|
|
Post by kdaddyfresh2000 on Aug 14, 2016 4:39:32 GMT -5
Venting on...
As a long-suffering Manniac, I have a pet peeve (actually more than that). Why has no one on the leadership team except Micke C ever bought stock? I heard the excuse before that they have inside info or are not independently wealthy (lol). If that's true about inside info, how could Mike C do it then? Also, why not do a pre-planned purchase like Hakan did with his pre-planned sales? Remember that? He had to cancel them as CEO due to the shareholder outrage. Palumbo, Maartens, Jurgens have also sold. Why is this not a violation of insider info? Yet still no pre-planned buys. And I get that they "buy" with stock options, but these are "free" to them. Even if it's not "free" because it's a sort of sweat equity, they should realize their stockholders are much worse off than they are.
I write the leadership often about this because to me it shows absolutely terrible leadership skills, especially when the stock and company are under stress. Are they entitled? Is that it? Clueless? Passive aggressive? I get that vibe from my emails from them. We pay their salaries and bonuses. Through endless dilution that acts as their ready-made piggy bank. The income from sales are certainly not paying them. Hopefully soon, but not yet.
I believe in Afrezza and Al Mann. Still.
Venting off...
|
|
|
|
Post by promann on Aug 14, 2016 6:34:40 GMT -5
I agree with you in your frustration of insiders selling given shares. I think the reason why insiders besides Mike have not bought is because they are living beyond thier means and just don't have the cash,
at least not enough to make a difference. They have hundreds of thousands of shares given to them and that does give them the drive to make Mnkd succeed. I think when they sold shares that they just wanted the money to buy something and not that they thought the stock would go down which would be just as ileagal as buying on inside info knowing it was going up.
If I was to put myself in there shoes and had millions in stock value at the time the stock price was up I think I would take a chunk also and as it turns out was a smart move. But we share holders who used our own money to purchase shares and see them selling given shares makes us angry because it puts a downward strain when they sell.
They should not be allowed to sell anymore until Mnkd is profitable quarter over quarter for at least a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 14, 2016 7:47:11 GMT -5
When Steve Wynn gets on CNBC Power Lunch and announces he is buying WYNN stock at $62 dollars a share because he feels it's undervalued, it sends a strong message! It's is a different situation, but it sure puts a floor under the stock. ( Now trading at 99.70 )
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Aug 14, 2016 8:13:21 GMT -5
Venting on... As a long-suffering Manniac, I have a pet peeve (actually more than that). Why has no one on the leadership team except Micke C ever bought stock? I heard the excuse before that they have inside info or are not independently wealthy (lol). If that's true about inside info, how could Mike C do it then? Also, why not do a pre-planned purchase like Hakan did with his pre-planned sales? Remember that? He had to cancel them as CEO due to the shareholder outrage. Palumbo, Maartens, Jurgens have also sold. Why is this not a violation of insider info? Yet still no pre-planned buys. And I get that they "buy" with stock options, but these are "free" to them. Even if it's not "free" because it's a sort of sweat equity, they should realize their stockholders are much worse off than they are. I write the leadership often about this because to me it shows absolutely terrible leadership skills, especially when the stock and company are under stress. Are they entitled? Is that it? Clueless? Passive aggressive? I get that vibe from my emails from them. We pay their salaries and bonuses. Through endless dilution that acts as their ready-made piggy bank. The income from sales are certainly not paying them. Hopefully soon, but not yet. I believe in Afrezza and Al Mann. Still. Venting off... sounds like bitching
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Aug 14, 2016 8:41:51 GMT -5
. They should not be allowed to sell anymore until Mnkd is profitable quarter over quarter for at least a year. How would that work? Who would "not allow" them to sell? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 14, 2016 9:03:19 GMT -5
Everybody goes to work in the morning expecting to get paid on Friday. For an executive, that pay is comprised of salary, bonus, and options. Matt P. does not go to work every day for his health; that is what he was promised in exchange for doing the job. For many other people, they have pay comprised of salary, health insurance, and some other benefits. In either case, people make what the market will bear and if another company offered a significantly better compensation package most of us would change jobs.
What nobody ever talks about is the pressures Matt is under. Does anybody think he works a 9-5 day? How about M-F? When your commercialization partner drops out, when you have to put an entire marketing team in place from scratch, when SEC filings are due, do you think maybe he puts in a little over time? I have been president of two NASDAQ traded biotechs, and in both cases there were many 70 hour weeks. That myth called Monday thru Friday, 9-5, was for actually running the day to day business, while early mornings and evenings, as well as most weekends, were spent on strategy, preparing communications for the board, interviewing candidates for management positions that couldn't interview during business hours, dinners with visitors, travel to conferences and meetings, etc. As companies downsize, it is often the CEO who has to pick up the slack because certain work, especially in a regulated industry, has to get done whether your staff has been cut in half or not. I am not bitching, that was the job, and I was compensated in line with industry practices but there were a lot of school plays, sporting events, and other things I missed.
If you think not buying shares in the open market is poor leadership, then you sir have not a clue about what leadership is. Leaders act prudently with money, theirs as well as their shareholder's, and investing the children's college fund into an economically fragile biotech just so shareholders get a pop on their shares is not prudent. In my last stint as a CEO I took over a company that had long been trading below $1, and was at constant risk of bankruptcy for a few years. The day I took over, the stock price was 72 cents and nine months later it was $4.45 with a significantly stronger balance sheet and record sales, yet I had shareholders claiming that if I had been doing my job properly the share price would be over $7.00. I guess 600% appreciation wasn't enough for those people, and during that period I had precisely ONE shareholder take five minutes out of his day to call me and let me know how much he appreciated the turn-around. One.
So no, it is not Matt's job to invest his personal wealth so that your investment looks better to Wall Street. If the company had expected that then Mannkind should have paid him a promotion bonus with the understanding that the after tax portion would be reinvested. Otherwise, that was not part of the deal. Matt is a hard working executive, not Mother Theresa.
|
|
|
|
Post by kdaddyfresh2000 on Aug 14, 2016 9:08:08 GMT -5
Venting on... As a long-suffering Manniac, I have a pet peeve (actually more than that). Why has no one on the leadership team except Micke C ever bought stock? I heard the excuse before that they have inside info or are not independently wealthy (lol). If that's true about inside info, how could Mike C do it then? Also, why not do a pre-planned purchase like Hakan did with his pre-planned sales? Remember that? He had to cancel them as CEO due to the shareholder outrage. Palumbo, Maartens, Jurgens have also sold. Why is this not a violation of insider info? Yet still no pre-planned buys. And I get that they "buy" with stock options, but these are "free" to them. Even if it's not "free" because it's a sort of sweat equity, they should realize their stockholders are much worse off than they are. I write the leadership often about this because to me it shows absolutely terrible leadership skills, especially when the stock and company are under stress. Are they entitled? Is that it? Clueless? Passive aggressive? I get that vibe from my emails from them. We pay their salaries and bonuses. Through endless dilution that acts as their ready-made piggy bank. The income from sales are certainly not paying them. Hopefully soon, but not yet. I believe in Afrezza and Al Mann. Still. Venting off... sounds like bitching
Are you a "rah rah cheerleader"? You don't think leadership entails doing things like supporting the company in visible ways? You don't think buying stock sends a message of confidence to shareholders and the market? |
|
|
|
Post by mydogskip on Aug 14, 2016 9:24:22 GMT -5
When Steve Wynn gets on CNBC Power Lunch and announces he is buying WYNN stock at $62 dollars a share because he feels it's undervalued, it sends a strong message! It's is a different situation, but it sure puts a floor under the stock. ( Now trading at 99.70 ) One big difference. Steve Wynn is well respected on Wall Street and in the community. Mannkind is absolutely a joke to Wall Street as is their executive team or at least up to when Hakan was the CEO. And Matt isn't a billionaire. I doubt he has much money to throw around so what ever purchases he might make wouldn't be on any significant level for the street to take notice or care. It all comes down to scripts. But you already knew that. On a side note, I spoke with a diabetic and asked if he heard about Afrezza. He said he did but wouldn't use it because it causes lung scaring. I kid you not. I was tempted to tell him he didn't know what he was talking about but knowing the guy, I knew that it would be pointless because he already thinks he knows everything. |
|
|
|
Post by mydogskip on Aug 14, 2016 9:25:18 GMT -5
Venting on... As a long-suffering Manniac, I have a pet peeve (actually more than that). Why has no one on the leadership team except Micke C ever bought stock? I heard the excuse before that they have inside info or are not independently wealthy (lol). If that's true about inside info, how could Mike C do it then? Also, why not do a pre-planned purchase like Hakan did with his pre-planned sales? Remember that? He had to cancel them as CEO due to the shareholder outrage. Palumbo, Maartens, Jurgens have also sold. Why is this not a violation of insider info? Yet still no pre-planned buys. And I get that they "buy" with stock options, but these are "free" to them. Even if it's not "free" because it's a sort of sweat equity, they should realize their stockholders are much worse off than they are. I write the leadership often about this because to me it shows absolutely terrible leadership skills, especially when the stock and company are under stress. Are they entitled? Is that it? Clueless? Passive aggressive? I get that vibe from my emails from them. We pay their salaries and bonuses. Through endless dilution that acts as their ready-made piggy bank. The income from sales are certainly not paying them. Hopefully soon, but not yet. I believe in Afrezza and Al Mann. Still. Venting off... Very simple. Most do not have any disposable money to do so. And why should they when they are granted options? |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Aug 14, 2016 9:56:32 GMT -5
In my last stint as a CEO I took over a company that had long been trading below $1, and was at constant risk of bankruptcy for a few years. The day I took over, the stock price was 72 cents and nine months later it was $4.45 with a significantly stronger balance sheet and record sales, yet I had shareholders claiming that if I had been doing my job properly the share price would be over $7.00. I guess 600% appreciation wasn't enough for those people, and during that period I had precisely ONE shareholder take five minutes out of his day to call me and let me know how much he appreciated the turn-around. One. Still waiting for Matt to explain why he made the absurd claim that the Afrezza sales force is costing MannKind "around $10 million / month." |
|
ron
Newbie
Posts: 13 
|
Post by ron on Aug 14, 2016 10:51:00 GMT -5
Everybody goes to work in the morning expecting to get paid on Friday. For an executive, that pay is comprised of salary, bonus, and options. Matt P. does not go to work every day for his health; that is what he was promised in exchange for doing the job. For many other people, they have pay comprised of salary, health insurance, and some other benefits. In either case, people make what the market will bear and if another company offered a significantly better compensation package most of us would change jobs. What nobody ever talks about is the pressures Matt is under. Does anybody think he works a 9-5 day? How about M-F? When your commercialization partner drops out, when you have to put an entire marketing team in place from scratch, when SEC filings are due, do you think maybe he puts in a little over time? I have been president of two NASDAQ traded biotechs, and in both cases there were many 70 hour weeks. That myth called Monday thru Friday, 9-5, was for actually running the day to day business, while early mornings and evenings, as well as most weekends, were spent on strategy, preparing communications for the board, interviewing candidates for management positions that couldn't interview during business hours, dinners with visitors, travel to conferences and meetings, etc. As companies downsize, it is often the CEO who has to pick up the slack because certain work, especially in a regulated industry, has to get done whether your staff has been cut in half or not. I am not bitching, that was the job, and I was compensated in line with industry practices but there were a lot of school plays, sporting events, and other things I missed. If you think not buying shares in the open market is poor leadership, then you sir have not a clue about what leadership is. Leaders act prudently with money, theirs as well as their shareholder's, and investing the children's college fund into an economically fragile biotech just so shareholders get a pop on their shares is not prudent. In my last stint as a CEO I took over a company that had long been trading below $1, and was at constant risk of bankruptcy for a few years. The day I took over, the stock price was 72 cents and nine months later it was $4.45 with a significantly stronger balance sheet and record sales, yet I had shareholders claiming that if I had been doing my job properly the share price would be over $7.00. I guess 600% appreciation wasn't enough for those people, and during that period I had precisely ONE shareholder take five minutes out of his day to call me and let me know how much he appreciated the turn-around. One. So no, it is not Matt's job to invest his personal wealth so that your investment looks better to Wall Street. If the company had expected that then Mannkind should have paid him a promotion bonus with the understanding that the after tax portion would be reinvested. Otherwise, that was not part of the deal. Matt is a hard working executive, not Mother Theresa. While it's not any executive's "job to invest his personal wealth so that your investment looks better to Wall Street," I would think failure to do so does send a message to Wall Street and not a good one. Most investors, even pros, follow insider buys and sells for clues. |
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Aug 14, 2016 11:11:06 GMT -5
In my last stint as a CEO I took over a company that had long been trading below $1, and was at constant risk of bankruptcy for a few years. The day I took over, the stock price was 72 cents and nine months later it was $4.45 with a significantly stronger balance sheet and record sales, yet I had shareholders claiming that if I had been doing my job properly the share price would be over $7.00. I guess 600% appreciation wasn't enough for those people, and during that period I had precisely ONE shareholder take five minutes out of his day to call me and let me know how much he appreciated the turn-around. One. Still waiting for Matt to explain why he made the absurd claim that the Afrezza sales force is costing MannKind "around $10 million / month." I have to admit that I had a hard time wrapping my head around that figure, also. Had this discussion with a fellow shareholder, and both of us were stumped at that rate of cash burn. |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Aug 14, 2016 11:47:49 GMT -5
Still waiting for Matt to explain why he made the absurd claim that the Afrezza sales force is costing MannKind "around $10 million / month." I have to admit that I had a hard time wrapping my head around that figure, also. Had this discussion with a fellow shareholder, and both of us were stumped at that rate of cash burn. There is no such rate of cash burn. It's more like $1 million a month. But if Matt meant $1 million why doesn't he say so? |
|
|
|
Post by gamblerjag on Aug 14, 2016 11:48:08 GMT -5
Hey Matt.. That's why I spent those five minutes to call you!!!!  Unfortuantely most people find time in their day to complain rather than give props.. It's the kind of world we live in. Cont. good luck. gambler |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Aug 14, 2016 12:09:38 GMT -5
Are you a "rah rah cheerleader"? You don't think leadership entails doing things like supporting the company in visible ways? You don't think buying stock sends a message of confidence to shareholders and the market? Yes. I have eyes and ears.
|
|
Unfortuantely most people find time in their day to complain rather than give props.. It's the kind of world we live in. Cont. good luck.