|
Post by papanigon on Nov 9, 2016 9:47:13 GMT -5
It certainly buys them a lot more time though. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by epc1355 on Nov 9, 2016 9:50:09 GMT -5
But they are claiming a gain of $0.26/share....as opposed to the predicted $0.06/share loss. How is that possible with such weak sales? You don't think that is why it the stock value is rising? I'm not smart enough to understand all the details - somebody help me!
|
|
|
Post by gtay87 on Nov 9, 2016 10:00:56 GMT -5
"Matt_PK" offered this explanation yesterday in the comments of the latest article by Spence Osborne:
"It depends what qualifies as a surprise in your book. The Sanofi partnership is now over, but the balance sheet for June still reflected a lot of unearned revenue related to the Sanofi deal (the up-front payments have to be taken into income over the life of the agreement if there are on-going obligations). Now that the agreement has been cancelled by Sanofi, that unearned revenue should be reportable and should flow through the income statement. The exact quarter where the auditors will allow that to happen depends on the precise wording of the agreement, but the reversal should come now that MNKD has fulfilled 100% of its obligations under the sales agreement. The debt they owe Sanofi is a different matter and the two cannot be netted.
What this means is that MNKD could actually post positive earnings for Q3. This is nothing more than the accounting accruals catching up to reality, but those that don't understand basic accounting will conclude that MNKD has suddenly turned profitable when, in fact, the reported "income" is a one-time reversal of an accounting entry.
None of this should be considered a "surprise: but many shareholders will interpret it as one; to their everlasting their detriment."
|
|
|
Post by epc1355 on Nov 9, 2016 10:02:26 GMT -5
That helps - thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 10:03:57 GMT -5
"Matt_PK" offered this explanation yesterday in the comments of the latest article by Spence Osborne: "It depends what qualifies as a surprise in your book. The Sanofi partnership is now over, but the balance sheet for June still reflected a lot of unearned revenue related to the Sanofi deal (the up-front payments have to be taken into income over the life of the agreement if there are on-going obligations). Now that the agreement has been cancelled by Sanofi, that unearned revenue should be reportable and should flow through the income statement. The exact quarter where the auditors will allow that to happen depends on the precise wording of the agreement, but the reversal should come now that MNKD has fulfilled 100% of its obligations under the sales agreement. The debt they owe Sanofi is a different matter and the two cannot be netted. What this means is that MNKD could actually post positive earnings for Q3. This is nothing more than the accounting accruals catching up to reality, but those that don't understand basic accounting will conclude that MNKD has suddenly turned profitable when, in fact, the reported "income" is a one-time reversal of an accounting entry. None of this should be considered a "surprise: but many shareholders will interpret it as one; to their everlasting their detriment." Yea I read that yesterday and thought of this today when results were posted. I would not be shocked if MNKD does something in the CC with an inflated stock price, There are comments in the quarterly that could go either way and create FUD for shorts
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Nov 9, 2016 10:05:37 GMT -5
Does the no further obligations to Sanofi mean that they can now sell the Valencia property and use that? I don't think so. The loan facility is not with SNY; it's with a wholly own subsidiary that handles financing agreements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 10:11:27 GMT -5
Does the no further obligations to Sanofi mean that they can now sell the Valencia property and use that? I don't think so. The loan facility is not with SNY; it's with a wholly own subsidiary that handles financing agreements. I dont either and I am sure MNKD knew it could be viewed that way
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on Nov 9, 2016 10:14:26 GMT -5
The positive price action pre market was probably election related, not MannKind related. Yes, I think you are correct, sean. Biotech ETF index fund is up 14% this morning. Trump is expected to be biotech friendly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 10:16:14 GMT -5
The positive price action pre market was probably election related, not MannKind related. Yes, I think you are correct, sean. Biotech ETF index fund is up 14% this morning. Trump is expected to be biotech friendly. There is def a short covering happening in bio today but IMO longs/shorts read into the quaterly report too
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on Nov 9, 2016 10:26:16 GMT -5
Welp,
From the 2nd qtr 10Q
At June 30, 2016, the estate of Alfred E. Mann beneficially owned approximately 32.1% of our outstanding shares of capital stock, including shares held in the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust, Mann Group LLC, Mannco LLC, Biomed Partners, LLC and Biomed Partners II, LLC (collectively, the “Mann Affiliated Entities”).
From the 3rd qtr 10Q today
At November 1, 2016, the estate of Alfred E. Mann beneficially owned approximately 27.7% of our outstanding shares of capital stock, including shares held in the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust, The Mann Group LLC and Mann Medical Research Organization (“MMRO”) (collectively, the “Mann Affiliated Entities”).
So they sold off approx 21 million shares over the quarter.
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Nov 9, 2016 10:30:21 GMT -5
To pay taxes?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2016 10:33:53 GMT -5
The loan facility with Sanofi is still on the books at $71.2 million. That has to be repaid eventually and I don't see that going away.
As to the question posed by therealisaching, the difference between $573K and $1.6M is probably a few things. Firstly, IMS and Symphony report RETAIL sales of drugs while Mannkind reports WHOLESALE amounts. To the extent that pharmacies and distributors still had Sanofi labelled product on the shelves, these would show up as retail sales but Sanofi is the one that booked the wholesale transaction. Likewise, the retail prices reported by Symphony include the markups from the pharmacy and distributors, but Mannkind reports the wholesale price to the first participant in the supply chain.
The other difference is what is known as the gross to net adjustment. This is a very complex area of accounting in the industry, but suffice it to say that retail prices shown by Symphony can differ substantially from the revenues reported for GAAP accounting. A lot of people on this forum have been cheering use of the "co-pay cards", but those are just a mechanism to discount the drug, and Mannkind is the one who incurs the economic penalty of the discount. Co-pay cards help the patient reduce their drug cost, but the card is a direct dollar-for-dollar hit to Mannkind's revenue and cash flow.
Similarly, if an insurance plan agrees to cover Afrezza chances are that they will not be paying the full retail price, but some lower amount. Symphony reports the retail sale, but the insurance company is made whole for the negotiated price by a rebate paid at the end of the quarter which is deducted from Mannkind's gross wholesale transactions to arrive at net sales reported to the SEC. Most drug companies have entire departments dedicated to calculating the rebates due insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers; it gets that complicated. The rebates are how larger drug companies make sure that their drugs are on Tier 1 formularies which the competitors are on Tiers 2, 3, or 4. If, for example, a PBM has an exclusive deal to carry only Lilly or Novo insulins on Tier 1 then Lilly and Novo enforce that buy paying out the rebate only if the PBM delivers something like 95% of all insulin scripts during the year. Since the PBMs make most of their money off the rebates, that is why they enforce the formulary restrictions so strictly.
|
|
|
Post by bill on Nov 9, 2016 10:34:16 GMT -5
Welp,
From the 2nd qtr 10Q
At June 30, 2016, the estate of Alfred E. Mann beneficially owned approximately 32.1% of our outstanding shares of capital stock, including shares held in the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust, Mann Group LLC, Mannco LLC, Biomed Partners, LLC and Biomed Partners II, LLC (collectively, the “Mann Affiliated Entities”).
From the 3rd qtr 10Q today
At November 1, 2016, the estate of Alfred E. Mann beneficially owned approximately 27.7% of our outstanding shares of capital stock, including shares held in the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust, The Mann Group LLC and Mann Medical Research Organization (“MMRO”) (collectively, the “Mann Affiliated Entities”).
So they sold off approx 21 million shares over the quarter. therealisaching Maybe not. Wasn't there some dilution during the quarter that could account for some of the decrease?
|
|
|
Post by yash on Nov 9, 2016 10:37:21 GMT -5
Excellent point bill
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on Nov 9, 2016 10:40:54 GMT -5
Welp,
From the 2nd qtr 10Q
At June 30, 2016, the estate of Alfred E. Mann beneficially owned approximately 32.1% of our outstanding shares of capital stock, including shares held in the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust, Mann Group LLC, Mannco LLC, Biomed Partners, LLC and Biomed Partners II, LLC (collectively, the “Mann Affiliated Entities”).
From the 3rd qtr 10Q today
At November 1, 2016, the estate of Alfred E. Mann beneficially owned approximately 27.7% of our outstanding shares of capital stock, including shares held in the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust, The Mann Group LLC and Mann Medical Research Organization (“MMRO”) (collectively, the “Mann Affiliated Entities”).
So they sold off approx 21 million shares over the quarter. therealisaching Maybe not. Wasn't there some dilution during the quarter that could account for some of the decrease? looks like shares outstanding increased by 328,421 so wouldnt account for that.
Whichever entities were Biomed Partners, LLC and Biomed Partners II, LLC are no longer listed in the notes.
|
|