|
Post by stevil on Nov 29, 2015 16:45:01 GMT -5
I have gone through the Sanofi/MNKD agreement with fine tooth comb and then the comb broke after learning/reading 99.9% of this signed agreement is in favor of Sanofi. There is less than 1/10 of a % that leaves MNKD any wiggle room. It is almost like taking Afrezza, giving Sanofi the rights to put Afrezza in an unmarked box, unopened box, placing it on the shelf. Good idea, but like others have stated, it's probably a futile undertaking at this point. The problem is that none of us truly know what the issues are. Sure, we can point to Spirometry, insurance coverage, patient/physician adoption, lack of marketing, etc. MNKD and SNY both are already aware of those issues. They've done far more research than we'd ever have money or time to duplicate. Short of them handing over all the data that they're looking at and asking us for solutions to those problems, there's not much chance we're going to come up with anything better than what they've already strategized- if they're truly trying. And if they're not, it doesn't matter anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 29, 2015 16:33:26 GMT -5
So longs would receive one SNY share for every two MNKD shares they own PLUS they get to keep their shares. MannKind Corporation, which still has nearly 100 million shares in their treasury, would receive SNY shares worth approximately $1.4 billion which could be sold and the cash put to use for pipeline development of many more TS drugs. Afrezza would be the first of many drugs. This is, of course, a scenario that most longs are 1. Dreaming 2. Hoping or 3. Anticipating will transpire. I like it. Bring it on Sanofi! If this is in the works, MNKD needs to close by Jan 1 or SNY could threaten to terminate the contract only to buy the rights in a liquidation. Which is why transparency would be extremely helpful to investors. Unless SNY is contractually obligated to close a fair deal with MNKD, why would they agree to make a deal now? The only leverage MNKD has is that they would sell Afrezza to SNY's competitor. I hope that's enough to strike a good deal. SNY isn't going to make a favorable deal with MNKD out of the goodness of their heart. It's a far better business decision to buy a liquidated company than pay full price for it. SNY would even have excuses to tell future partners as to why Afrezza needed more time to take off and that MNKD just didn't survive long enough to see it happen, so lucky us, we hit the jackpot.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 28, 2015 19:07:32 GMT -5
rockstarrick I can't even address what you've written as we must be looking at two different drug launches. I hold no theories, I only use what is reality to assess the situation and what is reality currently is a company with less than a few months cash left, a market cap below $1bil, script numbers stagnant almost a year into launch (<600nRx/week over the entire continental US!), and turmoil internally with the CEO's "resignation" [termination(?)]. These are the indisputable "facts". You are squarely in the "faith" camp so it is of no use debating with you as your reality is based on what you believe will happen in the future* while mine is based on what is currently happening in the present* [reality]. Future Speculation vs. Present Reality. I don't know where this "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" nonsense came from but it does us no good and it allows things to keep going the way they are without any pushback against management. I for one will be exploring a class action if this ends the way I expect based on current trajectory. Jeremg, Please hear me when I say this- I'm just as guilty as anyone for speaking in absolutes. With that said, no one on this board knows exactly what's going on. Therefore, no one should speak in absolutes. I think you lose people (as I probably did as well) when you refuse to admit that another side is possible. You and I seem to be in agreement on a lot of things, and while that may seem the most logical conclusion, we don't have the whole story to form a complete picture. We're given fragments of pieces and we're left to put them on a canvas and connect the dots. The problem with this is that our canvas is 2 dimensional, while the actual playing field may truly be 3 dimensional with things going on behind the scenes. Even though we both agree that the evidence is weaker to support that claim, it's still a possibility and must be considered as such.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 28, 2015 15:41:11 GMT -5
After thinking about it a little more, there's no way I can go along with this being "a part of the plan".
No way Al puts his company in a position where he has to lay off so many people so SNY can have fun with his toy. It just doesn't make sense.
There's no escaping a couple things
1. Matt/Hakan have expressed publicly that they expected things to be farther along than they are. 2. MNKD is not in great financial shape. Whether BK is a word that should be thrown around or not- at the sake of not pissing off certain posters- let's at least agree we're not healthy financially. This wouldn't happen if it was planned.
I understand that plans can change, but again, Al is a savvy businessman and wouldn't leverage a deal that would screw his company. At the time the deal was made, they were in a good enough position to have been able to name their terms. In this case, I don't think it's fallacious to assume that the lack of a clear plan is evidence of no plan. This isn't little league. These are smart businessmen.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 28, 2015 15:16:31 GMT -5
While I'm not as confident in Al's prowess as some here who think he foresees every obstacle, I do not think Al would overlook that part of an agreement. It's common business practice to draw up a contract that has time constraints and other parameters to ensure MNKD wouldn't get screwed in the agreement. At the very least, there would be additional required funds for any contingencies.
It's still possible that SNY agreed to pay asking price for Afrezza and perhaps the TASE was meant to just be a band-aid to get us until SNY fulfills their obligation to pay up.
Ha, it's almost more fun to try to figure out what's going on than it is for them to tell us, assuming we all get our happy ending. There really should be a book or movie about this if it succeeds.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 28, 2015 14:58:31 GMT -5
Can you explain the "mandatory contributions from index funds" line? I hadn't heard anything was mandatory...
Barring your response which would show MNKD and SNY both knew there would be additional funds, I have trouble going along with SNY wanting to try it in the real world before they buy it and Al being ok with that, unless they threw a huge number at them that they agreed to in contract before doing this.
My reasoning is as follows:
It'd be extremely dangerous for MNKD to allow SNY to play games with MNKD's ball without any promise of return, especially considering that MNKD is a one-trick pony at the moment. Also, I'm not able to follow the logic of those proposing that it was Al's plan all along to sell rights of Afrezza to SNY. Why would he do that? While the 65/35 deal doesn't sound like it would be that sweet of a deal for MNKD- and it may have been more profitable to sell it outright than to collect less than the lion's share for it- why would SNY agree to a price high enough for Al to want to sell it without knowing first that the market felt the same way about Afrezza? Meaning, how is it in SNY's best interest to buy it outright, before it shows signs of blockbuster status IN THE MARKET (not the science), when they would still collect 65% of the ride on the way up? Let's be SUPER generous, and assume that somehow Afrezza makes $1 billion/year in the next couple years... Is SNY really going to risk $10 billion (or whatever number you think would be more reasonable) or so to buy it outright, rather than wait for a couple years to see if it takes off, then spend a little more on a "sure thing"? Is Al going to sell Afrezza for cheap if he thinks that it's a blockbuster?
I just don't think there's any way a deal was in the works for Afrezza to be bought out before it proves itself. I also think that SNY would be helping MNKD with finances (and MNKD would be letting them buy-in) if this was all part of the plan. The fact that we had to list on the TASE for additional funds, to me, single-handedly destroys this theory. SNY should be the one supporting us financially if it's a "try it before you buy it" scenario. They're the ones holding us back from either reaping the profits (again, if it's truly planned to have such meager sales) from Afrezza or looking elsewhere for a better partner. I can't imagine Al would have made a deal with SNY that didn't include them helping us out if they were planning on dragging this out so long...
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 27, 2015 21:51:41 GMT -5
I guess we're talking about different games of poker Looks like you do 7 card stud/omaha whereas I play hold em. And I guess our differences lie in our risk assessment/odds evaluation. You sound like you're a bit more aggressive of a player than I am Hopefully we can both agree that we don't know for sure that we hold the best hand. And hopefully we can also agree that we don't know how strong our opponent's hand is, although they have been betting it like they're confident they have the winning hand. So really, it comes down to how much do you want to risk in that situation? Me? I'm content to take down a sizeable pot and just call my opponent's bluff- if that's what he's doing. There's no way I could fold my hand, but also no way I can justify unnecessarily raising the stakes- when theoretical better hands exist- just because I want to really strike it rich. Not to go too deep into poker theory, but the ones who are really good at poker know all the statistics. Very little of the game is left to chance. Very good hands are only worth so much because once you're getting less for your money than what the odds are, you're making a losing bet, even if you win. For instance, if your odds are 5:1 (20% of winning) and you're paying as though your odds are 4:1 (25%) to see the next card, that's a bad bet, short of a "tell" that you are certain your opponent is bluffing. Statistically, if you do that until the end of time, you'll exhaust your funds as the odds will eventually catch up to you. This post is getting way too complicated haha. Sorry... It basically comes down to different strokes for different folks. If you want to be risky, go for it. Like I said, I've got enough in the game right now to where I'll make a good amount if I'm right, but I'll survive for the next hand if I'm wrong. Thanks for the posts, Rob. It's always nice when the other side supports their opinions. You have a good point in stating that the institutions are adding to their position (although I read an article on yahoo- link below- that said we went from 13 to 11, so not sure who to believe right now... I'll err on the side of those here since they're probably more dialed in than any beat writer). I appreciate honest and genuine dialogue. I don't want the longs to have their own battleground with this stock haha. We're all in this together. While we may have differing opinions on how to proceed, I appreciate you being respectful, researched, and holding support for your opinions rather than labeling me a basher. So, thanks! Link: www.insidermonkey.com/blog/is-mannkind-corporation-mnkd-going-to-burn-these-hedge-funds-2-389357/
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 27, 2015 21:01:17 GMT -5
Stevil, I play poker. There is a scenario where I do not look at my hole card on the last draw. If my cards on the table looked good enough to win before drawing the last card and I am still in the game, then nothing changes on the last card. I bet and raise anyone left in the game. Unless someone has really been lucky enough to draw their flush or straight, I win 90% of the time on that play, maybe more. If I had looked at my card, what would have happened? I either would have folded and have lost what I had already bet into that hand, without really knowing if any opponent had done any better, or I would have confirmed that I was betting a winning hand. Since I was already betting and raising after the last card, then there is no point in looking at the card. Most opponents fold. But, if someone wants to see what I have, then we turn the cards over and we see what I pulled. It rarely gets to that point against decent players. Really good analogy, except I think it actually supports my stance more so than yours, but I catch your drift and I understand what you're saying. Absolutely, I'm already in the hand with my investment and I'm not going to fold- my views aligned very closely to your analogy. I'll keep in what I have and stay in the hand. But I can't allow myself to keep raising when others are betting like they have the royal flush. I have enough in it now to make a good gain, but I'm not confident enough that I have the winning hand when others are showing the strength they are. In this case, I don't hold the "nuts" as they're called. I know I don't own the best possible hand because, in theory, better hands could exist. So I'll be content to take down a large pot if I win, rather than losing everything I own (by adding more) if I'm wrong. Maybe to put it in even simpler terms, to fit your analogy, if someone keeps raising you every time you bet, do you check that card to see how strong your hand really is? Because I feel like that's what the market is doing. Every time I feel good about where MNKD is, something new happens that shows we might not have the best hand at the moment, or at the very least, they feel strong enough about their position that I have to consider I might not have the best hand anymore. So if I feel like I have, say a flush, and someone is betting like they have the full house or better, I don't keep raising them. I simply call their bet and take my hopeful gains, rather than losing everything I have on a solid hand that just got outdrawn. Because, like you said, it happens. Obviously there is so much more to consider in a poker game with odds- most notably the betting style of your opponent, how many players were in the hand, etc. But the same could be said of what's going on with MNKD. There's so much we DON'T know. We don't even know who our opponent is right now to be able to get a read on him...
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 27, 2015 16:53:40 GMT -5
Mine would be another promising TS application, with a great partner, that shows good to solid sales. Or, Afrezza finally taking off the way it should (which should also clear up the concerns below) This will show: Doctor/patient adoption of dreamboat as an ROA FDA not placing impossible limitations on TS applications Favorable insurance coverage. Right now I don't know if these problems will be limited to Afrezza or if we'll go through all of this again and hope Afrezza can carry us the additional time it takes for the next drug to reach success. I might miss the dreamboat and leave a lot of money on the table, but I'm a little less risky now that I see how many headwinds we're really pushing through. Hopefully Afrezza is paving the way and laying the groundwork for all future applications, but until I see either it or a different application have success, I'll remain skeptical the medical community isn't ready for this kind of technology yet. Edit: I'm a gambler by nature (which is why I'm even here) and I like to play the odds. Since I'm taking such a long-term approach to this company and since this company is still so much in its infancy, the risk to the downside is greater to me to invest before the above happens. If this company develops the way we think it will, even $5/share should eventually prove to be peanuts. So I'll wait for this tiny seed to produce a little fruit before I put more in. I understand that not all share my approach, but that's my opinion
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 25, 2015 23:05:16 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the share price is creating anonymity among us. It is time to thank Alfred for overcoming obstacles few individuals would attempt to try. Think how thankful Afrezza users are, they get to enjoy a meal without the thought of impaling themselves multiple times a day. Perhaps I am delusional, naive or both, but I hope shareholders will be rewarded in time. Happy Thanksgiving! @kastanes , I don't think it's the share price that's creating the animosity among us. It's the deluge of bashers, soft or otherwise, that appear to have taken over the board. How do I know? Over the last five or six months, I've been putting on ignore those posters who: 1. Over and over state, "I'm long, but..." 2. Claim no financial stake in MNKD, yet spend an inordinate amount of time telling everyone here why it's such a bad stock. (I was in CGA for the longest time at about $2.15. I got shaken out at $1.92 by a hedgie's investigative reporting, missing a one-time juicy dividend, but in retrospect, I believe I made a good decision. Have I ever gone back to post or to "assist" others in their CGA investments by telling them how much I think CGA sucks? Hell no, why would anyone do that? For all you bashers, that's a rhetorical question, no need for a response.) 3. Are "supportive" of the science, but (<= there's that qualifier again...the simple, but oh so not subtle way to bash) see pure disaster coming for MNKD because of management, SNY, short interest, impending BK, you name it. Honestly, with the each of these posters touting every one of these issues, why in the world would they "legitimately" be long in the stock. If the foregoing were a result of my DD, you can be damn sure I'm out. And what's the result of ignoring these types of bashers? It's almost like YMB now...I see entire threads where 70% to 90% of the posts are hidden! When I unhide the posts to see what the heck is going on, I swear, all I see is a bona fide basher charlie juliet. It was getting extremely difficult to tease out the helpful posts. And trying to call out these individuals for their not so subtle bashing has now become a fools game, as it brings their drivel back to the top. I began to simply refuse to read or participate in those threads that a huge number of posts were hidden. It makes my time on the board much more productive and enjoyable. Try it, I guarantee you'll like it. I looked at your profile and noticed that you weren't following anyone. There are some tools on here that will allow you to be notified whenever someone that you agree with posts on here so you can further avoid the "drivel". You probably already knew about this, but posted just in case you didn't. Hope it helps!
|
|
|
8-K
Nov 25, 2015 22:35:19 GMT -5
Post by stevil on Nov 25, 2015 22:35:19 GMT -5
I'll admit, I was surprised to see you get emotional about this. That's why I was wondering if you were close to the situation. You seemed to be very passionate about it.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 25, 2015 21:10:39 GMT -5
Pretty strong words from a careful, well-researched poster.
I know you were responsible for the nice "Thank you Hakan" thread.
I was wondering if you had personal knowledge of the situation? Is there anything more you're at liberty to share?
|
|
|
8-K
Nov 25, 2015 20:17:42 GMT -5
jeremg likes this
Post by stevil on Nov 25, 2015 20:17:42 GMT -5
Ok, I can maybe go with all of that... until the last part. I thought you stated he wanted to retire. Or he just wanted to retire from MNKD?
but then that brings me to my next question if so...
He worked so hard to accomplish a mission, then right before it happens, he decides he's had enough? I guess... but that's not really the personality of a CEO. I don't know too many guys who sign up for a job to get it 90% of the way finished. I guess you could argue that MNKD has fulfilled their duties and the ball is now in SNY's court, but if that were true, a successor wouldn't need to be as picky either as he's just playing wait-and-see for the next couple years.
It just makes way more sense to me for Hakan to have been terminated, but I guess your view isn't completely devoid of merit. I just think it's far less likely.
|
|
|
8-K
Nov 25, 2015 20:05:10 GMT -5
jeremg likes this
Post by stevil on Nov 25, 2015 20:05:10 GMT -5
It just seems bizarre to think he gets promoted for a year, then gets 2 years additional pay at that job level. So 3 years of pay for 1 year of service. That's not a very good plan ha. The arrangement aims at hard-blocking him from joining a competitor as he knew so much about TS pipeline dev and negotiation, and Afrezza CTO which expires before 7/1/17. BoD likely conferred w/ Sanofi who requested that strange arrangement. "Mr. Edstrom would provide the Company with a general release of claims and remain employed with the Company to provide transition and other services through July 1, 2017, subject to his earlier resignation or termination by the Company" Thanks for your explanation, Lakers. I'm not asking for myself. I'm asking for those on here whose stance I'm not understanding. I don't see how Hakan was anything but terminated. But I'm trying to give others the opportunity to help me so that I'm not incorrectly labeled a basher for simply offering my opinion. I figured I'd turn the floor over to them and allow them to prove their stance in hopes of converting a very willing non-basher into a believer. I just don't see it.
|
|
|
8-K
Nov 25, 2015 19:59:27 GMT -5
jeremg likes this
Post by stevil on Nov 25, 2015 19:59:27 GMT -5
IMO, there is nothing all that strange going on. People who find it strange only find it so because the facts do not match with what they imagined. I think my explanation (Hakan simply retired at a normal retirement age as there was nothing at MNKD to hold him there any longer) is perfectly sensible and fits the facts. Like many people who retire, he is easing himself out. Stepping down from the C-suite, but still participating on a lesser, part-time, basis. Not trying to be a jerk, although I know this is a pointed question. Trying to understand where you're coming from better... Where do you fit the recent layoffs ( www.newstimes.com/business/article/MannKind-engages-in-third-round-of-layoffs-in-6541355.php ) and Matt's comments about said layoffs into your theory?: "The projected sales curve for our lead product is also different than we anticipated. All these things, taken together, cause us to continually re-evaluate our needs and our organizational structure to make it optimal from an efficiency and cost standpoint. This is just good business practice." Are you saying that MNKD let go of much of its R&D team (don't know how much they make, but would assume master's/PhD degree would put them in the $100k or so range to keep a $750k base pay (sorry for not linking to official document. Don't feel like digging). Let's be generous and say R&D had 150k base salary. That's 10 yearly employees that they got rid of to pay Hakan's remaining salary for the next 2 years.... to play a part time role.... That's not even including his bonuses that he's entitled to for this year that is close to his base salary. That fits? Link to Hakan's base salary: www1.salary.com/Hakan-S-Edstrom-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-MANNKIND-CORP.html
|
|