Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 6:37:01 GMT -5
As most posters know, the cash situation is getting critical and it seems Wall Street is convinced MannKind will be either bankrupt or shareholders extremely diluted. That should have be known to Castagna before contacting MannKind and definitely known before becoming CEO.
My question: Would Castagna have taken the CEO position if either of those two scenarios was inevitable?
|
|
|
Post by promann on Jun 21, 2017 6:50:23 GMT -5
I hope NOT!
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 21, 2017 6:52:27 GMT -5
As most posters know, the cash situation is getting critical and it seems Wall Street is convinced MannKind will be either bankrupt or shareholders extremely diluted. That should have be known to Castagna before contacting MannKind and definitely known before becoming CEO. My question: Would Castagna have taken the CEO position if either of those two scenarios was inevitable? kind of sounds to me like a, "pep rally" or facebook statement. Stir the pot, aye?
to what ends?
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jun 21, 2017 7:41:46 GMT -5
Definitely not if bankruptcy was even a remote consideration. With regard to the possibility of dilution, maybe, considering Mike C was already an executive with MNKD, had actually purchased stock and had stock incentives. If he believed he could turn this around even with some dilution, I think he would have taken the role with his passionate belief he could turn it around. I remain in the camp that believes the recent positive announcements in May will precede bigger news coming that has been known by management but not by the public. IMHO it will not require significant dilution. It may require limited dilution as part of a package plan with another company or investor such as Deerfield.
|
|
|
Post by kbrion77 on Jun 21, 2017 7:44:00 GMT -5
As most posters know, the cash situation is getting critical and it seems Wall Street is convinced MannKind will be either bankrupt or shareholders extremely diluted. That should have be known to Castagna before contacting MannKind and definitely known before becoming CEO. My question: Would Castagna have taken the CEO position if either of those two scenarios was inevitable? Absolutely nobody knows the answer. It's a CEO position and if he turns it around he could probably obtain any job after this so why not take the gamble? My question is how many times has Wall Street been wrong about MNKD? There is no fear from them which unfortunately you have to ask why. At least we will finally see the direction the company is going to take in the next month or so.
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Jun 21, 2017 7:49:07 GMT -5
Wall Street was wrong about mannkind? The price hit their price target.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 21, 2017 7:49:44 GMT -5
My question: Would Castagna have taken the CEO position if either of those two scenarios was inevitable? Why not? The company was already saddled with a difficult balance sheet when Mike stepped in, so if the company fails financially that does not reflect poorly on the guy who just took the job. On the other hand, if Mike manages to turn things around then he can take the credit for what will be a major victory and his options will be worth a lot of money. The other reason to take the job is because CEO jobs at public companies churn constantly with the average CEO remaining in the job just four years. Headhunters are always looking for replacement CEOs and people to sit on boards of directors. The problem is that it is nearly impossible to land a job as CEO or to join many boards unless you have prior experience as a public company CEO. Mike just checked the "public company CEO" box on all future job searches, and he will probably never have a normal sales job again. That is worth a lot whether he fully realizes it or not.
|
|
|
Post by kbrion77 on Jun 21, 2017 7:52:35 GMT -5
Wall Street was wrong about mannkind? The price hit their price target. It was a sarcastic question with I'm hoping everyone would agree the answer has been 0.
|
|
|
Post by deaner3 on Jun 21, 2017 8:06:24 GMT -5
As most posters know, the cash situation is getting critical and it seems Wall Street is convinced MannKind will be either bankrupt or shareholders extremely diluted. That should have be known to Castagna before contacting MannKind and definitely known before becoming CEO. My question: Would Castagna have taken the CEO position if either of those two scenarios was inevitable? Good question. Logic would indicate he wouldn't take the job unless he felt confident about having the solution. But bigger then that to me. The sign to me. Is how many key employees Mike was able to convince to join the team. People leaving good secure jobs at Bristol Myers and Amgen for 15 + years to join us in past year. They wouldn't give up the jobs they worked the themselves up those companies ladders without being extremely confident in the plan presented to them. It's a big deal to uproot all you've worked for to switch. It is the true tell tale sign to me that the company knows what's happening. They have the "crystal ball" Mike mentioned and feel confident that crystal ball is worth switching careers over. I've never been more bullish
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 8:24:04 GMT -5
Wall Street was wrong about mannkind? The price hit their price target. Wall Street was wrong regarding approval, partnership and Sanofi settlement.
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Jun 21, 2017 9:42:47 GMT -5
Wall Street was wrong about mannkind? The price hit their price target. Wall Street was wrong regarding approval, partnership and Sanofi settlement. Wall Street is not seeking alpha nor the fudsters on stock twits. Wall Street is the analyst with price target 15 cents pre split.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 10:01:17 GMT -5
Wall Street was wrong regarding approval, partnership and Sanofi settlement. Wall Street is not seeking alpha nor the fudsters on stock twits. Wall Street is the analyst with price target 15 cents pre split. They were right on that one. So I guess 1 out of 4 is good?
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Jun 21, 2017 10:06:47 GMT -5
@kastanes represents himself honestly on FB, Twitter and LinkedIn, as a working guy who is a fan of Afrezza.
I don't agree with some of the stuff he says (vive la difference), but:
1. He is honorable 2. He isn't a liar or poseur
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Jun 21, 2017 10:07:41 GMT -5
Wall Street is not seeking alpha nor the fudsters on stock twits. Wall Street is the analyst with price target 15 cents pre split. They were right on that one. So I guess 1 out of 4 is good? They were right on the only one they have control over, hehe
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 21, 2017 10:18:01 GMT -5
As most posters know, the cash situation is getting critical and it seems Wall Street is convinced MannKind will be either bankrupt or shareholders extremely diluted. That should have be known to Castagna before contacting MannKind and definitely known before becoming CEO. My question: Would Castagna have taken the CEO position if either of those two scenarios was inevitable? Suppose one or the other WAS inevitable. What should Castagna do / have done then? Should he be a quitter, and just walk away? What a class act that would be (sarcasm). ("Buh-bye losers, see you, wouldn't want to be you!") Should he stick around, and try to delay the inevitable? That might at least be noble. Keep Afrezza on the market as long as possible. Look after the loyal employees. And being CEO (even in a failing company he inherited leadership in) is still a positive for him going forward. And obviously SOMEONE was going to be CEO, so why not Castagna?
|
|