|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 26, 2017 19:25:53 GMT -5
lakers ... Mike gave some crayons to one of his kids? Without some progress it doesn't much matter what might be making Mike identify something as a "target". That term means nothing. It would almost be more meaningful to ask about the countries that seem to be removed from the target list. Why is EU off the target list? Do you have any speculation on that? Since we have no positive news about the ones still targeted (other than Brazil), what is the criteria for removing a region/country as a target? Why do you say no progress? There is a big difference between announcing a deal which may be in final negotiation and no progress. Lets see what the label says. MNKD knows what they asked for and probably have a pretty good idea of what it should be. I don't think we will be waiting much longer. The post was about the map... not label change. The label change we actually know they have done something concrete... and hopefully their stated confidence in a decision this week will not be dashed by the FDA as has previously happened. At least with me it lends zero credibility to show a map if they can't give any indication of what it means and within what sort of time frame. Better to have not shown it. Seems like smoke and mirrors. If they've concluded partnership deals for even half those countries within the next couple of months I will print this post out on paper and eat it. Might even print the map as dessert. But nothing said or presented makes me worried in the slightest about needing to figure out what wine pairs well with coated ink jet paper.
|
|
|
Post by brewguy on Sept 26, 2017 20:00:42 GMT -5
IMO we are giving way too much credit to Mike C. He is a first time CEO that moved from a previous position as CCO where he did not deliver on nearly every promise he made. He then goes on to blame his sales team for his short comings. He seems great at appeasing investors with big talk but fails to deliver. So what has changed that so much trust is put into him? I understand he may be MNKD's last hope but we need to be much more critical of him.
We will find out very shortly if his inexperience is detrimental to MNKD. It is critical how Mike handles this insolvency issue and if he's not careful, he could very well cause MNKD to default on their loans. Look at GTAT for a great example of this. IMO he seems to be just kicking the can down the road as long as possible. I don't think he has great solution to the money worries. IMO he's just waiting for the label change to hopefully mitigate damage done with the dilution notice.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 26, 2017 20:25:05 GMT -5
IMO we are giving way too much credit to Mike C. He is a first time CEO that moved from a previous position as CCO where he did not deliver on nearly every promise he made. He then goes on to blame his sales team for his short comings. He seems great at appeasing investors with big talk but fails to deliver. So what has changed that so much trust is put into him? I understand he may be MNKD's last hope but we need to be much more critical of him. We will find out very shortly if his inexperience is detrimental to MNKD. It is critical how Mike handles this insolvency issue and if he's not careful, he could very well cause MNKD to default on their loans. Look at GTAT for a great example of this. IMO he seems to be just kicking the can down the road as long as possible. I don't think he has great solution to the money worries. IMO he's just waiting for the label change to hopefully mitigate damage done with the dilution notice. Which promises are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by brewguy on Sept 26, 2017 20:31:11 GMT -5
dreamboatcruise: His promises to solve rx issues. I.e. Better issurance coverage, higher sales, increased sales after Medicare issue resolved. Just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Sept 26, 2017 20:35:58 GMT -5
IMO we are giving way too much credit to Mike C. He is a first time CEO that moved from a previous position as CCO where he did not deliver on nearly every promise he made. He then goes on to blame his sales team for his short comings. He seems great at appeasing investors with big talk but fails to deliver. So what has changed that so much trust is put into him? I understand he may be MNKD's last hope but we need to be much more critical of him. Really? We "need" to be much more critical of him? Why? What would that accomplish? 👎
|
|
|
Post by bones1026 on Sept 26, 2017 20:52:14 GMT -5
Really?  We "need" to be much more critical of him?  Why?  What would that accomplish? 👎 And when did he ever say the reps were to blame for where we're at..how about insurance, endos being compensated not to prescribe, and the bs current "non inferior" label, that makes us look like we're Exubera part 2...So I guess you're right...it does suck that the inexperienced Mike is at the helm...not for us..but for our those who are throwing the kitchen sink at this to try and BK
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 26, 2017 20:52:28 GMT -5
dreamboatcruise : His promises to solve rx issues. I.e. Better issurance coverage, higher sales, increased sales after Medicare issue resolved. Just off the top of my head. On Medicare management has specifically said the improvement would not come until 2018 formularies, so that certainly isn't a broken promise. Higher sales... if that's all he said, then it's not a broken promise since the sales are indeed higher. To break a promise is very different than not living up to expectations some might have had. Let's not make up promises that weren't made. I do remember a promise to provide sales projections which did not happen when they said it would, but I believe that was Matt. In general the company hints at a lot of things but doesn't make a lot of promises.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 26, 2017 20:56:32 GMT -5
And when did he ever say the reps were to blame for where we're at..how about insurance, endos being compensated not to prescribe, and the bs current "non inferior" label, that makes us look like we're Exubera part 2...So I guess you're right...it does suck that the inexperienced Mike is at the helm...not for us..but for our those who are throwing the kitchen sink at this to try and BK Endos compensated to not prescribe is a made up issue. That's illegal and isn't happening.
|
|
|
Post by me on Sept 28, 2017 10:06:56 GMT -5
EU process takes too long, not as populous as BRIC w/o R. Canada, Mexico make sense due to NAFTA's no tariff (Sorry, Novo, Sanofi) and shorter approval process. Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia are single payer systems, simple approval process, no need to refrigerate for 30 days which also lends itself well to Mexico, India, S Africa, Brazil. Mike wants the fastest path to approval, market access. I want something concrete... a partnership with meaningful upfront would be amazing (likely out of reach at this point in time) but I'd settle for almost anything real, but not just an aspirational map. Put some dates up for regulatory submission in each of those countries on the map and I'll pay attention and give management the benefit of the doubt. As it is, it simply seems like smoke and mirrors. 50% of the world's population is a great number, but all we've been told is that he'd like to achieve it. Great, but might as well make it 100% if there is no criteria we can be told for why we should take the shaded countries on this map seriously. I didn't like these little tease things like the map and mention of RLS... it could mean something or it very well could mean absolutely nothing. dreamboatcruise, now you are doing what you have criticized others for doing...you are ignoring lakers' direct response to your questions: "...It would almost be more meaningful to ask about the countries that seem to be removed from the target list. Why is EU off the target list? Do you have any speculation on that? Since we have no positive news about the ones still targeted (other than Brazil), what is the criteria for removing a region/country as a target?" Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/8652/todays-presentation?page=4#ixzz4tzBVD0rnand you're throwing out additional questions. I think that lakers' response to your very specific questions, was direct, succinct and logical. It's fine that you have additional questions, but as you've pointed out in some of your previous posts (which I have agreed with, BTW), it's disingenuous to ignore someone's direct responses just because you may not wish to acknowledge their valid points.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Sept 28, 2017 10:11:11 GMT -5
I want something concrete... a partnership with meaningful upfront would be amazing (likely out of reach at this point in time) but I'd settle for almost anything real, but not just an aspirational map. Put some dates up for regulatory submission in each of those countries on the map and I'll pay attention and give management the benefit of the doubt. As it is, it simply seems like smoke and mirrors. 50% of the world's population is a great number, but all we've been told is that he'd like to achieve it. Great, but might as well make it 100% if there is no criteria we can be told for why we should take the shaded countries on this map seriously. I didn't like these little tease things like the map and mention of RLS... it could mean something or it very well could mean absolutely nothing. dreamboatcruise , now you are doing what you have criticized others for doing...you are ignoring lakers ' direct response to your questions: "...It would almost be more meaningful to ask about the countries that seem to be removed from the target list. Why is EU off the target list? Do you have any speculation on that? Since we have no positive news about the ones still targeted (other than Brazil), what is the criteria for removing a region/country as a target?"
Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/8652/todays-presentation?page=4#ixzz4tzBVD0rnand you're throwing out additional questions. I think that lakers ' response to your very specific questions, was direct, succinct and logical. It's fine that you have additional questions, but as you've pointed out in some of your previous posts (which I have agreed with, BTW), it's disingenuous to ignore someone's direct responses just because you may not wish to acknowledge their valid points. "...It would almost be more meaningful to ask about the countries that seem to be removed from the target list. Why is EU off the target list? Do you have any speculation on that? Since we have no positive news about the ones still targeted (other than Brazil), what is the criteria for removing a region/country as a target?" dream, and the ones added to the list india, china. over the counter? Mike seems to have a plan. UAE is on the map.
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Sept 28, 2017 10:19:11 GMT -5
And when did he ever say the reps were to blame for where we're at..how about insurance, endos being compensated not to prescribe, and the bs current "non inferior" label, that makes us look like we're Exubera part 2...So I guess you're right...it does suck that the inexperienced Mike is at the helm...not for us..but for our those who are throwing the kitchen sink at this to try and BK Endos compensated to not prescribe is a made up issue. That's illegal and isn't happening. I hope you are right DBC. Outright cash payments perhaps not. Incentives and other nefarious activities in the gray area, maybe. Anyhoo suppose after reading about this NCAA thing amongst other gov't scandals, no height of corruption would really surprise me. Just experience tells me that the stronger the broader market acceptance grows, the weaker the opposition in most whatever form gets, legal or illegal.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 28, 2017 14:28:09 GMT -5
I want something concrete... a partnership with meaningful upfront would be amazing (likely out of reach at this point in time) but I'd settle for almost anything real, but not just an aspirational map. Put some dates up for regulatory submission in each of those countries on the map and I'll pay attention and give management the benefit of the doubt. As it is, it simply seems like smoke and mirrors. 50% of the world's population is a great number, but all we've been told is that he'd like to achieve it. Great, but might as well make it 100% if there is no criteria we can be told for why we should take the shaded countries on this map seriously. I didn't like these little tease things like the map and mention of RLS... it could mean something or it very well could mean absolutely nothing. dreamboatcruise , now you are doing what you have criticized others for doing...you are ignoring lakers ' direct response to your questions: "...It would almost be more meaningful to ask about the countries that seem to be removed from the target list. Why is EU off the target list? Do you have any speculation on that? Since we have no positive news about the ones still targeted (other than Brazil), what is the criteria for removing a region/country as a target?" Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/8652/todays-presentation?page=4#ixzz4tzBVD0rnand you're throwing out additional questions. I think that lakers ' response to your very specific questions, was direct, succinct and logical. It's fine that you have additional questions, but as you've pointed out in some of your previous posts (which I have agreed with, BTW), it's disingenuous to ignore someone's direct responses just because you may not wish to acknowledge their valid points. I indicated in my response (I thought) that what I was originally asking about is what management meant by shading them in and calling them "targets"... that was the "why" I was asking about. My questioning wasn't why any company in MNKD's position might desire to go into these countries (which it appears was Lakers response), it was "why" were they presented to investors in this presentation... because something is actually happening with regard to each of these countries, or purely to give that appearance when it isn't true. It's great speculation on lakers' part about what management could be thinking... in fact I'm sure he could have come up with equally interesting facts about and companies located in any country around the world which might have been shaded... i.e. if EU were shaded he could have said similar thing about it as for Gulf states. So it may have seemed I ignored it. I really didn't read all of it because it wasn't addressing my point of what we can/should read into shading on a map and identification as "target" (not even stated as "active target"). I think very little. Sadly it seems like smoke and mirrors and I don't like thinking Mike is resorting to that. lakers may be spot on with his info and others may find it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Sept 28, 2017 14:54:51 GMT -5
You can speculate that lakes is speculating...or not:-)
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 28, 2017 17:44:01 GMT -5
You can speculate that lakes is speculating...or not:-) He did put a "?" after several of the things. He intended to indicate speculation? (I'm indicating my speculation here by putting a question mark at end of a statement)
|
|