrong! Shares held in client's accounts are NOT included in GS's numbers. If your statement was correct, then why oh why is Al Mann's shares not showing up in Merrill's holdings? Merrill is holding Al Mann's shares, duh! GS is buying up MNKD in their own investment account. If it was in one of their funds it would show up in the fund holdings not GS's holdings. You are a 100% wrong. Al Mann's Shares are under the Mann Group LLC not Al Man personally. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 15, 2016 19:20:09 GMT -5
Peppy Well, having just listened to the conference call (that occurred while I was on a cross country flight from the West Coast), my impression was similar. Matt did seem like he had a degree of confidence and expectation for reasons that could not be revealed at this time. I hope this is the case. Because without a partner I don't foresee much chance of this company continuing as a going concern. I'd like to think that the company deserves better breaks than they have been getting, but sometimes bad breaks simply seem to pile on in improbable ways. This is not to say that more competent execution on many fronts could have avoided some of the current pain, but there is no value in fretting about water under the bridge. I continue to wish the company well, but my optimism, after years of expectation, is muted. I'm still holding all of my shares, and like so many here, deeply underwater. Chris C Think about clamp study papers to be presented at ADA. No booth yet but presenting papers. They have a partner and or a plan. Can't be revealed just yet. Matt was confident on cash and no more dulution for shareholders. I believe him. I think he expressed that they don't want to issue more shares with the price where it is, but I don't think he has every stated directly or even implied that a secondary offering is off the table. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 15, 2016 19:23:41 GMT -5
It's a good thing Matt sounded positive on the call... that 10-k paints a pretty bleak picture with all the required verbiage of everything that could go wrong. The part about faulty financial controls, while not seeming bad in the details, certainly isn't something a CEO wants in his 10-k... we now have our explanation for the delayed 10-k filing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Mar 15, 2016 19:38:07 GMT -5
It's a good thing Matt sounded positive on the call... that 10-k paints a pretty bleak picture with all the required verbiage of everything that could go wrong. The part about faulty financial controls, while not seeming bad in the details, certainly isn't something a CEO wants in his 10-k... we now have our explanation for the delayed 10-k filing. It was typical boiler plate language |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 15, 2016 21:16:43 GMT -5
It's a good thing Matt sounded positive on the call... that 10-k paints a pretty bleak picture with all the required verbiage of everything that could go wrong. The part about faulty financial controls, while not seeming bad in the details, certainly isn't something a CEO wants in his 10-k... we now have our explanation for the delayed 10-k filing. It was typical boiler plate language You've already read all 140 or so pages of 10-k and attachments. Impressive. I've only skimmed. Some may be boiler plate from the perspective of the accounting firm... but not boiler plate you want to have your accountants put in their report about your company... In our opinion, because of the effect of the material weakness identified above on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, the Company has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on the criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 of the Company and our report dated March 15, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.And when it comes to all the "boiler plate" about how many different ways MNKD might fail... yes, much of it has appeared before so I guess that has become boiler plate for MNKD... but the list is growing. I know claiming that anything listing risks is somehow immaterial because it's all just "boiler plate" is a handy way of dismissing it... and people were certainly doing that when the "boiler plate" in their SEC filing pointed out that SNY might pull out of the partnership was a risk (I was one of those dismissing that risk on a regular basis... hence taking a more circumspect approach now). Personally I think it is a misuse of the term "boiler plate" to imply that company specific risks fall within that category. I remain hopeful about MNKD... but investors should certainly read the SEC filings, including the MNKD specifc "boiler plate", to be fully informed. |
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Mar 16, 2016 6:35:33 GMT -5
Peppy Well, having just listened to the conference call (that occurred while I was on a cross country flight from the West Coast), my impression was similar. Matt did seem like he had a degree of confidence and expectation for reasons that could not be revealed at this time. I hope this is the case. Because without a partner I don't foresee much chance of this company continuing as a going concern. I'd like to think that the company deserves better breaks than they have been getting, but sometimes bad breaks simply seem to pile on in improbable ways. This is not to say that more competent execution on many fronts could have avoided some of the current pain, but there is no value in fretting about water under the bridge. I continue to wish the company well, but my optimism, after years of expectation, is muted. I'm still holding all of my shares, and like so many here, deeply underwater. Chris C Chris, Your post is almost identical to my thoughts. The one thing I keep going back to is the product itself. It is remarkable, no question about that. I sincerely hope (not a great investment strategy) that there is someone out there that will bet on the potential of Afrezza and the benefits. Matt's confidence about the money was encouraging, but like you, I have also muted my expectations. Like I said, you mirror my thought, so I won't rehash them, but dang, I sure hope they can raise the money. It would be such a shame on so many levels if Afrezza were to not become what it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by yossarian on Mar 16, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
2. Pretty clear to me because Mannkind does NOT have the money! They've got about $60 million. So they just don't have the money to amount a large sales campaign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 10:44:35 GMT -5
Think about clamp study papers to be presented at ADA. No booth yet but presenting papers. They have a partner and or a plan. Can't be revealed just yet. Matt was confident on cash and no more dulution for shareholders. I believe him. I think he expressed that they don't want to issue more shares with the price where it is, but I don't think he has every stated directly or even implied that a secondary offering is off the table. Of course I will be labeled a short for this but my other thought is he is trying to drive the price up on sentiment. Get shorts to cover in order to dilute. |
|
