|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 10, 2018 9:21:31 GMT -5
I’ve got a good idea where they are, but I don’t know why in the world Mike announcing that would make him more credible.
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Apr 10, 2018 9:30:29 GMT -5
Where are the "Several Territories Already Exceed 1% Market Share on Mealtime Insulin Market"? To gain credibility, he really needs to identify exactly how many there are and where they are. Based on the numbers "otherottawaguy" is reporting in his "competing scripts" thread, I don't see how it's possible. Overall, 1% of $300,000,000 a week is $3,000,000. At the current around $600,000 a week, afrezza barely has 0.2%. That Stat can be very misleading. If there are small territories where there may be 1,000 total diabetic scripts and they have one doctor prescribing afrezza (with 10 scripts) that is 1%. We only have 500 TRX per week so there obviously aren't any large territories where Afrezza has 1% market share.
|
|
|
Post by digger on Apr 10, 2018 9:32:14 GMT -5
I’ve got a good idea where they are, but I don’t know why in the world Mike announcing that would make him more credible. Simply because he always seems -- to me at least -- to be tossing out these percentages that make things sound good, but he always seems short on specifics. It's like the graph with the TV commercial comparisons --where were those markets; what was the actual trx growth? Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% growth but that wouldn't impress me. Would it hurt to be more specific and provide more details? And why doesn't he provide an explanation of what the "The Diabetes Forum: Automated Insulin Delivery” report is that he refers to?
|
|
|
Post by digger on Apr 10, 2018 9:42:37 GMT -5
Where are the "Several Territories Already Exceed 1% Market Share on Mealtime Insulin Market"? To gain credibility, he really needs to identify exactly how many there are and where they are. Based on the numbers "otherottawaguy" is reporting in his "competing scripts" thread, I don't see how it's possible. Overall, 1% of $300,000,000 a week is $3,000,000. At the current around $600,000 a week, afrezza barely has 0.2%. That Stat can be very misleading. If there are small territories where there may be 1,000 total diabetic scripts and they have one doctor prescribing afrezza (with 10 scripts) that is 1%. We only have 500 TRX per week so there obviously aren't any large territories where Afrezza has 1% market share. That's what I mean. I can imagine a variety of scenarios where it's possible, but to me the probability seems low, and that leaves me wondering whether he's just stringing me along. Real numbers about real places are a lot more convincing.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 10, 2018 9:57:14 GMT -5
COGS is generally measured as the manufacturing costs deducted from gross revenue to yield net profit. Higher volume is beneficial because it spreads out fixed costs over more units produced and typically lowers COGS per unit, although there is a point of diminishing return as volume increases. Mostly correct; gross revenue minus COGS yields gross profit. Gross profit minus operating expenses yields operating profit. The vast majority of companies establish a standard cost per unit which has an allocation of fixed costs that is static as well as a budgeted cost per unit of labor and materials. Differences from the standard cost are charges to a manufacturing variances account which gets folded into the total cost of sales. Variances are generally broken out by overhead, labor, and materials. The benefit of a standard cost system is that management (and shareholders) can see how much it costs to make a unit when the factory is running at capacity, and the impact that shortfalls in volume have on the financial results. That would end a lot of guessing about the impact of Amphastar and the magnitude of fixed cost underabsorption for the Danbury plant. Conversely, it would highlight exactly how much the company should be spending to drive additional volume. I think most shareholders would like to know that.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 10, 2018 10:20:54 GMT -5
Mike C. "Improved Managed care assess Managed Care changing from a volume based rebate model to a value based out come model. Which will work in our favor. updated marketing campaign. for every 1% RAA market sales translates to 70~ 100 million of sales. We already have several territories that we have exceeded 1% of market share. (At 12 1/2minute mark. investors.mannkindcorp.com/events-presentations)We see 30, 40 to 50 % market share between certain doctors. It is not a question of will afrezza be successful, it is more a question of when." www.wsw.com/webcast/hcw2/mnkd/index.aspx
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 10, 2018 10:48:16 GMT -5
as an add on to the CC conversation. Mike was talking about dosing. A study. Mike saying, (the same thing Sports has said in the past.) What they are finding is if you take a high enough dose upfront, you probably will not need an add on dose. "A study being done to lay that to rest." Sports has said the teenagers just take a 12 unit dose and eat. The ADD which Lakeon talked about.
|
|
|
Post by od on Apr 10, 2018 11:14:29 GMT -5
.......
mnholdem: Targeted markets: "We already have 40% market share with some doctors." 17 minutes ago x
mnholdem: Fixed costs. Every 1% market share will translate into $70-$100 "in NET sales" - Mike 18 minutes ago x
.......
40% market share with some doctors? Are they high decile prescribers? If they are, I think weekly numbers would be higher. I am still a MNKD believer, but broad-stroke comments (spin?) like this give me pause re: sales projections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 11:19:24 GMT -5
.......
mnholdem: Targeted markets: "We already have 40% market share with some doctors." 17 minutes ago x
mnholdem: Fixed costs. Every 1% market share will translate into $70-$100 "in NET sales" - Mike 18 minutes ago x
.......
40% market share with some doctors? Are they high decile prescribers? If they are, I think weekly numbers would be higher. I am still a MNKD believer, but broad-stroke comments (spin?) like this give me pause re: sales projections. As Mike says, ignore the rxs numbers.
|
|
|
Post by od on Apr 10, 2018 11:32:50 GMT -5
40% market share with some doctors? Are they high decile prescribers? If they are, I think weekly numbers would be higher. I am still a MNKD believer, but broad-stroke comments (spin?) like this give me pause re: sales projections. As Mike says, ignore the rxs numbers. Should I ignore the '40% market share with some doctors' comment?' Why would it be presented if it was not meaningful? If providers who have embraced Afrezza are not high decile prescribers, it is great for their patients but not for sales projections. I am comfortable with 'charts that go up' (vs hitting projected numbers), but I think candor is a reasonable investor expectation.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Apr 10, 2018 11:44:15 GMT -5
Where are the "Several Territories Already Exceed 1% Market Share on Mealtime Insulin Market"? To gain credibility, he really needs to identify exactly how many there are and where they are. Based on the numbers "otherottawaguy" is reporting in his "competing scripts" thread, I don't see how it's possible. Overall, 1% of $300,000,000 a week is $3,000,000. At the current around $600,000 a week, afrezza barely has 0.2%. I think one of those territories is in Wyoming; the territory has 99 diabetics using insulin, and MNKD has wrapped up one of them.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 10, 2018 11:44:57 GMT -5
There is no spin, Mike doesn’t spin, and nobody else I’ve interacted with gives me any kind of spin at all. It’s my guess that the biggest markets are California and North Carolina but that was my impression a while back. Vdex is also mostly in California...
There were also nine different markets that they showed the commercials in so those are the heaviest ones. I believe we had a list of those because people reported where they saw the commercials.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Apr 10, 2018 11:54:44 GMT -5
Where are the "Several Territories Already Exceed 1% Market Share on Mealtime Insulin Market"? To gain credibility, he really needs to identify exactly how many there are and where they are. Based on the numbers "otherottawaguy" is reporting in his "competing scripts" thread, I don't see how it's possible. Overall, 1% of $300,000,000 a week is $3,000,000. At the current around $600,000 a week, afrezza barely has 0.2%. What Mike said is pretty in line with these numbers. So there is no spinning there. In his presentation, Mike says that they are targeting about about 60% of the overall insulin market. And within the targeted market, they are now at about 0.25% market share. And within the overall market, they are now probably at about half that (based on the slide provided by Mannkind, probably at 0.15%). So there you have it. And pursuant to Mike, they have about 100 territories. In a few territories, if they have a few relatively heavy writers of Afrezza, that will certainly skew the market share of Afrezza. And it will be very easy to skew that market share to above 1% as the 1% hurdle isn't that high.
|
|
|
Post by dg1111 on Apr 10, 2018 12:00:14 GMT -5
I think that they have promotional efforts in only select territories. What I interpreted Mike to be saying was that in some areas they are over 1% and other areas well over 1%. This would seem to be in line with their statements that Afrezza is extremely commercially responsive. My interpretation (maybe too optimistic) is that in the areas that they have made a significant promotional effort, they have seen a response.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:30:35 GMT -5
Don't forget $6.25M due Deerfield 5/11/18, $2.77M due AMPH 6/15/18, and more. I believe, the China deal with AMPH will allow Mnkd to renegotiate the insulin payment term to AMPH. $20M between 2 partners (India, China) has been bandied about by S.O. That seems to be low ball. The wild cards are: Equity stake by one or two partners: $50M for 10% stake might set the floor Pps to raise more money cheaply. TreT licensing/partnership: After Phase I SAD study, Switch Study will start 1Q19, Pivotal PK Trial will start in 3Q19. Potential partner may emerge in 2019. Co-promo International rev by Brazil, Mexico in 1H19, by India, China in 2H19. Lower COGS due to higher volume. Canada marketed by Mnkd, no NAFTA tariff, low shipping cost. APAC: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam by Takeda ? MENA partnership? Why does $20M seem low? Is there some comparative data you've used to make that assessment, or is it assessment made relative to the cash needs of MNKD? Why do you feel a company getting rights to one region would buy MNKD shares directly at a price over double what they could buy them for in the open markets? Is there some example of such a regional partner doing something like that in the past? Are your timelines for Mexico and China consistent with how long it takes to get drugs approved, and when are you assuming applications will be filed in each? Bear in mind that MNKD seems to be partnering first and then counting on the partner to prepare the submissions, so as with Brazil there is likely quite some delay from the partnership deal conclusion to when the application is filed. Will be interesting to see if China is one of the two and if it does end up with AMPH. It's possible the first term sheet was with a company other than Amphastar for China, and the seemingly long time for conclusion could thus be because of the requirement to allow AMPH time for review and right of refusal.
|
|