|
|
Post by peppy on Aug 17, 2017 9:37:52 GMT -5
I am convinced Mannkind will not be bankrupt by year end. I am also convinced there will be dilution to recapitalize. The tricky bit will be the size of recapitalization they can manage. Is anyone here predicting bankruptcy? You bet they were! Privately and publicly. I have a list. Matt from this board. His date was August 16th, yesterday. Was it the 16? heh
He is knowledgeable about shorted stocks, as well as debt.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 17, 2017 9:57:23 GMT -5
I am convinced Mannkind will not be bankrupt by year end. I am also convinced there will be dilution to recapitalize. The tricky bit will be the size of recapitalization they can manage. Is anyone here predicting bankruptcy? You bet they were! Privately and publicly. I have a list. No way that happens that I can see. At this point they can always sell stock. The only people who could force this in the near term is Deerfield and it's not in their interests to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 17, 2017 9:59:35 GMT -5
And those who pay for most of US medical care (insurance companies), do not at all like drug monopolies. You are confused. The "monopoly" is only apparent because they are the only ones with a non-invasive insulin therapy. It's not a REAL monopoly. Come on use some common sense. I do use common sense and when a company with a novel therapy like Afrezza tries to use the unique benefit (monopoly on the benefit) of the therapy to command high prices (remember many of the first generation RAA's will soon have generic versions), insurance/PBM will resist. In addition to the common sense, I have a group of close friends in healthcare business administration and finance... and they say this is the way it works. And we can amply see with our own eyes that insurance/PBMs are indeed resisting putting Afrezza on formulary and when they do are putting up barriers to it being prescribed. Common sense, expert opinion and matches empirical evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 17, 2017 10:07:33 GMT -5
Matt from this board. His date was August 16th, yesterday. Was it the 16? heh
He is knowledgeable about shorted stocks, as well as debt.
The reason I mentioned Aug 16 as a possible date is because that was the last date to file a timely 10-Q. I don't know much about shorted stock, that is not something I am knowledgeable about, but I do know a bit about the bankruptcy procedures having been an expert witness in more than one case. There are a ton of disclosures that a company must make when it files for either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11, and that process is facilitated when a company does so on the same date as when they file their 10-Q or 10-K. It gives the company a clean set of financial disclosures to work from, and because the public was just notified up the updated financial status, it is a way to head off shareholder lawsuits for failure to disclose material information. That said, there is nothing that requires filing on any particular date; only a requirement that the company meet certain legal definitions of bankrupt. In Delaware simply having a negative value for shareholder equity meets the definition, but that doesn't mean a company has to file for bankruptcy. There are lots of biotechs that have a hole in the equity section that recover nicely so meeting the legal definition is not the same as having to file. The other factor to keep in mind is that you cannot run the cash to zero and still have a Chapter 11 reorganization because there is a significant cost to Chapter 11 (unlike Chapter 7) so a decision to reorganize must be taken some months ahead of the real crunch time. Ultimately that is a judgment call the board has to make based on the deals that may, or may not, be in the pipeline, the financing promises that may, or may not, exist, market conditions for raising additional capital, and a host of other unknowable facts. That is why we have seen events like Dendreon declaring bankruptcy on the same day they filed their 3rd quarter 10Q even though they still had over $100 million in cash still on the balance sheet; that was a shocking event to most shareholders who did not see it coming. I have said, and will say I again, that Mike has until September 30 to have a workable financing plan executed. October is usually a bad time to raise capital in biotech and I suspect this year will be particularly brutal for the sector as a whole and not just for Mannkind. If the money can be lined up by the end of September, that is very much preferable to pushing the decision later in the year when conditions may turn negative. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 17, 2017 10:09:01 GMT -5
You are confused. The "monopoly" is only apparent because they are the only ones with a non-invasive insulin therapy. It's not a REAL monopoly. Come on use some common sense. I do use common sense and when a company with a novel therapy like Afrezza tries to use the unique benefit (monopoly on the benefit) of the therapy to command high prices (remember many of the first generation RAA's will soon have generic versions), insurance/PBM will resist. In addition to the common sense, I have a group of close friends in healthcare business administration and finance... and they say this is the way it works. And we can amply see with our own eyes that insurance/PBMs are indeed resisting putting Afrezza on formulary and when they do are putting up barriers to it being prescribed. Common sense, expert opinion and matches empirical evidence. The issue is that while Mango said, " MannKind has a monopoly in the inhaled insulin space and to be more precise, a monopoly in the entire space of non-invasive insulin therapy. " That only matters if the product has market share. I might have a monopoly on buggy whips, but the market for buggy whips is tiny so it's less a monopoly and more that nobody sees any point in being in that market. Right now the market doesn't differentiate between inhaled and injected insulin so having a monopoly on inhaled insulin is irrelevant. The insurers simply see insulin. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 17, 2017 10:19:57 GMT -5
I do use common sense and when a company with a novel therapy like Afrezza tries to use the unique benefit (monopoly on the benefit) of the therapy to command high prices (remember many of the first generation RAA's will soon have generic versions), insurance/PBM will resist. In addition to the common sense, I have a group of close friends in healthcare business administration and finance... and they say this is the way it works. And we can amply see with our own eyes that insurance/PBMs are indeed resisting putting Afrezza on formulary and when they do are putting up barriers to it being prescribed. Common sense, expert opinion and matches empirical evidence. The issue is that while Mango said, " MannKind has a monopoly in the inhaled insulin space and to be more precise, a monopoly in the entire space of non-invasive insulin therapy. " That only matters if the product has market share. I might have a monopoly on buggy whips, but the market for buggy whips is tiny so it's less a monopoly and more that nobody sees any point in being in that market. Right now the market doesn't differentiate between inhaled and injected insulin so having a monopoly on inhaled insulin is irrelevant. The insurers simply see insulin. Most of the time we're in agreement, but on this one I would actually say it isn't irrelevant. I suspect insurance/PBM are specifically resisting Afrezza because they are wanting to keep inhaled insulin niche. They recognize that patients may want the convenience of inhaled insulin if it is readily available, so it is in their financial interest to put up barriers to keep patients on subq. If they allow large numbers of patients to start using Afrezza, they've just lost any hope of switching them over to the new set of generic (biosimilar) RAAs coming out. Whether one wants to call it monopoly or not, I think the uniqueness of Afrezza has both a good and bad aspect. Bad in the short run as it will be resisted, but potentially good in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by straightly on Aug 17, 2017 11:31:44 GMT -5
All this stuff remember me of Pfeffer.....Probably u all have a short memory...... Am i the only one remembering Pfeffer during a CC: sorry, we´re late....because....uhm.....layers are telling me that i cannot disclose it yet, we still need some signature......And? Nothing happened.....he lies....... I still remember when during a CC Pfeffer said: ABSOLUTELY NO DILUITION.....Well, CC ended and a PR with diluition came out..... Probably i have a good memory.... Good memory indeed. I believe that is why Pfeffer is still employeed. Some/one of the deal is still the one Pfeffer was working on. If I remember with my not very accurate memory, another two pieces info also fit: 1. Mike said in cc that he was to have more sales data before he made decision for a more favorable terms. 2. Deerfield delayed their payments timing. So, the wait is almost over. The worst scenario is dilution. But if you believe MNKD is going to be a X bagger, dilutuion of 50% is going to make it X/2 bagger. In other words, MNKD is a buy now, even though you MIGHT get a better buying opportunity after the re-cap. I am holding mine, but keeping some powder just in case. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 17, 2017 11:45:25 GMT -5
All this stuff remember me of Pfeffer.....Probably u all have a short memory...... Am i the only one remembering Pfeffer during a CC: sorry, we´re late....because....uhm.....layers are telling me that i cannot disclose it yet, we still need some signature......And? Nothing happened.....he lies....... I still remember when during a CC Pfeffer said: ABSOLUTELY NO DILUITION.....Well, CC ended and a PR with diluition came out..... Probably i have a good memory.... Good memory indeed. I believe that is why Pfeffer is still employeed. Some/one of the deal is still the one Pfeffer was working on. If I remember with my not very accurate memory, another two pieces info also fit: 1. Mike said in cc that he was to have more sales data before he made decision for a more favorable terms. 2. Deerfield delayed their payments timing. So, the wait is almost over. The worst scenario is dilution. But if you believe MNKD is going to be a X bagger, dilutuion of 50% is going to make it X/2 bagger. In other words, MNKD is a buy now, even though you MIGHT get a better buying opportunity after the re-cap. I am holding mine, but keeping some powder just in case. Well, there are two possible scenarios that may be worse than dilution... 1) the dreaded B word and 2) as we approach running out of cash share price declines and then MNKD is acquired by a company at a share price lower than where we are today. I'm not saying that I believe either of these is likely, but they are possible outcomes. If I had to pick one outcome to bet on it would be funding with some dilution. However, even if that seems likely, events outside of MNKD's control could pop up and change the situation. Imagine some sort of "crisis" in the world that then causes financial markets to seize. I'm hopeful, but also lived long enough to be worried. Looking forward to when dark clouds are a thing of the past and only blue skies can be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Aug 17, 2017 13:25:01 GMT -5
All this stuff remember me of Pfeffer.....Probably u all have a short memory...... Am i the only one remembering Pfeffer during a CC: sorry, we´re late....because....uhm.....layers are telling me that i cannot disclose it yet, we still need some signature......And? Nothing happened.....he lies....... I still remember when during a CC Pfeffer said: ABSOLUTELY NO DILUITION.....Well, CC ended and a PR with diluition came out..... Probably i have a good memory.... Good memory indeed. I believe that is why Pfeffer is still employeed. Some/one of the deal is still the one Pfeffer was working on. If I remember with my not very accurate memory, another two pieces info also fit: 1. Mike said in cc that he was to have more sales data before he made decision for a more favorable terms. 2. Deerfield delayed their payments timing. So, the wait is almost over. The worst scenario is dilution. But if you believe MNKD is going to be a X bagger, dilutuion of 50% is going to make it X/2 bagger. In other words, MNKD is a buy now, even though you MIGHT get a better buying opportunity after the re-cap. I am holding mine, but keeping some powder just in case. Sales Data?...400-500 scripts? 421 was Sanofi's high. I'm thinking maybe favorable financing options when these numbers are hit? |
|
|
|
Post by casualinvestor on Aug 17, 2017 13:29:51 GMT -5
421 was Sanofi's NRx high. Their TRx high was 627 ($371,000)
Our current $/week is averaging just under $300k
|
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Aug 17, 2017 13:33:09 GMT -5
Good memory indeed. I believe that is why Pfeffer is still employeed. Some/one of the deal is still the one Pfeffer was working on. If I remember with my not very accurate memory, another two pieces info also fit: 1. Mike said in cc that he was to have more sales data before he made decision for a more favorable terms. 2. Deerfield delayed their payments timing. So, the wait is almost over. The worst scenario is dilution. But if you believe MNKD is going to be a X bagger, dilutuion of 50% is going to make it X/2 bagger. In other words, MNKD is a buy now, even though you MIGHT get a better buying opportunity after the re-cap. I am holding mine, but keeping some powder just in case. Well, there are two possible scenarios that may be worse than dilution... 1) the dreaded B word and 2) as we approach running out of cash share price declines and then MNKD is acquired by a company at a share price lower than where we are today. I'm not saying that I believe either of these is likely, but they are possible outcomes. If I had to pick one outcome to bet on it would be funding with some dilution. However, even if that seems likely, events outside of MNKD's control could pop up and change the situation. Imagine some sort of "crisis" in the world that then causes financial markets to seize. I'm hopeful, but also lived long enough to be worried. Looking forward to when dark clouds are a thing of the past and only blue skies can be seen. Agree, funding with some dilution most likely. BK unlikely, imo. The more favorable funding and less dilution needed, the higher pps we'll go. Better fda label and higher scripts are key to favorable funding?? |
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Aug 17, 2017 13:36:21 GMT -5
421 was Sanofi's NRx high. Their TRx high was 627 ($371,000) Our current $/week is averaging just under $300k okay, My bad. Maybe 421 close to sanofi $/week for mnkd now? |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 17, 2017 14:03:13 GMT -5
Good memory indeed. I believe that is why Pfeffer is still employeed. Some/one of the deal is still the one Pfeffer was working on. If I remember with my not very accurate memory, another two pieces info also fit: 1. Mike said in cc that he was to have more sales data before he made decision for a more favorable terms. 2. Deerfield delayed their payments timing. So, the wait is almost over. The worst scenario is dilution. But if you believe MNKD is going to be a X bagger, dilutuion of 50% is going to make it X/2 bagger. In other words, MNKD is a buy now, even though you MIGHT get a better buying opportunity after the re-cap. I am holding mine, but keeping some powder just in case. Sales Data?...400-500 scripts? 421 was Sanofi's high. I'm thinking maybe favorable financing options when these numbers are hit? And when WS reverses it's position? :-) 450 |
|
|
|
Post by zuegirdor on Aug 17, 2017 14:20:29 GMT -5
The issue is that while Mango said, " MannKind has a monopoly in the inhaled insulin space and to be more precise, a monopoly in the entire space of non-invasive insulin therapy. " That only matters if the product has market share. I might have a monopoly on buggy whips, but the market for buggy whips is tiny so it's less a monopoly and more that nobody sees any point in being in that market. Right now the market doesn't differentiate between inhaled and injected insulin so having a monopoly on inhaled insulin is irrelevant. The insurers simply see insulin. Most of the time we're in agreement, but on this one I would actually say it isn't irrelevant. I suspect insurance/PBM are specifically resisting Afrezza because they are wanting to keep inhaled insulin niche. They recognize that patients may want the convenience of inhaled insulin if it is readily available, so it is in their financial interest to put up barriers to keep patients on subq. If they allow large numbers of patients to start using Afrezza, they've just lost any hope of switching them over to the new set of generic (biosimilar) RAAs coming out. Whether one wants to call it monopoly or not, I think the uniqueness of Afrezza has both a good and bad aspect. Bad in the short run as it will be resisted, but potentially good in the long run. I have to wonder if (or why not)the other Big Pharmas are developing their own incipient/inhalable insulins. Afrezza is great but there is always room for improvement and an expansion of the niche. Yes it takes years for FDA approval (big disincentive for new developments even for Big Pharma?). After all, isn't that why they kept the price of insulin high all these years- to develop the next breakthrough? They just gonna let some upstart like Mannkind dominate with the only major development since GMO insulin? Could they already have the new and better incipient(technosphere replacement) or the solo dose inhalable candidate in the pipeline, ready to launch a trial in late 2018 without the usual fanfare? Are they trying to eliminate the niche or just derail Afrezza so folks don't get used to it? After all, we know here how hard it is to change a paradigm. And if they don't have something on deck or in the farm system (what about the GMO safflower/insulin-couldn't somebody also insert the DNA for a little inhalable incipient into that product? Grow it in your back yard. Just pick sniff and go)what is the excuse, or rationale. Seems the BP stockholders could be mad that they did not see this coming, even as Sanofi made its bid to partner on Afrezza. I don't know. Just seems wierd to gamble so much on scuttling Afrezza while they could be coming up with the next big advancement. I guess they are spending all their money on a REAL CURE? Yeah, that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 17, 2017 16:05:11 GMT -5
Most of the time we're in agreement, but on this one I would actually say it isn't irrelevant. I suspect insurance/PBM are specifically resisting Afrezza because they are wanting to keep inhaled insulin niche. They recognize that patients may want the convenience of inhaled insulin if it is readily available, so it is in their financial interest to put up barriers to keep patients on subq. If they allow large numbers of patients to start using Afrezza, they've just lost any hope of switching them over to the new set of generic (biosimilar) RAAs coming out. Whether one wants to call it monopoly or not, I think the uniqueness of Afrezza has both a good and bad aspect. Bad in the short run as it will be resisted, but potentially good in the long run. I have to wonder if (or why not)the other Big Pharmas are developing their own incipient/inhalable insulins. Afrezza is great but there is always room for improvement and an expansion of the niche. Yes it takes years for FDA approval (big disincentive for new developments even for Big Pharma?). After all, isn't that why they kept the price of insulin high all these years- to develop the next breakthrough? They just gonna let some upstart like Mannkind dominate with the only major development since GMO insulin? Could they already have the new and better incipient(technosphere replacement) or the solo dose inhalable candidate in the pipeline, ready to launch a trial in late 2018 without the usual fanfare? Are they trying to eliminate the niche or just derail Afrezza so folks don't get used to it? After all, we know here how hard it is to change a paradigm. And if they don't have something on deck or in the farm system (what about the GMO safflower/insulin-couldn't somebody also insert the DNA for a little inhalable incipient into that product? Grow it in your back yard. Just pick sniff and go)what is the excuse, or rationale. Seems the BP stockholders could be mad that they did not see this coming, even as Sanofi made its bid to partner on Afrezza. I don't know. Just seems wierd to gamble so much on scuttling Afrezza while they could be coming up with the next big advancement. I guess they are spending all their money on a REAL CURE? Yeah, that's it. All other inhalables in the pipeline of BP were killed with the failure of Exubera. There is one small company working on a pocket nebulizer insulin, but that is considerably larger device than Afrezza and unlikely to match the pk/pd profile, though it might come close. Still a ways off before it would come to market, if ever. Not everything can be produced with genetic engineering. DNA only directly codes for amino acid based molecules (peptides and proteins). Insulin is a peptide, hence its production through GMO. Any other types of molecules produced within the body have to come through some metabolic process. I would not think evolution has created a lot of metabolic processes to generate complex inert substances such as the TS carrier particle, and I wouldn't think artificially creating such metabolic functions through genetic engineering would be feasible. Though I suspect you were just kidding about growing inhalable insulin bearing plants. |
|
