|
Post by straightly on Apr 19, 2017 22:45:46 GMT -5
Hard to say what the s/p will do near term. On the one hand, we've extended the runway. On the other, you can bet deerfield will dump - just don't know exactly when. MNKD has once again successfully kicked the can down the road. Just sell the damn product!!! "you can bet deerfield will dump" Liane: with due respect, I am very sure you are wrong on this. Why would Deerfield acquire at $1.15 and dump, knowing it will not get $1.15 if they do? Whatever was its plan, they choose to take a share rather than $1.15, so they must for whatever reason believed a share was better than $1.15.
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Apr 20, 2017 5:36:08 GMT -5
Hard to say what the s/p will do near term. On the one hand, we've extended the runway. On the other, you can bet deerfield will dump - just don't know exactly when. MNKD has once again successfully kicked the can down the road. Just sell the damn product!!! "you can bet deerfield will dump" Liane: with due respect, I am very sure you are wrong on this. Why would Deerfield acquire at $1.15 and dump, knowing it will not get $1.15 if they do? Whatever was its plan, they choose to take a share rather than $1.15, so they must for whatever reason believed a share was better than $1.15. They were offered conversion at a discount. Looks like about 10% - 15%, but may have been higher depending on when the $1.15 price was struck. See my thread above as to the mechanics involved in locking in a guaranteed profit. Deerfield did exactly this twice before. Short > convert > cover at a discount. The short is simply a hedge to lock in profit regardless of where the share price goes. Deerfield gets the money owed to them plus a premium for the trouble of converting.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Apr 20, 2017 6:17:05 GMT -5
"you can bet deerfield will dump" Liane: with due respect, I am very sure you are wrong on this. Why would Deerfield acquire at $1.15 and dump, knowing it will not get $1.15 if they do? Whatever was its plan, they choose to take a share rather than $1.15, so they must for whatever reason believed a share was better than $1.15. They were offered conversion at a discount. Looks like about 10% - 15%, but may have been higher depending on when the $1.15 price was struck. See my thread above as to the mechanics involved in locking in a guaranteed profit. Deerfield did exactly this twice before. Short > convert > cover at a discount. The short is simply a hedge to lock in profit regardless of where the share price goes. Deerfield gets the money owed to them plus a premium for the trouble of converting. This is the most likely scenario in my opinion. MNKD owed them debt and repaid in shares at a discount, diluting existing stockholders. Deerfield then turns around and covers their short (with discounted shares) and then sells the discounted shares, again making a profit. If Deerfield sells shares, it dashes my hopes that Deerfield will assume control of MNKD and fire the current management to bring in people that actually might be able to commercialize Afrezza, or at least sell it for an amount that would allow me to recoup more than 1% of my original investment. For those that bought during the dip yesterday, I wish you well but you should have waited. There will likely be several more chances to buy even lower. For me, I'm done giving MNKD any more of my money until they prove themselves to be capable of doing anything other than destroying their stockholders.
|
|
|
Post by promann on Apr 20, 2017 6:38:44 GMT -5
If Deerfield does sell we will know in a sec fileing because of the over 5% ownership rule. I think they want additional shares at these discounted prices to average down on there original investment and they will hold. Time will tell
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 20, 2017 8:00:40 GMT -5
This is the most likely scenario in my opinion. MNKD owed them debt and repaid in shares at a discount, diluting existing stockholders. Deerfield then turns around and covers their short (with discounted shares) and then sells the discounted shares, again making a profit. That is the way most of the deals with hedge funds work. They create a short position, buy discounted shares, and deliver the new shares to close out the short. So long as the investor has a bona fide economic risk, either in the same security or a different security issued by the same company, this is considered a hedge instead of a naked short. Deerfield might have been in discussions on how to handle the May payments for a month or two, and could have been short from just after the RS when the price was still north of $2. If so they might have covered their interest coupon for May and made 85 cents a share on the short play.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Apr 20, 2017 8:32:39 GMT -5
This is the most likely scenario in my opinion. MNKD owed them debt and repaid in shares at a discount, diluting existing stockholders. Deerfield then turns around and covers their short (with discounted shares) and then sells the discounted shares, again making a profit. That is the way most of the deals with hedge funds work. They create a short position, buy discounted shares, and deliver the new shares to close out the short. So long as the investor has a bona fide economic risk, either in the same security or a different security issued by the same company, this is considered a hedge instead of a naked short. Deerfield might have been in discussions on how to handle the May payments for a month or two, and could have been short from just after the RS when the price was still north of $2. If so they might have covered their interest coupon for May and made 85 cents a share on the short play. Can't fault Deerfield for hedging one bit. I only wish I could have been in the same situation to actually make some money out of MNKD's weakness instead of just going further underwater. I would have sold puts but I don't know enough about options to do that with any confidence. We've known all along that Deerfield will get their money out of MNKD one way or another. The covenant requiring MNKD to maintain millions in reserve to pay them back wasn't there for nothing. I appreciate your comments, Matt. You provide insight into the financial side of all this that most others can't. I just wish you had better news. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by lakon on Apr 20, 2017 9:22:33 GMT -5
This is the most likely scenario in my opinion. MNKD owed them debt and repaid in shares at a discount, diluting existing stockholders. Deerfield then turns around and covers their short (with discounted shares) and then sells the discounted shares, again making a profit. That is the way most of the deals with hedge funds work. They create a short position, buy discounted shares, and deliver the new shares to close out the short. So long as the investor has a bona fide economic risk, either in the same security or a different security issued by the same company, this is considered a hedge instead of a naked short. Deerfield might have been in discussions on how to handle the May payments for a month or two, and could have been short from just after the RS when the price was still north of $2. If so they might have covered their interest coupon for May and made 85 cents a share on the short play. Please, explain the reason for the 13G filing to disclose over 5% ownership and voting rights dated April 19th, 2017, by Deerfield. If they covered, they would not have ownership or voting rights unless it is a timing issue to maintain compliance for a very short period of time. In which case, they would need to file again to check the box in item 5 that they cease to be the beneficial owner of more than 5%. www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899460/000119380517000660/e616046_sc13g-mannkind.htm
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Apr 20, 2017 9:38:52 GMT -5
Given that they have already purchased their shares to cover, Deerfield can choose to wait and hold the shares with the short hedge without having to sell. They have eliminated their time risk.
Deerfield may feel that being a major shareholder can give them some advantage, but the short hedge can guarantee them that (Price shorted) - (Price covered) will always remain constant. They can choose to hold and exert influence and then cover when they wish to realize the profit.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Apr 20, 2017 9:48:43 GMT -5
That is the way most of the deals with hedge funds work. They create a short position, buy discounted shares, and deliver the new shares to close out the short. So long as the investor has a bona fide economic risk, either in the same security or a different security issued by the same company, this is considered a hedge instead of a naked short. Deerfield might have been in discussions on how to handle the May payments for a month or two, and could have been short from just after the RS when the price was still north of $2. If so they might have covered their interest coupon for May and made 85 cents a share on the short play. Please, explain the reason for the 13G filing to disclose over 5% ownership and voting rights dated April 19th, 2017, by Deerfield. If they covered, they would not have ownership or voting rights unless it is a timing issue to maintain compliance for a very short period of time. In which case, they would need to file again to check the box in item 5 that they cease to be the beneficial owner of more than 5%. www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899460/000119380517000660/e616046_sc13g-mannkind.htmSadly I am perhaps naïve and want to believe that Deerfield will become more of an activist investor. Perhaps buying even more shares and pushing the board to action to save the company by selling it. I have said for over 15 months that the company needed to put itself up for sale. I would want to think the board would do this before accepting a bankruptcy that might make future efforts to the drug impossible. The competition is brutal and will use that to make sure Doctor's will not prescribe Afrezza. Bankruptcy will wipe out the common shareholder. Why would Deerfield accept common shares? Sell the immediately our perhaps work for a hostile buy out or activist role in taking over MannKind. We need action now and not after we are dead.
At this time the only way to save the company is a sale of the company to a larger entity that is able to put the capital into monetizing Afrezza. Flynn hopefully will become an activist investor and push the board in the direction of finding a Partner for 50% or greater investment or a buyer of the company. They unfortunately with out a miracle happening probably wont survive. What a humbling and sad learning experience for all of us who believed that Afrezza was the holy grail of Diabetes treatment
Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7080/volume?page=25&scrollTo=103016#ixzz4enitrjGO
|
|
|
Post by lakon on Apr 20, 2017 9:57:06 GMT -5
Given that they have already purchased their shares to cover, Deerfield can choose to wait and hold the shares with the short hedge without having to sell buy. They have eliminated their time risk. Deerfield may feel that being a major shareholder can give them some advantage, but the short hedge can guarantee them that (Price shorted) - (Price covered) will always remain constant. They can choose to hold and exert influence and then cover when they wish to realize the profit. They would still need to pay interest on the loaned shares until they covered the position, assuming that they loaned the shares first, rather than naked shorting and using this deal to meet Reg SHO. Is that legal? I'd think only if they shorted and closed the deal before the short position settled so not much meat on the profit bone. Getting into the weeds here for someone else's assumptions, but curious, who's right? If they are paying interest on loaned shares, nothing remains constant...
|
|
|
Post by lakon on Apr 20, 2017 10:07:06 GMT -5
Please, explain the reason for the 13G filing to disclose over 5% ownership and voting rights dated April 19th, 2017, by Deerfield. If they covered, they would not have ownership or voting rights unless it is a timing issue to maintain compliance for a very short period of time. In which case, they would need to file again to check the box in item 5 that they cease to be the beneficial owner of more than 5%. www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899460/000119380517000660/e616046_sc13g-mannkind.htmSadly I am perhaps naïve and want to believe that Deerfield will become more of an activist investor. Perhaps buying even more shares and pushing the board to action to save the company by selling it. I have said for over 15 months that the company needed to put itself up for sale. I would want to think the board would do this before accepting a bankruptcy that might make future efforts to the drug impossible. The competition is brutal and will use that to make sure Doctor's will not prescribe Afrezza. Bankruptcy will wipe out the common shareholder. Why would Deerfield accept common shares? Sell the immediately our perhaps work for a hostile buy out or activist role in taking over MannKind. We need action now and not after we are dead.
At this time the only way to save the company is a sale of the company to a larger entity that is able to put the capital into monetizing Afrezza. Flynn hopefully will become an activist investor and push the board in the direction of finding a Partner for 50% or greater investment or a buyer of the company. They unfortunately with out a miracle happening probably wont survive. What a humbling and sad learning experience for all of us who believed that Afrezza was the holy grail of Diabetes treatment
Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7080/volume?page=25&scrollTo=103016#ixzz4enitrjGO
Selling won't guarantee commitment to the drug unless the price is high. It's too easy to walk away like SNY in a partnership. Who else knows better than about the product and possibilities than current MNKD staff? BK wipes out shareholders, but not necessarily Afrezza. That worries me a bit. On the other hand, a Shrek-like move for Deerfield would be to convert to equity. Then, do another debt deal refinance with MNKD to buy time for success. Watch the short squeeze unfold and profit handsomely. Deerfield can control the outcome, whether BK, buyout, short squeeze, or other. The Mann Group may be a factor in what level of activism might work...
|
|
|
Post by promann on Apr 20, 2017 10:13:31 GMT -5
All this talk of Deerfield shorting MNKD. Can Someone show me evidence that Deerfield is shorting MNKD. I don't get the talk of them shorting when they speak on thier website good things about MNKD and how they want to help them succeed.
|
|
|
Post by Cowgirl on Apr 20, 2017 10:24:58 GMT -5
The evidence that is readily available is the share price. The market is telling you that the Deerfield deal is not favorable to Mannkind shareholders. Period. Deerfield will most likely file at some point (30 days or more) that they no longer have a 5%+ position in Mannkind. Mannkind has very little options and is proving this day after day. And here we are at almost $1.00 again and going lower. "Position of strength". They should be embarrassed at the Shareholder meeting next month - but they'll continue to smile, say we have a plan and the meeting will close with Hakkan coming back to make an appearance begging for a buyer.
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Apr 20, 2017 10:27:36 GMT -5
Sadly I am perhaps naïve and want to believe that Deerfield will become more of an activist investor. Perhaps buying even more shares and pushing the board to action to save the company by selling it. I have said for over 15 months that the company needed to put itself up for sale. I would want to think the board would do this before accepting a bankruptcy that might make future efforts to the drug impossible. The competition is brutal and will use that to make sure Doctor's will not prescribe Afrezza. Bankruptcy will wipe out the common shareholder. Why would Deerfield accept common shares? Sell the immediately our perhaps work for a hostile buy out or activist role in taking over MannKind. We need action now and not after we are dead.
At this time the only way to save the company is a sale of the company to a larger entity that is able to put the capital into monetizing Afrezza. Flynn hopefully will become an activist investor and push the board in the direction of finding a Partner for 50% or greater investment or a buyer of the company. They unfortunately with out a miracle happening probably wont survive. What a humbling and sad learning experience for all of us who believed that Afrezza was the holy grail of Diabetes treatment
Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7080/volume?page=25&scrollTo=103016#ixzz4enitrjGO
Selling won't guarantee commitment to the drug unless the price is high. It's too easy to walk away like SNY in a partnership. Who else knows better than about the product and possibilities than current MNKD staff? BK wipes out shareholders, but not necessarily Afrezza. That worries me a bit. On the other hand, a Shrek-like move for Deerfield would be to convert to equity. Then, do another debt deal refinance with MNKD to buy time for success. Watch the short squeeze unfold and profit handsomely. Deerfield can control the outcome, whether BK, buyout, short squeeze, or other. The Mann Group may be a factor in what level of activism might work... Deerfield seems to have the power now. For better or worse. Rich or poorer.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 20, 2017 10:47:07 GMT -5
All this talk of Deerfield shorting MNKD. Can Someone show me evidence that Deerfield is shorting MNKD. I don't get the talk of them shorting when they speak on thier website good things about MNKD and how they want to help them succeed. If you understand how to construct synthetic securities, then it should be evident that the combination of a debt exposure plus some options is economically equivalent to being short the stock. If you are economically short it doesn't matter whether that short is synthetic or real because the payoffs are identical.
|
|