|
Post by jonny80s on Apr 9, 2018 17:00:09 GMT -5
I still say it was bad timing/desperation. Scripts are just now rebounding from the 1st quarter sales team restructure. Why couldn't it have waited 3-4 more weeks and actually have some positive momentum going into the deal? Beginning of April or end of April... not that big of a deal. Except for having to have 25mil in till. He's using Trump's market scare tactics to cover for bad timing/desperate need for money.
They needed the money to start the quarter.... just say so. And trying to raise money when S/P is sub $2 simply isn't an option.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Apr 9, 2018 17:11:06 GMT -5
Good call compound one of many! Congrats to Mike for getting ahead of the situation. I no longer worried that this company is going to do the wrong thing at the wrong time! Or the news actually coming up isn't as good as it sounds. The money we will be getting form the deals is very minimal and the STAT study was actually marginal at best. So better raise money now before the market says meh and the stock continues to fall. Please, stop my mind from wondering.... Nah, that's not right. Great job in getting money before a recession hits. This year's ADA meeting will be held June 22-26, 2018. The STAT results won't be released until them. So it is almost three months from now. It will be quite risky for Mannkind to not raise any money before that. What if the STAT results are extraordinary but the market conditions at that point is terrible?
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Apr 9, 2018 17:48:26 GMT -5
One thing I haven't heard Mike mention is a label upgrade from the STAT study results. The 35% reduction of severe hypoglycemic events compared to insulin aspart is definitely marketing material, even if Time-in-Range hasn't caught on with endos/HCPs yet.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Apr 9, 2018 17:58:14 GMT -5
One thing I haven't heard Mike mention is a label upgrade from the STAT study results. The 35% reduction of severe hypoglycemic events compared to insulin aspart is definitely marketing material, even if Time-in-Range hasn't caught on with endos/HCPs yet. The 35% reduction must be from the old trials. If I remember correctly, I think that data were published in one of the European diabetes conferences back in the spring of 2016. I remember Harryx1 posted some very impressive poster from that conference summarizing this data point. Okay. I found it. Here it is. It was actually published in September 2015. Reduced hypoglycaemia is observed with inhaled insulin versus subcutaneous insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus Abstract # 932 Stockholm 2015 www.easd.org/virtualmeeting/home.html#!resources/reduced-hypoglycaemia-is-observed-with-inhaled-insulin-versus-subcutaneous-insulin-aspart-in-patients-with-type-1-diabetes-mellitus--2
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Apr 9, 2018 18:34:52 GMT -5
I thought Castagna used that 35% reduction in his comments about the STAT results, during his 4Q17 earnings call, although it won't surprise me if Dr. Kendall finds similar results and more from MannKind's archive of pre-market trial data.
|
|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Apr 9, 2018 18:52:18 GMT -5
I do not expect anything over 5M upfront combined for both international deals. If we get more, that would be great... So, beyond 33M for warrants in October we may need another offering, but I sense that Mike will only do it if there is no other choice... We will need money to last at least until end of Q1/19 IMO. because... Brazil has 12 million diabetics. If we only sell to 5% at fraction of the US cost ($200 per year) that should bring in $120M = enough cash to run the company. Afrezza sales in US should double to 50 - 60M in 2019. Go MNKD!
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 9, 2018 18:53:32 GMT -5
I thought Castagna used that 35% reduction in his comments about the STAT results, during his 4Q17 earnings call, although it won't surprise me if Dr. Kendall finds similar results and more from MannKind's archive of pre-market trial data. I think the mention of 35% reduction has always been in context of the Affinity-1 trial.
|
|
vin
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by vin on Apr 9, 2018 19:03:38 GMT -5
Not a good price as far as I'm concerned, but a good price for the "select healthcare dedicated institutional investors" - geez. The offering calculates the current share price at $2 less what the warrant is worth. Warrant's only good for six months, but with a strike of $2.38 (happens to be today's closing price), I'd give it .20 to .30 of value. What do others think that warrant may be worth? So, if it's worth .25, that means the dedicated ones got the stock at around $1.75. Will that stock be used to cover a previous short position? I don't know, but likely. Oh, well, I guess you only get one chance to sell at $6!! As far as this offering being price in? Don't think so, but, who knows, maybe the company will have a great script count tomorrow, or perhaps they will announce great news, or perhaps you'll look up an you'll see a pig or two fly by - any of those things might happen tomorrow, so keep a very watchful eye on the sky, it's likely to be more pleasant than watching a computer screen tomorrow! PS - so glad I took a look at the board right before calling it a night - you know, it's like a glass of warm milk! PPS - okay, Holdem, so your team didn't have all the incentive it might have, but you gotta say, Brownie had a heck of a game! Warrants expire in a year. They can't be exercised for the first 6 months. They're probably worth more like 0.50, which would put the stock at what 1.50? We've had at least 30% dilution since the reverse split. When you wait until the last minute to raise needed cash you're never in a good bargaining position. Obviously this is what the shorts have been waiting for. It could be worse. At least this gets the company past the ADA. The STAT results had better be stellar. If not and an international partnership does not materialize by then, I hate to think what the next cash raise will be like. STAT results will be stellar,international deal happening soon, and scripts rising into the 600's (May) and 700's (June) per week. That is why I am still investing in MNKD.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 9, 2018 19:26:59 GMT -5
One thing I haven't heard Mike mention is a label upgrade from the STAT study results. The 35% reduction of severe hypoglycemic events compared to insulin aspart is definitely marketing material, even if Time-in-Range hasn't caught on with endos/HCPs yet. I am not sure the STAT study is relevant to the fund raise. There are two reasons: STAT is a pilot study so the FDA and medical world have an excuse - they want a study and not a pilot study, and then there is the timeline to get a label change. I am not sure, but it looks like the last label change took about a year although it should really be around 6 months. Maybe a full study could be kicked off in parallel with a label change application. Alternately has a label change application been already submitted? Bottom line: raise money when you can.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Apr 9, 2018 19:29:31 GMT -5
I thought Castagna used that 35% reduction in his comments about the STAT results, during his 4Q17 earnings call, although it won't surprise me if Dr. Kendall finds similar results and more from MannKind's archive of pre-market trial data. I recall Mike mentioned on the presentation that these data was derived from "pivotal phase III trials". That indicates these are existing data (not new data from STAT trial). However, I definitely agree with Mike and Dr. Kendall that we should publish as many existing data as possible. The more the merrier.
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Apr 9, 2018 21:56:26 GMT -5
I thought Castagna used that 35% reduction in his comments about the STAT results, during his 4Q17 earnings call, although it won't surprise me if Dr. Kendall finds similar results and more from MannKind's archive of pre-market trial data. I think the mention of 35% reduction has always been in context of the Affinity-1 trial. I’m thinking the same thing and that he can’t quote any results from the STAT study until ADA and I’m guessing the numbers are even better as a result of greater focus on dosing and timing.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 9, 2018 21:57:43 GMT -5
I thought Castagna used that 35% reduction in his comments about the STAT results, during his 4Q17 earnings call, although it won't surprise me if Dr. Kendall finds similar results and more from MannKind's archive of pre-market trial data. I recall Mike mentioned on the presentation that these data was derived from "pivotal phase III trials". That indicates these are existing data (not new data from STAT trial). However, I definitely agree with Mike and Dr. Kendall that we should publish as many existing data as possible. The more the merrier. The problem with the hypoglycemia data is that it is not statistically significant. Mannkind even issued a correction to their original press release clarifying that ( CORRECTING and REPLACING MannKind Reports Positive Data from a Phase 3 Clinical Study of AFREZZA in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes)
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 9, 2018 22:02:02 GMT -5
One thing I haven't heard Mike mention is a label upgrade from the STAT study results. The 35% reduction of severe hypoglycemic events compared to insulin aspart is definitely marketing material, even if Time-in-Range hasn't caught on with endos/HCPs yet. The 35% reduction must be from the old trials. If I remember correctly, I think that data were published in one of the European diabetes conferences back in the spring of 2016. I remember Harryx1 posted some very impressive poster from that conference summarizing this data point. Okay. I found it. Here it is. It was actually published in September 2015. Reduced hypoglycaemia is observed with inhaled insulin versus subcutaneous insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus Abstract # 932 Stockholm 2015 www.easd.org/virtualmeeting/home.html#!resources/reduced-hypoglycaemia-is-observed-with-inhaled-insulin-versus-subcutaneous-insulin-aspart-in-patients-with-type-1-diabetes-mellitus--2 David Kendall and Compound26 digging up the old studies for use. Harry!
|
|
|
Post by digger on Apr 9, 2018 22:16:09 GMT -5
One thing I haven't heard Mike mention is a label upgrade from the STAT study results. The 35% reduction of severe hypoglycemic events compared to insulin aspart is definitely marketing material, even if Time-in-Range hasn't caught on with endos/HCPs yet. The 35% reduction must be from the old trials. If I remember correctly, I think that data were published in one of the European diabetes conferences back in the spring of 2016. I remember Harryx1 posted some very impressive poster from that conference summarizing this data point. Okay. I found it. Here it is. It was actually published in September 2015. Reduced hypoglycaemia is observed with inhaled insulin versus subcutaneous insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus Abstract # 932 Stockholm 2015 www.easd.org/virtualmeeting/home.html#!resources/reduced-hypoglycaemia-is-observed-with-inhaled-insulin-versus-subcutaneous-insulin-aspart-in-patients-with-type-1-diabetes-mellitus--2 That's a post-hoc analysis which, based upon what I read, is pretty much useless for impressing the FDA -- www.raps.org/regulatory-focus%E2%84%A2/news-articles/2017/1/multiple-endpoints-in-clinical-trials-fda-issues-draft-guidance -- "...FDA explains. “Although post hoc analyses of trials that fail on their prospectively specified endpoints may be useful for generating hypotheses for future testing, they do not yield definitive results. The results of such analyses can be biased because the choice of analyses can be influenced by a desire for success.” I imagine insurance companies feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by mike0475 on Apr 10, 2018 6:13:46 GMT -5
“Mannkind has about $25 million as of March 31, which means a runway until June 30” Ask yourself why Mnkd raised just enough until 6/30. Wait for the river card. Lakers was this spec or are you closer than most to activity? This follows suit now if you ask me after listing to calll
|
|