|
|
Post by spiro on Apr 11, 2016 14:13:28 GMT -5
Spiro doesn't know what the heck MNKD is up to, but Spiro would really like to know what Nate Pile thinks he knows.
Apr. 11 at 10:26 AM NatesNotes
Nice to see the prelim proxy info out today... things continuing to fall into place for $MNKD longs, eh?
Spiro here
|
|
|
|
Post by liane on Apr 11, 2016 14:28:59 GMT -5
C'mon nylefty, Let's give new members the benefit of a doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by factspls88 on Apr 11, 2016 14:58:56 GMT -5
Spiro doesn't know what the heck MNKD is up to, but Spiro would really like to know what Nate Pile thinks he knows. Apr. 11 at 10:26 AM NatesNotes Nice to see the prelim proxy info out today... things continuing to fall into place for $MNKD longs, eh? Spiro here Nate has previously stated that a new partnership would not be out of the question for Mannkind. He uses his experience with Celgene as a prime example of a stock that experienced the same amount of derision, volatility and BK fears as MNKD that ultimately proved its mettle and became the success that it has today. I'm not sure Nate "knows" anything for sure, but here is what he wrote in his most recent newsletter to explain this more fully. www.notwallstreet.com/how-does-the-mannkind-story-compare-21616/ |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Apr 11, 2016 15:11:22 GMT -5
Spiro doesn't know what the heck MNKD is up to, but Spiro would really like to know what Nate Pile thinks he knows. Apr. 11 at 10:26 AM NatesNotes Nice to see the prelim proxy info out today... things continuing to fall into place for $MNKD longs, eh? Spiro here Nate has previously stated that a new partnership would not be out of the question for Mannkind. He uses his experience with Celgene as a prime example of a stock that experienced the same amount of derision, volatility and BK fears as MNKD that ultimately proved its mettle and became the success that it has today. I'm not sure Nate "knows" anything for sure, but here is what he wrote in his most recent newsletter to explain this more fully. www.notwallstreet.com/how-does-the-mannkind-story-compare-21616/Small nitpick: That's not his most recent newsletter. There have been two newsletters since that one, plus inter-issue commentaries. But his generally bullish attitude about MNKD hasn't changed. |
|
|
|
Post by jurystillout on Apr 11, 2016 15:15:03 GMT -5
The additional shares of common stock that would become available for issuance if the proposal is adopted could also be used by the Company to oppose a hostile takeover attempt or to delay or prevent changes in control or management of the Company. For example, without further stockholder approval, the Board could strategically sell shares of common stock in a private transaction to purchasers who would oppose a takeover or favor the current Board. Although this proposal to increase the authorized common stock has been prompted by business and financial considerations and not by the threat of any hostile takeover attempt (nor is the Board currently aware of any such attempts directed at the Company), stockholders should be aware that approval of the proposal could facilitate future efforts by the Company to deter or prevent changes in control of the Company, including transactions in which the stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then current market prices. I wasn't concerned about a hostile take over while Al was alive his percentage over ownership pretty much prevented this. What happened to Al's shares? Seems to me additional available shares also dilutes the percentage of Al's shares and actually increases the chance of hostile takeover?  |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Apr 11, 2016 15:35:05 GMT -5
Certainly better than BK. But I would like to hear more about their plans first before I give them, essentially, a blank check.
Regarding partnerships and attracting a larger company by their having a stake .... do we have to pay them to partner?
I don't think selling the shares to another company privately, on the cheap, at the cost of dilution to retail investors, is a great answer for us.
Better that they buy on the open market, with the share price already as low as it is. They still get a good deal, and MNKD investors benefit by having available float removed from access by shorts.
Bottom line - I don't feel I have enough info to make an intelligent decision on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 11, 2016 15:50:01 GMT -5
need to remember that they are currently at 450M outstanding shares. If they take this right up to 700m its more like a 65% dilution.
OOG
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 11, 2016 16:27:08 GMT -5
Couple questions.... Do shareholders who are lending shares to shorts need to pull them back to vote them? The proxy states that non voted shares are counted as NO votes. Isn't it normally the other way around? Non voted shares go with the bod? I'm sure they're non issues, between Manns shares and the inst who are on board they've got 50% covered. Two good questions. The answer to the first one is that voting rights belong to the registered holder, not the borrower. You do not need to pull back your shares to vote them.
The second question is a very important one, and it a matter of state corporate law. Most states word their law on share increases such that it requires an affirmative vote of the majority of all shares outstanding, while most corporate issues are decided by a majority of the shares that cast a vote. You see the difference? Most corporate actions have no requirement on the number of shares that actually vote, while increasing the authorized shares must have a certain number of actually cast "yes" votes. Brokers can give their proxies to management on many routine corporate votes (like confirmation of the auditing firm), but the exchanges and the SEC do not allow brokers to vote on non-routine matters, and an increase in authorized shares is a non-routine matter. Since shares that are never voted are still part of the total outstanding shares they have the same effect as a "no" vote in this case.
The brokers must forward the proxy and voting materials to the beneficial owner of the shares, and the beneficial owner must cast the vote. If your shares are in street name, your broker will be sending you the necessary paperwork. Foreign brokers, like those who deal with TASE traded shares, are under no legal obligation to forward the materials although many of them do. A lot of companies find that they cannot raise capital because they cannot collect the required number of "yes" votes simply because too many small shareholders throw the voting materials in the trash without acting on them. As you noted, the shares held by the Mann trusts are probably reliable votes, but the institutions cannot be relied upon since only beneficial owners can vote. In some cases the institution is an actively managed mutual fund that actually owns the shares, but in other cases the institution is a conduit to the beneficial owner and must forward the proxies.
If you agree with the proposal and you hold your shares in street name, be sure to vote when you get the proxy.
|
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Apr 11, 2016 19:37:51 GMT -5
Couple questions.... Do shareholders who are lending shares to shorts need to pull them back to vote them? The proxy states that non voted shares are counted as NO votes. Isn't it normally the other way around? Non voted shares go with the bod? I'm sure they're non issues, between Manns shares and the inst who are on board they've got 50% covered. Two good questions. The answer to the first one is that voting rights belong to the registered holder, not the borrower. You do not need to pull back your shares to vote them.
The second question is a very important one, and it a matter of state corporate law. Most states word their law on share increases such that it requires an affirmative vote of the majority of all shares outstanding, while most corporate issues are decided by a majority of the shares that cast a vote. You see the difference? Most corporate actions have no requirement on the number of shares that actually vote, while increasing the authorized shares must have a certain number of actually cast "yes" votes. Brokers can give their proxies to management on many routine corporate votes (like confirmation of the auditing firm), but the exchanges and the SEC do not allow brokers to vote on non-routine matters, and an increase in authorized shares is a non-routine matter. Since shares that are never voted are still part of the total outstanding shares they have the same effect as a "no" vote in this case.
The brokers must forward the proxy and voting materials to the beneficial owner of the shares, and the beneficial owner must cast the vote. If your shares are in street name, your broker will be sending you the necessary paperwork. Foreign brokers, like those who deal with TASE traded shares, are under no legal obligation to forward the materials although many of them do. A lot of companies find that they cannot raise capital because they cannot collect the required number of "yes" votes simply because too many small shareholders throw the voting materials in the trash without acting on them. As you noted, the shares held by the Mann trusts are probably reliable votes, but the institutions cannot be relied upon since only beneficial owners can vote. In some cases the institution is an actively managed mutual fund that actually owns the shares, but in other cases the institution is a conduit to the beneficial owner and must forward the proxies.
If you agree with the proposal and you hold your shares in street name, be sure to vote when you get the proxy.
And how do you recommend we vote Matt, with info we have right now? I'm assuming we'll have more info (from other matt) by the time we vote?... |
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Apr 11, 2016 19:51:08 GMT -5
need to remember that they are currently at 450M outstanding shares. If they take this right up to 700m its more like a 65% dilution. OOG I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Would you rather MannKind raise adequate capital to bring it's products to full potential and earnings or go down with it's existing outstanding capital structure? |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 11, 2016 20:45:35 GMT -5
need to remember that they are currently at 450M outstanding shares. If they take this right up to 700m its more like a 65% dilution. OOG I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Would you rather MannKind raise adequate capital to bring it's products to full potential and earnings or go down with it's existing outstanding capital structure? Right! The bottom line is we don't really have a choice. We have to start all over. 16 months or so everyone should know what we know about Afrezza. I'm taking advantage of this stock price right here right now! |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Apr 11, 2016 22:21:16 GMT -5
I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Would you rather MannKind raise adequate capital to bring it's products to full potential and earnings or go down with it's existing outstanding capital structure? Right! The bottom line is we don't really have a choice. We have to start all over. 16 months or so everyone should know what we know about Afrezza. I'm taking advantage of this stock price right here right now! Sports - are we sure we don't have another option for extending the runway? What about a nice bulk sale of Afrezza to another country like Saudi or Israel? Or another form of financing? What about that 30 mil accessible from the Mann Foundation? I just feel like they need to provide much more insight into why, and what they'll do with it, and how it will ultimately benefit both the company, and stock holders. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 11, 2016 23:33:24 GMT -5
You are right, to tell the truth I don't expect them to use it right away. I except a deal or some settlement money. I see this as insurance. It helps take BK off the table. The shorts, or some of them will cover. And maybe better to get this out of the way and then lay some good news on us. I just think we are going to have to do it. It does say we are moving forward, we are getting this done one way or the other and we are not giving up! Let's see what Matt and Mike have to say? Never a dull moment!
|
|
|
|
Post by straightly on Apr 12, 2016 0:02:50 GMT -5
You are right, to tell the truth I don't expect them to use it right away. I except a deal or some settlement money. I see this as insurance. It helps take BK off the table. The shorts, or some of them will cover. And maybe better to get this out of the way and then lay some good news on us. I just think we are going to have to do it. It does say we are moving forward, we are getting this done one way or the other and we are not giving up! Let's see what Matt and Mike have to say? Never a dull moment! I believe this hits the nail on the head: "It helps take BK off the table." If BK is off the table, MNKD maybe not able to ready $50, but $5 will be the minimum and definitely a step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Apr 12, 2016 1:31:32 GMT -5
Just because we have more shares to sell doesn't mean we can sell them at a price that will please us. Let's get some really good news out there, and then sell some shares to some new suckers, then they can join the old suckers right here on this board. LOL, just joking, just feel like a sucker, but actually, most all of us thought it through at length, figured MNKD has a great shot, felt we'd hit the mother lode upon approval, and we're still so wrong. How in the world can that be? How does the best golfer since Tiger blow a 5 shot lead and then some over three holes? Why do fools fall in love?
|
|
