|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 16, 2017 7:39:29 GMT -5
The buy out talk is starting again. Some crazy person said Matt gots one he's been sitting on for $12 pps. Yep, that person is certifiably crazy. The CEO of a company cannot just "sit" on a buyout offer; he is legally obligated to present it to the board of directors for their consideration and they are legally obligated to consider it and make a decision of whether to present to the rest of the shareholders for a vote. The alternative is that a true buyer could simply make a tender offer directly to the market and could be successful with a much lower price. How many day traders would be absolutely thrilled with a 100% premium (i.e. about $4). The fact is, very few acquisition deals go off at more than a 25% premium unless the drug has demonstrated rapid growth or has yet to launch but is expected to own the market niche; neither of those criteria describe Afrezza.Matt, feel free to describe afrezza.
Are you a rep from a pharmaceutical company?
|
|
|
|
Post by kball on Mar 16, 2017 8:59:50 GMT -5
Yep, that person is certifiably crazy. The CEO of a company cannot just "sit" on a buyout offer; he is legally obligated to present it to the board of directors for their consideration and they are legally obligated to consider it and make a decision of whether to present to the rest of the shareholders for a vote. The alternative is that a true buyer could simply make a tender offer directly to the market and could be successful with a much lower price. How many day traders would be absolutely thrilled with a 100% premium (i.e. about $4). The fact is, very few acquisition deals go off at more than a 25% premium unless the drug has demonstrated rapid growth or has yet to launch but is expected to own the market niche; neither of those criteria describe Afrezza.Matt, feel free to describe afrezza.
Are you a rep from a pharmaceutical company?
Don't we all know already, Pep? -Remarkable drug. -Terrible launches (not once, but twice, 3 if you're counting 2 different mnkd sales force attempts so far) -Can be a challenge to dose initially. -Doctors reluctant, hesitant, or just plain unwilling to prescribe. -Most diabetic consumers remain unaware of it. -Genius successful Billionaire CEO and inventor passed away a year ago. -New CEO (DeSisto) backs out of agreement when Sanofi ends partnership -Company always in precarious financial situations. -Company having trouble morphing into something it never intended to become -Current leadership probably not up to challenges facing company |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 16, 2017 9:04:54 GMT -5
Matt, feel free to describe afrezza.
Are you a rep from a pharmaceutical company?
Don't we all know already, Pep? -Remarkable drug. -Terrible launches (not once, but twice) -Can be a challenge to dose initially.-Doctors reluctant, hesitant, or just plain unwilling to prescribe.-Most diabetic consumers remain unaware of it. -Genius successful Billionaire CEO and inventor passed away a year ago. -New CEO (DeSisto) backs out of agreement when Sanofi ends partnership -Company always in precarious financial situations. -Company having trouble morphing into something it never intended to become Quote: -Can be a challenge to dose initially.
-Doctors reluctant, hesitant, or just plain unwilling to prescribe.
Reply: I ask myself, what if the standard of care was afrezza, and fast acting subq hit the market? would subq fast acting analogs be seen as difficult to dose? (My answer is yes) would doctors be reluctant, hesitant or just plain unwilling to prescribe? (my answer is yes.)
What are your answers to these question? This question is meant for all on the board, not picking on you kball.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 16, 2017 9:53:33 GMT -5
If they held, yeah. But maybe they got out at some point while we held? Now if you advised them to keep holding all the way down...thats harder to justify (I finally caved at about $1 pre split)Congrats! Why didn't you convince me to do the same? |
|
|
|
Post by kball on Mar 16, 2017 10:00:20 GMT -5
If they held, yeah. But maybe they got out at some point while we held? Now if you advised them to keep holding all the way down...thats harder to justify (I finally caved at about $1 pre split)Congrats! Why didn't you convince me to do the same? Not worthy of congrats. The only folks i discussed this with at all were Bioexec and Sports. Not to convince them, but to see if they could convince me holding was smarter. I lost about 75% of investment all said and done. I lent shares for about a year...which helped me from losing 80+% |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 16, 2017 10:00:41 GMT -5
Don't we all know already, Pep? -Remarkable drug. -Terrible launches (not once, but twice) -Can be a challenge to dose initially.-Doctors reluctant, hesitant, or just plain unwilling to prescribe.-Most diabetic consumers remain unaware of it. -Genius successful Billionaire CEO and inventor passed away a year ago. -New CEO (DeSisto) backs out of agreement when Sanofi ends partnership -Company always in precarious financial situations. -Company having trouble morphing into something it never intended to become Quote: -Can be a challenge to dose initially.
-Doctors reluctant, hesitant, or just plain unwilling to prescribe.
Reply: I ask myself, what if the standard of care was afrezza, and fast acting subq hit the market? would subq fast acting analogs be seen as difficult to dose? (My answer is yes) would doctors be reluctant, hesitant or just plain unwilling to prescribe? (my answer is yes.)
What are your answers to these question? This question is meant for all on the board, not picking on you kball.
You are correct because Afrezza would be the status quo (I almost put a link to Status Quo in there  and subj would be the intruder. Sensitivity to subq dose variations would be a huge issue as well as it would be seen as a retrograde step - Regular insulin/dose sensitive, Afrezza/dose permissive, RAA/dose sensitive. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 16, 2017 11:09:13 GMT -5
Yep, that person is certifiably crazy. The CEO of a company cannot just "sit" on a buyout offer; he is legally obligated to present it to the board of directors for their consideration and they are legally obligated to consider it and make a decision of whether to present to the rest of the shareholders for a vote. The alternative is that a true buyer could simply make a tender offer directly to the market and could be successful with a much lower price. How many day traders would be absolutely thrilled with a 100% premium (i.e. about $4). The fact is, very few acquisition deals go off at more than a 25% premium unless the drug has demonstrated rapid growth or has yet to launch but is expected to own the market niche; neither of those criteria describe Afrezza.Matt, feel free to describe afrezza.
Are you a rep from a pharmaceutical company?
Nope, not a rep but I have been in the industry for over 35 years, much of that doing mergers, acquisitions, and business development so I have a pretty good sense of what the market will bear as far as acquisition prices. I have done something in excess of $25 billion worth of transactions of my own when I was responsible for managing the external pipeline for a Fortune 500 company. Big companies do mergers to fill their portfolio gaps and, once in a while, to get a deal. Mostly, big companies go after products they think are a must have for their business and much less often are interested in picking things up on the cheap because those companies are usually cheap for a reason, just like a $300K house in a neighborhood of $400K homes. I once dropped about $25 million in a bankruptcy auction for as asset that had been selling for $100 million a few months earlier, but only because the company was local to our company and they had a product that helped round out our product offering. Mostly we looked for what we needed and paid the going price. We didn't short, we didn't conspire with any particular investment bank, we didn't do street sweeps, we didn't do opportunistic deals and most other companies in the industry don't either. To get acquired the target company has to deliver earnings growth to the buyer, and normally that means slightly negative earnings year one, neutral year two, and accretive to earning by year three. Some companies won't look at anything that is not accretive by year two. A buyer cannot pay $12 a share (as was hypothesized) and make a return for their shareholders. The acquiring CEO probably wants to keep his job and not have his phone line melt down with calls from angry shareholders and fund managers; and boy do they call! That means the price has to be right. If a company is buying a slow growth / no growth product that fills a gap in a portfolio offering they might pay a 20% premium over market. If the drug or the company is doing well and growing, with a strong potential to grow further, 35% is more typical and if the company is a rocket ship 50% or more is not impossible. Note that these are not potential growth numbers, that is why the acquirer is buying, but what has already been achieved by the current owner. The weekly script numbers for Mannkind tell the story of a slow growth drug that has already been on the market for two years with a big pharma as a marketing partner. Any acquirer is going to look at the fact that Sanofi could not get market traction and give that lots of thought. You can say that Sanofi could have done a better job, and you might be right, but the market perception (including the perception of the buyer's shareholders and managers) is that Sanofi is a leader in diabetes so if they couldn't make it work then what chance do we have? Perception matters to the public markets even if the truth is somewhat different. Under those criteria, Afrezza is a slow growth drug (actually negative year on year) and one that is not the current market choice for prandial insulin. Could a clever acquirer change that? Perhaps so, but they are not going to pay a big premium for a high growth opportunity if it is their responsibility to make the drug a high growth success where others have failed. Will Mannkind get acquired? Perhaps, but not for $12 a share unless Matt and Mike are the ones to take the company past the breakeven point and with strong market momentum. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 16, 2017 11:24:04 GMT -5
Matt, feel free to describe afrezza.
Are you a rep from a pharmaceutical company?
Nope, not a rep but I have been in the industry for over 35 years, much of that doing mergers, acquisitions, and business development so I have a pretty good sense of what the market will bear as far as acquisition prices. I have done something in excess of $25 billion worth of transactions of my own when I was responsible for managing the external pipeline for a Fortune 500 company. Big companies do mergers to fill their portfolio gaps and, once in a while, to get a deal. Mostly, big companies go after products they think are a must have for their business and much less often are interested in picking things up on the cheap because those companies are usually cheap for a reason, just like a $300K house in a neighborhood of $400K homes. I once dropped about $25 million in a bankruptcy auction for as asset that had been selling for $100 million a few months earlier, but only because the company was local to our company and they had a product that helped round out our product offering. Mostly we looked for what we needed and paid the going price. We didn't short, we didn't conspire with any particular investment bank, we didn't do street sweeps, we didn't do opportunistic deals and most other companies in the industry don't either. To get acquired the target company has to deliver earnings growth to the buyer, and normally that means slightly negative earnings year one, neutral year two, and accretive to earning by year three. Some companies won't look at anything that is not accretive by year two. A buyer cannot pay $12 a share (as was hypothesized) and make a return for their shareholders. The acquiring CEO probably wants to keep his job and not have his phone line melt down with calls from angry shareholders and fund managers; and boy do they call! That means the price has to be right. If a company is buying a slow growth / no growth product that fills a gap in a portfolio offering they might pay a 20% premium over market. If the drug or the company is doing well and growing, with a strong potential to grow further, 35% is more typical and if the company is a rocket ship 50% or more is not impossible. Note that these are not potential growth numbers, that is why the acquirer is buying, but what has already been achieved by the current owner. The weekly script numbers for Mannkind tell the story of a slow growth drug that has already been on the market for two years with a big pharma as a marketing partner. Any acquirer is going to look at the fact that Sanofi could not get market traction and give that lots of thought. You can say that Sanofi could have done a better job, and you might be right, but the market perception (including the perception of the buyer's shareholders and managers) is that Sanofi is a leader in diabetes so if they couldn't make it work then what chance do we have? Perception matters to the public markets even if the truth is somewhat different. Under those criteria, Afrezza is a slow growth drug (actually negative year on year) and one that is not the current market choice for prandial insulin. Could a clever acquirer change that? Perhaps so, but they are not going to pay a big premium for a high growth opportunity if it is their responsibility to make the drug a high growth success where others have failed. Will Mannkind get acquired? Perhaps, but not for $12 a share unless Matt and Mike are the ones to take the company past the breakeven point and with strong market momentum. Thank you for the response. Given the above, May I ask, why are you here? Some people I use to know in nursing, actually Molly a diabetic, use to say, "I am a nurse, I am here to help." I believe that was once a saying, if you walked in on an arrest.
|
|
|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Mar 16, 2017 12:18:18 GMT -5
MNKD is not for sale until the valuation reflects the underlying IP. Think back to Afrezza's FDA approval timeframe.
In 2018 we will have another FDA approved drug. Hit the plus button on the value calculator.
Management has a plan to provide a runway for Afrezza to become a commercial success.
This is my view. I am long MNKD. I am not going anywhere. I have not lost anything. My position does not expire.
|
|
|
|
Post by boytroy88 on Mar 17, 2017 13:55:51 GMT -5
Thank you for the response. Given the above, May I ask, why are you here? Some people I use to know in nursing, actually Molly a diabetic, use to say, "I am a nurse, I am here to help." I believe that was once a saying, if you walked in on an arrest.
Yes, I've always been curious...does not seem like Matt is long...but always offer insight though... |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 17, 2017 14:17:01 GMT -5
Thank you for the response. Given the above, May I ask, why are you here? Some people I use to know in nursing, actually Molly a diabetic, use to say, "I am a nurse, I am here to help." I believe that was once a saying, if you walked in on an arrest.
Yes, I've always been curious...does not seem like Matt is long...but always offer insight though... It is none of my business and I know that. I am a curious cat. ask nice, perhaps he will tell us.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 17, 2017 14:29:41 GMT -5
It is none of my business and I know that. I am a curious cat.
Different topic:-) baba's loaded, smart, and will be sitting pretty:-))) #Winning. Every time dream says something derogatory we pic up more shares! Lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 14:32:33 GMT -5
people who know diabetes market also knows that sanofi is just 1 trick lantus pony and that too it got lucky cos the flow chart for diabetes treatment has a basal insulin for people who has to get on insulin.
except that there is nothing that sanofi should be praised for.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 17, 2017 15:07:20 GMT -5
Considering what day it is, sports, it's a pretty safe bet that baba's loaded. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 17, 2017 15:08:14 GMT -5
liane, too!
|
|
and subj would be the intruder. Sensitivity to subq dose variations would be a huge issue as well as it would be seen as a retrograde step - Regular insulin/dose sensitive, Afrezza/dose permissive, RAA/dose sensitive.
