|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 17, 2014 16:05:05 GMT -5
I posted this earlier but I will post again:
This is Matt's quote fro the CC:
"We haven’t given a lot of disclosure there, except to say that I mean, under the supply agreement, which will eventually become public as well, I mean, we are obliged to. So, the product to Sanofi at our cost and that’s our intention. The ultimate profit from such sales will flow through when they actually make some sales and it come -- drops down to the bottom-line and into collaboration. So other than to say we're going to sell at cost, we've not said what our cost structure is at this point."
"We've not said what our cost structure is at this point" , if not vague what is it? It certainly leaves open he possibility that the cost structure structure includes previous expensed development costs which could have been agreed upon by the parties. Although I view this unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, until Matt says so.
The accounting term COGS is not a fixed descriptive term. If Mannkind sells the product to the JV at an agreed upon price (which includes such development costs) then that is the COGS to the JV.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 17, 2014 15:22:27 GMT -5
Matt purposely left vague the discussion of what is to be included in COG (which would be the mechanism for which MNKD would be reimbursed for previously expensed Afrezza development costs). Although I agree with those who view this as unlikely, it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out until Matt does so. If he does confirm the reimbursement, it could almost be viewed as a binary event since the amount is so large.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 13, 2014 20:28:48 GMT -5
Matt's quote about COG in CC
"We haven’t given a lot of disclosure there, except to say that I mean, under the supply agreement, which will eventually become public as well, I mean, we are obliged to. So, the product to Sanofi at our cost and that’s our intention. The ultimate profit from such sales will flow through when they actually make some sales and it come -- drops down to the bottom-line and into collaboration. So other than to say we're going to sell at cost, we've not said what our cost structure is at this point."
It appears Matt has left the discussion of COG intentionally vague. Hopefully this will be clarified soon
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 3, 2014 0:53:33 GMT -5
Based on some of the reports chronicled on the Deep Capture website, I'd say yes. If it's a partnership, the shorts can keep a lid on this until there are actual revenues. 71 million shares short, in the face of a deal just around the corner. They obviously have a longer term strategy. Until Big Al and the company decide to do something about it, the shorts are in control.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 1, 2014 22:07:01 GMT -5
Increased my long position today. Maybe a little early since indicators (MACD and RSI) haven't turned back up, but I'm hoping for good support at $8.00. Based on Hammers's forecast of a $40.00 buyout, no reason not to buy today. LOL
TREND
|
|
|
|
Greenhill
Jul 31, 2014 11:47:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by trenddiver on Jul 31, 2014 11:47:35 GMT -5
Partnership might be better for Mannkind, because of the $2bil plus in tax loss carry forwards.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jul 31, 2014 1:13:02 GMT -5
Hammer,
Nice job getting everyone all amped up after last weeks hit pieces. I hope your right. My only comment is that Al Mann has said several times, I think even at the recent ASM, that no matter who the deal is struck with, that Mannkind would remain as the manufacturer of Afrezza. My take is that he wants to keep the Technosphere technology proprietary. Maybe your forecasted royalty will be a manufacturer's royalty.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jul 30, 2014 15:33:56 GMT -5
Babo,
You are not the "gangsta" list, as of yet. The stories about the CNBC crowd and their tie ins with the short side crowd is unbelievable. Luckily we have Big Al on our side. Probably evens the playing field, somewhat. I sure would like to know how much of the 71 mil short position is naked shorts.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jul 30, 2014 10:55:03 GMT -5
Chris, Thanks for alerting us to the www.deepcapture.com site. The Deep Capture story on Dendreon and Michael Milken was both disturbing and eye-opening. Some of this story parallels the trials and tribulations at Mannkind. This is a must read for all MNKD shareholders. Will there be a similar BEAR RAID on the horizon? It wouldn't surprise me. How else will the large short position be profited from? Many of these people holding the short positions are the equivalent of financial gangsters, and are devious and creative in how they manipulate the stock price for their benefit. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jul 26, 2014 0:16:05 GMT -5
Some of you sound like a bunch of whining cry babies. If you want to whine about management's lack of communication, please do it on the YMB. This is supposed to be a place for productive conversation. It's managements job to execute on their plan, which is exactly what they are doing. They are in the process of getting the Danville plant ready for operations, working on a partnership, working on other Technosphere projects, etc. etc. I really don't know what management is supposed to be reporting to the shareholders. There's a quarterly CC in 2 or 3 weeks, and I'm sure management will have something to say. Right now, it's looks like the shorts are in control. I wouldn't be surprised if the share price gets pushed down to $8.00. This is a great time to be adding to positions. Although I already have a very overweighted position, I plan to buy more if this bear raid continues.
For those of you who are continually criticizing or don't believe in the management, you should not be a shareholder. For me, I'll be riding my Triple Crown winning stallion, Big Al, all the way to the finish line.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jul 4, 2014 2:25:41 GMT -5
One of the best posts, ever!
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jun 28, 2014 2:35:16 GMT -5
Ok. It's time for the 3 Nurses to get to work. There's a party to plan.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jun 27, 2014 8:55:18 GMT -5
This large short interest number is really bugging me, just because it hasn't really done anything but gone up over time. So I was wondering, is it possible that the large short position is really a result of Big Al going short against the box? I can think of a few reasons that could be the case:
1. Since a lot of Al's shares were a result of debt to equity conversion, maybe he just wanted to protect his investment - so short against the box would do that without risk or cost.
2. By going short against the box, he still controls a large number of shares and voting interest.
3. Short against the box doesnt need to be reported to the SEC.
4. Short against the box minimizes the float.
Any thoughts?
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jun 19, 2014 0:07:43 GMT -5
For me, there is only one binary that will determine the ultimate highest price for the stock. And that event is when Big Al sells his shares. All forecasts and predictions about what will happen to the share price at binary events such as approval, partnership are nothing but speculative opinions, which should only be acted upon by sophisticated traders like Baba and others.
For the rest of us, I say trust Big Al. He'll let us know when to sell. Al didn't accumulate his wealth by selling too soon. As Big Al said at the Annual Meeting, decisions regarding selling will be made on what is best for "patients and shareholders." So I'll be riding Big Al all the way to the finish line (whenever that occurs).
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jun 9, 2014 23:52:11 GMT -5
Something doesn't make sense. You have this new member named Mankind who is whining because he lost a few dollars in the stock because of "insider selling"
Then he claims he is really an internal medicine doctor who states that he would not prescribe the Afrezza, nor would any of his colleagues, and that Afrezza will fail.
Why would anyone go long the stock if you believed it would fail? Does anyone believe this person is who he says he is? My take is that he is short the stock, or working for AF. Any money this fool says he lost, is because his short position hasn't worked out. Anyhow, it is a waste of time to engage him in conversation.
Trend
|
|
