|
Post by agedhippie on Jan 12, 2017 23:25:17 GMT -5
In the aftermath of a split I would probably look to get back in two weeks to a month after the split as long as it looked like a bottom. I reckon on 12 days from the split but that's just superstition on my part rather than hard science - it usually w for me though. Ok, thank you,,,,,, but I'm still having trouble understanding your reasoning for what is an investible market cap for MNKD. You make it sound as thought after a RS (which is 50/50 if you're being honest) the sp would drop 40% (assuming there wasn't any news supporting the RS) and it's then a great investment. IMO, either MNKD and/or Afrezza prove their true value, OR they fail...... which means a $10+Billion MC, or ZERO! So I don't understand your risk/reward for INVESTING in MNKD after a RS with a MC of $200m (assuming no news to support the RS, which would be a clear sign of desperation and the worst time to invest) and not investing now, with a MC of little more than $300M if you think there's even a possibility of Afrezza reaching the world like we all know it should. Are you telling me that a $200m MC for a $10B drug is a good investment, but a $310m MC is not? The very short answer is yes. If you believe a reverse split is coming, and I do with 100% certainty, then investing with a $0.60 share price is a bad idea. I also believe that if there is a reverse split the shorts will drive the price down far lower than the $0.40 (in today's money) you estimate. I see no reason not to wait out the drop and then invest. I have this hedged with a partial position so if something wild happens and the price takes off like a rocket I will profit from that partial position. I don't see Mannkind as a $10bn company, nor do I need it to be one. I could happily settle for a $500M market cap since that would imply a $1 share price and if I can get in around $0.25 I will do very nicely thank you. I wouldn't turn down a $10bn market cap, I just don't believe we will get there. There is still at least one dilution event sitting out there as well.
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 12, 2017 23:52:29 GMT -5
They signal to each other what is happening. They feel the rumblings and vibrations of the change of direction. Don't kid yourself that the Money Markets don't know what is about to happen. That is Why MannKind has to go to programs like JPM they have to interest and excite Accredited investor and analysts as to where we are heading. Hopefully we are at the low point as our institutional investors are down to about 15.5% from a high 18 months ago of 25%. That could turn very fast and would drive the share price upwards.
Matt's comments on the transcript is very good:
"So moving right along, I mean, this is obviously a very important product. It’s a transformational product in our minds and its meeting what I think is a single most important medical problem we have today in the world. It’s the second largest drug expense globally and it only becomes in second if you lump all of the oncology products together. If you take any single oncology product I think we come out in front, but clearly just the drugs to address this problem were a $48 billion market globally. That said, even in spite of the fact that we have had a number of new products coming to market since ‘05, I think the last count I saw was about 40 new products coming to market, we are still doing not a very good job of addressing this very serious problem. Most people do not get to the targeted goals for A1c. In fact, there is over 10 million in the U.S. alone who are not reaching goal. And greater than 50%, even with the best treatments we have today do not reach their less than 7% HbA1c goals. So clearly, we need some changes. We think for us it does that very nicely "
Look at the users and their A1C levels dropping where others prior to Afrezza are still high. Afrezza Works. KC, You highlighted a very important aspect of Afrezza in blue but I have also highlighted something else in red. Yes Matt is pointing out that Afrezza can help reach that A1c goal among other benefits but he is also indirectly(perhaps inadvertently) pointing out something else about the industry. The pharma companies that occupy and dominate the diabetes space are focused on profits first and altruism second. It's business; one that happens to be focused on drugs. The two statements by Matt are actually conflictual. A solution that works too well (Afrezza) is disruptive because it threatens the cash cow of still keeping patients ill and tying them into very incremental improvements which keeps them dependent so that the $48 billion keeps flowing. Many here keep forgetting that if it were merely a matter of Affrezza actually improving outcomes then Afrezza would no doubt be a rousing success. MNKD and Al's heart was in the right place but its not just about helping people. Unfortunately its not just about that and not to be so cynical but it is precisely because its about the billions that Afrezza will be even more difficult to achieve success. The opposition is dead set against it. Its going to be alot harder than most of us and even the management including Matt at MNKD realize. This is why I keep reminding everyone that this is a targeted stock. And this is not just speculation; there is evidence as to where big pharma interests are. esstan2001 on Dec 23 posted this interesting article about how promising drugs for diabetes are being shelved (see my response to this there): finance.yahoo.com/news/something-strange-going-oral-insulin-174117941.html mnkd.proboards.com/thread/5445/mannkind-growing-threat-status-quo?page=7which referenced my discussion Sept 16 & 17 with sayhey about illness as a cash cow and what the pharma companies real interests are with the new monitoring technology mnkd.proboards.com/thread/6214/me?page=5th The headwinds are hurricane forces. There is a reason Matt didnt say anything about projecting how long Afrezza would take to succeed. It's a marathon not a sprint.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 13, 2017 0:07:40 GMT -5
They signal to each other what is happening. They feel the rumblings and vibrations of the change of direction. Don't kid yourself that the Money Markets don't know what is about to happen. That is Why MannKind has to go to programs like JPM they have to interest and excite Accredited investor and analysts as to where we are heading. Hopefully we are at the low point as our institutional investors are down to about 15.5% from a high 18 months ago of 25%. That could turn very fast and would drive the share price upwards.
Matt's comments on the transcript is very good:
"So moving right along, I mean, this is obviously a very important product. It’s a transformational product in our minds and its meeting what I think is a single most important medical problem we have today in the world. It’s the second largest drug expense globally and it only becomes in second if you lump all of the oncology products together. If you take any single oncology product I think we come out in front, but clearly just the drugs to address this problem were a $48 billion market globally. That said, even in spite of the fact that we have had a number of new products coming to market since ‘05, I think the last count I saw was about 40 new products coming to market, we are still doing not a very good job of addressing this very serious problem. Most people do not get to the targeted goals for A1c. In fact, there is over 10 million in the U.S. alone who are not reaching goal. And greater than 50%, even with the best treatments we have today do not reach their less than 7% HbA1c goals. So clearly, we need some changes. We think for us it does that very nicely "
Look at the users and their A1C levels dropping where others prior to Afrezza are still high. Afrezza Works. KC, You highlighted a very important aspect of Afrezza in blue but I have also highlighted something else in red. Yes Matt is pointing out that Afrezza can help reach that A1c goal among other benefits but he is also indirectly(perhaps inadvertently) pointing out something else about the industry. The pharma companies that occupy and dominate the diabetes space are focused on profits first and altruism second. It's business; one that happens to be focused on drugs. The two statements by Matt are actually conflictual. A solution that works too well (Afrezza) is disruptive because it threatens the cash cow of still keeping patients ill and tying them into very incremental improvements which keeps them dependent so that the $48 billion keeps flowing. Many here keep forgetting that if it were merely a matter of Affrezza actually improving outcomes then Afrezza would no doubt be a rousing success. MNKD and Al's heart was in the right place but its not just about helping people. Unfortunately its not just about that and not to be so cynical but it is precisely because its about the billions that Afrezza will be even more difficult to achieve success. The opposition is dead set against it. Its going to be alot harder than most of us and even the management including Matt at MNKD realize. This is why I keep reminding everyone that this is a targeted stock. And this is not just speculation; there is evidence as to where big pharma interests are. esstan2001 on Dec 23 posted this interesting article about how promising drugs for diabetes are being shelved (see my response to this there): finance.yahoo.com/news/something-strange-going-oral-insulin-174117941.html mnkd.proboards.com/thread/5445/mannkind-growing-threat-status-quo?page=7which referenced my discussion Sept 16 & 17 with sayhey about illness as a cash cow and what the pharma companies real interests are with the new monitoring technology mnkd.proboards.com/thread/6214/me?page=5th The headwinds are hurricane forces. There is a reason Matt didnt say anything about projecting how long Afrezza would take to succeed. It's a marathon not a sprint. Good points and I appreciate you making them. I was just giving one highlight. But there are many from his meeting today. I've use the term this is an ultra marathon many times so I do believe that.
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 13, 2017 0:38:02 GMT -5
Ok, thank you,,,,,, but I'm still having trouble understanding your reasoning for what is an investible market cap for MNKD. You make it sound as thought after a RS (which is 50/50 if you're being honest) the sp would drop 40% (assuming there wasn't any news supporting the RS) and it's then a great investment. IMO, either MNKD and/or Afrezza prove their true value, OR they fail...... which means a $10+Billion MC, or ZERO! So I don't understand your risk/reward for INVESTING in MNKD after a RS with a MC of $200m (assuming no news to support the RS, which would be a clear sign of desperation and the worst time to invest) and not investing now, with a MC of little more than $300M if you think there's even a possibility of Afrezza reaching the world like we all know it should. Are you telling me that a $200m MC for a $10B drug is a good investment, but a $310m MC is not? The very short answer is yes. If you believe a reverse split is coming, and I do with 100% certainty, then investing with a $0.60 share price is a bad idea. I also believe that if there is a reverse split the shorts will drive the price down far lower than the $0.40 (in today's money) you estimate. I see no reason not to wait out the drop and then invest. I have this hedged with a partial position so if something wild happens and the price takes off like a rocket I will profit from that partial position. I don't see Mannkind as a $10bn company, nor do I need it to be one. I could happily settle for a $500M market cap since that would imply a $1 share price and if I can get in around $0.25 I will do very nicely thank you. I wouldn't turn down a $10bn market cap, I just don't believe we will get there. There is still at least one dilution event sitting out there as well. Very astute.Unfortunately you are in a unique position,unlike many of the rest of us here,to take advantage of the carnage that will arise with a RS if it is not supported by anything else substantive waiting to support it. Funny, you dont think like a hippie, at least none that I have known.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 5:59:54 GMT -5
They signal to each other what is happening. They feel the rumblings and vibrations of the change of direction. Don't kid yourself that the Money Markets don't know what is about to happen. That is Why MannKind has to go to programs like JPM they have to interest and excite Accredited investor and analysts as to where we are heading. Hopefully we are at the low point as our institutional investors are down to about 15.5% from a high 18 months ago of 25%. That could turn very fast and would drive the share price upwards.
Matt's comments on the transcript is very good:
"So moving right along, I mean, this is obviously a very important product. It’s a transformational product in our minds and its meeting what I think is a single most important medical problem we have today in the world. It’s the second largest drug expense globally and it only becomes in second if you lump all of the oncology products together. If you take any single oncology product I think we come out in front, but clearly just the drugs to address this problem were a $48 billion market globally. That said, even in spite of the fact that we have had a number of new products coming to market since ‘05, I think the last count I saw was about 40 new products coming to market, we are still doing not a very good job of addressing this very serious problem. Most people do not get to the targeted goals for A1c. In fact, there is over 10 million in the U.S. alone who are not reaching goal. And greater than 50%, even with the best treatments we have today do not reach their less than 7% HbA1c goals. So clearly, we need some changes. We think for us it does that very nicely "
Look at the users and their A1C levels dropping where others prior to Afrezza are still high. Afrezza Works. KC, You highlighted a very important aspect of Afrezza in blue but I have also highlighted something else in red. Yes Matt is pointing out that Afrezza can help reach that A1c goal among other benefits but he is also indirectly(perhaps inadvertently) pointing out something else about the industry. The pharma companies that occupy and dominate the diabetes space are focused on profits first and altruism second. It's business; one that happens to be focused on drugs. The two statements by Matt are actually conflictual. A solution that works too well (Afrezza) is disruptive because it threatens the cash cow of still keeping patients ill and tying them into very incremental improvements which keeps them dependent so that the $48 billion keeps flowing. Many here keep forgetting that if it were merely a matter of Affrezza actually improving outcomes then Afrezza would no doubt be a rousing success. MNKD and Al's heart was in the right place but its not just about helping people. Unfortunately its not just about that and not to be so cynical but it is precisely because its about the billions that Afrezza will be even more difficult to achieve success. The opposition is dead set against it. Its going to be alot harder than most of us and even the management including Matt at MNKD realize. This is why I keep reminding everyone that this is a targeted stock. And this is not just speculation; there is evidence as to where big pharma interests are. esstan2001 on Dec 23 posted this interesting article about how promising drugs for diabetes are being shelved (see my response to this there): finance.yahoo.com/news/something-strange-going-oral-insulin-174117941.html mnkd.proboards.com/thread/5445/mannkind-growing-threat-status-quo?page=7which referenced my discussion Sept 16 & 17 with sayhey about illness as a cash cow and what the pharma companies real interests are with the new monitoring technology mnkd.proboards.com/thread/6214/me?page=5th The headwinds are hurricane forces. There is a reason Matt didnt say anything about projecting how long Afrezza would take to succeed. It's a marathon not a sprint. Great article thanks for sharing. Follow the money, same as it ever was. Afrezza would take tens of billions of dollars (100s if you look on a long enough time line) in costs out of the healthcare system and those savings would not come exclusively out of the hides of big Pharma. I think Matt mentioned something on yesterdays call about working with CGMs to show how Afrezza reduces volatility of blood glucose levels. All Mannkind needs to do is work with a few of the big health insurers to put some patients on Afrezza with a CGM and the numbers won't lie. Next step insurers could push on a bigger scale trial to see if good info gets replicated. Trial not being clinical trial, just a simple trial to prove Afrezza is as good as Al Mann touted it to be. CGM data is truth and would show time in range and volatility of blood glucose levels both of which would be vastly superior to the Rx therapies currently available. At that point, with enough info, the label and FDA will be less significant. Insurance Cos see good results, less trips to the ER, less incidences of hypoglycemia, more time in range and unsurpassed A1c levels and assuming said insurance companies solely act in their economic interests and the economic interests of their shareholders then it behoves them to push their patients onto Afrezza and if the endos won't do it, and the GPs won't do it, start working with VDex where healthcare can be delivered at a lower cost with massively improved patient outcomes. Healthcare is a business and patients are in the eyes of many, merely a conduit to source money.
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 13, 2017 13:48:59 GMT -5
KC, You highlighted a very important aspect of Afrezza in blue but I have also highlighted something else in red. Yes Matt is pointing out that Afrezza can help reach that A1c goal among other benefits but he is also indirectly(perhaps inadvertently) pointing out something else about the industry. The pharma companies that occupy and dominate the diabetes space are focused on profits first and altruism second. It's business; one that happens to be focused on drugs. The two statements by Matt are actually conflictual. A solution that works too well (Afrezza) is disruptive because it threatens the cash cow of still keeping patients ill and tying them into very incremental improvements which keeps them dependent so that the $48 billion keeps flowing. Many here keep forgetting that if it were merely a matter of Affrezza actually improving outcomes then Afrezza would no doubt be a rousing success. MNKD and Al's heart was in the right place but its not just about helping people. Unfortunately its not just about that and not to be so cynical but it is precisely because its about the billions that Afrezza will be even more difficult to achieve success. The opposition is dead set against it. Its going to be alot harder than most of us and even the management including Matt at MNKD realize. This is why I keep reminding everyone that this is a targeted stock. And this is not just speculation; there is evidence as to where big pharma interests are. esstan2001 on Dec 23 posted this interesting article about how promising drugs for diabetes are being shelved (see my response to this there): finance.yahoo.com/news/something-strange-going-oral-insulin-174117941.html mnkd.proboards.com/thread/5445/mannkind-growing-threat-status-quo?page=7which referenced my discussion Sept 16 & 17 with sayhey about illness as a cash cow and what the pharma companies real interests are with the new monitoring technology mnkd.proboards.com/thread/6214/me?page=5th The headwinds are hurricane forces. There is a reason Matt didnt say anything about projecting how long Afrezza would take to succeed. It's a marathon not a sprint. Great article thanks for sharing. Follow the money, same as it ever was. Afrezza would take tens of billions of dollars (100s if you look on a long enough time line) in costs out of the healthcare system and those savings would not come exclusively out of the hides of big Pharma. I think Matt mentioned something on yesterdays call about working with CGMs to show how Afrezza reduces volatility of blood glucose levels. All Mannkind needs to do is work with a few of the big health insurers to put some patients on Afrezza with a CGM and the numbers won't lie. Next step insurers could push on a bigger scale trial to see if good info gets replicated. Trial not being clinical trial, just a simple trial to prove Afrezza is as good as Al Mann touted it to be. CGM data is truth and would show time in range and volatility of blood glucose levels both of which would be vastly superior to the Rx therapies currently available. At that point, with enough info, the label and FDA will be less significant. Insurance Cos see good results, less trips to the ER, less incidences of hypoglycemia, more time in range and unsurpassed A1c levels and assuming said insurance companies solely act in their economic interests and the economic interests of their shareholders then it behoves them to push their patients onto Afrezza and if the endos won't do it, and the GPs won't do it, start working with VDex where healthcare can be delivered at a lower cost with massively improved patient outcomes. Healthcare is a business and patients are in the eyes of many, merely a conduit to source money. If only things were that simple. Insurance is so closely tied in with pharma profits and the arrangements that support it that what you expect to logically occur doesnt happen. Costs go up and the status quo remains. And you are assuming that insurance companies rule the roost. As well the medical profession's profits are tied into this too. I have mentioned the potential reversal potential of Afrezza (the "other benefits" referred to in my post ) also being a threat and MNHOLDEM has provided alot of info on this for a long time. Take a look at his post here today on remission: rehttp://mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7011/intensive-insulin-delays-progression-development and tell me if the end goal is curative and health care cost savings. Then there is the politicians/government whose bread is also buttered by big pharma. Look what happened with Zogenix who had an FDA opioid that would dramatically reduce health care costs by eliminating the side effects on the liver etc produced by big pharma's products. Big pharma and their political allies squashed it like a bug. Insurance companies didnt say a thing. And finally you are forgetting the last part of my post referencing my discussion with sayhey. Big pharma offers a solution to reducing heath care costs by providing better outcomes with their promotion of monitoring devices.They can sell this to model to the insurance companies and keep the profits rolling for themselves and the technology companies associated with it. Insurance companies will be able to cut costs, say they are "supporting better living through technology" and the politicians will have some pressure taken off. They can do all this, and I think this is where they are going, without Afrezza. I wish it were not so.
I would agree that a solution to reducing health care costs and actually improving patients health by employing Afrezza is a preferable one but I am not so sure it will happen in the manner you describe. Perhaps in an ideal world but not likely in this one.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 13, 2017 14:28:04 GMT -5
Now, let's just throw another variable into the mix before the weekend:
Trump Says Pharma Getting Away With Murder, Vows to Lower Drug Prices January 12, 2017 By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff
Excerpt:
Trump said he plans to change the way the government bids on drugs in order to bring prices down—something he’s said in the past could save up to $300 billion, annually. Trump did not provide details on how he would change the law in order to accomplish this. Current federal law does not allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs for seniors using Medicare, the Washington Post said.
“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly. And we’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time,” Trump said on Wednesday, according to transcripts.
---
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 13, 2017 15:01:14 GMT -5
Now, let's just throw another variable into the mix before the weekend:
Trump Says Pharma Getting Away With Murder, Vows to Lower Drug Prices January 12, 2017 By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff
Excerpt:
Trump said he plans to change the way the government bids on drugs in order to bring prices down—something he’s said in the past could save up to $300 billion, annually. Trump did not provide details on how he would change the law in order to accomplish this. Current federal law does not allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs for seniors using Medicare, the Washington Post said.
“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly. And we’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time,” Trump said on Wednesday, according to transcripts.
---
Well, Trump is a "variable" that's more like an unpredictable wildcard than anything else.He seems to be so far right that he is turning left in a stalinist manner of speaking. However the US isnt the Soviet Union so I'm not sure his pronouncements wont amount to much more than populist fiction in this particular matter. Nevertheless, the fascists made good use of such fictions; a political persuasion that Mr. Trump has more than a passing resemblance to according to some accounts.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 13, 2017 15:13:31 GMT -5
Now, let's just throw another variable into the mix before the weekend:
Trump Says Pharma Getting Away With Murder, Vows to Lower Drug Prices January 12, 2017 By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff
Excerpt:
Trump said he plans to change the way the government bids on drugs in order to bring prices down—something he’s said in the past could save up to $300 billion, annually. Trump did not provide details on how he would change the law in order to accomplish this. Current federal law does not allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs for seniors using Medicare, the Washington Post said.
“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly. And we’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time,” Trump said on Wednesday, according to transcripts.
---
MannKind should agree with Trump and work to lower the price of their product depending on what the cost of goods are. Set the example for others to follow.
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Jan 13, 2017 15:38:53 GMT -5
Now, let's just throw another variable into the mix before the weekend:
Trump Says Pharma Getting Away With Murder, Vows to Lower Drug Prices January 12, 2017 By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff
Excerpt:
Trump said he plans to change the way the government bids on drugs in order to bring prices down—something he’s said in the past could save up to $300 billion, annually. Trump did not provide details on how he would change the law in order to accomplish this. Current federal law does not allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the price of drugs for seniors using Medicare, the Washington Post said.
“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly. And we’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time,” Trump said on Wednesday, according to transcripts.
---
MannKind should agree with Trump and work to lower the price of their product depending on what the cost of goods are. Set the example for others to follow. Trump doesn't know what he is talking about. medicalbillingandcollection.com/news/wsj-whos-the-better-drug-dealer
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jan 13, 2017 15:41:21 GMT -5
I would imagine that the issue isn't the cost that's leading to poor sales. Remember, these guys have stock options that are out of the money so to speak. They want to get paid too.
Some will probably disagree with me, but I all but heard Matt spell out that it will take a while for docs to adopt a different drug, especially since Afrezza is SO different than all the others. I don't think docs would be any more likely to prescribe if it were $1.
Unless we drop the price below the copays of our competitors' products, I don't see much demand coming from diabetics, either. Most diabetics I know are on deductible plans and end up getting all their meds for free by September anyway.
The only benefit I see of lowering price is free pub from news outlets, but unless patients ask for Afrezza, I don't think we're going to see any significant increase soon.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 13, 2017 16:00:52 GMT -5
I just can't make up my mind about lowing the cost or not? You all make very good points. I'd be for it if it gave us news coverage. My daydream, Matt walking out of Trump Tower with a big smile on his face:-)
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jan 13, 2017 16:06:12 GMT -5
All of my opinion, of course, but I think we'd have to lower our prices below cost in order to really generate the buzz we're hoping to get. At that point it becomes counterproductive because instead of waiting to make a profit, we're racing to see how quickly we can deplete our remaining funds.
It makes sense to me to keep the prices where they are and try to raise awareness another way- which it appears Matt and Co have chosen to do.
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Jan 13, 2017 16:55:56 GMT -5
Forget about drug costs for a second... Trumps target on big pharma lobbyist, corruption, the power they have, the way the system works with the FDA (which I don't believe he's named yet) could be great for us. That's exactly what we're up against. Trump's a business man. I think he fully understands what it takes to get a drug to market, and then the right the company has to make a profit. The liberal point of view would be for a company to spend billions creating a drug and then give it away cuz it's the right thing to do. Never mind that most of the billions spent would be because of government regulations and paying the government. I hear Trump calling out the system more than just drug prices, and if I'm right, then we've been nothing but a victim.
|
|
|
Post by sluggobear on Jan 13, 2017 17:05:49 GMT -5
All of my opinion, of course, but I think we'd have to lower our prices below cost in order to really generate the buzz we're hoping to get. At that point it becomes counterproductive because instead of waiting to make a profit, we're racing to see how quickly we can deplete our remaining funds. It makes sense to me to keep the prices where they are and try to raise awareness another way- which it appears Matt and Co have chosen to do. I don't think we/MNKD have enough runway to make it the traditional way; I see the situation as desperate. I've been a MNKD long for over 2 years now so I'm getting very tired of seeing the can kicked down the road. RLS isn't anything for all practical purposes. I won't run through the litany of fantasies I keep reading about here. If they are down to the last 6 months of funds they/we need a miracle. Underselling (i.e. below cost & competitors) used to be a common method to create monopolies. The drug pricing political environment is ideal NOW for a bombshell approach. A truly creative approach might get YUGE traction and break the "Rx lull" in a BIGLY way! Tell Trump he's a true visionary about drug pricing and that thanks to the Donald, Mannkind has seen the light. Get Trump to broadcast yet another "win". "Mannkind is grabbing Big Pharma pussies by the throat. They're slashing the price of insulin for their diabetic patients. Mannkind's Afrezza insulin is the best and it's INHALED! So now, Afrezza is the cheapest and fastest mealtime insulin you can buy!" We can dream of a Trump bump. What a crazy time...
|
|