|
|
Post by seanismorris on Feb 3, 2017 12:58:48 GMT -5
If the price is .90 you do the split anyway, because the (my) expectation is for more dilution.
I don't see any way the scripts could increase enough to negate the cash burn. It's possible MannKind could get an international deal done for Afrezza that gets them cash; but it's also possible I could win the lottery tomorrow.
We don't have a record of execution here. We're always projecting a brighter future, but if you look at the Options loses (ending worthless) optimism isn't wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikesmilitaria on Feb 3, 2017 13:06:10 GMT -5
YES---I am the one that was certain a R/S would not happen.....I'll eat that crow and gag on it.
Matt said the (potential) R/S was coming from a position of STRENGTH and most laughed at that....makes no sense unless you really think about it.
STRENGTH what the hell? Maybe the R/S's primary goal is to move the share volume from nearly 500mm to 50mm to prevent crippling dilution to a company like Amgen that has 743mm shares out. You simply can not add 500mm shares to 743mm shares but you can add 50mm shares to the already in existent 743mm. It makes little difference if the pps is $0.050 or $5.00 but the volume of shares can kill you in partnership or BO by adding 500mm shares. MNKD has diluted, diluted and diluted and with that dilution comes the erosion of your future $$ return on investment. YES---the real R/S motivator is probably correction of dilution and with this 1:10 split MNKD returns to it's immediate IPO base. I don't think for a moment that 1:3 is in the works....1:10 meets their objectives. YES....I continue to believe a major player is about to pounce and to me, it looks like Amgen. The Amgen boys did not move to MNKD to witness a R/S coming from a position of weakness. MNKD I believe has tried to signal what is happening....you have to sieve thru the garbage for the clues.
I'm OK with the R/S; keep in mind where Amgen's pps resides and the upside for MNKD holders if this marriage takes place.
|
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 13:06:39 GMT -5
Golly gee willikers, thanks for setting us all straight. You being obtuse on purpose? I'm not talking just about the math of the reverse alone by itself (and I assume the original poster of this question isnt either) but its context and what accompanies it and thats what makes the difference. Look at my reply to MNHOLDEM in this thread. But, but, but, surplusvalue , you said here, "Youll need $50 to break even. Now go look at what the share price of big pharmas are and tell me that MNKD will get up there with the big boys within a few years?" Heck, if MNKD did a 1:200 R/S, they'd be right there tomorrow! Your very statement here seems to indicate that uvula 's caution about investing in stocks was warranted. Do you really think the value of a company is resident in the absolute dollar price of the share of stock? If not, then why the statement above? If so, then I'd recommend you at least think about uvula 's comment a little more reflectively. (BTW, I personally believe a R/S is almost always a bad sign for a stock. Unlike a lot of posters here, however, I am not equating shareholder approval of a R/S with the actual execution of a R/S.)Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7203/reverse-stock-split-smoke-mirrors?page=1#ixzz4Xe4phodzThe first remark is pretty facile and condescending. I dont have to think about Uvula's comment. He and I both know what we were talking about. Either you havent read my many posts on the issue of reverse splits which clearly articultates both my knowledge of them and what usually accompanies them or you're being purposely disingenuous. As for approval vs execution of a reverse I think its safe to assume that given the conditions and situation and the proxy its more likely than not that it will be executed unless the CEO pulls a rabbit out of his arse. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2017 13:12:44 GMT -5
I like the ground work being done (payer coverage; awareness, label change, etc) but if MNKD does not find the money for a major DTC advertising campaign in 2017 it will be just another disappointing year! Once again the only thing I can see that will save the day is a major scripts increase. PWD do not know about Afrezza & if they do not become aware of it in 2017 .... GAME OVER! Remember folks, romance without finance is a nuisance! I believe they'd be better off doing targeted DTC rather than "major". They should very strategically look state by state and identify where they have on board docs and good payer coverage. That's where they should put focus for TV ads, and combine with online advertising focusing on diabetes patients (I believe that could also be state by state, though maybe that is cheap enough to go national). Then, assuming the targeted approach yields good numbers in the target areas, management should start reporting that. If they could show strong growth in the targeted areas that is something that investors and potential partners would understand as proof of viability. |
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 13:13:38 GMT -5
If the price is .90 you do the split anyway, because the (my) expectation is for more dilution. I don't see any way the scripts could increase enough to negate the cash burn. It's possible MannKind could get an international deal done for Afrezza that gets them cash; but it's also possible I could win the lottery tomorrow. We don't have a record of execution here. We're always projecting a brighter future, but if you look at the Options loses (ending worthless) optimism isn't wise. You mean the 1 for 10 then and fair enough as I think its more likely they will use the delisting issues for dilution purposes as well. You already probably know what I think, despite their working hard etc, of their "execution". But my question still stands :Why is the 1 for 3 on the proxy? |
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Feb 3, 2017 13:19:13 GMT -5
Mikesmilitaria,
Do you really believe that if 1 company acquires another company they just add all the shares together without regard to the relative cost of each share price?
|
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Feb 3, 2017 13:26:05 GMT -5
There are 2 separate issues. Strictly looking at the math by itself, there is no difference in what it takes to break even because of a RS. Percentages are what matter and they don't change. The other issue is that companies don't have RS unless something is bad. This is why they (sometimes) lose value during a RS. If you think it is harder for a $15 stock to double in value than a $5 stock to double in value than you should not be investing in stocks. Seems you enjoy talking down to people.... and also it is none of your business what others "SHOULD" do
|
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 13:28:03 GMT -5
Golly gee willikers, thanks for setting us all straight. You being obtuse on purpose? I'm not talking just about the math of the reverse alone by itself (and I assume the original poster of this question isnt either) but its context and what accompanies it and thats what makes the difference. Look at my reply to MNHOLDEM in this thread. But, but, but, surplusvalue , you said here, "Youll need $50 to break even. Now go look at what the share price of big pharmas are and tell me that MNKD will get up there with the big boys within a few years?" Heck, if MNKD did a 1:200 R/S, they'd be right there tomorrow! Your very statement here seems to indicate that uvula 's caution about investing in stocks was warranted. Do you really think the value of a company is resident in the absolute dollar price of the share of stock? If not, then why the statement above? If so, then I'd recommend you at least think about uvula 's comment a little more reflectively. (BTW, I personally believe a R/S is almost always a bad sign for a stock. Unlike a lot of posters here, however, I am not equating shareholder approval of a R/S with the actual execution of a R/S.) Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7203/reverse-stock-split-smoke-mirrors?page=1#ixzz4Xe4phodzDo you really think the share price of the stock has no bearing on the value of the company? See,we can both play the infantile game of using statements in the extreme to bring a posters view in to disrepute by inferring something they never stated. Doesnt accomplish much does it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 13:33:02 GMT -5
Mikesmilitaria, Do you really believe that if 1 company acquires another company they just add all the shares together without regard to the relative cost of each share price? his DD says so everyone else's DD says, its the purchase price that matters - if they pay 1 bil , a share is worth 2 with 500 mil outstanding, and a share is worth 20 if 50 million outstanding - but hey ...who are we to question common sense - I am a fudster. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2017 13:33:47 GMT -5
YES---I am the one that was certain a R/S would not happen.....I'll eat that crow and gag on it. Matt said the (potential) R/S was coming from a position of STRENGTH and most laughed at that....makes no sense unless you really think about it. STRENGTH what the hell? Maybe the R/S's primary goal is to move the share volume from nearly 500mm to 50mm to prevent crippling dilution to a company like Amgen that has 743mm shares out. You simply can not add 500mm shares to 743mm shares but you can add 50mm shares to the already in existent 743mm. It makes little difference if the pps is $0.050 or $5.00 but the volume of shares can kill you in partnership or BO by adding 500mm shares. MNKD has diluted, diluted and diluted and with that dilution comes the erosion of your future $$ return on investment. YES---the real R/S motivator is probably correction of dilution and with this 1:10 split MNKD returns to it's immediate IPO base. I don't think for a moment that 1:3 is in the works....1:10 meets their objectives. YES....I continue to believe a major player is about to pounce and to me, it looks like Amgen. The Amgen boys did not move to MNKD to witness a R/S coming from a position of weakness. MNKD I believe has tried to signal what is happening....you have to sieve thru the garbage for the clues. I'm OK with the R/S; keep in mind where Amgen's pps resides and the upside for MNKD holders if this marriage takes place. Yes.. sieve through the "noise". Matt has made it clear he thought the balance sheet improvement announced in Nov would have improved share price in a meaningful way. Obviously, back when Mike came on board, they were not thinking an RS would be necessary. People can be wrong. Dedicated management in particular can often be overly optimistic. That is a hard balancing act to have the dedication and faith in the prospects of a company that is required to be the hard working cheerleader that is needed to turn around a company, and still maintain cold hard view of the risks. You are ignoring what management has actually said, and hearing "signals" that don't exist. Talk of Amgen buyout is indeed "noise" that prevents people from seeing the reality that resides in front of us as conveyed in facts and the statements made by management. Your analysis of effects of RS is also flawed. You can add 500mm shares to 743mm just as easily as you could add 50mm to 74.3mm. That is the correct comparison of the effects of an RS. This would be raising the same amount of money and would represent exactly the same % dilution... assuming RS doesn't end up dropping market cap significantly, which it often does. |
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 3, 2017 13:35:37 GMT -5
There are 2 separate issues. Strictly looking at the math by itself, there is no difference in what it takes to break even because of a RS. Percentages are what matter and they don't change. The other issue is that companies don't have RS unless something is bad. This is why they (sometimes) lose value during a RS. If you think it is harder for a $15 stock to double in value than a $5 stock to double in value than you should not be investing in stocks. Seems you enjoy talking down to people.... and also it is none of your business what others "SHOULD" do
I think Uvula assumed, probably incorrectly, that the poster was talking about the reverse from a strictly mathematical perspective and Uvulas remarks reflected his incredulity more than a desire to put the poster down. Uvula posted again and indicated he was just trying to help. I dont recall Uvula's posts in the past being confrontational or hostile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 13:36:40 GMT -5
also the voice trembling doesnt support the thesis of position of strength - what management sees as position of strength is not the same what the market sees.
yes they have a commercial org - but every pharma co should have one. show me the sales -- sell 5 to 10 million a month and then say - position of strength not when you have 40 mil in cash with 20 mil debt coming due.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Feb 3, 2017 13:39:05 GMT -5
Seems you enjoy talking down to people.... and also it is none of your business what others "SHOULD" do
I think Uvula assumed, probably incorrectly, that the poster was talking about the reverse from a strictly mathematical perspective and Uvulas remarks reflected his incredulity more than a desire to put the poster down. Uvula posted again and indicated he was just trying to help. I dont recall Uvula's posts in the past being confrontational or hostile. perhaps not hostile... but condescending for sure... he has posted to me in this manner also.. and I don't see it as trying to help.. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 3, 2017 13:39:19 GMT -5
If the price is .90 you do the split anyway, because the (my) expectation is for more dilution. I don't see any way the scripts could increase enough to negate the cash burn. It's possible MannKind could get an international deal done for Afrezza that gets them cash; but it's also possible I could win the lottery tomorrow. We don't have a record of execution here. We're always projecting a brighter future, but if you look at the Options loses (ending worthless) optimism isn't wise. You mean the 1 for 10 then and fair enough as I think its more likely they will use the delisting issues for dilution purposes as well.You already probably know what I think, despite their working hard etc, of their "execution". But my question still stands :Why is the 1 for 3 on the proxy? I read your post about the 1:3 split. It was excellently presented. I was aware that my OP omitted the dilution factor. I left that out not to paint a rosy picture but simply because raising cash later is an entirely separate issue and I didn't wish to confuse readers. My point, to which anyone may disagree, is simply that a stock split is done for a reason. Personally, I believe that a 1:3 would attract more buyers if sales pick up, because I think investors would expect a pullback to be more severe after a 1:10 split than a more modest 1:3 split, enticing them to wait longer to invest.
It's true that, in addition to trying to avoid delisting, MannKind will want to take advantage of the higher stock price to execute a cash raise. That kind of dilution action, however, is a different subject destined for another thread.
The point of my post was that the effect of a reverse split depends on what happens with the company AFTER the split. I think that most traders and investors think of a reverse-split as a really bad thing...even a death-knell for most companies. MannKind's situation is somewhat unique.
I asked for opinions and I appreciate you sharing yours. BTW, I am also hoping the board decides that the 1:3 split is the best for all involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Feb 3, 2017 13:44:45 GMT -5
Mikesmilitaria, Do you really believe that if 1 company acquires another company they just add all the shares together without regard to the relative cost of each share price? I just realized I read your post wrong. You weren't adding shares of both companies together. I still don't agree with your reasoning but you weren't making the simple mistake I thought you were making. Sorry. |
|
