|
Post by hans on Nov 27, 2017 10:58:12 GMT -5
I voted yes as well.
I believe in Mike C. and his leadership skills. He has brought us back from the rumors of BK to a leading formidable competitor in insulin sales. He is leading the charge in getting Afrezza recognized as the safest, easiest and ultra rapid acting insulin ever brought to the market. He will deliver us shareholders and diabetics to the promised land.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 27, 2017 16:15:17 GMT -5
Just got my ballot from Schwab today. Voted Yes ("For"), as we all should.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Nov 27, 2017 20:54:40 GMT -5
I just voted FOR (YES).If you want MNKD to succeed, this is the only way to go. I want MNKD to succeed and don't wish to have my stake in it diluted by 50% so I'm voting NO. I do not believe they need nearly 140M additional shares to be successful. DBC I normally agree with you 99% of the time but this one I don’t. It’s been a very long road with 1 step forward and 15 steps backwards. If the medicine doesn’t kill you it will make you stronger. Right now MannKind has taken years worth of medicine and is now starting to have a consistant pulse. Heck they might even be half alive today. Mike Castagna and the Board of directors has guided the ship in the darkness of the valley of death and is now starting to see the new dawn. A yes vote is confidence that we are heading in the right direction. We don’t have to issue any new shares for dulition. We need Tresury shares to make good things happen in the future. What would the company be able to do today if they had a potential friendly party be it an international partner who wanted to buy a 15% to 20% interesting in MannKind. They couldn’t do it today. They could only do it if there was treasury shares to issue to the potential partner. Sure some hostile entity could buy 10 or 20% on the open market cheap but that would not add any EQUITY to the company. The board proved they could raise EQUITY that would stick to the company and be able to be used for advertising. Prior to that 61 million raise they could not have started advertising.
We all love Afrezza and see what a paradigm treatment shift it bring to the lives of diabetics. Voting Yes will give us the opportunity to get that partner be it international or a domestic one who will be committed to seeing the company survive. Al Mann should have gone down that path but perhaps he was either to confidant he could do it alone or couldn’t agree to give up that amount of control. Times have changed and we have started to come back from the walking DEAD to actually having a bit of swagger.
A yes vote gives Management the tools to move the ball towards one of many goal lines. We are moving forward instead of 15 steps backward.
In conclusion my FANTASY is that the vote passes and then Mike thanks all the shareholders for their support in authorizing the additional shares. The next week he make an early premarket announcement that MannKind has a new investor in the company who has bought 15% of the new shares at a price of $20.00 per share. Say that’s 42,000,000 shares X $20.00 = $840,000,000 Great liquidity and an international partner. What would happen to share price if that occurred? You would see the PPS surpasss that $20.00 figure. FANTASIES do happen just ask Mike Castagna about his hometown Eagles. They are flying high. Perhaps Mike is the air beneath the wings of MannKind.
Looking back over they last 24 months many of us had the bleakest view of our investment in MannKind. Look how many steps forward Mike Castagna and the board have moved the football down the field.
How could you not vote YES and put your confidence in Mike and the Board.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdorbust on Nov 27, 2017 21:21:28 GMT -5
Voted my shares yes as well. Onward and Upward.
|
|
|
Post by pengiep on Nov 27, 2017 21:36:19 GMT -5
Voted Yes on my shares pretty much as soon as I was aware of how to vote them.
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Nov 28, 2017 6:35:18 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. DBC, from the materials delivered:
//The additional common stock to be authorized by adoption of the amendment would have rights identical to the currently outstanding common stock of the Company. Although at present the Board of Directors has not approved any plans or proposals to issue any additional shares of our common stock that would become authorized for issuance if this proposal is approved, the Board of Directors desires to have the shares available to provide additional flexibility to use our common stock for financing and business purposes in the future...Unless further stockholder approval is required for a proposed issuance of additional shares by the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market or other applicable laws and regulations, the additional shares may be used for various purposes without further stockholder approval. These purposes may include: raising capital; providing equity incentives to employees, officers and directors, establishing strategic relationships with other companies; conversion of debt; expanding business or product lines through the acquisition of other businesses or products; and other purposes.//
So, although the language used in this proxy is language used in all proxies and their definitions of intended use; 'lakers' description was exactly to the point, the authorization of these shares opens the door for MNKD, it's shareholders, the diabetes community and various other key stakeholders. To do anything less is a clear breach of the fiduciary responsibility of the Board. It looked pretty clear and to the point...flexibility, leverage, a tool for negotiation and I have one more to add, "TIME". It buys Mike the time to continually tool and retool the processes, people and programs by evaluating all three and making adjustments along the way. What value does strategic planning processes have without the financial wherewithal to benchmark and establish clearly defined goals and objectives?
As to lakers use of 'maximum flexibility' and your interpretation to mean that MNKD should add a billion more shares to be at max, is grossly exaggerated. I'm pretty darn sure he means maximum flexibility within the new shares being authorized, to the extent possible. I voted 'yes' in all three accounts my 457, my 401 and my personal trading account.
|
|
|
Post by lennymnkd on Nov 28, 2017 8:28:00 GMT -5
Voted my shrs “YES” let’s get this show on the road :
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Nov 28, 2017 8:53:20 GMT -5
I voted FOR (YES). I like what Mike C is doing, and I want him to be able to manage the company from a position of flexibility and strength.
|
|
|
Post by kball on Nov 28, 2017 10:25:46 GMT -5
Question: Isn't the 2nd option stating "or won't vote (essentially the same as voting no)" incorrect? Isn't a non vote a 'yes' vote (essentially agreeing with managements wishes)?
(sorry if this has been addressed haven't gone thru thread)
|
|
|
Post by brentie on Nov 28, 2017 10:41:59 GMT -5
Question: Isn't the 2nd option stating "or won't vote (essentially the same as voting no)" incorrect? Isn't a non vote a 'yes' vote (essentially agreeing with managements wishes)? (sorry if this has been addressed haven't gone thru thread) mnkd.proboards.com/post/130855
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 13:40:34 GMT -5
I want MNKD to succeed and don't wish to have my stake in it diluted by 50% so I'm voting NO. I do not believe they need nearly 140M additional shares to be successful. DBC I normally agree with you 99% of the time but this one I don’t. It’s been a very long road with 1 step forward and 15 steps backwards. If the medicine doesn’t kill you it will make you stronger. Right now MannKind has taken years worth of medicine and is now starting to have a consistant pulse. Heck they might even be half alive today. Mike Castagna and the Board of directors has guided the ship in the darkness of the valley of death and is now starting to see the new dawn. A yes vote is confidence that we are heading in the right direction. We don’t have to issue any new shares for dulition. We need Tresury shares to make good things happen in the future. What would the company be able to do today if they had a potential friendly party be it an international partner who wanted to buy a 15% to 20% interesting in MannKind. They couldn’t do it today. They could only do it if there was treasury shares to issue to the potential partner. Sure some hostile entity could buy 10 or 20% on the open market cheap but that would not add any EQUITY to the company. The board proved they could raise EQUITY that would stick to the company and be able to be used for advertising. Prior to that 61 million raise they could not have started advertising. We all love Afrezza and see what a paradigm treatment shift it bring to the lives of diabetics. Voting Yes will give us the opportunity to get that partner be it international or a domestic one who will be committed to seeing the company survive. Al Mann should have gone down that path but perhaps he was either to confidant he could do it alone or couldn’t agree to give up that amount of control. Times have changed and we have started to come back from the walking DEAD to actually having a bit of swagger. A yes vote gives Management the tools to move the ball towards one of many goal lines. We are moving forward instead of 15 steps backward. In conclusion my FANTASY is that the vote passes and then Mike thanks all the shareholders for their support in authorizing the additional shares. The next week he make an early premarket announcement that MannKind has a new investor in the company who has bought 15% of the new shares at a price of $20.00 per share. Say that’s 42,000,000 shares X $20.00 = $840,000,000 Great liquidity and an international partner. What would happen to share price if that occurred? You would see the PPS surpasss that $20.00 figure. FANTASIES do happen just ask Mike Castagna about his hometown Eagles. They are flying high. Perhaps Mike is the air beneath the wings of MannKind. Looking back over they last 24 months many of us had the bleakest view of our investment in MannKind. Look how many steps forward Mike Castagna and the board have moved the football down the field. How could you not vote YES and put your confidence in Mike and the Board. Big difference between 15% - 20% of company vs 50% of company... and big difference as to whether price is $2 or $10. As for $20, if that were at all realistic and expected by management, why on earth then do you think we need to authorize 140M new shares. Do you think we need to raise $2.8+ billion dollars to make Mannkind profitable? It seems like you hold logically conflicting ideas in your mind... that there is an imperative to authorize this many shares and yet something is waiting in the wings and we'll get such a high price, few of them will ever be used. In my thinking (and based on history of MNKD), authorizing that many shares will harm the price at which shares will trade by emboldening shorts, and will in fact be somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy with more shares then being needed to raise any given amount of capital. I was very pleased with seeing the last offering occur at $6 and applauded Mike for that. I hope this isn't as bad of a misstep as I think it might be. I will now be pleasantly surprised if we don't issue some of these new shares below $6. If they get even $10 for new shares (much less $20) I will concede that I was totally wrong about this share authorization... and there was/is some analyst/blogger believing we were going to $10 before end of year. The Board has certainly had missteps before. I'd like to have blind confidence in them, but not yet at that point... and I certainly don't think Wall Street has confidence yet. And I believe a good chunk of Wall Street will still be attacking and shorting the company and not buy into 140M new shares being a move of strength. I am more confident than in recent past. Still, there is a reason shareholders get a say about certain things and I don't see anything wrong with me saying doubling the authorized shares is a step too far right now.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 13:44:18 GMT -5
As to lakers use of 'maximum flexibility' and your interpretation to mean that MNKD should add a billion more shares to be at max, is grossly exaggerated. I'm pretty darn sure he means maximum flexibility within the new shares being authorized, to the extent possible. I voted 'yes' in all three accounts my 457, my 401 and my personal trading account.
I'd be willing to give him that flexibility within the new shares being authorized... IF there were far fewer shares being authorized.
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Nov 28, 2017 13:50:15 GMT -5
I voted yes, as I think a yes is better than a no. Some new shares do need to be authorized. I would have been a lot more enthusiastic about my yes vote if it were for fewer shares.
I do like the idea that if there are partnerships in the future, that they take a percentage ownership in the company. This will allow for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by thekindaguyiyam on Nov 28, 2017 14:53:04 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.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 15:02:17 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.
|
|