|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 16, 2017 17:54:30 GMT -5
Remember that $25M cannot be touched because of Deerfield. Unless the Mann Group loan is irrevocable they need to maintain $25 M in cash so I would expect them to start drawing down the loan in a couple of months. It's a wash in the end financial but from a logistics standpoint they don't want to end up with the loan getting revoke before it is drawn down. If I was Matt I would drawdown that loan sooner rather than later. [ Stick to knowing everything about diabetes..... So according to you, the big fear is the Mann loan being revoked so Matt should get on it how... ridiculous Why take the chance. There comes a point where the holders may decide that they are about to lose $30 million just to keep Deerfield whole. If it is a demand note then at that point they may decide that it's their fiduciary duty to call the loan. If you can avoid a risk why take it even if it is unlikely? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 16, 2017 18:12:27 GMT -5
The terms on the Mann Group note were changed some time ago to keep Deerfield happy. Essentially, Mann Group has guaranteed that the entire balance of the $30 million will be available and Deerfield agreed to count that credit line towards the $25 million minimum. So MNKD, in theory, can run the cash down to zero and keep the Deerfield covenant so long as the $30 million credit facility remains untouched. Mann Group is on the hook for the full $30 million no matter what; it is almost equity.
Ultimately, cash remains the issue and if you look at Q4 the cost of sales still exceeds revenue which means sales are still made at a loss, but a big improvement over Q3. Back all the one-time numbers out of Q3 and Q4 (and the facility sale out of Q1) and things will become clear. There is a positive trend there, the question is whether it is positive enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Mar 16, 2017 18:17:25 GMT -5
70m cash on hand at dec 31 plus 17 from selling their building + 30m loan minus 20m debt due minus 25 loan requirement comes to 92m. 9 months of money. Comes to 3rd quarter as Matt said a while ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 18:31:57 GMT -5
70m cash on hand at dec 31 plus 17 from selling their building + 30m loan minus 20m debt due minus 25 loan requirement comes to 92m. 9 months of money. Comes to 3rd quarter as Matt said a while ago. wrong. 22 mil cash on hand at dec 31 + 17 mil + 30 mil from sanofi + 30 mil loan - 20 mil debt - 25 mil loan req |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Mar 16, 2017 18:32:53 GMT -5
The terms on the Mann Group note were changed some time ago to keep Deerfield happy. Essentially, Mann Group has guaranteed that the entire balance of the $30 million will be available and Deerfield agreed to count that credit line towards the $25 million minimum. So MNKD, in theory, can run the cash down to zero and keep the Deerfield covenant so long as the $30 million credit facility remains untouched. Mann Group is on the hook for the full $30 million no matter what; it is almost equity. Ultimately, cash remains the issue and if you look at Q4 the cost of sales still exceeds revenue which means sales are still made at a loss, but a big improvement over Q3. Back all the one-time numbers out of Q3 and Q4 (and the facility sale out of Q1) and things will become clear. There is a positive trend there, the question is whether it is positive enough. My take away from today was Matt P. left more unsaid than said. I think Matt just might have a trick or two up his sleeve. I would take Matt at his word today and not worry about cash for awhile. The bottom line is he is not going for a secondary right now no matter how much you and your friends may want him to. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovekauai on Mar 16, 2017 18:37:09 GMT -5
I've been gone all day and just got home. I have to say upon review that the CC was a good one! Delighted to some positivity here on the board. Onwards team! Aloha.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 16, 2017 18:46:08 GMT -5
70m cash on hand at dec 31 plus 17 from selling their building + 30m loan minus 20m debt due minus 25 loan requirement comes to 92m. 9 months of money. Comes to 3rd quarter as Matt said a while ago. That doesn't reconcile with the 8K they filed, that has current assets at $77 million including the Valencia building (the asset held for sale line). Of that $77 million $6.7 million is inventory deferred costs, and prepaid expenses so not real cash. That pretty much gets you to the $70 million cash number. Add in the loan for $30 million, remove $20 million for debt, and the $25 million restricted cash, that gets you to $65 million and not $92 million. It still reaches Q3 but only just. This might be a stupid question but what is the $20 million debt made up of? Edit: Got it. $15 million from the 2019 notes, and $5 million from Tranche B notes. Due in July and May respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Mar 16, 2017 19:16:11 GMT -5
70m cash on hand at dec 31 plus 17 from selling their building + 30m loan minus 20m debt due minus 25 loan requirement comes to 92m. 9 months of money. Comes to 3rd quarter as Matt said a while ago. That doesn't reconcile with the 8K they filed, that has current assets at $77 million including the Valencia building (the asset held for sale line). Of that $77 million $6.7 million is inventory deferred costs, and prepaid expenses so not real cash. That pretty much gets you to the $70 million cash number. Add in the loan for $30 million, remove $20 million for debt, and the $25 million restricted cash, that gets you to $65 million and not $92 million. It still reaches Q3 but only just. This might be a stupid question but what is the $20 million debt made up of? Edit: Got it. $15 million from the 2019 notes, and $5 million from Tranche B notes. Due in July and May respectively. CEO matt said 70m. Thinking that includes the 17. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Mar 16, 2017 19:18:24 GMT -5
70m cash on hand at dec 31 plus 17 from selling their building + 30m loan minus 20m debt due minus 25 loan requirement comes to 92m. 9 months of money. Comes to 3rd quarter as Matt said a while ago. wrong. 22 mil cash on hand at dec 31 + 17 mil + 30 mil from sanofi + 30 mil loan - 20 mil debt - 25 mil loan req 22 and 17 and 30.... about 70 like matt said. |
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Mar 16, 2017 19:30:58 GMT -5
[ Stick to knowing everything about diabetes..... So according to you, the big fear is the Mann loan being revoked so Matt should get on it how... ridiculous Why take the chance. There comes a point where the holders may decide that they are about to lose $30 million just to keep Deerfield whole. If it is a demand note then at that point they may decide that it's their fiduciary duty to call the loan. If you can avoid a risk why take it even if it is unlikely? Good grief, you assume SO much in this statement alone.... "The holders" have never considered that they may lose it all just to keep the Deerfield note whole, UNTIL NOW? Have they been sleeping for 18 months? "If it's a demand note" Bla Bla Bla "their fiduciary duty"... clearly you know nothing about the note, and where has their "fiduciary duty" been til this suddenly urgent moment? And your last sentence is the best,,,,, suddenly, right now, they're looking to avoid a possible risk, HAHA.... again, where have they been for 18 months other than being SURROUNDED by risk! |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 16, 2017 20:09:47 GMT -5
Why take the chance. There comes a point where the holders may decide that they are about to lose $30 million just to keep Deerfield whole. If it is a demand note then at that point they may decide that it's their fiduciary duty to call the loan. If you can avoid a risk why take it even if it is unlikely? Good grief, you assume SO much in this statement alone.... "The holders" have never considered that they may lose it all just to keep the Deerfield note whole, UNTIL NOW? Have they been sleeping for 18 months? "If it's a demand note" Bla Bla Bla "their fiduciary duty"... clearly you know nothing about the note, and where has their "fiduciary duty" been til this suddenly urgent moment? And your last sentence is the best,,,,, suddenly, right now, they're looking to avoid a possible risk, HAHA.... again, where have they been for 18 months other than being SURROUNDED by risk! As Matt pointed out the note was modified in 2013 to prevent them from withdrawing funding, so I can pat my rampant paranoia and calm it down again  |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 16, 2017 20:25:57 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if MannKind announces a restructured debt agreement with Deerfield in the coming months.  |
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Mar 16, 2017 20:41:52 GMT -5
Good grief, you assume SO much in this statement alone.... "The holders" have never considered that they may lose it all just to keep the Deerfield note whole, UNTIL NOW? Have they been sleeping for 18 months? "If it's a demand note" Bla Bla Bla "their fiduciary duty"... clearly you know nothing about the note, and where has their "fiduciary duty" been til this suddenly urgent moment? And your last sentence is the best,,,,, suddenly, right now, they're looking to avoid a possible risk, HAHA.... again, where have they been for 18 months other than being SURROUNDED by risk! As Matt pointed out the note was modified in 2013 to prevent them from withdrawing funding, so I can pat my rampant paranoia and calm it down again [ Quick response and "apology", thank you... almost as if you knew your original statement was BS from the beginning.... Unfortunately, I still take issue with this latest, finally truthful, statement of yours..... you insist on planting and nurturing the seed of doubt from the Mann group, now as if the only reason they don't withdraw is because of a modified agreement preventing them.... Let me help you make it very clear,,,, they are as committed as any of us true longs are... THEY are the reason the r/s and every other vote presented by mgmt has passed without worry. "THEY" are an ally, not an adversary, please stop planting seeds of doubt, based on your wisdom. |
|
|
|
Post by mbseeking on Mar 16, 2017 20:43:04 GMT -5
I'm struggling a little to get my head around what went wrong with the contract sales force. On the one hand we are exiting them because we need the focus and commitment of our own team , yet it looks like 60% or so were hired into MNKD as full time employees: so must be most of the new sales force. So same people. What's changed that they can sell now that they couldn't before?
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Mar 16, 2017 20:51:57 GMT -5
I'm struggling a little to get my head around what went wrong with the contract sales force. On the one hand we are exiting them because we need the focus and commitment of our own team , yet it looks like 60% or so were hired into MNKD as full time employees: so must be most of the new sales force. So same people. What's changed that they can sell now that they couldn't before? Matt mentioned the percentage of the contractorrs kept. I thought he said a number much lower than 60% on today's call. Edit. Transcript says two thirds. |
|
