|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 27, 2016 10:52:30 GMT -5
Stevil, I don't think you know anything about Al Mann or his motivations. Your statement that Al started Mannkind as a philanthropic effort is just utter nonsense. If you have read or listened to any of Al Mann's interview, you would understand that Al is an entrepreneur interested in making money by developing products that help people. Although he intends to or has already donated his shares to the Al Mann Foundation, unless Mannkind is successful in its endeavors, his goal of helping people well past his own lifetime will not have been realized. Al has said many times, that his goal with Mannkind is to help patients and reward shareholders, I believe that is still his goal. Trend Not sure why you're focusing exclusively on one part of what I'm saying while ignoring the point I was making. I don't think Al started MNKD with the intention of losing money. My point was Al and his family is already set financially. I don't think he will sell/not sell based on money. The only reason he would sell is if he is forced to. I'm not even really sure what you're debating other than just trying to disagree with me on a point I was never making... Of course he doesn't want to lose money and of course he's trying to protect shareholders value. What did I say that would lead you to think I was stating otherwise? Well, let's just start with the first sentence - "Al didn't start Mannkind to make money - he started it as a philanthropic effort." What I object to is the overall dark cloud that surrounds your post, which is Al doesn't care about making money and he has no real profit motive. This point of view begs the question - why should any investor own Mannkind shares if the position of the founder, Chairman of the Board, and largest shareholder is what you state? It's what I would call sophisticated FUD. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 27, 2016 9:53:33 GMT -5
MNKD doesn't sell here if Al Mann is not happy with whatever offer he can get. My gut tells me he won't be happy at all, and therefore, no sale. Al didn't start MNKD to make money- he started it as a philanthropic effort. He was already a billionaire and publicly stated that he didn't want to leave his fortune to his children. He's not in this for the money, although he's not in it to lose money either. If they are entertaining any deals, it's not because they're trying to profit on the company. It's because they're being forced to sell out of inevitable bankruptcy. I don't know Al personally, so this comment might seem silly, but I can almost guarantee you that he wouldn't hand over this company to someone else unless he needed to. He'd much rather keep it in the hands of those whom he appointed and trusts. Stevil, I don't think you know anything about Al Mann or his motivations. Your statement that Al started Mannkind as a philanthropic effort is just utter nonsense. If you have read or listened to any of Al Mann's interview, you would understand that Al is an entrepreneur interested in making money by developing products that help people. Although he intends to or has already donated his shares to the Al Mann Foundation, unless Mannkind is successful in its endeavors, his goal of helping people well past his own lifetime will not have been realized. Al has said many times, that his goal with Mannkind is to help patients and reward shareholders, I believe that is still his goal. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 24, 2016 12:16:18 GMT -5
I've said this in about 50 threads. The shares that retail longs have don't move the needle for the hedges shorting Mannkind. Agreed. The funds holding massive amounts of shares are the ones loaning them out IMO. They have been and continue to make a killing on the interest payments they receive. Perhaps this is why Blackrock and others have not been selling. Greedy longs (funds or retail investors alike) have suffered massive losses by allowing the shorts to control the price to a level which is way below MNKD's intrinsic worth. The interest income doesn't come close to offsetting their losses. |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 23, 2016 18:49:27 GMT -5
If some one wants to short shares they will find the shares to short..lol.. Its easy as an F3 key.. Stop the bickering for a few thousands of shares that retail hold Not bickering, just stating my point of view. The bottom line is this. The shorts are in control and will be until the longs make it too difficult for the shorts to borrow. The interest rate being paid to longs is basically a bribe to induce the longs to give up control of the shares they own. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 23, 2016 17:23:42 GMT -5
While the value of your shares went down 100%, 200% or more, you were able to increase your position by 5%. That sound a the old sales quip that goes like this, "I lose $1.00 per item, but I make it up in volume". All of you longs, who lent your shares are drinking Kool-Aid if you dont think that it contributes to the shorts ability to control this stock. It time to take our company back from the shorts. Reclaim your loaned shares. Trend Yes, my shares lost value, but that is true for everybody. The difference is, that I have 5% more then I would have without lending. My lending out shares might have helped the shorts when it first happened if there would have been no one else to lend out shares at that moment, but now it only costs them and makes no difference to the share price whatsoever... as I said, I take the interest buy some shares and lend them out on the market right away. I refer you to Avogadro's post which initiated this thread. You and all of the other greedy longs who loaned their shares facilitated the domination of this stock by the shorts. If the shorts couldn't get shares to short, they would have gone elsewhere. It's like saying "I don't mind helping the enemy, because I'm getting paid." Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 13, 2016 22:59:30 GMT -5
"While the value of your shares went down 100%, 200%" With a cost basis of the mid $4's... fortunately, we have not yet hit NEGATIVE $4 share price. I was beginning to worry if $0 would be a sustainable floor. My confidence has returned, and I seriously doubt we'll go negative. dp DBC, I'm not sure what you are trying to say- however with a cost basis of $4.00, the value of your shares went down about 500%. If you loaned your shares and earned 15%, your net loss was still huge (maybe 300-400%). |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 13, 2016 22:35:18 GMT -5
Hmm interesting thought.. most people assumed the current situation is somehow related to SANOFI and low sales, but if you say so... BTW, due to the loaning I increased my MNKD position by 5% this month (and loaned this addition right out again), at no cost for me and no change for the market for now.. only until I decide to recall them one day .. but that is in the far future, loaning to these idiots is just too good right now! And yes I loanded a ton of shares out a long time ago, are you claiming that this event somehow created ripples to affect the future!? Other than that my monthly increasing holding is rather market neutral: I buy, I loan out.. I feel bad leeching of these shorts... not! So, what did you do in the same time to benefit MNKD now or later!? Do you just make up extraordinary theories, which shine a bad light on other people!? While the value of your shares went down 100%, 200% or more, you were able to increase your position by 5%. That sound a the old sales quip that goes like this, "I lose $1.00 per item, but I make it up in volume". All of you longs, who lent your shares are drinking Kool-Aid if you dont think that it contributes to the shorts ability to control this stock. It time to take our company back from the shorts. Reclaim your loaned shares. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 13, 2016 9:44:15 GMT -5
mnholdem I hope so as it would be the quickest way to continue working direct sales. Without someone making housecalls on endos.....yikes. Having 5-10 highly motivated sales folks targeted on the largest script writers in the country - it can't hurt at this point while they transition and it would keep costs under control (sort of). A question for you - we talked/debated many months ago about the slow roll out concept. In light of todays news, do you still think sny was being honest and truly controlling script counts or do you think it was all bunk to cover their likely end game to simply walk away? I'm 50/50 on it as I think it was probably an honest approach initially but as 2015 developed under brandicort it went from an honest gameplan to simply an exit strategy. Any thoughts on it? Honestly, I don't know. At the time, my theory would have explained many things NOT happening. The thought never occurred to me that Sanofi would decide to end the agreement that early. I saw the hiring of Olivier Brandicourt as a positive rather than recognizing it as a red flag.
My answer to your either/or question is both. I think Sanofi initially limited sales to endocrinologists in order to secure medical (ie dosing) and marketing data, but then switched to applying only enough effort to avoid breach of contract until they could exit at the earliest date.
The reason for bailing is irrelevant to the question. I believed Sanofi was limiting scripts because, at the time, it seemed impossible that they would make a decision to bail after only one quarter. In retrospect, I missed (or at least played down) a number of red flags, the premium price that Sanofi placed on Afrezza was a BIG flag which I downplayed by thinking that they were setting up ex-U.S. pricing by establishing high prices in the U.S. That fit in their Phase 1 and Phase 2 Commercialization Plan for Afrezza that they presented November 20, 2014. I simply thought that Phase 2 - which Sanofi said would include initiating label improvement and ex-U.S. launches - would happen sooner.
The other big thing that I missed (besides Brandicourt) was the contractual language that the earliest Sanofi could exit was January 1, 2016. I mistakenly thought that date could be the effective date and that Sanofi could serve notice to termination up to 6 months in advance of that date. When Matt announced layoffs roughly 90 days before the year ended, I paid attention, but I thought that MannKind would need to file a notice of termination with the SEC. When that didn't happen, I figured everything was cool and that Sanofi must be lining up insurance coverage behind the scenes before launching Phase 2.
I think too much spiked Kool-Aid was being drunk by many highly respected members on this board. The warning signs go all the way back to mid-August when I reported that the short thesis (as described by a hedge fund manager friend who was short) was primarily based on Sanofi ending the deal. Although I did not believe it myself, we were all put "on notice". Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 12, 2016 15:23:55 GMT -5
If anyone is wondering where I went on StockTwits, I've been suspended for spamming multiple tickers. Although the last few messages have contained multiple tickers, I believe that the info I was providing pertained to those tickers. Obviously StockTwits didn't think so. I have requested that my account be un-suspended but still waiting to hear from them. If you are on ST and want to support me, please email them asking to reinstate my account. With all due respect, why should anyone this board care that you were suspended or terminated by Stocktwits? Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 11, 2016 11:04:57 GMT -5
At least now we know the real reason DeSisto didn't speak on the CC regarding the SNY divorce. He wasn't onboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 7, 2016 14:41:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 17:51:03 GMT -5
@liane, if he is the ceo there is nothing more important than something like today's CC call. Just calling it like I see it as I always have and always will regardless of who likes or dislikes it. Besides, what ceo doens't show up for the first day of work as the new ceo or can't read from a paper for 5 minutes into a phone? After reflection, you are correct about the responsibility of the CEO. How could he not be available? And if he choose to not take the job, it was Al Mann's responsibility to speak. Very cowardly. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 16:58:45 GMT -5
I agree. Why did SNY price this above the competition, and hence not get Tier 2 insurance coverage, makes me think we got royal f*kd World wide picture. Foreign pricing is based on U.S. So they wanted high price. |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 16:33:34 GMT -5
Did it start? I don't hear anything. Nope, I think they are trying to wake Al up first. Funny! |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 16:12:22 GMT -5
Lots of theories floated all year long about whether SNY was sandbagging mnkd or not. My thought is that the previous ceo of sny had a vision, brandicourt had a different vision (whether forced on him by the sny board or not). Regardless, imo the problem started with the few quotes we had from sny (fall 2014) about what their survey's told them (first key point btw) and sny's belief that they could price afrezza higher than existing treatments due to the lack of needles. Then came december 10 2014 (or thereabouts) and mnkd got the sec to apply a CTO to parts of the contract. The part that was black lined included numbers around the sales price of afrezza. This will be key to understanding (or not) the issues. I believe it's possible if not likely that the deal between the two created a product where they couldn't lower the price due to the costs and profit sharing involved. This herein would be the problem with a lawsuit against sny in combination with their "surveys". I'm guessing sny can prove they couldn't lower the sales price of afrezza as the contract, costs, and expected/desired profits were structured. As a result, afrezza couldn't compete cost wise with existing therapies. AS a result, insurance companies refused to cover it in tier 2 thus squashing sales. Well, you see where I'm going with this so I won't belabor the point. But if any of this turns out to be true, no judge will favor on mnkd's side. It might have been that brandicort looked at afrezza and the contract and decided "if the drug sells, great, if not we will dump it". Thoughts? I dont think so although a lot will have to do with how things go in the transition. Dont forget, MNKD had a seat at the table and had an equal vote. I believe MNKD went along with whatever Sanofi proposed because MNKD believed that Sanofi knew what they were doing with the launch. Very little basis for a lawsuit. Trend |
|
