Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2016 11:30:22 GMT -5
I couldn't care less if Matt is a nice guy and would be all for him doing whatever it takes for him to finally get the share price up..... provided he actually got the share price to go up! I'm with you 100% that he and Al are not in the same universe, and also agree 100% that Al Mann wasn't Mr. Nice Guy at times. My entire point is Matt Pfeffer appears to be completely out of league here and shows no signs of understanding what investors or Wall Street in general want. I understand the bottom line, first goal is to get Afrezza to diabetics, but this is a publicly traded company with shares available on the open market. If they wanted to focus on their first goal only, and not having to satisfy investors, then they never should have gone public. Again, I don't care what type of guy Matt is, but as the CEO/CFO/Public Relations Contact and overall face of the company, I want someone better who can enhance shareholder value. Whatever he's been doing in these role(s) the past few years CLEARY isn't working....... I get it. They need to keep the ship from sinking in order to raise shareholder value. Any increase to the pps right now would be artificial. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2016 11:37:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by uvula on May 5, 2016 11:38:15 GMT -5
None of us know what is going on behind the scenes. I'm willing to give Matt the benefit of the doubt. I might feel differently a few weeks from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 5, 2016 11:55:17 GMT -5
There is an old HBR paper on this, "Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay" which looks at the penalty for bad behavior. Contrary to general thought apparently there is very little penalty and what holds people back for the most part is their sense of self. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on May 5, 2016 13:58:45 GMT -5
Some day I may post (repost, actually) my thoughts on business ethics, but not today. Perhaps some would say that I'm "old school" but, frankly, I don't think you need to use dishonesty and deception to be successful. The way I see it with MannKind Corporation is that Alfred E Mann worked closely with CFO Matt Pfeffer for more than a decade and he likely shared much of his thinking with Matt. Al also respected Matt's experience enough that he named him to a director's seat in another of his companies (Second Sight).
I think that shareholders today simply want to be placated too much. They don't want to hear the truth. When faced with difficulties or bad news they feel the need to lay blame and to criticize too quickly. Customers come first, your employees second and re-investment into the future (R&D) third; placating shareholders might even come after a company's investments into community services. I think Al thought along these lines, typical of men his age who built empires.
|
|
|
|
Post by bthomas55ep on May 5, 2016 14:25:58 GMT -5
If you've got any sort of good news by the 9th, it would certainly be prudent to have the ATM ready if the PPS were to pop a little bit. That would only be prudent.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdnewbie on May 5, 2016 15:07:51 GMT -5
If you've got any sort of good news by the 9th, it would certainly be prudent to have the ATM ready if the PPS were to pop a little bit. That would only be prudent. I was just discussing this with some other shareholders yesterday. Hopefully they have learned from their mistakes and they're not going to miss this opportunity if it turns out to be an opportunity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 11:29:52 GMT -5
Some day I may post (repost, actually) my thoughts on business ethics, but not today. Perhaps some would say that I'm "old school" but, frankly, I don't think you need to use dishonesty and deception to be successful. The way I see it with MannKind Corporation is that Alfred E Mann worked closely with CFO Matt Pfeffer for more than a decade and he likely shared much of his thinking with Matt. Al also respected Matt's experience enough that he named him to a director's seat in another of his companies (Second Sight). I think that shareholders today simply want to be placated too much. They don't want to hear the truth. When faced with difficulties or bad news they feel the need to lay blame and to criticize too quickly. Customers come first, your employees second and re-investment into the future (R&D) third; placating shareholders might even come after a company's investments into community services. I think Al thought along these lines, typical of men his age who built empires. 1) lost to Martin 2) Lost to Hamberger 3) lost to Sny 4) Losing to shorts and FTD shares 5) Lost to FDA with that death sentence of a label 6) Losing on Social Media from every direction When is enough of enough for you? I admire you business ethics, and I am sure I come of like a real dirt bag but I am fine with that. I should have left it at deceptive then dishonest. I play games in my business. I never hurt clients but there are a lot of games I get to play with competition. Other sales People in my industry ask account exe for the accounts we sell our business to who I am, and that they hate me and would love to see me in person to give me a piece of their mind. I work in a business where our test records an employment history is made public knowledge but clients dont know that. Every person I compete with I ask the client for their name to run them on the registry. I have ten years experience in my field and last month I was competing wtih a stay at home who worked at Papa Johns. You want someone handling a financial transaction that was working at Papa Johns and was a stay home Mom for years prior to Papa Johns. SO I throw my competition under the bus. Call it what you want but I got the deal.I am a commission based employee with my first child on the way, and I dont care who I offend. I will do whatever (nothing that would end me up in jail) it takes to close a deal to provide for my family. mnholdem- I apologize if I offended you but I think a lot of people just dont get that every part of the system is rigged. Donald Trump deffended Mike Tyson raping a women in the 80's because if Mike went to Jail it would affect Trumps income as the fights were at Trumps Hotels. Our possible President tried helping a cover up for RAPE. This is the world we live in. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on May 6, 2016 14:05:53 GMT -5
When I talk about my beliefs I try to stick by two basic tenets:
- Everybody hates a phony
- We're all lousy actors
So you might as well say what you mean and mean what you say.
---
Therefore, I'm not offended at all. In fact I can appreciate your point of view.
Have a nice weekend. 
|
|
|
|
Post by smwill77 on May 9, 2016 16:24:45 GMT -5
I agree, it would be strange. However, and as unpopular this opinion is on this board, the current mgmt team isn't the most honest or strait forward and doing so after the 9th wouldn't be THAT shocking at this point. I hope I'm wrong, but in my opinion this group is borderline cruel to shareholders and anticipate them doing just that on the 10th or shortly after. Again, I truly hope I'm wrong but I don't anticipate much more than a 15 minute speel on the 9th then bad news to hit shortly after smwill77 - With all due respect: your incessant negativity and hostility toward management and the company in general is frankly tiresome. You are of course entitled to your opinions. I for one would appreciate it if you would keep them to yourself. However, there's plenty of this nonsense going on at the YMB. Perhaps they would be more open to your style of FUD. These guys are beyond embarrassing... No apology necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on May 9, 2016 16:50:28 GMT -5
Sure is tough being invested in MNKD..... I feel like a domestic violence victim!
|
|
|
|
Post by morfu on May 9, 2016 17:13:42 GMT -5
What does this mean: www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899460/000119312516583791/d162923d10q.htm"Revenue During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 we did not recognize any revenue. Due to the termination of the Sanofi License Agreement and based on our current operating plan, we expect to recognize, likely within 2016, $17.7 million as product sales from collaboration, $13.5 million as product costs from collaboration and income from collaboration related to upfront and milestone payments in excess of $100 million, which amounts are deferred as of March 31, 2016 due to the revenue recognition criteria not being met as of such date. " Can I interpret this as "if they book the revenue, they have enough money to run another 2-3 years"?? |
|
|
|
Post by oldsoul on May 9, 2016 17:28:03 GMT -5
So this is what I believe I heard.
The 150 million (or is it 200 million) that Sanofi "invested" in Mannkind has never been spent as it was never earned.
To earn it Mannkind would have had to turn a profit (nice going Sanofi).
So... it appears that with the termination by Sanofi, Matt has a possible wedge to get some $ (maybe not all, but possibly most of that 150 million).
Go Matt.
|
|
|
|
Post by morfu on May 9, 2016 20:57:35 GMT -5
So this is what I believe I heard. The 150 million (or is it 200 million) that Sanofi "invested" in Mannkind has never been spent as it was never earned. To earn it Mannkind would have had to turn a profit (nice going Sanofi). So... it appears that with the termination by Sanofi, Matt has a possible wedge to get some $ (maybe not all, but possibly most of that 150 million). Go Matt. Hmm.. I am sorry, but I disagree, however the whole milestone idea is a bit of an enigma for me.. I do recall some statements (press release or SEC filings!?) last year, that Mannking did qualify for milestone payments from Sanofi.. I dont recall the amount, but excess of 100mil sounds about right.. It sounded pretty much like a legally binding contract to me!? (Even Sanofi wont throw 100mil+ away because some CEO said so..) However the secrecy about what milestone was reached and the non- or delayed booking is mysterious.. Anyone has some more insights about this!? Also the other two numbers.. 13 and 17mil.. together with what revenue we might see this year and the 30mil possible loan from the Mann foundation seems to indicate that we will survive this year!? |
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on May 9, 2016 21:29:36 GMT -5
Some day I may post (repost, actually) my thoughts on business ethics, but not today. Perhaps some would say that I'm "old school" but, frankly, I don't think you need to use dishonesty and deception to be successful. The way I see it with MannKind Corporation is that Alfred E Mann worked closely with CFO Matt Pfeffer for more than a decade and he likely shared much of his thinking with Matt. Al also respected Matt's experience enough that he named him to a director's seat in another of his companies (Second Sight). I think that shareholders today simply want to be placated too much. They don't want to hear the truth. When faced with difficulties or bad news they feel the need to lay blame and to criticize too quickly. Customers come first, your employees second and re-investment into the future (R&D) third; placating shareholders might even come after a company's investments into community services. I think Al thought along these lines, typical of men his age who built empires. I know this discussion was about honesty but in hindsight, Matt needs to show results. He did not do that today.We have all invested based on the "story" of Mannkind and Afrezza. Unfortunately the science is sound but the business model is not. Not with out financing. |
|
