|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Nov 13, 2017 20:12:57 GMT -5
Something else came to mind as I was thinking about the new shares. Mike C. and MannKind need to prove they are serious about going it alone if they ever hope to be equals at the bargaining table for partnerships, buy ins or international deals. In other words, the new shares show that sharesholders and executive management believe that we can go it alone and will do so if offers are crap. Mike needs to be able to look across the table in negotiations and say we are walking away from this if you don't give us a serious offer. Recapitalizing the company means having enough unused shares to raise capital in the future if necessary. I'll be voting yes. No, that is not what recapitalizing means. Recapitalizing is actually raising money. Authorizing shares does not magically mean there are buyers for all those shares. To the extent it means anything about management's beliefs, it would be that they feel they might need massive dilution in order to survive... though given that they have not communicated clearly about this, one is only left guessing as to their beliefs and intent. Sorry. I am going to disagree with you on this. In my mind, the term recapitalization means not only raising immediate cash (which Mnkd did) but setting the foundation for the future financial health of the company. How short sighted it would be for Mnkd management to raise cash immediately and not plan out for 6 months, 1 year, 5 years and 10. Even Mnkd detractors have mentioned that the lack of available shares was pointing to a near term crisis. Also, if planning for the long term, you ask for more shares once not multiple times. So in my opinion, seeking a shareholder vote authorizing these shares is the prudent, responsible thing to do for the long term recapitalization of the company. |
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Nov 13, 2017 22:18:56 GMT -5
From Investopedia:
What is 'Recapitalization'
Recapitalization is restructuring a company's debt and equity mixture, often with the aim of making a company's capital structure more stable or optimal. Essentially, the process involves the exchange of one form of financing for another, such as removing preferred shares from the company's capital structure and replacing them with bonds.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 14, 2017 3:21:59 GMT -5
No, that is not what recapitalizing means. Recapitalizing is actually raising money. Authorizing shares does not magically mean there are buyers for all those shares. To the extent it means anything about management's beliefs, it would be that they feel they might need massive dilution in order to survive... though given that they have not communicated clearly about this, one is only left guessing as to their beliefs and intent. Sorry. I am going to disagree with you on this. In my mind, the term recapitalization means not only raising immediate cash (which Mnkd did) but setting the foundation for the future financial health of the company. How short sighted it would be for Mnkd management to raise cash immediately and not plan out for 6 months, 1 year, 5 years and 10. Even Mnkd detractors have mentioned that the lack of available shares was pointing to a near term crisis. Also, if planning for the long term, you ask for more shares once not multiple times. So in my opinion, seeking a shareholder vote authorizing these shares is the prudent, responsible thing to do for the long term recapitalization of the company. They don't get my vote doubling the authorized shares. Perhaps there are enough that agree with you to do such a huge authorization, but I'd still urge people to vote against if they insist on asking for this many in one fell swoop. |
|
|
|
Post by me on Nov 14, 2017 8:14:04 GMT -5
I don't think lb is arguing anything. I think he's just responding to the ongoing question of whether a publicly-traded company (there was no other qualification in the original question) ever requested a doubling of authorized shares. Additionally, I think it is fairly standard for publicly-traded companies to have an issued to authorized ratio of 50% to 65%. The fault here, I guess, is that MNKD never should have gotten this close to 100% issued. But then again, imagine dbc's palpitations if they had tried this before the last capital raise! Not argument in terms of confrontation but as a form of discourse. Here is the definition..... noun: argumentation; plural noun: argumentations
the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory.Yes, Goose, I know the...definition. (Sorry, just had to do that!) The definition above is the specific use I intended. lb never proposed his argument's conclusion as a premise to his argument, and therefore never "begged the question." In fact, he never even proposed an argument (see your definition above)! lb was simply responding to the question of whether a publicly-traded company had ever requested a doubling of their authorized shares. He never made any claim that "all things are equal," and specifically cautioned against assuming MNKD was on an equal footing with MGTI with his "on the other hand" remark. |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 14, 2017 11:59:25 GMT -5
I'm unclear, just which way is DBC going on the issue of authorization of new shares?
|
|
|
|
Post by alethea on Nov 14, 2017 13:48:00 GMT -5
I'm unclear, just which way is DBC going on the issue of authorization of new shares? If he will only tell us 10 or 12 more times.... then I think we'll know. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 14, 2017 13:55:25 GMT -5
I'm unclear, just which way is DBC going on the issue of authorization of new shares? |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 14, 2017 14:06:53 GMT -5
Sports... that was a longer argument for "yes" than Mike offered.  |
|
|
|
Post by ilovekauai on Nov 14, 2017 14:11:34 GMT -5
Sports...Trent1.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 14, 2017 14:19:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Nov 14, 2017 20:09:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Nov 15, 2017 21:20:54 GMT -5
"The definition above is the specific use I intended. lb never proposed his argument's conclusion as a premise to his argument, and therefore never "begged the question." In fact, he never even proposed an argument (see your definition above)! lb was simply responding to the question of whether a publicly-traded company had ever requested a doubling of their authorized shares. He never made any claim that "all things are equal," and specifically cautioned against assuming MNKD was on an equal footing with MGTI with his "on the other hand" remark." me, you read my mind! Did you see my recent thread "MNKD poetry" mnkd.proboards.com/thread/9022/mannkind-poetryto understand me like this? |
|
|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Nov 17, 2017 16:16:13 GMT -5
Anyone thinks there will be a 2 day share price sale after the vote passes on Dec 13th? I expect one but also hope it will be the last one  |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Nov 17, 2017 17:20:06 GMT -5
Anyone thinks there will be a 2 day share price sale after the vote passes on Dec 13th? I expect one but also hope it will be the last one At most I think it will be a small drop. The real drop will come when they are issued as the price aligns to account or the dilution. |
|
|
|
Post by thekindaguyiyam on Nov 19, 2017 18:54:59 GMT -5
Anyone thinks there will be a 2 day share price sale after the vote passes on Dec 13th? I expect one but also hope it will be the last one It may be perceived as dilution but from the view of finances the company will be stronger. There will be no question if the company will be here in 6 months or 12... it's a certainty. Less uncertainty moves the price up along with analyst opinions unless the work for short interest. |
|
