Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 10:15:32 GMT -5
With a debt payment required to Dearfield and Amphastar later this year it appears likely MannKind will dilute upon news of the label change. It seems reasonable that the amount of dilution will depend upon the label change specifics.
|
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on Sept 2, 2017 10:19:32 GMT -5
With a debt payment required to Dearfield and Amphastar later this year it appears likely MannKind will dilute upon news of the label change. It seems reasonable that the amount of dilution will depend upon the label change specifics. You are assuming that a label change is going to be granted. What if it isn't? I'm a pessimist when it comes to the FDA. I don't trust them to do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Sept 2, 2017 10:45:19 GMT -5
With a debt payment required to Dearfield and Amphastar later this year it appears likely MannKind will dilute upon news of the label change. It seems reasonable that the amount of dilution will depend upon the label change specifics. You are assuming that a label change is going to be granted. What if it isn't? I'm a pessimist when it comes to the FDA. I don't trust them to do the right thing. I think the label change will happen, the question is what the label change is. I think the only change that will deliver a long term improvement will be the lower hypo claim and I think that is achievable. |
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Sept 2, 2017 12:38:01 GMT -5
You are assuming that a label change is going to be granted. What if it isn't? I'm a pessimist when it comes to the FDA. I don't trust them to do the right thing. I think the label change will happen, the question is what the label change is. I think the only change that will deliver a long term improvement will be the lower hypo claim and I think that is achievable. I don't know how much you guys keep track of the options but they've been on fire the last couple of weeks. I've been holding a bull call spread between $1, $2, $2.50, $3, and $5 2019 calls.* These I accumulated over the past 6 months, turning $10,000 into $4,000 along the way. I only point this out to assure you I follow the options VERY closely. All of a sudden, in two weeks time, I've made back my losses and find myself up $8,000. This is because of both the leverage of the options but also the options market has seen huge positions taken lately. Every day they've been accumulating like clockwork. Outstanding interest in everything has been going up. This could be because of a routine cyclical maneuver by the short institutions for hedging purposes, I don't know. They haven't just been the weekly or 30 and 60 day options either. The Greeks on the options now have some Theta and the Deltas are climbing where they have been pretty sluggish for 6 months. Smashing throug the 50/100 AND the 200 day moving average before this pullback on Friday was not luck. My experience tells me all this is a very good sign, to see accumulation with volume like this. It tells me I'm not alone anymore. We're not alone anymore. Even Adam Feurstein admits if a company is above a $300 Million MC, It's likely they will get approved. Let's hope for that as our next leg. Remember how many legs in an Elliot wave? *Use ONLY mad money with options people. I was completely out of Mannkind since Feb. 2016 to buy a house and I was desperate to get a position preserved before the turnaround. |
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Sept 2, 2017 12:41:14 GMT -5
I think dilution is somewhat inevitable. If the dilution follows an event that increases share price, such as label change or some minor cash infusion (international expansion or technosphere deal), that is probably the best we can hope for.
|
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Sept 2, 2017 13:24:08 GMT -5
I think dilution is somewhat inevitable. If the dilution follows an event that increases share price, such as label change or some minor cash infusion (international expansion or technosphere deal), that is probably the best we can hope for. The good news is, I think the market has finally factored it in. Management is going to do it slowly, with the least amount of dilution possible. All they have to do now is continue executing the plan. We finally are in a position to provide guidance for the portfolio managers on WS. Meet the targets, show QOQ and YOY growth that gets anywhere close to handling the debt responsibilities and the long term investors will be back. The insulin market is too large to ignore even a small, soon-to-be profitable niche company in the space that has a platform and a pipeline. JMHO, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Sept 2, 2017 13:40:43 GMT -5
I keep hearing the worries about dilution and I honestly don't get it.... The conversation SHOULD be about market cap, why it is where it is, where it's going and for what reason. What should the market cap be for a bio tech with an FDA approved drug in a massive market like diabetes, AND a "potentially" limitless pipeline using a completely unique delivery system?  ?? If the above were true, then $200mil is absolutely absurd! But right now $200mil is the value because the above has been, so far, proven a failure.... If, when, however, that idea is turned around, and Afrezza gains respect showing a path to survival and success,,, then that justifies the the delivery system and a potential pipeline of other drugs....... NOW put a value on the company! We're on our way to a market cap of $2+bil or ZERO within a year, imo.... so either way it doesn't really matter to me how many shares we divide by. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Sept 2, 2017 14:32:53 GMT -5
If there is dilution or not is a non issue IMO at this point in the game. Could very well be factored in already. Beware of the people talking about it as they buy up shares. ( I don't mean anyone on this thread. You don't ever hear me talking about it.)
Yes, the options are on fire! They tell the story:-))
|
|
|
|
Post by victoria on Sept 2, 2017 15:26:00 GMT -5
I suspect there will be dilution, and I agree with Kastanes that the size will depend on the label change if granted. I dont want dilution even though I expect it, because of my option position which is an increasingly less "L" LEAP one. I would be more relaxed if I was in equities only, but dilution can be distinctly terminal for options nearing expiry...
(I suspect that dilution will depend on the share price response to the label change in fact rather than strictly the label change as such but that we may have dilution even if the label does not change).
Options: Sadly the very wise suggestion that one should use only mad money in options rather proves that I am 100% mad. My options have responded somewhat positively but not anywhere near either leaving me in the money on $1 2018 or 2019 calls (pre split prices, ie now $5), let alone recouping my losses from start of my MNKD journey years ago. I was down to 3 figures at one point from an initial 6 figure investment at the start (five figures in options).
I am surprised there was no PR after the price action this week but perhaps if this is somehow linked to something material there will be a premarket PR next week.
I am positive about the script revenue figures, in my view the bottom line $ figure monthly from scripts is more important than scripts directly overall (and the weekly statistic is noise-filled, so I prefer monthly), but on either basis the graph is a good one.
Still here and still long.
PS my continuing thanks to Peppy for her volume and price commentary and to Liane and others on the scripts thread. Both are essential reading!
|
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Sept 2, 2017 19:29:12 GMT -5
I suspect there will be dilution, and I agree with Kastanes that the size will depend on the label change if granted. I dont want dilution even though I expect it, because of my option position which is an increasingly less "L" LEAP one. I would be more relaxed if I was in equities only, but dilution can be distinctly terminal for options nearing expiry... (I suspect that dilution will depend on the share price response to the label change in fact rather than strictly the label change as such but that we may have dilution even if the label does not change). Options: Sadly the very wise suggestion that one should use only mad money in options rather proves that I am 100% mad. My options have responded somewhat positively but not anywhere near either leaving me in the money on $1 2018 or 2019 calls (pre split prices, ie now $5), let alone recouping my losses from start of my MNKD journey years ago. I was down to 3 figures at one point from an initial 6 figure investment at the start (five figures in options). I am surprised there was no PR after the price action this week but perhaps if this is somehow linked to something material there will be a premarket PR next week. I am positive about the script revenue figures, in my view the bottom line $ figure monthly from scripts is more important than scripts directly overall (and the weekly statistic is noise-filled, so I prefer monthly), but on either basis the graph is a good one. Still here and still long. PS my continuing thanks to Peppy for her volume and price commentary and to Liane and others on the scripts thread. Both are essential reading! Not sure which options you're in, or what your entry point is, but you could sell after a run and before the dilution, just gotta time it right. I don't have a price target to sell my shares cuz I think if MNKD survives, then the sky is the limit....... I did take a chance a month or so ago, because I saw Sept being a month of events, and I built a position of cheap $2 calls for Sept, Oct, & Nov.... I'm hoping we hit close to $3 in the next couple weeks and I'll happily exit before dilution. As for MNKD options in general,,, I'm with you, I've been burnt a ton over the past couple years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 9:26:04 GMT -5
Does anyone know what is the "standard" by which analogs are given their designations?
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Sept 3, 2017 9:52:58 GMT -5
Does anyone know what is the "standard" by which analogs are given acting designations? On the assumption you are talking about the adjective rather than the action (long acting is once or twice a day, fast acting is as required) then it varies from country to country. You can find Novolog described as fast acting and rapid acting all in one paragraph. Nobody really cares about the classification, they care about the trial data. This is why I don't care about the label classification (fast/rapid/ultra-rapid/superdooper-rapid, etc.), but I do care about the hypo claim. The hypo claim is a benefit, the delivery speed is a feature. |
|
|
|
Post by lennymnkd on Sept 3, 2017 11:43:52 GMT -5
Does anyone know what is the "standard" by which analogs are given acting designations? On the assumption you are talking about the adjective rather than the action (long acting is once or twice a day, fast acting is as required) then it varies from country to country. You can find Novolog described as fast acting and rapid acting all in one paragraph. Nobody really cares about the classification, they care about the trial data. This is why I don't care about the label classification (fast/rapid/ultra-rapid/superdooper-rapid, etc.), but I do care about the hypo claim. The hypo claim is a benefit, the delivery speed is a feature. I'll be greedy and take both ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 11:48:10 GMT -5
Both would be nice, however, I believe only "ultra-rapid" would put Afrezza in a separate category.
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Sept 3, 2017 13:57:51 GMT -5
Does anyone know what is the "standard" by which analogs are given acting designations? On the assumption you are talking about the adjective rather than the action (long acting is once or twice a day, fast acting is as required) then it varies from country to country. You can find Novolog described as fast acting and rapid acting all in one paragraph. Nobody really cares about the classification, they care about the trial data. This is why I don't care about the label classification (fast/rapid/ultra-rapid/superdooper-rapid, etc.), but I do care about the hypo claim. The hypo claim is a benefit, the delivery speed is a feature. The "delivery speed" is much more than a feature. If it were not for Afrezza's unique, ultra rapid pharmacokinetics, risk of hypos would not be equivalent to that of a healthy pancreas in a non-diabetic. Afrezza's pharmacokinetics beautifully syncs the insulin with the postprandial blood glucose rise, resulting in homeostasis. Afrezza restores and maintains glucose homeostasis. The delivery speed provides the foundation for this to happen. It's important. For these reasons, Afrezza is able to cause no more hypo events than that of a healthy pancreas in a non-diabetic. Speed is just part of the equation. Factors such as formulation stability, purity, additives, carriers, and so on make up what the insulin is, and if you have a crappy formulation, well you will get crappy results. The stability that MannKind achieved with the insulin monomer is revolutionary. Revolutionary. Afrezza does not carry the same risks of degrading like that of injectable drugs. MannKind has already proven the following in a phase 3, 24-week open-label trial: 1) Afrezza was significantly more effective in maintaining control of post-prandial glucose excursions. 2) Afrezza use resulted in mean weight loss. No weight gain was ever seen in participants that used Afrezza. 3) Afrezza (when used alone) showed zero severe hypoglycemic events. 4) Change from (HbA1c) baseline was numerically superior to the standard regimen of metformin + secretagogues. 5) This trial data illustrated the potential of Afrezza as a Monotherapy for patients with T2D. Afrezza demonstrated superior postprandial glycemic control, caused no weight gain, and was (is) able to restore and maintain glucose homeostasis. Afrezza Monopack |
|
??
