Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 23:04:44 GMT -5
Laughable. The gap necessary to fund us for another year or two is doable in my opinion. If we are so starved for cash he deal with RLS could have been front loaded with immediate cash up front, no? Perhaps leaving more on the table long term. Furthermore. A secondary would aid us. Short stock gets beaten down, long term runway geta extended a year or so. I am very happy with my MNKD investment. Down. But no way in hell I sell. No much freakin potential in this baby.
God speed to Afrezza. And may Sanofi continue to lose market share to other insulins. Eventually being bought out by MNKD. Just kidding. Who wants to buy garbage. Haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by suebeeee1 on Apr 3, 2016 23:14:01 GMT -5
@georgethenite. I love your style. After owning this stock now for a few years and having a spouse successfully using Afrezza, I couldn't agree with you more. The next year (maybe two) might be a bit tough with cash flow, but something this good can't go down. Besides Afrezza, I still believe the sleeping giant is Technosphere. I'm hanging on as well!
|
|
|
|
Post by sccrbrg on Apr 4, 2016 0:12:58 GMT -5
The RLS deal could only have been loaded with upfront cash if it was offered, and we have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't.
A secondary helps us? No, a secondary helps mannkind and dilutes the investors. It extends the runway for the company but drastically reduces investment returns.
Bankruptcy is a real possibility, mnkd has limited cash, no partner, and a green CEO.
I'm not saying the ship can't be righted, but at the moment the only thing that is laughable are these threads that say bankruptcy is an impossibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2016 0:59:47 GMT -5
The RLS deal could only have been loaded with upfront cash if it was offered, and we have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't. A secondary helps us? No, a secondary helps mannkind and dilutes the investors. It extends the runway for the company but drastically reduces investment returns. Bankruptcy is a real possibility, mnkd has limited cash, no partner, and a green CEO. I'm not saying the ship can't be righted, but at the moment the only thing that is laughable are these threads that say bankruptcy is an impossibility. Call me an optimistic. You have to wonder about the deal. If cash was offered and for some reason this current deal was better, I would highly doubt cash is a problem. Could be wrong. But also SO many possibilities in terms of Afrezza moving forward. International partner. Increased RX. Further Cricket deals. Until I see current weekly Rxs go to zero I will remain loyal and belief in MNKD. THERE ARE to MANY possible good outcomes to have an attitude like yours. Again, call me an optimistic! |
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Apr 4, 2016 1:13:54 GMT -5
The RLS deal could only have been loaded with upfront cash if it was offered, and we have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't. A secondary helps us? No, a secondary helps mannkind and dilutes the investors. It extends the runway for the company but drastically reduces investment returns. Bankruptcy is a real possibility, mnkd has limited cash, no partner, and a green CEO. I'm not saying the ship can't be righted, but at the moment the only thing that is laughable are these threads that say bankruptcy is an impossibility. I'm always a puzzled by the resistance investors have to dilution. The cash a company receives from the offering balances the reduction in share price and is usually necessary to achieve the company's goals, at least in the opinion of the board and management. If you're against a particular secondary, either you think the offering isn't necessary or you think you have a better grasp of the options for raising cash than the people running the company. I don't expect MannKind will do a secondary at this PPS, but if they do I will see it as likely to be the least-bad option available to management, not reject the concept out of hand. Remember, we are (technically) the owners of the company. A secondary can't help the company and hurt us at the same time. If you don't trust management to make the right decision, that's a different issue. |
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Apr 4, 2016 5:25:41 GMT -5
The RLS deal could only have been loaded with upfront cash if it was offered, and we have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't. A secondary helps us? No, a secondary helps mannkind and dilutes the investors. It extends the runway for the company but drastically reduces investment returns. Bankruptcy is a real possibility, mnkd has limited cash, no partner, and a green CEO. I'm not saying the ship can't be righted, but at the moment the only thing that is laughable are these threads that say bankruptcy is an impossibility. I'm always a puzzled by the resistance investors have to dilution. The cash a company receives from the offering balances the reduction in share price and is usually necessary to achieve the company's goals, at least in the opinion of the board and management. If you're against a particular secondary, either you think the offering isn't necessary or you think you have a better grasp of the options for raising cash than the people running the company. I don't expect MannKind will do a secondary at this PPS, but if they do I will see it as likely to be the least-bad option available to management, not reject the concept out of hand. Remember, we are (technically) the owners of the company. A secondary can't help the company and hurt us at the same time. If you don't trust management to make the right decision, that's a different issue. I agree, I would rather have MNKD sell 250MM in stock thereby raising approximately $375MM in cash to be used to get them to profitability than to have the company not sell stock because of dilution concerns. In other words, the ultimate trading value of the stock will be a multiple of earnings so if we can't get to that point - dilution won't matter! |
|
|
|
Post by sf1981 on Apr 4, 2016 8:52:48 GMT -5
The RLS deal could only have been loaded with upfront cash if it was offered, and we have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't. A secondary helps us? No, a secondary helps mannkind and dilutes the investors. It extends the runway for the company but drastically reduces investment returns. Bankruptcy is a real possibility, mnkd has limited cash, no partner, and a green CEO. I'm not saying the ship can't be righted, but at the moment the only thing that is laughable are these threads that say bankruptcy is an impossibility. Call me an optimistic. You have to wonder about the deal. If cash was offered and for some reason this current deal was better, I would highly doubt cash is a problem. Could be wrong. But also SO many possibilities in terms of Afrezza moving forward. International partner. Increased RX. Further Cricket deals. Until I see current weekly Rxs go to zero I will remain loyal and belief in MNKD. THERE ARE to MANY possible good outcomes to have an attitude like yours. Again, call me an optimistic! I'm a bit on the skeptical side, though I would love for you to be right. Here is why I am skeptical: First argument: the deal was better with no cash offered. I tended to believe the same when Sanofi "only" offered USD 150m in upfront cash for Afrezza - that somehow the profit sharing led to a higher "best-case" outcome for MNKD given the milestones and the 65:35 profit sharing. We all know that upfront cash would have been the better choice and might have committed Sanofi more strongly. I know from M&A negotiations from my day-time job that upfront cash is very important and often involves the toughest negotiations, whereas milestones are usually a way to save face for both parties and bridge some sort of valuation disagreement in a friendly way. So bottom line: no upfront payment for TS is a negative. MNKD really needs cash very urgently. Not just my interpretation. Matt has said it, it's all over the 10-K, it is clear as daylight. Given how difficult the current situation is, MNKD should be prepared to give up some long-term gain for short-term survivability (=cash). Second argument presented somewhere else in this thread: The financing gap is not that large and can be bridged. Here's a thought: you are likely right in the sense that there is not a big debt maturity, so we will not go out in flames like Dendreon did. But I think there are two "biggies" here that people tend to forget. The Amphastar purchase agreement, under which I think more than USD 90m are owed to Amphastar already, and we need some kind of goodwill from those guys to stay afloat. Secondly, the long term safety study that needs to be initiated later this year (I think Matt said "in the fall", whereas protocol needs to be agreed upon with the FDA by April (source: Hakan in the Q3 2015 call) and the real costs start somewhere in 2017/18 (I think that was a statement from Matt at RBC or at another more recent conference). So while these are probably not going to be an imminent death blow, I'd guess off the top of my head we are talking "at least" USD 200-300m in financing gap (probably even more) until Afrezza has a decent chance (remember: sales will not just miraculously head back up by its own, it needs to be marketed and sales people need to be hired as well, and they will only join a small, risky company like MNKD for significant financial incentives). Keep in mind even by selling 2/3 of Afrezza plus milestones to SNY at a time when Afrezza blockbuster dreams were much more alive than they are now, MNKD did not get more than USD 150m, which in the current situation would not nearly be enough to survive! So now you can say: alright, dilute by 30-40% and there you have the money. But we don't really know if that's feasible. Remember TASE and what a drama that turned out to be. My hunch is that MNKD stock is too weak to support a big rights offering. But on the other hand, it has been done before - in early 2012. MNKD raised money to buy enough time to complete the Afrezza studies under difficult conditions, incurring very heavy dilution and an almost tripling of the share count. However, I find it hard to say at which point in time things looked crappier - back then many people though they'd just need to get the FDA nod and then there would be a big ramp-up. By now we know a) yes it works but b) it is a very difficult path to commercialization and c) big pharma has abandoned it. Not taking a side here (I was long, lost lots of money, am out the stock now, but looking for a chance to maybe jump back in) - just laying out a point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Apr 4, 2016 11:11:15 GMT -5
Insightful analysis, sf1981. It will be difficult for MannKind to win through without the support of a deep-pocketed partner and a certain amount of luck.
We have to remember that the Mann Foundation still owns a major stake in MannKind. I'm not one who subscribes to the "Al will posthumously give us $100 million to keep his legacy alive" idea, but I do think the Foundation's managers will take steps to protect the value of their stake if they see a plausible path to profitability or an acceptable exit. If they don't have the cash, I'm sure they have friends who do. On the other hand, if they don't see the path forward your concerns are fully in play and the future will be rocky indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Apr 4, 2016 11:19:46 GMT -5
Insightful analysis, sf1981. It will be difficult for MannKind to win through without the support of a deep-pocketed partner and a certain amount of luck. We have to remember that the Mann Foundation still owns a major stake in MannKind. I'm not one who subscribes to the "Al will posthumously give us $100 million to keep his legacy alive" idea, but I do think the Foundation's managers will take steps to protect the value of their stake if they see a plausible path to profitability or an acceptable exit. If they don't have the cash, I'm sure they have friends who do. On the other hand, if they don't see the path forward your concerns are fully in play and the future will be rocky indeed. Or it could be that, as Al told the New York Times in 2007. his will instructed the Mann Foundation to make sure that his companies had "enough money." If it instructed them to do so they would have no choice. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrys on Apr 4, 2016 11:46:02 GMT -5
Insightful analysis, sf1981. It will be difficult for MannKind to win through without the support of a deep-pocketed partner and a certain amount of luck. We have to remember that the Mann Foundation still owns a major stake in MannKind. I'm not one who subscribes to the "Al will posthumously give us $100 million to keep his legacy alive" idea, but I do think the Foundation's managers will take steps to protect the value of their stake if they see a plausible path to profitability or an acceptable exit. If they don't have the cash, I'm sure they have friends who do. On the other hand, if they don't see the path forward your concerns are fully in play and the future will be rocky indeed. Or it could be that, as Al told the New York Times in 2007. his will instructed the Mann Foundation to make sure that his companies had "enough money." If it instructed them to do so they would have no choice. If they were "instructed," then why weren't they there to help out with the debt "crisis" last August? Why couldn't they have helped avoid the TASE fiasco? Since Mr. Mann was alive then and stood by and did nothing, I see no reason to presume that his foundation would help now.
Also, replying to notions of a secondary above, a secondary is practically hopeless without some plan for addressing the issues facing the company -- the non-inferior status of the drug, the spirometry requirements, the lack of insurance coverage, and the apparent general lack of interest among diabetics for having inhaled insulin. I noticed on tudiabetes that "sam19" who, I'm gussing, is Sam Finta, in responding to someone's question a couple of weeks ago, ""I had gotten tired of raving about it because it just seemed like nobody cared to hear it." That in itself suggests a tremendous obstacle. I don't see how they could get much investor response without some specific plans about overcoming all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Apr 4, 2016 11:47:25 GMT -5
Laughable. The gap necessary to fund us for another year or two is doable in my opinion. If we are so starved for cash he deal with RLS could have been front loaded with immediate cash up front, no? Perhaps leaving more on the table long term. Furthermore. A secondary would aid us. Short stock gets beaten down, long term runway geta extended a year or so. I am very happy with my MNKD investment. Down. But no way in hell I sell. No much freakin potential in this baby. God speed to Afrezza. And may Sanofi continue to lose market share to other insulins. Eventually being bought out by MNKD. Just kidding. Who wants to buy garbage. Haha. I agree as the Mann Trust and other Mann Companies have too much comment stock and not enough preferred. I would be shocked if we are not purchased by the end of 2016. I do think we will get some definitive answers SHORTLY in the next quarter or sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by anderson on Apr 4, 2016 12:06:34 GMT -5
Or it could be that, as Al told the New York Times in 2007. his will instructed the Mann Foundation to make sure that his companies had "enough money." If it instructed them to do so they would have no choice. If they were "instructed," then why weren't they there to help out with the debt "crisis" last August? Why couldn't they have helped avoid the TASE fiasco? Since Mr. Mann was alive then and stood by and did nothing, I see no reason to presume that his foundation would help now.
Also, replying to notions of a secondary above, a secondary is practically hopeless without some plan for addressing the issues facing the company -- the non-inferior status of the drug, the spirometry requirements, the lack of insurance coverage, and the apparent general lack of interest among diabetics for having inhaled insulin. I noticed on tudiabetes that "sam19" who, I'm gussing, is Sam Finta, in responding to someone's question a couple of weeks ago, ""I had gotten tired of raving about it because it just seemed like nobody cared to hear it." That in itself suggests a tremendous obstacle. I don't see how they could get much investor response without some specific plans about overcoming all this.
Well if Mann group upped the spending limit last August and SNY was not playing nice and trying to burn MNKD cash it would have been a waste. Hmm Al probably knew that. So guess we wait till all bills are settled with SNY so they cant pad the numbers somehow and then the Mann group might up the spending limit, this will probably not happen on 5APR16, but maybe at the end of the quarter.(why increase the credit card limit in the middle of a divorce, wait till after the final decree.) |
|
|
|
Post by anderson on Apr 4, 2016 12:12:28 GMT -5
Laughable. The gap necessary to fund us for another year or two is doable in my opinion. If we are so starved for cash he deal with RLS could have been front loaded with immediate cash up front, no? Perhaps leaving more on the table long term. Furthermore. A secondary would aid us. Short stock gets beaten down, long term runway geta extended a year or so. I am very happy with my MNKD investment. Down. But no way in hell I sell. No much freakin potential in this baby. God speed to Afrezza. And may Sanofi continue to lose market share to other insulins. Eventually being bought out by MNKD. Just kidding. Who wants to buy garbage. Haha. I agree as the Mann Trust and other Mann Companies have too much comment stock and not enough preferred. I would be shocked if we are not purchased by the end of 2016. I do think we will get some definitive answers SHORTLY in the next quarter or sooner. I do not believe any preferred shares of MNKD have ever been issued. Note MannKind is authorized to issue 10,000,000 preferred shares, but has not done so to date. So there is only 1 kind of share issued to date, common shares(I am assuming comment stock was suppose to be common stock). |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Apr 4, 2016 13:28:38 GMT -5
Or it could be that, as Al told the New York Times in 2007. his will instructed the Mann Foundation to make sure that his companies had "enough money." If it instructed them to do so they would have no choice. If they were "instructed," then why weren't they there to help out with the debt "crisis" last August? Why couldn't they have helped avoid the TASE fiasco? Since Mr. Mann was alive then and stood by and did nothing, I see no reason to presume that his foundation would help now.
Maybe because the will wasn't in effect since Al was still alive? And maybe because Al had a glass half-full attitude as opposed to your half-empty outlook and didn't think there really was a "crisis?" |
|
|
|
Post by lakon on Apr 4, 2016 13:57:39 GMT -5
First argument: the deal was better with no cash offered. So bottom line: no upfront payment for TS is a negative. MNKD really needs cash very urgently. Second argument presented somewhere else in this thread: The financing gap is not that large and can be bridged. The Amphastar purchase agreement, under which I think more than USD 90m are owed to Amphastar already, and we need some kind of goodwill from those guys to stay afloat. Secondly, the long term safety study that needs to be initiated later this year. So now you can say: alright, dilute by 30-40% and there you have the money. But we don't really know if that's feasible. Remember TASE and what a drama that turned out to be. My hunch is that MNKD stock is too weak to support a big rights offering. But on the other hand, it has been done before - in early 2012. MNKD raised money to buy enough time to complete the Afrezza studies under difficult conditions, incurring very heavy dilution and an almost tripling of the share count. However, I find it hard to say at which point in time things looked crappier - back then many people though they'd just need to get the FDA nod and then there would be a big ramp-up. By now we know a) yes it works but b) it is a very difficult path to commercialization and c) big pharma has abandoned it. Not taking a side here (I was long, lost lots of money, am out the stock now, but looking for a chance to maybe jump back in) - just laying out a point of view. I agree that upfront cash is better. Listen to the AMPH conference call. I'm not worried. Goodwill seems to be plentiful there. It's worth looking into where those guys used to work. Yes, the long term safety study is an issue, but it's long term... I'd rather not dilute, and I'd love a rights offering to BUY BUY BUY. I think more debt financing is the path of least resistance. I mean it works for the government so why not? The difficulty of the path is proportional to the price of the product. MNKD is about to drop the hammer and the price of Afrezza. Big pharma may have abandoned ethics far more than Afrezza in this case. |
|
