|
Post by tingtongtung on Feb 22, 2017 3:36:57 GMT -5
Seems hard to predict the bottom as it would all depend on how successful a share offering would be. Though it is very easy to imagine we retest our all time lows, and potentially breach. Seems obvious that at times (e.g. TASE offering) things have not turned out as management hoped... and they have more visibility than we do. Right now it is hard for me to see how they could have a successful offering that would raise $100M. Maybe they can package a secondary as you suggest. If they pull it off I will nominate Matt for turn around artist of the year. Remember that whatever the split is it also reduces the available authorized shares by the same figure. A 1 for 10 split reduces that substantially and makes a larger cash raise problematic. I could be wrong but I'm increasingly thinking it wont be 1 for 10. That's assuming a split takes place. I'm sure RS will be 10:1 to keep the price around $5. What use is 3:1 ($1.49 - too close to fall below $1).. You know, some MFs can't buy <$5 stocks (I know $5 is after RS, but it doesn't matter as the total num of shares is reduced by the same amount). Dilution is nothing but authorizing more shares - isn't it? I'm not an expert in that too :-( They have to do RS with secondary already subscribed/placed. May be with a higher discount. Else, we will have a double dip - once for RS, and again for dilution. For $100 million, may be it will go down to $3.50 (even $2.80 - $3.00, damn..)? But, at least that should be the bottom, *PROVIDED* the scripts start moving up at least to 500+ range from 200s, and shows an upward trajectory..
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 22, 2017 11:37:02 GMT -5
Remember that whatever the split is it also reduces the available authorized shares by the same figure. A 1 for 10 split reduces that substantially and makes a larger cash raise problematic. I could be wrong but I'm increasingly thinking it wont be 1 for 10. That's assuming a split takes place. I'm sure RS will be 10:1 to keep the price around $5. What use is 3:1 ($1.49 - too close to fall below $1).. You know, some MFs can't buy <$5 stocks (I know $5 is after RS, but it doesn't matter as the total num of shares is reduced by the same amount). Dilution is nothing but authorizing more shares - isn't it? I'm not an expert in that too :-( They have to do RS with secondary already subscribed/placed. May be with a higher discount. Else, we will have a double dip - once for RS, and again for dilution. For $100 million, may be it will go down to $3.50 (even $2.80 - $3.00, damn..)? But, at least that should be the bottom, *PROVIDED* the scripts start moving up at least to 500+ range from 200s, and shows an upward trajectory.. You're assuming dilution with the rs (a secondary already placed) . Unlike my more recent view, I dont think they will go that route and hence it will not need to be 1 for 10. When the proxy info came out I asked on the board why is the 1 for 3 (or 1 for 4 or 5 etc) even there if the plan is dilution? Never got an answer from anyone.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 22, 2017 12:39:19 GMT -5
You're assuming dilution with the rs (a secondary already placed) . Unlike my more recent view, I dont think they will go that route and hence it will not need to be 1 for 10. When the proxy info came out I asked on the board why is the 1 for 3 (or 1 for 4 or 5 etc) even there if the plan is dilution? Never got an answer from anyone. I thought some answered, and I could answer, but what is the point as I am not on the Board at Mannkind. That is to say, any opinion I give is merely a guess. Here is my answer anyway, why wouldn't they want flexibility so as to keep a range of strategic options open?
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 22, 2017 15:34:24 GMT -5
You're assuming dilution with the rs (a secondary already placed) . Unlike my more recent view, I dont think they will go that route and hence it will not need to be 1 for 10. When the proxy info came out I asked on the board why is the 1 for 3 (or 1 for 4 or 5 etc) even there if the plan is dilution? Never got an answer from anyone. I thought some answered, and I could answer, but what is the point as I am not on the Board at Mannkind. That is to say, any opinion I give is merely a guess. Here is my answer anyway, why wouldn't they want flexibility so as to keep a range of strategic options open? No kidding. Nobody knows what the board will do. But that's not an answer to my question.The point is if they were using the reverse to only also set up dilution there would be no point to a 1 for 3 or 1 for 4 etc. since it doesnt bring the share price up enough to limit the downward movement after dilution; a movement back close to threatening a share price under a dollar again. So you can surmise that the reverse is more likely to be used for the listing issue. I dont think they'll dilute so quickly after a reverse; that is if they do a reverse if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 22, 2017 16:04:16 GMT -5
Seems hard to predict the bottom as it would all depend on how successful a share offering would be. Though it is very easy to imagine we retest our all time lows, and potentially breach. Seems obvious that at times (e.g. TASE offering) things have not turned out as management hoped... and they have more visibility than we do. Right now it is hard for me to see how they could have a successful offering that would raise $100M. Maybe they can package a secondary as you suggest. If they pull it off I will nominate Matt for turn around artist of the year. Remember that whatever the split is it also reduces the available authorized shares by the same figure. A 1 for 10 split reduces that substantially and makes a larger cash raise problematic. I could be wrong but I'm increasingly thinking it wont be 1 for 10. That's assuming a split takes place. RS creates a chilling effect because of common wisdom that that the slide in price will continue... that probably isn't affected much by whether it is 1 to 3, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 as long as out of delisting risk. Might as well get the full benefit of getting as solidly away from $1 delisting as possible, so I'm betting it will be 1 to 10 unless some white swan substantially raises price before it is required. The number of outstanding shares really doesn't effect the ability to raise capital with equity. What a person investing in the company cares about is the % of the company (percentage of future earnings they are entitled to) that they get for a given amount of aggregate share cost. It doesn't matter whether I have 1% of the company at X price per share or 10X price per share if they both represent 1% of the company. So the only effect would be if we are at $0.50, do a reverse 1 to 10 to go to $5 and then shorts immediately pound down to $2.5... but that is still better than doing 1 to 3 putting us at $1.5 and then getting pounded down to $0.75... back in delisting territory. The capital raise would be very tough in the former and likely impossible in the latter. Most likely, either some good news has to happen or some masterful deal making with deep pockets... or both.
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Feb 22, 2017 16:16:34 GMT -5
Remember that whatever the split is it also reduces the available authorized shares by the same figure. A 1 for 10 split reduces that substantially and makes a larger cash raise problematic. I could be wrong but I'm increasingly thinking it wont be 1 for 10. That's assuming a split takes place. RS creates a chilling effect because of common wisdom that that the slide in price will continue... that probably isn't affected much by whether it is 1 to 3, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 as long as out of delisting risk. Might as well get the full benefit of getting as solidly away from $1 delisting as possible, so I'm betting it will be 1 to 10 unless some white swan substantially raises price before it is required. The number of outstanding shares really doesn't effect the ability to raise capital with equity. What a person investing in the company cares about is the % of the company (percentage of future earnings they are entitled to) that they get for a given amount of aggregate share cost. It doesn't matter whether I have 1% of the company at X price per share or 10X price per share if they both represent 1% of the company. So the only effect would be if we are at $0.50, do a reverse 1 to 10 to go to $5 and then shorts immediately pound down to $2.5... but that is still better than doing 1 to 3 putting us at $1.5 and then getting pounded down to $0.75... back in delisting territory. The capital raise would be very tough in the former and likely impossible in the latter. Most likely, either some good news has to happen or some masterful deal making with deep pockets... or both. I indicated here and in another thread that I am now inclined to think they are not going to use the reverse for setting up dilution (for similar reasons you gave ie difficulty and risks of driving the share price back lower to where they want to escape from in the first place). Dilution, yes, but some time down the road. If thats the case I think it will not be 1 for 10. They can achieve what they want regarding the delisting issue with a something other than 1 for 10. This is especially so if there is something else that they have to help support the reverse. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 22, 2017 16:39:07 GMT -5
RS creates a chilling effect because of common wisdom that that the slide in price will continue... that probably isn't affected much by whether it is 1 to 3, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 as long as out of delisting risk. Might as well get the full benefit of getting as solidly away from $1 delisting as possible, so I'm betting it will be 1 to 10 unless some white swan substantially raises price before it is required. The number of outstanding shares really doesn't effect the ability to raise capital with equity. What a person investing in the company cares about is the % of the company (percentage of future earnings they are entitled to) that they get for a given amount of aggregate share cost. It doesn't matter whether I have 1% of the company at X price per share or 10X price per share if they both represent 1% of the company. So the only effect would be if we are at $0.50, do a reverse 1 to 10 to go to $5 and then shorts immediately pound down to $2.5... but that is still better than doing 1 to 3 putting us at $1.5 and then getting pounded down to $0.75... back in delisting territory. The capital raise would be very tough in the former and likely impossible in the latter. Most likely, either some good news has to happen or some masterful deal making with deep pockets... or both. I indicated here and in another thread that I am now inclined to think they are not going to use the reverse for setting up dilution (for similar reasons you gave ie difficulty and risks of driving the share price back lower to where they want to escape from in the first place). Dilution, yes, but some time down the road. If thats the case I think it will not be 1 for 10. They can achieve what they want regarding the delisting issue with a something other than 1 for 10. This is especially so if there is something else that they have to help support the reverse. We'll see. I would agree with you to the extent there are IFs that come true. If we have support that would get us solidly above $1 after RS then yes 1 to 10 may not be required... but with the stock trajectory now I don't see that. If one wanted to bet on the ratio, it probably would be prudent to check historical data and see what share price range is normally targeted for a RS... is it $2 or $5 or higher. I wouldn't know any reason MNKD wouldn't follow the standard play book. At the end of the day, I'm not very concerned over what the ratio is provided we don't end up back at risk of delisting. As for equity capital raise... for better or for worse MNKD management does seem to wait until the last minute to take tough actions. So IF there is any way of putting off the dilution, I suspect they will. Right now the ratio may be forced by our crumbling share price and timing of the dilution forced by our crumbling cash position. Why MNKD is such a risky stock right now is that there are certainly scenarios where these simply don't add up to a viable financing path out of the current solvency risk. I still have hope for MNKD... but a lot of concern.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 22, 2017 16:41:52 GMT -5
I thought some answered, and I could answer, but what is the point as I am not on the Board at Mannkind. That is to say, any opinion I give is merely a guess. Here is my answer anyway, why wouldn't they want flexibility so as to keep a range of strategic options open? No kidding. Nobody knows what the board will do. But that's not an answer to my question.The point is if they were using the reverse to only also set up dilution there would be no point to a 1 for 3 or 1 for 4 etc. since it doesnt bring the share price up enough to limit the downward movement after dilution; a movement back close to threatening a share price under a dollar again. So you can surmise that the reverse is more likely to be used for the listing issue. I dont think they'll dilute so quickly after a reverse; that is if they do a reverse if necessary. I think it really DOES answer the question of yours I responded to. That is, "why is the 1 for 3 (or 1 for 4 or 5 etc) even there if the plan is dilution?" MNKD didn't know what price it would be trading at a month in advance. If it made it up to 0.9 by end of February, maybe 1 for 4 would suffice for their plans. So as I said, they wanted flexibility so as to keep a range of strategic options open. Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/post/96655/quote/7312?page=2#ixzz4ZS70Nmfh
|
|
|
Post by sla55 on Feb 23, 2017 17:10:41 GMT -5
investors.mannkindcorp.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1193125-17-54063&CIK=899460Item 2.01 - Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets. As previously reported in a Current Report on Form 8-K, filed by MannKind Corporation (the “Company”) on January 12, 2017 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on January 6, 2017 the Company and Rexford Industrial Realty, L.P. (“Rexford”) entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions (the “Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to sell and Rexford agreed to purchase certain parcels of real estate owned by the Company in Valencia, California and certain related improvements, personal property, equipment, supplies and fixtures (collectively, the “Property”) for $17.3 million. The Purchase Agreement was amended on February 7, 2017, February 10, 2017 and February 15, 2017 to, among other things, extend the closing date of the sale and purchase of the Property, revise the list of equipment being sold and revise the purchase price allocation between equipment and real property. The sale and purchase of the aforementioned Property for $17.3 million pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, as amended, was completed on February 17, 2017. Net proceeds to the Company were approximately $16.7 million after deducting broker’s commission and closing costs of approximately $624,000 paid by the Company.
|
|
|
Post by tingtongtung on Mar 3, 2017 13:09:02 GMT -5
I'm sure RS will be 10:1 to keep the price around $5. What use is 3:1 ($1.49 - too close to fall below $1).. You know, some MFs can't buy <$5 stocks (I know $5 is after RS, but it doesn't matter as the total num of shares is reduced by the same amount). Dilution is nothing but authorizing more shares - isn't it? I'm not an expert in that too :-( They have to do RS with secondary already subscribed/placed. May be with a higher discount. Else, we will have a double dip - once for RS, and again for dilution. For $100 million, may be it will go down to $3.50 (even $2.80 - $3.00, damn..)? But, at least that should be the bottom, *PROVIDED* the scripts start moving up at least to 500+ range from 200s, and shows an upward trajectory.. You're assuming dilution with the rs (a secondary already placed) . Unlike my more recent view, I dont think they will go that route and hence it will not need to be 1 for 10. When the proxy info came out I asked on the board why is the 1 for 3 (or 1 for 4 or 5 etc) even there if the plan is dilution? Never got an answer from anyone. surplusvalue : You were right, and I was wrong! They did 5:1, and no dilution. Damn! Stock went to $1.84 (== 37 cents) without dilution. It's only 84 cents away from going below a dollar. We gained nothing, unless Matt has a partnership deal or something. I believe in the drug. But, I'm starting to lose faith in the company. Matt and guys can do only so much. Scripts are going no where. They have their own FTE selling, costs are more, ads need money. They will have to start looking at raising cash once again in near future. How can you dilute now? Are they looking at starting with a clean slate? I really thought this was an easy investment :-(
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 3, 2017 16:41:29 GMT -5
You're assuming dilution with the rs (a secondary already placed) . Unlike my more recent view, I dont think they will go that route and hence it will not need to be 1 for 10. When the proxy info came out I asked on the board why is the 1 for 3 (or 1 for 4 or 5 etc) even there if the plan is dilution? Never got an answer from anyone. surplusvalue : You were right, and I was wrong! They did 5:1, and no dilution. Damn! Stock went to $1.84 (== 37 cents) without dilution. It's only 84 cents away from going below a dollar. We gained nothing, unless Matt has a partnership deal or something. I believe in the drug. But, I'm starting to lose faith in the company. Matt and guys can do only so much. Scripts are going no where. They have their own FTE selling, costs are more, ads need money. They will have to start looking at raising cash once again in near future. How can you dilute now? Are they looking at starting with a clean slate? I really thought this was an easy investment :-(It was an easy investment... sadly we have been on the wrong side of the trade.
|
|