Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on Jun 22, 2017 14:29:09 GMT -5
I received a response from Mike re: two letters I sent to him and the Board. He acknowledged the points I made in both letters and agreed they had merit. So now we just have to wait and see what happens re: the money situation. No one will disagree that additional monies are needed to sustain the sales momentum through 1st quarter of next year. The MannKind dedicated sales team launched in February of this year - right? They need at least 12 months so the question is how will MannKind obtain the needed cash? Will they choose to go for new debt or an equity offering? That's something I am not privy to, nor has Mike disclosed anything to me. But I've said this before and on this board - a rights offering to long term shareholders who've been in the stock at least 2 years would be a quick and a relatively painless raise. I'd rather buy the dilution than sit there and be met with it. So let's just say that if I were approached privately to purchase additional shares at a 30% discount and at a 2:1 ratio for every share I could prove I've held for a minimun of 2 years, I'd eat up those shares faster than a speeding bullet; I'd hold on to them more powerfully than a locomotive and I'd leap over any tall building to get my hands on those shares as I flew past the hedgies magic cape and all. Oh yes and I would smile broadly knowing that for once, MannKind offered something to me for my years of loyalty. Pipe dream? Perhaps. Worth considering? I sure hope so.
Achieving any type of sales traction with reasonable numbers is the best way to repay us, they have failed yet so far. Actually, I understand that sentiment. In my view, the deal with Sanofi was an unprecendented disaster for this company not to mention the CEO and medical team employed by Al Mann. There is the real failure. However, you are entitled to your views. Nevertheless, I personally have not given up on Afrezza. I would continue to support the company despite performance thus far only because I do not get the sense that what once was - continues. It does not. The team in place now is far better suited to commercializing Afrezza than those who haphazardly brought it to market with NO titration information. I just shake my head in disbelief but that was human error. The actual Technosphere platform and Afrezza works as it should. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Jun 22, 2017 15:15:48 GMT -5
Kinda curious.... I have read many posts from people here and elsewhere saying we are getting label approval soon. What makes you think that it will be approved? The FDA has never shown any favor to MNKD and they may not grant the approval. Or, is it 100% they will? Actually, the FDA will have to save face this time around and I would think they'd give MannKind's Afrezza a deserving label. In my view, ultra fast is NOT enough when it comes to Afrezza and so I've forwarded three emails to Mike (originally sent to Matt and then Ray) describing what additional terminology would be extremely useful in the label. I sure hope they consider what I had to say and though it isn't my place to tell them what to do, as an investor, I have a voice and if it's reasonable one, considering it would not be a crime. The FDA doesn't worry about saving "face" they are faceless bureaucrats. The best we can hope for is they're not hostile (like they were last time). I think even with the minimal sales of Afrezza, Afrezza has been demonstrated as generally safe...that should help. I'm not that big on a label change except with regards to titration (dosing). I'm more interested in getting the Pediatric study done. I still see no evidence of progress...
|
|
|
Post by kball on Jun 22, 2017 15:55:06 GMT -5
Tinkle...I'm flat out of money. But I love your posts and wish you good luck if it happens. ^ I probably shouldn't be allowed to do this. (Nevertheless he persisted)
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 22, 2017 18:29:12 GMT -5
But I've said this before and on this board - a rights offering to long term shareholders who've been in the stock at least 2 years would be a quick and a relatively painless raise. Mike can't do that. Legally, a shareholder is a shareholder regardless if they have held since the IPO or whether they picked up the shares this afternoon. Either the rights offering is for all or none. In any case, they need to authorize more shares to do a rights offering so there will be plenty of notice before it happens.
|
|
|
Post by sellhighdrinklow on Jun 22, 2017 20:12:26 GMT -5
Actually, the FDA will have to save face this time around and I would think they'd give MannKind's Afrezza a deserving label. In my view, ultra fast is NOT enough when it comes to Afrezza and so I've forwarded three emails to Mike (originally sent to Matt and then Ray) describing what additional terminology would be extremely useful in the label. I sure hope they consider what I had to say and though it isn't my place to tell them what to do, as an investor, I have a voice and if it's reasonable one, considering it would not be a crime. The FDA doesn't worry about saving "face" they are faceless bureaucrats. The best we can hope for is they're not hostile (like they were last time). I think even with the minimal sales of Afrezza, Afrezza has been demonstrated as generally safe...that should help. I'm not that big on a label change except with regards to titration (dosing). I'm more interested in getting the Pediatric study done. I still see no evidence of progress... Disagree. The label change is of HUGE importance and I believe it will happen,99%. The ultra fast label should have been done at the beginning but the FDA(?) protocol was ...what it was. Bottom line, you are putting patients at risk by not letting them know it works much faster than the Humalogs of the world. "At risk" for hypo episodes if comparing to the Humalogs. The label will change and the study being conducted now w re to A1C improvement is just around the corner. I base my comments on being a Type 1 for 39-years and an Afrezza user for 2 years and one month.
|
|
Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on Jun 22, 2017 20:24:46 GMT -5
OK Matt - point taken. All of the above and below could be moot because we don't know what is up Mike's sleeve but he knows my view full well and why I hold it as I do.
Another option would be a private placement right? I mean, that would be fine by me and if offered, I would participate in it because I qualify according to SEC rules. But do you think the company would reach out to individuals like myself for such? Wouldn't even even cross their minds. That's another gripe I have with this company. Total ignorance of individuals outside the 1% who qualify for private placement. Their loss, not mine.
In the end and in my view taking on more debt with additional interest payments next year, then 2019, 2020 is not a good strategy at this point in time.
Deerfield is about to get how many millions of options to buy shares at what price in exchange for interest owed? Too many millions as far as I'm concerned.
So, which of the following makes the most sense in June 2017?
Let's assume they need 36M to last them through 1st Q of 2018. Assume their monthly nut is reduced to 6.5 million following July 31st (major Exec salaries end and additional cuts to clinical staff). Should they take on more debt and give Deerfield more options to buy cheap shares, OR, pay the 10M, and dilute through a rights offering? Huh?
And if a rights offering is something they decide might be worth pursuing rather than more debt, according to you, Goldman Sachs could suck every one of those discounted shares in a nano second. Where is the value for a long term investor like me in that kind of action? There is none.
There is no law that states how a rights offering needs to be rolled out. None. There is no law that states that a rights offering cannot be conducted in 2 phases. First to individual investors and then to institutional investors. Yes you do have to offer to both groups but not at the same time. That I don't believe is stated anywhere but if it is, please send me to the regulation or law so I can have a piece of crow pie I keep in the refrigerator whenever I need a slice.
In my view, pay the 10M, set up a rights offering and stop the debt game now. Sends a strong message that the time for groveling has ended.
And it's about time too.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 22, 2017 21:16:05 GMT -5
There is no law that states how a rights offering needs to be rolled out. None. There is no law that states that a rights offering cannot be conducted in 2 phases. First to individual investors and then to institutional investors. Yes you do have to offer to both groups but not at the same time. That I don't believe is stated anywhere but if it is, please send me to the regulation or law so I can have a piece of crow pie I keep in the refrigerator whenever I need a slice. So according to what you said, they could do a rights offering now for private investors and promise to do one for institutional investors 20 years later?
|
|
Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on Jun 23, 2017 9:23:37 GMT -5
Is that what you think I said? No.
A rights offering for private investors first and during a very specific time (30 days) followed immediately by the same offering to institutional investment houses for 30 days. In my view, there would not be any shares left for large institutional investors. Do you think all private investors currently holding MannKind given today's scripts couldn't raise a mere 36M? I don't think so. These shares would be gobbled up by many LT investors who've had zero chance to recover from paying large money to see Afrezza approved. Is that clearer?
|
|
|
Post by me on Jun 23, 2017 9:54:10 GMT -5
Tinkerbell, I think you are misunderstanding what a rights offering is. As matt said, you can't bifurcate a single shareholder class when making an offer. Secondly, in a rights offering, GS would NOT be able to scoop up all the shares...if you wanted your allocation and could afford it, it's yours.
|
|
|
Post by factspls88 on Jun 23, 2017 10:16:10 GMT -5
OK Matt - point taken. All of the above and below could be moot because we don't know what is up Mike's sleeve but he knows my view full well and why I hold it as I do. Another option would be a private placement right? I mean, that would be fine by me and if offered, I would participate in it because I qualify according to SEC rules. But do you think the company would reach out to individuals like myself for such? Wouldn't even even cross their minds. That's another gripe I have with this company. Total ignorance of individuals outside the 1% who qualify for private placement. Their loss, not mine. In the end and in my view taking on more debt with additional interest payments next year, then 2019, 2020 is not a good strategy at this point in time. Deerfield is about to get how many millions of options to buy shares at what price in exchange for interest owed? Too many millions as far as I'm concerned. So, which of the following makes the most sense in June 2017? Let's assume they need 36M to last them through 1st Q of 2018. Assume their monthly nut is reduced to 6.5 million following July 31st (major Exec salaries end and additional cuts to clinical staff). Should they take on more debt and give Deerfield more options to buy cheap shares, OR, pay the 10M, and dilute through a rights offering? Huh? And if a rights offering is something they decide might be worth pursuing rather than more debt, according to you, Goldman Sachs could suck every one of those discounted shares in a nano second. Where is the value for a long term investor like me in that kind of action? There is none. There is no law that states how a rights offering needs to be rolled out. None. There is no law that states that a rights offering cannot be conducted in 2 phases. First to individual investors and then to institutional investors. Yes you do have to offer to both groups but not at the same time. That I don't believe is stated anywhere but if it is, please send me to the regulation or law so I can have a piece of crow pie I keep in the refrigerator whenever I need a slice. In my view, pay the 10M, set up a rights offering and stop the debt game now. Sends a strong message that the time for groveling has ended. And it's about time too. Hi Tinkerbell. Curious as to what your background is. Were/are you in finance or investment banking?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 23, 2017 10:53:39 GMT -5
In my view, pay the 10M, set up a rights offering and stop the debt game now. That is an opinion I cannot argue with. Just remember that to do a right offering to the shareholder base it will require a special meeting to authorize more shares, and that is what they should get moving on immediately since moving at warp speed it takes a minimum of 21 days to pull it off. Most companies need 4-6 weeks to pull it off start to finish. You said that you can invest in a private placement, presumably because you meet the definition of accredited investor. The problem with offering private placements to many people is that the SEC will deem that a "general solicitation" which is prohibited without a registration statement. A rights offering is also a general solicitation, but since the shares are registered and the offering is publicly filed that does not create a problem. You can even make the rights tradable so that if shareholders don't have the money to buy more shares, they can at least get some value by selling their rights in the market. Most PIPE transactions are done for speed and not for an exemption from registration. You need not be an accredited investor, but you do need to be able to take a huge chunk of the deal, like half or a third of the entire amount. Essentially companies are using the first purchaser in a PIPE to act as a distribution agent for the shares, something the company itself cannot do because they cannot be an underwriter of their own securities. Likewise I agree that more debt is not the answer. The balance sheet if overleveraged as it is, and I don't think Deerfield can take on more Mannkind debt because they will have problems with their investor covenants (which usually limit exposures based on percentage of fund assets or the security offered). So, absent somebody showing up with a bag of cash, an equity raise is the only logical way to go but that requires the share authorization I described whether it is a rights offering followed by a PIPE, or whether it is a straight offering. It is time to get the proxy out the door and start the process.
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Jun 23, 2017 14:22:55 GMT -5
Is that what you think I said? No. A rights offering for private investors first and during a very specific time (30 days) followed immediately by the same offering to institutional investment houses for 30 days. In my view, there would not be any shares left for large institutional investors. Do you think all private investors currently holding MannKind given today's scripts couldn't raise a mere 36M? I don't think so. These shares would be gobbled up by many LT investors who've had zero chance to recover from paying large money to see Afrezza approved. Is that clearer? you're talking about two separate private placements. Private placements allow the company to pick sub-groups of shareholders to solicit. In rights offerings, all owners (institutional or not) of a class of equity have the right to participate.
|
|
Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on Jun 24, 2017 10:12:38 GMT -5
In my view, pay the 10M, set up a rights offering and stop the debt game now. That is an opinion I cannot argue with. Just remember that to do a right offering to the shareholder base it will require a special meeting to authorize more shares, and that is what they should get moving on immediately since moving at warp speed it takes a minimum of 21 days to pull it off. Most companies need 4-6 weeks to pull it off start to finish. You said that you can invest in a private placement, presumably because you meet the definition of accredited investor. The problem with offering private placements to many people is that the SEC will deem that a "general solicitation" which is prohibited without a registration statement. A rights offering is also a general solicitation, but since the shares are registered and the offering is publicly filed that does not create a problem. You can even make the rights tradable so that if shareholders don't have the money to buy more shares, they can at least get some value by selling their rights in the market. Most PIPE transactions are done for speed and not for an exemption from registration. You need not be an accredited investor, but you do need to be able to take a huge chunk of the deal, like half or a third of the entire amount. Essentially companies are using the first purchaser in a PIPE to act as a distribution agent for the shares, something the company itself cannot do because they cannot be an underwriter of their own securities. Likewise I agree that more debt is not the answer. The balance sheet if overleveraged as it is, and I don't think Deerfield can take on more Mannkind debt because they will have problems with their investor covenants (which usually limit exposures based on percentage of fund assets or the security offered). So, absent somebody showing up with a bag of cash, an equity raise is the only logical way to go but that requires the share authorization I described whether it is a rights offering followed by a PIPE, or whether it is a straight offering. It is time to get the proxy out the door and start the process. Glad we agree that debt is not the answer - it's been a total drag on the company for years now. They need to get the proxy out the door asap and yes - I'd like the chance to buy additional shares at a discount for a change AND, no - I don't want to be notified by yellow freaking cards in the mail
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jun 24, 2017 11:43:39 GMT -5
Relax. We just had the most kickass Annual Shareholders Meeting, and Afrezza prescriptions are rising. Mike is CEO now, executing on the vision—he brought some great like-minded folks into the Big Picture. Head and heart in the game. Lots to look forward to. Lots of people just talking literally nonsense in this thread.
|
|
Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on Jun 24, 2017 11:47:04 GMT -5
OK Matt - point taken. All of the above and below could be moot because we don't know what is up Mike's sleeve but he knows my view full well and why I hold it as I do. Another option would be a private placement right? I mean, that would be fine by me and if offered, I would participate in it because I qualify according to SEC rules. But do you think the company would reach out to individuals like myself for such? Wouldn't even even cross their minds. That's another gripe I have with this company. Total ignorance of individuals outside the 1% who qualify for private placement. Their loss, not mine. In the end and in my view taking on more debt with additional interest payments next year, then 2019, 2020 is not a good strategy at this point in time. Deerfield is about to get how many millions of options to buy shares at what price in exchange for interest owed? Too many millions as far as I'm concerned. So, which of the following makes the most sense in June 2017? Let's assume they need 36M to last them through 1st Q of 2018. Assume their monthly nut is reduced to 6.5 million following July 31st (major Exec salaries end and additional cuts to clinical staff). Should they take on more debt and give Deerfield more options to buy cheap shares, OR, pay the 10M, and dilute through a rights offering? Huh? And if a rights offering is something they decide might be worth pursuing rather than more debt, according to you, Goldman Sachs could suck every one of those discounted shares in a nano second. Where is the value for a long term investor like me in that kind of action? There is none. There is no law that states how a rights offering needs to be rolled out. None. There is no law that states that a rights offering cannot be conducted in 2 phases. First to individual investors and then to institutional investors. Yes you do have to offer to both groups but not at the same time. That I don't believe is stated anywhere but if it is, please send me to the regulation or law so I can have a piece of crow pie I keep in the refrigerator whenever I need a slice. In my view, pay the 10M, set up a rights offering and stop the debt game now. Sends a strong message that the time for groveling has ended. And it's about time too. Hi Tinkerbell. Curious as to what your background is. Were/are you in finance or investment banking?I've been investing long in the stock market since 1984. Self taught on finance, stock markets and the importance of time as an important factor in any long term investment decision. My career before I retired? Healthcare including pharma and biotech R&D. Seen a lot in that time. That's all really.
|
|