|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 15:55:33 GMT -5
There were certainly many hints that this might happen heading into the end of last year. The fact was SNY at some point gave up and was not motivated to sell Afrezza. Having a partner that is not motivated to sell your product and holds the keys to all marketing and sales is not an ideal situation. While the termination of the agreement seems like a major short term blow, the fact is that SNY basically paid MNKD about $200 million for a 1 year trial and then backed out. At this point, if MNKD can find a different partnership, the situation would actually be fantastic long term. The problem would be needing to try to go it alone if no partnership is found. If that were the case, MNKD would need to cut expenditures significantly while also needing to raise some capital. That would mean that it would either spin off Afrezza or turn into a purely manufacturing company until sales started catching up with expenses. Worst case, the fire sale of the entire company for the tax losses incurred alone is higher than the market cap of the entire company right now so I see significantly more upside than downside right now. I continue to hold and add when I have spare funds and will continue to post and observe here, but I have been taking a break from looking day to day since the atmosphere has been fairly toxic as everyone is always in a foul mood when paper losses are incurred. In addition, Sanofi spent over $150 million launching the product (although MNKD owes $50 milion +- to Sanofi). I'm trying to look at this from the bright side. Its better to get rid of a partner who is not performing and who is costing you money every day. Hopefully Al and the team can move beyond this. Based on the market cap of $325 million, it seems like a compelling buy. So I just pulled the trigger. 5000 sh @ $.7398. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 14:10:23 GMT -5
Just got back from vacation and I spent some time with someone who runs a small hedge fund ($200 million). The topic of Mannkind came up and he told me that his hedge fund just recently closed out his relatively large short position in Mannkind but stills owns lots of puts. He knows Jason Karp well and believes quite a bit of JK's short thesis. In fact he read me a portion of JK's recent comments of the recent MNKD CC. In summary, he said that the "Street" (very knowledgable Wall Street gamblers) believe that the CEO of Sanofi has no real commitment to Afrezza and further believe that's it's highly likely that Sanofi will terminate the partnership early in 2016. He thought that if that happens, the share price could drop to $1.50. i know that this is diametrically opposite of what we heard on the CC - and that's why I titled this thread "For What It's Worth". Trend I guess Jason Karp and his sources were correct way back in August. Its interesting to read all of the posts on this thread in response to the info I posted. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 4, 2016 12:33:03 GMT -5
Long term poster, always with an interesting take. Good luck with your promotion.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 21, 2015 21:57:54 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Matt say they couldn't use the milestone money until they receive a profit from SNY's Afrezza sales? I believe he also said he did not expect to see profits until 2016 or 2017. With sales a slow as they are, it is looking like 2017 will be the earliest MNKD could become profitable from SNY sales. By then MNKD will need a cash infusion. Am I incorrect? Thanks. You know "nadathing". |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 21, 2015 1:26:20 GMT -5
There is no black out period. The reason MNKD is making no public statements or comments is that there is nothing to say that shareholders will be happy hearing. Trend Talk about doom and bloom. Just being "real". At the same time I believe MNKD will have something to say soon and investors should be buying at these depressed levels. If that what you meant by "doom and bloom", we're in agreement. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 20, 2015 16:44:18 GMT -5
Just so board members are aware, CNA Finance is not in any affiliated with the CNA Financial, the multi billion dollar insurance entity. You have to wonder about any company that tries to confuse readers/investors by utilizing a name closely resembling that of a major company. I surprised CNA Financial has not sent this company a cease and desist order. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 20, 2015 15:47:10 GMT -5
I think by mentioning Black out period, many are assuming there is a deal in work. There MIGHT be a deal in work, but also keep in mind that the insiders know the numbers/text in redacted CTO that expires 3Q 2017 and could be a reason for the black out period too... There is no black out period. The reason MNKD is making no public statements or comments is that there is nothing to say that shareholders will be happy hearing. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 20, 2015 11:38:28 GMT -5
I assume OP is referencing $1.50 calls? If so, why would they have gotten called away, since share price ended at 1.48? I'm assuming that the holder of the calls was short and wanted to cover. Thus he could exercise the calls and deliver shares back shares. The holder of the call option can exercise even if it financially disadvantageous to do so. In this case, its an easy way to cover without impacting the SP and the difference between $1.48 (which btw was the bid) and the option price of $1.50 wouldn't discourage the holder of the call not to exercise the calls if he was desirous of closing out a large short position quickly and with certainty. |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 19, 2015 1:49:06 GMT -5
I wonder how many longs who had sold covered calls found that their shares were called away. It seems that the short squeeze is not happening because of the huge amount of low strike price calls available at this share price level. Shorts don't seem to have any problem finding available calls to buy to cover. Do all calls have to be covered or is the sale of naked calls are permitted?
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 17, 2015 15:23:04 GMT -5
I dont know but it feels different. Its seems like the tax loss selling pressure is over and the hedge fund shorts are covering to take some profits. How else are the hedge fund managers going to get their bonuses?
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 17, 2015 0:56:45 GMT -5
Matthew Pfeffer - CFO In that regard, I've been asked this a couple of times on the phone, so probably clarify it, because people will say what rights in those other areas do Sanofi have? They do have a right of first negotiation if we were to take a formulation of inhalable GLP-1 forward. But they have not rights to those -- any other products beyond that. So, I can't say we would mind talking to them about them when they get to the point when that’s appropriate. But under the current agreement, the only future potential right they have is on the GLP-1. seekingalpha.com/article/2412135-mannkinds-mnkd-ceo-alfred-mann-on-q2-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript?find=sanofi&all=falseTechnically Matt is correct since it states that in Section 2.7 paragraph D. (d) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Section 2.7 shall be construed to give Sanofi or any of its Affiliates any rights whatsoever with respect to any proposed sale of all or substantially all of the business or assets of the Licensors, or of a substantial portion of the business or assets of the Licensors that relates to two or more bona fide development programs or products of the Licensors, including […***…] Products, in each case, whether by merger, sale of stock, sale of assets or otherwise. Nevertheless, section 2.7 exists and does provide certain rights to SNY. Perhaps the wording is in response to a GLP product but I doubt it since it talks about multiple products as "each a (***) product in the first paragraph. If the section does actually pertain to a GLP product then by agreement they have no rights to it as evidenced by paragraph D. In section 2.7, I know they are not talking about Afrezza. I doubt they are talking about GLP. I suspect they are talking about Technosphere Products.Hammer - Why do you keep insisting the SNY has rights to all TS products? Are you saying the CFO is incorrect? His statement is clear and unambiguous. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 16, 2015 16:44:53 GMT -5
Whichever way you read it, it would be tricky to detangle afrezza(TS) from any other application(TS) with respect to IP. From a legal standpoint any rights buyer of Afrezza could EASILY claim they own rights to Afrezza's formulation - otherwise what would they be buying LEGALLY. I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the interpretation that Hammer and others have made that SNY's has a first right of refusal on all future TS applications is most likely not true. The Agreement would have been worded differently if it was the intention of the Parties to give such a right to SNY. |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 16, 2015 16:27:05 GMT -5
So, your thesis is that SNY is starving MNKD to get a better price, correct? If that's the case, then MNKD (and Al) were displeased with Hakan's weak efforts, yet they kept him on the payroll. This suggests that Al (and/or) Al's minions are out there beating the bushes for more TS partners and has left day to day operations to Hakan. Has anyone seen evidence of Al shopping and negotiating yet? Because that is what we would expect in this scenario. My thesis is simple. SNY has interest in Afrezza as well as the TS program. SNY is not willing to completely commit to Afrezza until certain regulatory conditions,least of all that include SNY insulin as secondary API for Afrezza and A better label moving into EU. All of these items will eventually be secured but will take some time. Afrezza will be successful when SNY wants it to be! Article 2 subsection 2.7 of the redacted license agreement pertains to third party license of TS development (IMHO), and is the only mechanism in which SNY does not have complete control of. MNKD is free to develop and present TS to 3rd parties but SNY retains access to such data rooms and retains redacted time frames in which to review and do due dilligence on such TS developments. This is good for SNY since ultimately will provide a source of income either by a third party or by SNY. This is not good for SNY since it the intent is to own TS they may have to purchase piecemeal in a time frame other than by their own doing. If forced to purchase TS developments before the mentioned regulatory milestones SNY is forced to show the hand they have been trying to conceal by the complete redacted agreement. The question I think we all should be asking management is Has SNY entered the "Data Room"? To those who have cordial correspondence with Matt, ask the question. If they have not entered the data room its a simple and honest NO response. Hammer. I disagree with you and others with respect to the interpretation of Article 2 subsection 2.7. The assumption that SNY has a first right of refusal for any TS product is speculation at best and most likely not so. If SNY did have a first right of refusal, the definition of "product" would not have been redacted and the agreement would have just stated that SNY first right of refusal applies to "any and all products" period. So in my opinion there is a carve out for SNY of certain future TS products most likely in the diabetes fIeld. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 15, 2015 23:33:30 GMT -5
Is it time to consider the idea of Sanofi opening Afrezza clinics where Sanofi hired doctors offer Afrezza as an option for T1 and T2 patients? Or, if there is some sort of a legal issue with Sanofi owning Afrezza clinics, could there be a method in which others open Afrezza clinics and offer Afrezza as an option? Does Al have friends interested in this endeavor? Or, are there any doctors reading this forum who might like to give it a try? Hate to say it, but you should stick to journalism. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 15, 2015 23:28:16 GMT -5
I don't know what will happen but I did take another small bite today. Now have 1/5 of my peak position (for obviously very much less $...). The risk benefit (which is only known retrospectively) seems rather 'highly speculatively' attractive to me at these prices... Welcome back!  Trend |
|
