|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 7, 2016 16:29:34 GMT -5
Clearly, the financial situation for MannKind is at the top of everyone's list of top concerns. Followed immediatly by the uptake of script numbers after the second launch this month. Just suppose that suddenly MannKind landed enough finding to last another two years. Does the stock take off because now there no immediate concern about bankruptcy? If the stock price does take off, then raising additional funding gets easier as well. Does attention immediatly shift back to script counts? Will the shorts continue to attack the script count numbers or are they tiring of this stock. But if MannKind had enough funding, the script count could grow more slowly because there would be lots more time to gain traction. It appears from the super stable volume and price along with the drop in short interest, most investors are in the wait and watch mode. It's interesting to think about how a Sanofi termination settlement would help, or an infusion of cash from a milestone payment. But funding from a surprise source is not out of the question in my view. Am I counting on that, no. Just food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 7, 2016 17:14:04 GMT -5
The stocks takes off:-) IMO. Even the shorts know how good Afrezza is! It's the time factor that they are betting on. I think the odds are in favor of this happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Aug 7, 2016 23:25:48 GMT -5
"Just suppose that suddenly MannKind landed enough finding to last another two years"
How is this going to happen?
This is the whole issue, isn't it?
Nobody wants to help this cause, not Al's friends, not his family, not a wealthy philanthropist, not even a businessman that can get it at 60% discount.
Otherwise, it would have happened already...
Mike, 50K investment was a nice gesture... How about you put in another 500K?
Matt should double that, by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 8, 2016 9:34:54 GMT -5
If a large surprise amount of money suddenly appeared on the balance sheet, the risk of bankruptcy would be minimized which alone is a positive. Money always comes with strings so if it is an investment then there will be dilution and/or warrant overhang. So decreasing risk of bankruptcy would be a positive, but dilution is a negative. Where is winds up depends on the balance of the two and without a specific transaction in mind it is hard to guess on the net direction.
Truly free money, as from a Sanofi termination payment, would be different of course, but I truly believe that has the same chance as a snowball in hell. The burden of proof that Sanofi deliberately sand-bagged the launch would be on MNKD and I don't think the facts are there to support a settlement. Milestones are possible but early milestones tend to be tiny and big milestones come after successful commercialization, so those are many years away.
As for Matt putting in more money, I always find it interesting that shareholders expect management to put 100% of their personal wealth on the line. I am sensitive to that only because I have been president of two small companies and my shareholders wanted me to do that same. I didn't. Firstly, when 100% of your wealth is tied into a single company then you are a stupid investor because there is a total lack of diversification. If your salary, benefits, bonus, pension/401K, options, and your personal stock portfolio are all dependent on the fortune of one company, then you are over-weighted. If Matt is that reckless with his personal wealth, I wouldn't want him running a company. Secondly, I had three children that had high school and university tuitions to pay, a mortgage, insurance, car repairs, and other costs of a normal life. What you see reported in SEC documents as executive compensation is quite different from the cash that gets deposited in the bank, as a lot of what gets reported is the theoretical increase in option value that may never be realized (my wife insists that the grocery store only takes cash). Do the math on what Matt really takes home in cash, after deducting federal, Social Security, and California taxes, figure out what his mortgage payment might be (California is not a cheap place to buy a house), and then consider if asking him to invest $1 million out of his personal savings is a reasonable expectation.
|
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 8, 2016 10:02:43 GMT -5
If a large surprise amount of money suddenly appeared on the balance sheet, the risk of bankruptcy would be minimized which alone is a positive. Money always comes with strings so if it is an investment then there will be dilution and/or warrant overhang. So decreasing risk of bankruptcy would be a positive, but dilution is a negative. Where is winds up depends on the balance of the two and without a specific transaction in mind it is hard to guess on the net direction. Truly free money, as from a Sanofi termination payment, would be different of course, but I truly believe that has the same chance as a snowball in hell. The burden of proof that Sanofi deliberately sand-bagged the launch would be on MNKD and I don't think the facts are there to support a settlement. Milestones are possible but early milestones tend to be tiny and big milestones come after successful commercialization, so those are many years away. As for Matt putting in more money, I always find it interesting that shareholders expect management to put 100% of their personal wealth on the line. I am sensitive to that only because I have been president of two small companies and my shareholders wanted me to do that same. I didn't. Firstly, when 100% of your wealth is tied into a single company then you are a stupid investor because there is a total lack of diversification. If your salary, benefits, bonus, pension/401K, options, and your personal stock portfolio are all dependent on the fortune of one company, then you are over-weighted. If Matt is that reckless with his personal wealth, I wouldn't want him running a company. Secondly, I had three children that had high school and university tuitions to pay, a mortgage, insurance, car repairs, and other costs of a normal life. What you see reported in SEC documents as executive compensation is quite different from the cash that gets deposited in the bank, as a lot of what gets reported is the theoretical increase in option value that may never be realized (my wife insists that the grocery store only takes cash). Do the math on what Matt really takes home in cash, after deducting federal, Social Security, and California taxes, figure out what his mortgage payment might be (California is not a cheap place to buy a house), and then consider if asking him to invest $1 million out of his personal savings is a reasonable expectation. Matt, good response. I too don't believe management should be asked to put 100% of their wealth into any company much less the one they run. A diversified portfolio is the underpinning of any responsible long term investment strategy. I feel that Matt P. is dedicated to MannKind 100%. Will that be enough? We'll see. I still believe that some kind of Sanofi termination payment is a possibility. JMHO |
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Aug 8, 2016 18:18:09 GMT -5
If a large surprise amount of money suddenly appeared on the balance sheet, the risk of bankruptcy would be minimized which alone is a positive. Money always comes with strings so if it is an investment then there will be dilution and/or warrant overhang. So decreasing risk of bankruptcy would be a positive, but dilution is a negative. Where is winds up depends on the balance of the two and without a specific transaction in mind it is hard to guess on the net direction. Truly free money, as from a Sanofi termination payment, would be different of course, but I truly believe that has the same chance as a snowball in hell. The burden of proof that Sanofi deliberately sand-bagged the launch would be on MNKD and I don't think the facts are there to support a settlement. Milestones are possible but early milestones tend to be tiny and big milestones come after successful commercialization, so those are many years away. As for Matt putting in more money, I always find it interesting that shareholders expect management to put 100% of their personal wealth on the line. I am sensitive to that only because I have been president of two small companies and my shareholders wanted me to do that same. I didn't. Firstly, when 100% of your wealth is tied into a single company then you are a stupid investor because there is a total lack of diversification. If your salary, benefits, bonus, pension/401K, options, and your personal stock portfolio are all dependent on the fortune of one company, then you are over-weighted. If Matt is that reckless with his personal wealth, I wouldn't want him running a company. Secondly, I had three children that had high school and university tuitions to pay, a mortgage, insurance, car repairs, and other costs of a normal life. What you see reported in SEC documents as executive compensation is quite different from the cash that gets deposited in the bank, as a lot of what gets reported is the theoretical increase in option value that may never be realized (my wife insists that the grocery store only takes cash). Do the math on what Matt really takes home in cash, after deducting federal, Social Security, and California taxes, figure out what his mortgage payment might be (California is not a cheap place to buy a house), and then consider if asking him to invest $1 million out of his personal savings is a reasonable expectation. Matt, good response. I too don't believe management should be asked to put 100% of their wealth into any company much less the one they run. A diversified portfolio is the underpinning of any responsible long term investment strategy. I feel that Matt P. is dedicated to MannKind 100%. Will that be enough? We'll see. I still believe that some kind of Sanofi termination payment is a possibility. JMHO I too believe that there a still a possibility of getting some type of termination payment from Sanofi - Not likely but still possible. |
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Aug 8, 2016 18:33:07 GMT -5
While it's unreasonable to expect management to invest a major part of their personal wealth in the company, it would mean a lot in the current circumstances to see more insider buys like the one from Mike C in May. If management truly believes they can make this a success for shareholders, I'd like to see at least some token stock purchases as a clear signal to the market that they see potential for return beyond the millions of options they've already been awarded.
|
|
