|
Post by stevil on Jan 24, 2016 16:58:28 GMT -5
That is a beautiful visual. Hopefully he can keep lowering his baseline... I love you stevil. When I see these continuous glucose monitors remember normal on any glucose level laboratory results sheet is 60 to 90. And 90 is a ok. We have not gone crazy have we.
Perhaps I have read this incorrectly. Perhaps, it is the toujeo that can be lowered.
ok, maybe I am being sassy. Do we really want to be running around with a blood glucose level of 70? I say no. What is your blood glucose?
haha no I wasn't disguising criticism in my compliment. 106 is an amazing number for a diabetic, especially with how flat the line is. It doesn't look like he ate any food during that snapshot, or if he did it had a pretty low glycemic index (hard to tell if that small spike was from liver glucose or from exogenous glucose- to me anyway...), so I was hoping he could show more "normal" (non-diabetic/non-prediabetic) numbers in the sub-100 range. It looks like he spent quite a bit of time down there, so no... not a criticism. Just hope for his sake that his numbers decrease just a little bit more And I haven't ever really monitored my glucose. The only times I've taken it in the past couple years was during the biochemistry workshop we had a couple months ago and during my physicals. And my fasting BG was around 74 both times... But I am young, in pretty good shape and have a decent diet. And sassiness is welcome as long as you mean well
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 24, 2016 15:46:55 GMT -5
That is a beautiful visual. Hopefully he can keep lowering his baseline...
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 24, 2016 14:57:47 GMT -5
I think that the massive short position in MNKD actually affects the sales of Afrezza. I, for one, would be reluctant to start using a new pharmaceutical product made by a company being bashed to death by shorts. Why?
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 24, 2016 12:17:36 GMT -5
Stevil, you certainly have no reason to apologize in my opinion. Yours are among the few posts I take the time to read. I'm a long share holder and have been off and on since discovering MNKD in an article by Joe Springer on SA. Wether or not anyone else believes that means nothing to me. My view is very much aligned with yours, and you express similar thoughts to my own more eloquently than I believe I could. Your comments attract a degree of intolerance from others, sometimes even to the point of being unjustly personal. Personally I don't believe that being intolerant somehow extrapolates into guaranteed success. One characteristic I've noticed from the most vocal of the good news only crowd is support for the company, but with the added compulsion to offer micro management advice to tailor the administrative direction to their liking. That's hard for me to reconcile as nothing more than pyschological conflict. Thanks for the kind words. I really do try to play nice in the sandbox, but I'm human and my emotions get the best of me. It's nice to know my time here hasn't been completely wasted. I really haven't picked a side... I'm here to fight for "Truth", as much as she can be found. I just find myself currently in the short camp and I'm challenging others to pull me over to the long camp in a tug of war. It's unfortunate that I become the topic for debate rather than the issues I point to, but it is what it is...
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 24, 2016 11:45:51 GMT -5
Greg said it well and I thank him for his forward looking post. As for all the negative comments, I have to wonder why this board has been so infested by bashers and why they spend so much time spreading FUD about this stock. Constructive criticism is useful, and it's always welcome. Like you, what really bothers me is the incessant fud emanating from some people on this board. This comment probably won't survive our minders but it's the fakes and phonies that really bother me, the primary example being STEVIL. STEVIL claims to be a first-year med student who has to work his ass off, but somehow he's found the time to post 100s of messages on this board. Who knows where else he's posted his stuff. As to his stuff, almost without exception, his comments indicate that he's a shareholder but, quite frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. There's always a pretense at objectivity, but, again, almost without exception, there's a negative tilt, always designed to inject fear and uncertainty. His claim is that we need to be objective in our assessment of MNKD. This claim obviously makes sense but if you look at the bigger picture, there's something very off about him. If you look closely at his comments, he sees doom and gloom for MNKD. Its balance sheet is horrible, the outlook for Afrezza is terrible, Ti is worthless, and the deal for Ti is meaningless, etc. (Speaking as an analyst of almost three decades, I can say his critiques are incredibly simplistic and easily debunked; not worth the effort, though, because it would take forever.) Given this, why does he remain a stockholder. If I felt the same way, I would be long gone. There are 7,000 other stocks in the U.S. that I could buy, why stay with a stock that's doom and gloom. And if one were to argue that he didn't want to lock in a loss, then why the constant negativity. Who in his right mind not only hangs onto the stock of a company that he thinks in dire trouble but spends all day long bashing that stock? I apologize for singling one person out but I do take it personally when that person works so hard against my economic interest. If you want to trash a stock, at least be honest about your position. There are enough haters out there without our having to constantly hear trash from someone who claims to be one of us. Thanks for the compliment It's really not all that hard to understand. I'm fortunate enough to have nearly all of my classes recorded so I stay in my room most of the day to study. I find I can focus much more easily in there. I can play lectures at 2x speed and spend half the time it would take me to learn if I went to class. Also, since I'm on the computer a lot, it's not hard to take a few breaks here and there to check on this. It's a nice compliment though to think that you're surprised I can do both. Thanks! Since when can objectivity not be purely negative? This is a message board. I've clearly made my points clear enough for you to repeat them. Instead of just acknowledging them, refute them... Otherwise, you're not debating the thesis of an argument- you're simply attacking the source. Look up ad hominem fallacy. I can't add anything constructive because everything constructive I add to this board gets shot down and chewed up and whined about instead of getting addressed. I do try to encourage people to process and think more deeply. It just doesn't happen too often on here because there is this fascination that I'm somehow a secret spy from the other side trying to plant ideas that aren't true. Except most of the things I've said- that I didn't like the change in tone from the summer CC "we're not there yet" the layoffs shouldn't be looked upon favorably, SNY isn't doing a slow roll out, they're likely going to back out of the deal, etc. None of that was FUD or bashing. It was my opinion that turned out to be correct. And I had tangible, objective reasons why I felt that way and I tried to share those with the board back then, just as I'm doing now. And I do have a somewhat diversified portfolio. I've also shared some of the players that I think are better for the short term. The reason I haven't sold off my part in MNKD is the potential is still greater here than in another company. I have several times more shares of MNKD than I would be able to buy in any of those other companies. So it makes sense to me right now to wait this out since my shares are worth pennies compared to what I paid for them. I'm really not bashing the stock as much as I'm bringing the pumpers back down to earth. Never did I say that Technosphere was worthless or deals surrounding them worthless. I said that the most recent deal will do little for us as far as ensuring our survival and that we needed to do better than that in the short term. There is no doubt in my mind that we can still blossom into being a very good company. It's why I hold my shares. But I'm so vocal because there are people on this board whose DD stops here and they'll buy simply out of excitement. We saw it when the 2:1 SNY share swap with $15 buyout rumor was started. People went from downcast to elated in a day. I'd never seen anything like it. I just want to try to make sure both sides are presented. I've stated this many times, as well as my sentiment was that I was short this stock. It's not that I haven't been honest with my identity, intentions, and actions. People just haven't been listening and they've been making me into something other than what I am.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 24, 2016 11:23:23 GMT -5
[Clipped] I would agree that this was a better deal than partnering with an Indian company who might have a reputation for making subpar formulations (sub AB rating) of their drugs. In other words, I'll grant you that partnering with an unknown company was better than a company with a bad reputation. But I think you're really grasping at straws right now if you're trying to spin this into a positive . It would have been much better to have partnered with a well-known company with a good reputation.
One last thing. FUD hasn't been the reason we are where we are. I'm unsure of why some on here are so fascinated with FUD. If we had a product that was lighting up the sales numbers, there wouldn't be anything negative to write about. As I've been trying to repeat over and over and over, nearly all of the FUD about Afrezza and MNKD has been correct. The problem isn't FUD, it's lagging sales and the inability to properly market drugs. People are focusing on the wrong things for their investment planning. So it would have been better to partner with a company like Sanofi, in other words? I would think investors understand that there's a HUGE difference between lagging sales due to a partner's inability to properly market a drug and a partner's decision not to properly market that drug because doing so is not in their new CEO's business interests. I also think that evaluating new partnerships and steps being made for the future of the company is exactly the things investors should be focusing on for investment planning. Shareholders finally have received guidance from management - aka MannKind 2.0 - and the new CEO promptly delivered the first of many items listed in their plans. This is why I think your evaluation of Receptor is misguided and is truly poor advice. The Receptor L&C Agreement is not, nor has it ever been, about accessing cash in the near term. The cash needed to extend MannKind's business future (perhaps indefinitely) is to immediately take Afrezza sales outside the U.S., as stated by CEO Pfeffer. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your analysis rather than try to teach us how to invest? Good fortune to all. You raise good points. Yes, to answer your question, it would have been better to partner with SNY than RLS. I'm afraid you made a straw man fallacy out of my argument. You added words that weren't mine, nor were my original intention. For starters, look at what happened when we partnered with SNY. The SP jumped immediately on the news. Could have been that it was simply because we had ANY partner, but the street looked much more favorably on that partnership than the most recent one. Next, the events that happened with SNY were simply a series of unfortunate events. I don't think there is anyone here who would deny that if Viehbacher were still CEO of SNY that our history would more than likely have played out much differently. The problem wasn't the partner, it was the direction the partner turned after inking the deal. I'd like to add that I never discouraged anyone from evaluating a partner. I would absolutely agree that doing so would be an integral part of investment planning. The original premise was that FUD could not effect this partnership since it was an unknown company, not whether this was a good partnership or not. I simply argued that 1. FUD wouldn't desist simply because it was an unknown company and 2. FUD would be irrelevant to our success/failure as a company. The only thing that matters is sales and $$$. The point of my argument was that it's silly to keep blaming FUD for where we're currently at with our SP. FUD didn't get us here and FUD can't keep us here. The only reason we are where we are as a company is because we're not making any money. I'm not sure where the disconnect is... I feel like people add words to my argument or are constantly taking me out of context. I'm not sure if it's because I'm not communicating well or because there are other preconceived notions supplying context that I'm not providing. In any case, I wasn't trying to give investment advice to anyone. I'm certainly no expert, however, the obsession with FUD is really confusing to me on this board. I won't deny that it seems the deck is stacked against us for whatever reason(s) and that there is resistance from unknown sources. It's my opinion, however, that those forces shouldn't matter. The drug will penetrate the market if it's as amazing as we think, or it won't and it was never going to anyway. The reason the FUD obsession makes no sense to me is because if it's really as bad as people say it is, we're screwed anyway. If the resistance has infiltrated as far as the FDA and insurance companies, we never stood a chance to begin with. I often get asked why I haven't capitulated yet... in this instance, I'd turn the question and ask the same! So really, FUD either makes no difference or it's the only thing that matters when a company cannot survive long enough to change perceptions organically. In either case, obsessing over it doesn't make sense... Decide your stance and then go from there. If you really think it's that big of a deal, get out. If not, focus your efforts and research elsewhere on things that matter- like how we'll increase sales, get more cash, etc. THAT was my point. Hopefully that makes a little more sense... Finally, I've stated in many other threads what you said at the bottom. This deal was never meant to infuse upfront cash into the company and its sole purpose was to prolong our life so Afrezza can gain traction. I'm aware that is what Matt said at the JPM conference. I would certainly agree evaluating this deal- and partner- in these terms is what should be focused on. That was my entire argument. Everything else is just noise. I would like to apologize for being so abrasive. I have strong opinions and I must not be smoothing the edges enough while communicating. I'll try to do a better job going forward.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 20:14:11 GMT -5
About a year and a half ago I posted an idea on the YMB about an approach to introducing Afrezza to the medical world at an upcoming ADA Scientific Sessions. Since Sanofi was going to do such a great job of handling all of the marketing, I let my idea go away. After all, Sanofi was going to make Afrezza a big hit. Right? Grrrrrrrr!!!! But I digress.....
So I wanted to float the idea again to all of you on Proboards to see what you think. Perhaps, if you think it has merit, we can pass it along to Mnkd management. So here goes:
Picture this: You are an endo who is attending the 2016 Scientific Sessions. You have heard vaguely about Afrezza, a new inhaled insulin but think it is just another inhaled insulin. You decide to go ahead and attend the session on Afrezza anyway just because your curious. So you decide to go 15 minutes early to make sure you get a seat just in case the room fills. As you walk in you notice some odd things that are in the room. First, you notice that there are four large screens set up behind a platform next to the speakers podium. You then notice that there is a dinner table set up in front as well with four people talking with the person who will be presenting on Afrezza. You laugh to yourself because it looks like they are preparing to eat while the speaker is giving his presentation. Now you are interested in what is going to happen here. At the very least, it will be entertaining you think.
As you sit there waiting for the presentation to begin, more people file in and the auditorium is mostly filled. You notice that the screens behind the stage have now been energized and it looks like CGM readings are showing up on the screens. You make the connection that each screen shows the CGM reading of each of the four people now sitting down to have a meal. It looks like a full spaghetti dinner. How odd you think. The speaker then steps up to the podium and begins. You hardly notice what the speaker is saying because you are watching what appears to be diabetics eating a heavy meal. About 10 minutes into the talk all four of the people load a cartridge into this small whistle size object and take a puff of what you believe is Afrezza. You are now intently watching the CGM readings as it appeared that the blood glucose was beginning to go up for 3 of the diners. However, you also notice that one of the people that took a puff hasn't eaten anything yet. You are a little worried for that person because you are afraid the insulin will make that person's BG crash if he doesn't have anything to eat soon.
While you sit there partially listening to the speaker and watching those CGM readings, you are amazed that this heavy meal has not caused any of the three people to have any significant spike in BG. How is that possible you think. What is even more amazing is that the BG level for the person who still hasn't eaten anything doesn't appear to be drastically dropping. You then kick yourself for not paying more attention to the speaker. You cannot believe what you just saw. Is it possible that this inhaled insulin product was able to maintain BG in real time? That's just not possible. But you saw it with your own eyes. Wow, you think. You make a mental note to get more data on this Afrezza. But first you want to speak with someone.
Instead of going up to talk with the Afrezza speaker, you go up and speak with the people who were eating the meal. You are particularly interested in speaking with the person who never actually ate. You want to know how they could be so confident in the product that they would risk hypoglycemia. After speaking with the folks who were there as diabetics you conclude that you need to find out more about Afrezza.
So, would this kind of presentation be allowed at the ADA? Could this type of presentation be used in other gatherings? Maybe at a health conferences? Anyway, what do you think?
I'm a little confused. I hope you're not really saying what I think you're saying. I thought this board was usually pretty well informed about stuff, but maybe not... Where do you guys get your info from? The first issue I have with the 4th contestant that doesn't eat- It's very common for diabetics to take their insulin about a half hour before they eat... so not eating immediately wouldn't really be that big of a deal... That's pretty normal behavior for a diabetic. Then, I hope you're not really wanting someone to take a bunch of insulin without eating... It's not impossible to have a hypoglycemic event on Afrezza. If someone doesn't compensate by adding carbs right away, they still could pass out and go into a coma and possibly die if not given glucose relatively soon. It's just less likely to happen on Afrezza because it's easier to control and apparently you need more of it than normal insulin, so the early users were probably starting on the lower end of what they needed. Since it works so quickly, you don't need to take a bunch of it to meet the numbers you want so you can dose it low and add on if you need to. But no, it would not be a good idea at all to take a dose of insulin and then not eat anything.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 19:30:32 GMT -5
I see your point and you're probably right. It might still be offensive to the people who have to poke themselves and those who aren't candidates for Afrezza due to labeling restrictions.
But, even if we want to avoid the potential for offense, there are a number of any other identities we could take. We could take the approach of really doing it "for the patient" talk about how "we could charge you as much as the other guys... but we won't" and "We could make you wait as long as the other guys, but we won't" etc. Make it look like we're a gentleman courting a girl. Make us the knight in shining armor. Again, not sure if these are allowed... all drug commercials seem boring to me and there's probably a good reason for that.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 19:16:10 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 I think the shorts will be in control until our company demonstrates that they can avoid bankruptcy without dilution or substantial debt and that there is a strong plan moving forward to ensure profitability. Correlation does not mean causation. The shorts will go away when there is recourse for their actions. Right now, there is none. MNKD has terrible fundamentals right now. Fix the real problem and the shorts will go away.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 19:00:30 GMT -5
I agree with just about everything you wrote, save for the 3rd paragraph. I don't have the knowledge to refute it, but I would hope only those who are entitled feel that way.
Anyway, the best I could come up with is to have ads like the dollar shave club. Find a way to make them funny and leave the consumers wanting the product as much as wanting to see the next commercial. Their story of rags to riches is amazing. It goes to show that you don't need a ton of money to create a successful and sustainable business, AND start chipping away at a significant part of a market that has been around for a long time and has been dominated by just a few giants.
In all reality, we'd essentially be playing the same role. Dollar shave club's claim to fame was that they
1.undercut the competition (which we're doing) 2.they shipped the product right to the patient's house (which we hopefully could... AFAIK, we're not required to keep our product refrigerated- someone correct me if I'm wrong- which is a HUGE benefit that should be capitalized on if indeed we're able to), 3.their commercials are hilarious.
Then, finally, and this is what would be cool if we could implement it with pharma... not sure if there are regulations that would prohibit it... but dollar shave club gives a free month to each person that refers their friends to join the club. So we could encourage people to get several year's worth of free diabetic meds if they start advocating for the company. I'm sure that'd make any diabetic proud...
I have a hard time believing that this would be allowed since somebody else would be doing it already, but if it is... this would be the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 18:24:30 GMT -5
FUD or simply reality? Do notice many of us long term bulls have given up and sold. Capitulation before the short squeeze or seeing reality for what it is? So far I'm happy to have sold when I did and can't find a reason to buy back in. There's no point in responding to him. Sometimes I. Wonder if people like him are short and pumping the stock. How anyone is that confident is beyond me. You would be surprised how people can brainwash themselves into believing a certain way. I'm convinced that some on this board genuinely think that MNKD cannot fail. I think they are too in love with the science that they can't see the forest through the trees. It's why when I got here I took such a firm stance and tried to even things out. Afrezza has become a cult following it seems. People have almost adopted it as a part of their identity. They want so badly for it to succeed that they don't even want to consider that it could fail. It's like a parent who loves their kid but is in denial. Their kid is failing all their classes, gets caught with drugs, gets in trouble with the cops, but the parents still back them up and thinks they're a good kid and not a failure. Pretending that reality isn't real is easier than facing it. I honestly think that's part of what's going on here. But your theory makes sense also...
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 18:17:38 GMT -5
So you're saying that it's better to have a partner that no one has heard about, no one has any idea regarding their financial stability, their ability to advertise and bring a drug successfully to market, if their business model is sustainable, practical, and effective, how many employees they have, how much of the drug they're capable of producing and selling, how quickly they plan on delivering the drugs to market, etc? I'm not sure people here really evaluate things honestly. I get the feeling they try to spin every negative into a positive. That's great in real life and in things they can "control". However, this doesn't translate into the business world, mostly because the success of MNKD is outside of our control. You're only fooling yourself if you keep spinning things to fit your idea of what you want MNKD to be rather than evaluating the situation honestly and seeing it for what it really is. I would agree that this was a better deal than partnering with an Indian company who might have a reputation for making subpar formulations (sub AB rating) of their drugs. In other words, I'll grant you that partnering with an unknown company was better than a company with a bad reputation. But I think you're really grasping at straws right now if you're trying to spin this into a positive. It would have been much better to have partnered with a well-known company with a good reputation. One last thing. FUD hasn't been the reason we are where we are. I'm unsure of why some on here are so fascinated with FUD. If we had a product that was lighting up the sales numbers, there wouldn't be anything negative to write about. As I've been trying to repeat over and over and over, nearly all of the FUD about Afrezza and MNKD has been correct. The problem isn't FUD, it's lagging sales and the inability to properly market drugs. People are focusing on the wrong things for their investment planning. I'm not trying to put a spin on anything. Bottom line is, you don't know what you don't know... and that's what we call in the Army, "surprise element." Everyone else (naysayers and longs) can spin it however they wish. In my opinion it leaves the naysayers with "nothing" at this point so whatever they choose to write, whatever is said on the YMB, and whatever is said here sometimes is better left unsaid... hint! Everyone is pondering the 5 W's, I say keep the FUDSTERS guessing. It just maybe a rude awakening. Your argument could just as easily be spun the other way. If no one knows anything about them, there won't be any way to refute anything negative they could say about them... Like the points I eluded to above. People who have an agenda will find a way to carry it out regardless of whether it's based in fact or not. Anyone can sue anyone at any given time for anything. It's up to a judge to decide if that lawsuit is credible or not. In this situation, that judge would be us. It's up to each of us to determine whether or not what is written has merit or not. But like I said, I'm not really even sure why it matters... It's not going to help us in any way. They either sell the drugs and increase sales and revenue, or they don't. I think you're spending energy in the wrong places. As dictatorsaurus said, we're past the point of FUD mattering. It's time to put up or shut up. The only thing that can save or hurt us going forward are sales. That is where you should focus your attention. Will this company be able to sell enough to stay in business first, then be profitable and sustainable if they can. That's really all that matters right now. We don't have enough time for anything else.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 18:11:20 GMT -5
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 Unfortunately the only way anyone has made any money on MNKD is to loan out shares and collect interest payments. Had I done this 18 months ago I would have made a nice chunk of change. I don't have nearly enough money to qualify for Fidelity's requirements so I don't really have a dog in this fight. Having said that, I can't tell if the ones on here are truly upset that others lent or that they hadn't recouped as much of the losses as those who lent did. I'll never get upset with longs who lend their shares. I wish I could... I don't fault you for trying to do what is best for you. That's part of the game. Capitalism isn't about doing what's best for everyone. It's about doing what's best for me. As a culture we're starting to see the inherent flaws in capitalism that we didn't before because there were still some residual values from before the pre-capitalistic market. But once people figured out that greed is the main fuel for the capitalist's engine, it has started firing on all cylinders. You're fighting a losing battle if you get upset with others for playing the game. More importantly, by blaming them, you're refusing to learn that it's just the way it is. Playing the victim only hurts yourself. It's unfortunate that our culture has become so self-centered and independent. Not disputing that. Just trying to help you see that if you're going to play the game, it's best to know the rules. And Slugworth, this post wasn't at you. I quoted the wrong person, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 23, 2016 17:51:27 GMT -5
So you're saying that it's better to have a partner that no one has heard about, no one has any idea regarding their financial stability, their ability to advertise and bring a drug successfully to market, if their business model is sustainable, practical, and effective, how many employees they have, how much of the drug they're capable of producing and selling, how quickly they plan on delivering the drugs to market, etc?
I'm not sure people here really evaluate things honestly. I get the feeling they try to spin every negative into a positive. That's great in real life and in things they can "control". However, this doesn't translate into the business world, mostly because the success of MNKD is outside of our control. You're only fooling yourself if you keep spinning things to fit your idea of what you want MNKD to be rather than evaluating the situation honestly and seeing it for what it really is.
I would agree that this was a better deal than partnering with an Indian company who might have a reputation for making subpar formulations (sub AB rating) of their drugs. In other words, I'll grant you that partnering with an unknown company was better than a company with a bad reputation. But I think you're really grasping at straws right now if you're trying to spin this into a positive. It would have been much better to have partnered with a well-known company with a good reputation.
One last thing. FUD hasn't been the reason we are where we are. I'm unsure of why some on here are so fascinated with FUD. If we had a product that was lighting up the sales numbers, there wouldn't be anything negative to write about. As I've been trying to repeat over and over and over, nearly all of the FUD about Afrezza and MNKD has been correct. The problem isn't FUD, it's lagging sales and the inability to properly market drugs. People are focusing on the wrong things for their investment planning.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jan 22, 2016 18:06:16 GMT -5
The perfect saying for this deal is "damned if they do and damned if they dont" If MNKD doesn't release info we are going out of business. If they do the short thesis is its Al Mans company and they are trying to transfer XYZ to him We needed a deal but given everything that has unfolded over the past 6 months and how much everyone is down its pretty tough to swallow not knowing anything about the company besides a forest and MNKD's press release description IMO This deal is purely faith based because of the unknowns. I have no issues with no upfront money and given their current situation they really cant ask for any. This is a groupon deal. As others have eluded to but haven't explicitly stated, I'll try to answer one part of the original questions- So, how can any deal for Ti be seen negatively? Here are the options- Great! We landed a deal and we're going to make some money in the upcoming years! It's not a bunch, but every little bit helps! Neutral- this deal doesn't really help or hurt the company. The technology is there, might as well profit off of it, but it's not going to be the savior of the company. Negative- There might have been a loss of potential with the deal. With drugs on standby, we now know about how lucrative they will be and it might not have been on as good of terms as the street had hoped. So just because there was a deal made, no one really got excited about it because now we have fewer drugs (and options) to reach our immediate needs. Then, on top of that, we now have a glimpse behind the curtain of what payers think about TS currently. So to some, it may have shown them that Afrezza is still basically MNKD's only hope. In our CEO's own language, he stated that he's hoping that we can stay alive long enough for Afrezza to catch traction. So if they didn't think Afrezza was going to do it before, now they really have fewer things to fear since it's unlikely anything else can or will in the near term.
|
|