|
Post by porkini on Nov 28, 2017 15:02:23 GMT -5
I think the center of the argument or discussion is do you like what Mike is doing. When the reverse split was necessary to stay listed the company could have issued a 1 for 10 shares reverse split. In that they issued a 1 for 5 reverse split suggests to me that the shareholder were kept in mind. From this I find confidence that the shares requested will be used to sustain the company to do what MIKE KNOWS and what we do not. Do you like Mike and the Managment. Is the company making strategic moves to bring Afrezza to market? If so. It's a yes vote. I'm wondering if the answer has already been telegraphed ( mnkd.proboards.com/post/131437/thread) in Mike C.'s recent interview ( finance.yahoo.com/news/interview-mannkind-ceo-michael-castagna-131800437.html).
|
|
|
Post by thekindaguyiyam on Nov 28, 2017 15:23:46 GMT -5
I think the center of the argument or discussion is do you like what Mike is doing. When the reverse split was necessary to stay listed the company could have issued a 1 for 10 shares reverse split. In that they issued a 1 for 5 reverse split suggests to me that the shareholder were kept in mind. From this I find confidence that the shares requested will be used to sustain the company to do what MIKE KNOWS and what we do not. Do you like Mike and the Managment. Is the company making strategic moves to bring Afrezza to market? If so. It's a yes vote. Or one can like some things they have seen since Mike took the reigns, but still think this is too many shares to authorize. If the argument that shareholders never know as much as management were a valid argument to rubber stamp everything they propose, there would logically be no legal requirement to seek approval from shareholders. Shareholders, as with any voting, should base their decision upon the knowledge they actually have (and management has the obligation to convince shareholders through what they tell us) and vote based on the one issue at hand. Like or dislike management, one should vote on whether this is an appropriate number of shares to authorize at this time. Even if I didn't particularly "like" management I'd authorize shares that I thought was a reasonable request. it was last week when i said something about there will be no BK for MNKD. A short stated indignantly how do I know that; revealing that his expectations were that it was still possible for the company to go down. It's a matter of perception I suppose; but I can tell you this; with the availability of enough money to bring Afrezza to market in the face of those Giants who want MNKD to fail so Novo can continue its monopoly there will be NO Question about BK ever again. More confidence = more physicians prescribing + more analysts acknowledging the company is here to stay because it has that runway big enough that big pharma with their media talking points will have less leverage to create worry. As far as the # that is now written in stone. It won't change and therefore a reality. Talk as much as you like that you'd like another # of fewer shares is an unreality and will not happen. We go from here with what we know. What I know is that Technosphere is a potential beyond what mot people can perceive and Afrezza it's first offering to a population of such great magnitude that in itself without all the other possibilities will make Mannkind a hell of a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 16:54:07 GMT -5
thekindaguyiyam... likelihood of BK is far less now, in my assessment. However, authorizing shares does not somehow magically make money available to the company. Companies do go bankrupt with shares authorized and unissued quite often. At this point my fear of bankruptcy is pretty much gone, but I do fear significant dilution. I would totally agree that authorizing some additional shares is prudent at this point and that adequate capitalization is necessary. I simply think 140M is a mistake. If believing in Afrezza or technosphere logically meant that 140M is the right amount then I'd be fully on board. I simply don't see the connection of stating that you believe in those things as supporting a need to double the number of shares. In fact quite the opposite. If there is as much potential as some would like to believe (and short term deals in the offing) then management should need far, far fewer shares than doubling the number. I agree with you that in all likelihood there are enough yes votes, but that doesn't keep me from encouraging people to exercise their shareholder right to say NO. Even if/when this is approved I shall remain a shareholder and hope for the best.
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Nov 28, 2017 17:25:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 28, 2017 18:03:25 GMT -5
Nate talking about the vote...read from the bottom up.
NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward needed to fight off a hostile bid, I imagine most of them will sit on the shelf collecting dust until actually needed 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:22 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward at some point, they will likely issue a portion of those shares to help add fuel to the fire, yes; however, unless 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:20 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward ought to carry them through for plenty of years to come...
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 19:30:51 GMT -5
Nate talking about the vote...read from the bottom up. NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward needed to fight off a hostile bid, I imagine most of them will sit on the shelf collecting dust until actually needed 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:22 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward at some point, they will likely issue a portion of those shares to help add fuel to the fire, yes; however, unless 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:20 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward ought to carry them through for plenty of years to come...I certainly hope that is the understatement to end all understatements. Imagine if they burn through these 140M and then decide to double again to 560M. Before you know it we'd be doing another reverse split. 140M "ought" to be way more than they would ever need. Stay down you horse... [whack!] I said stay down... [whack!] Could've sworn I saw that horse twitch.
|
|
|
Post by myocat on Nov 28, 2017 20:41:18 GMT -5
Nate talking about the vote...read from the bottom up. NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward needed to fight off a hostile bid, I imagine most of them will sit on the shelf collecting dust until actually needed 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:22 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward at some point, they will likely issue a portion of those shares to help add fuel to the fire, yes; however, unless 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:20 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward ought to carry them through for plenty of years to come...I certainly hope that is the understatement to end all understatements. Imagine if they burn through these 140M and then decide to double again to 560M. Before you know it we'd be doing another reverse split. 140M "ought" to be way more than they would ever need. Stay down you horse... [whack!] I said stay down... [whack!] Could've sworn I saw that horse twitch. Next thing you know, they start award shares to board members, Chairman, CEO, CFO, COO except you the bag holders. I've seen it happened. I voted "NO" and I am waiting for a dip.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 28, 2017 20:57:35 GMT -5
Nate talking about the vote...read from the bottom up. NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward needed to fight off a hostile bid, I imagine most of them will sit on the shelf collecting dust until actually needed 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:22 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward at some point, they will likely issue a portion of those shares to help add fuel to the fire, yes; however, unless 1 14 Nov. 7 at 3:20 PM NatesNotes oneking @thomasedward ought to carry them through for plenty of years to come...I certainly hope that is the understatement to end all understatements. Imagine if they burn through these 140M and then decide to double again to 560M. Before you know it we'd be doing another reverse split. 140M "ought" to be way more than they would ever need. I think you've made your point, over and over and over again. Glad to see that you've obviously lost this argument.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 28, 2017 21:12:11 GMT -5
I certainly hope that is the understatement to end all understatements. Imagine if they burn through these 140M and then decide to double again to 560M. Before you know it we'd be doing another reverse split. 140M "ought" to be way more than they would ever need. Stay down you horse... [whack!] I said stay down... [whack!] Could've sworn I saw that horse twitch. Next thing you know, they start award shares to board members, Chairman, CEO, CFO, COO except you the bag holders. I've seen it happened. I voted "NO" and I am waiting for a dip. Waiting for a dip? Won't have to wait long for that in this stock or on this board.
|
|
|
Post by dejude42 on Nov 29, 2017 9:29:52 GMT -5
My question on this subject the increase of 140 million shares are they considered a forward split or new shares? The doubling of shares to current holders:
1. The increase of shares would not effect the current market cap. No Dilution to long term holders value at the moment of change. 2. Long share holders would receive the benefit of any stock rise or decrease. The stock sales, insurance recognition and consumers increases PPS value. 3. Long term could release shares as increases move forward. MNKD becomes an investment with returns (and investors are not prisoners to ownership). 4. Short term investors would see a doubling of shares needed to fill, this could create value in stock and decrease the amount shorted. 5. New stock holders and value of MNKD stock capital gains growth ability to double instantly in just the return to forward split price. 6. Investor appreciation by knowledge that the share holder was recognized as a tool to the success of MNKD. 7. This valuable tool for diabetics succeeds as well as those that believed/invested to help by being apart of a world/life changing product.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 29, 2017 10:30:52 GMT -5
My question on this subject the increase of 140 million shares are they considered a forward split or new shares? The doubling of shares to current holders: 1. The increase of shares would not effect the current market cap. No Dilution to long term holders value at the moment of change. 2. Long share holders would receive the benefit of any stock rise or decrease. The stock sales, insurance recognition and consumers increases PPS value. 3. Long term could release shares as increases move forward. MNKD becomes an investment with returns (and investors are not prisoners to ownership). 4. Short term investors would see a doubling of shares needed to fill, this could create value in stock and decrease the amount shorted. 5. New stock holders and value of MNKD stock capital gains growth ability to double instantly in just the return to forward split price. 6. Investor appreciation by knowledge that the share holder was recognized as a tool to the success of MNKD. 7. This valuable tool for diabetics succeeds as well as those that believed/invested to help by being apart of a world/life changing product.
|
|
|
Post by casualinvestor on Nov 29, 2017 12:23:53 GMT -5
Pretty sure this is going to pass with very high majority of the vote being FOR, not sure if there is much more to discuss. Does anyone believe this has even the slightest chance of not passing? There are a lot of retail investors, and the Mann Foundation doesn't own nearly as many shares as they used to. Also, not voting is the same as voting no. I don't understand why people are so confident it will pass, at least on the first round. It could go either way IMO. Yeah, I rarely vote on stocks due to laziness or not being informed enough. But this one is important, I'm very well informed and the default of "no" worries me, so voted yes/yes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 15:13:59 GMT -5
Will be mailing my YES vote tomorrow. Easy: check-off the two boxes and return in self-addressed envelope.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdorbust on Dec 7, 2017 15:36:41 GMT -5
Will be mailing my YES vote tomorrow. Easy: check-off the two boxes and return in self-addressed envelope. It's even easier clicking on the link in the email you likely get then copy and paste the code needed and vote online!
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Dec 7, 2017 16:55:55 GMT -5
Will be mailing my YES vote tomorrow. Easy: check-off the two boxes and return in self-addressed envelope. It's even easier clicking on the link in the email you likely get then copy and paste the code needed and vote online! Don't tell him to do that now ... he's a bus driver who is posting on PB already. Ha! I always thought the background was a gym ... till you said you were a bus driver. Then magically ... reality set in like I've been there before.
|
|