|
Post by mnholdem on Nov 21, 2017 18:32:37 GMT -5
I agree with your last sentence. Just don't say "I am in for the good of humanity" because everyone is for himself. I guess it depends on how many shares you own, what’s good for the company should be what’s good for us... I certainly don’t want them hogtied at this stage in the game. If MannKind is negotiating with a big player for a buy in, they'll need the shares...and we'll have deep pockets AND possibly a large sales force for "co-promoting" Afrezza, as CEO Castagna mentioned in his MF interview. Without the shares? Back to growing globally on our own. Both scenarios will take time, but one of these has a much shorter timeline.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Nov 21, 2017 19:06:39 GMT -5
" So what I didn't want to do, honestly, is say I want 20 million shares and everybody says, "Oh, we have 10% dilution coming." You needed to have a number that was reasonable but not too absurd. I think that's what's important.We think we're doing the prudent thing by asking for more than we need. Over the next three to five years, we should put those shares to good use. When you think about 140 million, we don't need all those shares tomorrow." - Michael Castagna I honestly do not follow his thinking. He says the market might interpret 20 million shares as indicating dilution on the horizon. (And might even view that number of shares as unreasonable and a little absurd?) So they ask for 140 million instead? They think THAT number doesn't invite speculation about even greater dilution in the future?
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Nov 21, 2017 19:10:43 GMT -5
I will vote yes ... because I am in for the good of mannkind.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 21, 2017 19:22:17 GMT -5
I will vote yes ... because I am in for the good of mannkind. LMAO
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Nov 21, 2017 22:51:04 GMT -5
" So what I didn't want to do, honestly, is say I want 20 million shares and everybody says, "Oh, we have 10% dilution coming." You needed to have a number that was reasonable but not too absurd. I think that's what's important.We think we're doing the prudent thing by asking for more than we need. Over the next three to five years, we should put those shares to good use. When you think about 140 million, we don't need all those shares tomorrow." - Michael Castagna I honestly do not follow his thinking. He says the market might interpret 20 million shares as indicating dilution on the horizon. (And might even view that number of shares as unreasonable and a little absurd?) So they ask for 140 million instead? They think THAT number doesn't invite speculation about even greater dilution in the future? Actually it is quite clear, (Mikes way of thinking). He listed several different reasons for needing more shares, asking for only 20 million shares, in my opinion wouldn't be enough if any combination of those different reasons actually happened. So if they only asked for 20 million shares, it would look like they are preparing for only one of the options Mike listed, and the Market could see that option as "most likely dilution". Asking for 140 million shares shows Mannkind is preparing and ready, for any one, any combination, or even all of the reasons Mike listed. And if the 140 million shares pass, it would be hard to argue they weren't. I hope this helps Happy Thanksgiving Everybody 🦃
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Nov 21, 2017 23:07:23 GMT -5
140M shares mean all options are on the table, max flexibility, leverage, a tool for negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Nov 22, 2017 6:17:06 GMT -5
140M shares mean all options are on the table, max flexibility, leverage, a tool for negotiation. Why is this so hard to understand? Spot on!
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Nov 22, 2017 8:36:10 GMT -5
140M shares mean all options are on the table, max flexibility, leverage, a tool for negotiation. Yes indeed - What are “Levers”. I’ll take “Biotech Turnarounds” for a $1000.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 22, 2017 13:16:47 GMT -5
I guess it depends on how many shares you own, what’s good for the company should be what’s good for us... I certainly don’t want them hogtied at this stage in the game. If MannKind is negotiating with a big player for a buy in, they'll need the shares...and we'll have deep pockets AND possibly a large sales force for "co-promoting" Afrezza, as CEO Castagna mentioned in his MF interview. Without the shares? Back to growing globally on our own. Both scenarios will take time, but one of these has a much shorter timeline. Giving away half the company to a co-promote partner is not something I would be happy about. We've already suffered significant dilution to execute a go it alone strategy, and I would be very disappointed if right when traction seems to be setting in that management would give half the company to gain access to a larger sales force. Obviously this is a subjective issue, so not claiming anyone else's view on it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 22, 2017 13:25:14 GMT -5
140M shares mean all options are on the table, max flexibility, leverage, a tool for negotiation. Please explain your rationale for why "all options" are on the table at 140M and by implication you are saying some options would be missing at 70M and no additional options would be available at 240M. In my mind there is nothing magical about doubling shares... objectionable yes, magical... no. hellodolly... since you seem to strongly agree with the statement, feel free to chime in with your own explanation. I do find that statement from lakers hard to understand as to why 140M provides "maximum" flexibility. It would seem "maximum" flexibility would be to authorize a billion shares, or if legally possible to simply give BoD the right to create any number of shares without ever having to seek shareholder approval again. In reality all options would always be on the table, but some options might require shareholder approval. Setting the authorized shares now at significantly less than 280M does not preclude management from seeking approval for more if they bring a particular deal to the shareholders that would seem accretive and require giving up half the company.
|
|
|
Post by golfeveryday on Nov 22, 2017 13:32:21 GMT -5
140M shares mean all options are on the table, max flexibility, leverage, a tool for negotiation. Please explain your rationale for why "all options" are on the table at 140M and by implication you are saying some options would be missing at 70M and no additional options would be available at 240M. In my mind there is nothing magical about doubling shares... objectionable yes, magical... no. hellodolly... since you seem to strongly agree with the statement, feel free to chime in with your own explanation. I do find that statement from lakers hard to understand as to why 140M provides "maximum" flexibility. It would seem "maximum" flexibility would be to authorize a billion shares, or if legally possible to simply give BoD the right to create any number of shares without ever having to seek shareholder approval again. In reality all options would always be on the table, but some options might require shareholder approval. Setting the authorized shares now at significantly less than 280M does not preclude management from seeking approval for more if they bring a particular deal to the shareholders that would seem accretive and require giving up half the company. for a partner to gain ‘control’ they would only have to issue about 30M shares? I would expect that to be at a share price >$6?
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Nov 22, 2017 13:51:00 GMT -5
If MannKind is negotiating with a big player for a buy in, they'll need the shares...and we'll have deep pockets AND possibly a large sales force for "co-promoting" Afrezza, as CEO Castagna mentioned in his MF interview. Without the shares? Back to growing globally on our own. Both scenarios will take time, but one of these has a much shorter timeline. Giving away half the company to a co-promote partner is not something I would be happy about. We've already suffered significant dilution to execute a go it alone strategy, and I would be very disappointed if right when traction seems to be setting in that management would give half the company to gain access to a larger sales force. Obviously this is a subjective issue, so not claiming anyone else's view on it is wrong. C'mon, DBC, without authorizing another share, MNKD could enter a SNY like agreement and give away 70% of the future revenue from Afrezza sales.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 22, 2017 14:24:26 GMT -5
Giving away half the company to a co-promote partner is not something I would be happy about. We've already suffered significant dilution to execute a go it alone strategy, and I would be very disappointed if right when traction seems to be setting in that management would give half the company to gain access to a larger sales force. Obviously this is a subjective issue, so not claiming anyone else's view on it is wrong. C'mon, DBC, without authorizing another share, MNKD could enter a SNY like agreement and give away 70% of the future revenue from Afrezza sales. Hopefully they would not repeat the mistakes of the past, but citing past mistakes makes me less inclined to approve potential 140M share dilution not more so. True enough that shareholders don't get a vote on everything, but that shouldn't stop us from exercising our oversight where we can. False argument to say since we can't control everything we should simply agree with anything.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 22, 2017 14:29:13 GMT -5
Please explain your rationale for why "all options" are on the table at 140M and by implication you are saying some options would be missing at 70M and no additional options would be available at 240M. In my mind there is nothing magical about doubling shares... objectionable yes, magical... no. hellodolly ... since you seem to strongly agree with the statement, feel free to chime in with your own explanation. I do find that statement from lakers hard to understand as to why 140M provides "maximum" flexibility. It would seem "maximum" flexibility would be to authorize a billion shares, or if legally possible to simply give BoD the right to create any number of shares without ever having to seek shareholder approval again. In reality all options would always be on the table, but some options might require shareholder approval. Setting the authorized shares now at significantly less than 280M does not preclude management from seeking approval for more if they bring a particular deal to the shareholders that would seem accretive and require giving up half the company. for a partner to gain ‘control’ they would only have to issue about 30M shares? I would expect that to be at a share price >$6? And if they truly were getting >$6 per share, it seems they wouldn't need nearly 140M authorized shares. I'd much prefer the context before approving the shares. Do they have some great plans that require $840M... or are they anticipating diluting at valuations much less than $6. Is it for access to a sales force... how much is that worth relative to the worth of Afrezza and the pipeline?
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Nov 22, 2017 14:33:45 GMT -5
|
|