|
|
Post by sophie on Nov 23, 2016 17:06:56 GMT -5
A lot of attention has been given to Matt Pfeffer and Mike C, as well as Dr. Urbanski. Who are the other men charged with leading this company? We don't hear much about them and I wonder about the magnitude of their involvement considering how sporadic and unorganized the CC's were in Hakan's final days.
I understand that Matt is at the helm, but shouldn't the board members be bringing ideas to the table and providing insight into the best direction of the company? Forgive me for not following as closely as some of you do... I'm just wondering who the whole cast of characters are in our story. I seem to remember many of them were involved in very successful ventures of their own. Hopefully not too much so that they don't have adequate time to help out.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Nov 23, 2016 18:12:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Nov 23, 2016 19:02:21 GMT -5
I had those links in the post either you or another moderator deleted. I can read their bios and still have no idea who they are or how integral they were in the successes of their companies.
I don't understand your angst when Mike C sometimes gets talked about ad nauseum, especially regarding his previous role with Amgen. I want to know more about what the other guys have done... not just the positions they've held or who they've worked for. There are a lot of internet sleuths on here that may or may not be able to dig up info on them that might paint a fuller picture of each person.
Besides, I still think it's a legitimate question to ask if anyone knows what part, if any, they're playing in the current direction of our company. What their "fingerprints" are or might look like...
The company has a different feel since the passing of Al and the emergence of Matt as CEO. If I didn't know any better, I wouldn't have thought there was any continuity from the previous regime.
|
|
|
|
Post by letitride on Nov 23, 2016 19:14:35 GMT -5
A lot of attention has been given to Matt Pfeffer and Mike C, as well as Dr. Urbanski. Who are the other men charged with leading this company? We don't hear much about them and I wonder about the magnitude of their involvement considering how sporadic and unorganized the CC's were in Hakan's final days. I understand that Matt is at the helm, but shouldn't the board members be bringing ideas to the table and providing insight into the best direction of the company? Forgive me for not following as closely as some of you do... I'm just wondering who the whole cast of characters are in our story. I seem to remember many of them were involved in very successful ventures of their own. Hopefully not too much so that they don't have adequate time to help out. Matt and Mike seem to be turning it out as long as the rest are backing them up I applaud them whole heartedly. Some one has to run this show and Matt seems to be stepping up starting with hiring Mike. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Nov 23, 2016 22:56:01 GMT -5
sophie, I checked and, sure enough, some posts were removed. I don't know by which mod and I don't feel any angst related to your post. Perhaps you are addressing another member? Happy Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Nov 24, 2016 7:13:50 GMT -5
"The company has a different feel since the passing of Al and the emergence of Matt as CEO. If I didn't know any better, I wouldn't have thought there was any continuity from the previous regime".
Sophie,
Can you explain what you mean by this comment? I'm pleased that Hakan is gone and Matt has taken over. Mike has been a great asset to Mannkind and his hiring was a home run by Matt in my opinion. Matt may not be the most dynamic person, he is a financial guy after all, but he has worked very hard and has accomplished a great deal during his short time as CEO. As to the assistance the management team receives from the board, I assume you are asking whether they are truly engaged or if they are simply a "rubber stamp" panel for Matt. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Nov 24, 2016 8:04:50 GMT -5
Board members are confidential advisers to a company at a higher level than the public will or should ever see. They provide behind-the-scene advise on the direction of the company for the coming years, not day-to-day or even month-to-month issues. The only time the public should hear from a board is when the company is failing and management is in disarray. This is not the case with MNKD. Granted the company has struggled facing the monumental task of disrupting a giant, multi-billion dollar global industry dominated by BP but this board and the management team all seem to be on board with their current business plan. I am cheering heavily for the tortoise in this race and hope to see improved results from their plan in the coming months...IMHO
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 25, 2016 7:37:24 GMT -5
Pretty much what akemp3000 said. A modern board does a lot, but most is behind the scenes and often done in committees (there are legal requirements for audit and corporate governance committees, and most also have an executive compensation committee). Because of the legal liability issues surrounding what boards do, or do not do, few records are available beyond the formal meeting minutes. This is by design because if board members had to justify every comment and recommendation there would be no board.
While you may think that you are a perfectly reasonably person, just look at some of the comments on this forum (which is populated by mostly rational and reasonable people) plus those on the Twitter stream and various message boards (ranging between somewhat less rational and absolutely crazy as a loon). Board members don't get paid enough to deal with the nut cases.
Mostly the board is there to approve the strategic plan and budget, make useful suggestions, and to introduce managers to outside resources that may be helpful. If Matt and Mike are executing on the strategic plan the board approved, they are mostly going to stay out of Matt's way unless he fails miserably. For the board, failure is the inability of management to execute on the plan as it was agreed and not based on whether the share price is up or down. |
|
|
|
Post by mockingjay on Nov 25, 2016 11:23:25 GMT -5
"The company has a different feel since the passing of Al and the emergence of Matt as CEO. If I didn't know any better, I wouldn't have thought there was any continuity from the previous regime". Sophie, Can you explain what you mean by this comment? I'm pleased that Hakan is gone and Matt has taken over. Mike has been a great asset to Mannkind and his hiring was a home run by Matt in my opinion. Matt may not be the most dynamic person, he is a financial guy after all, but he has worked very hard and has accomplished a great deal during his short time as CEO. As to the assistance the management team receives from the board, I assume you are asking whether they are truly engaged or if they are simply a "rubber stamp" panel for Matt. Is that correct? "great deal during his short time as CEO" , are you serious ? stock price from 2$ to .55 , wow what's a great CEO . |
|
