|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 10, 2015 19:53:41 GMT -5
Sanofi shorting Mannkind would be so insane a move that any CEO doing this would be banned from any job for life (Uber might hire him as a driver?). In an industry that lives or dies by partnership this would be so toxic as to destroy any good partnerships for a decade or more (not to mention the easily won lawsuit that would follow). I hate to say this but I think you are continuously reaching for stuff that just doesn't make sense. If we follow your logic everyone at Mannkind and Sanofi is shorting. The whole financial world seems to be built around shorting Mannkind? While I agree that the probability of SNY shorting MNKD is probably near zero, I don't think it could be called "insane." Look at how the deal is structured. SNY controls all marketing and sales and decides on what qualifies to be included in the losses that MNKD must share. MNKD is stuck paying its share of the losses with the SNY loan facility -- a loan that has seniority over all the other debt and a loan that is secured by everything MNKD owns. On the joint committee, all disputes are ultimately decided by the SNY co-chair. What a prefect set-up! Slow the launch to a snail's pace, incur huge losses that rapidly accelerate MNKD's debt, and short the stock along the way, forcing MNKD into highly dilutive stock deals. And MNKD couldn't do a thing about it! |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 10, 2015 13:13:53 GMT -5
Interesting quote of "Matt_PK" on SA "MannKind: Weekly Data Updates- 10/30/15 Data" article:
"I think what people forget is that index funds can be your best friend or your worst enemy, depending on which way the PPS is moving. If the stock is headed up then MNKD will have a higher weighting in the index and the fund will have to buy more shares in the open market, thus amplifying the gains. Conversely, if the stock heads down then MNKD will have a smaller weighting in the index and the fund will have to sell shares into the open market amplifying the losses. Index funds are like a sharp knife; they cut both ways."
I have to think about this one. I'm unsure as to how to assay its significance.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 10, 2015 0:53:20 GMT -5
Jay Olson Okay. And then, just on the pipeline, I appreciate the color there on the progress; can you tell us how close you are to moving any of your pipeline assets into the clinic, and when is the soonest that MannKind could sign a partnership or licensing deal to monetize some of those pipeline assets? Hakan Edstrom Well, in regards to -- I would say they are certainly month away from going into a clinic. I mean, they are in the formulation stage right now, particularly on the pulmonary hypertension. In regards to entering into other development partnership or financial partnership, the only thing I can say that, that actioned [ph] over the last week, we've had discussions with potential partners. However, there are still negotiations to be had. So I would say -- I would hope that we could possibly announce something before the end of the year -- oh, sorry, within the next quarter, but that's as specific as I can be at this point in time. www.seekingalpha.com/article/3669586This proves what I've said all along. I feel for mgmt. They really thought they had it. They kept getting bad cards. It made them appear bumbling and incompetent in handling the Notes. Eventually, the law of average will prevail. One of these days, They might get full house when the river is dealt and keep getting good cards early on to raise ante to the Shorts. Hakan's answer is simply embarrassing. he appears to be doing nothing but "begging the question," leaving the impression that he either knows absolutely nothing about what -- if anything -- is actually in the "pipeline" or else he knows and doesn't want to admit that something for clinical application is years away. Ditto for partnerships -- they're talked about technosphere partnerships for years and all they ever produce is "hope that we could possibly announce." |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 10, 2015 0:44:13 GMT -5
Yup, IMO the entire process from insurance coverage, to making it easy to get a script will be dealt with effectively and the floodgates of those wanting Afrezza will burst open. That is my belief for 2016. Don't for a second think that there is not a ton of work going on behind the scenes to make this all happen. Hey, I trust MNKD and the man behind it, Dr. Al Mann. This is where I stand on the entire matter. On the other hand, having dealt with attempting to sell afrezza the past 9-10 months, perhaps SNY came to the conclusion that there is no reason to do anything to "open the floodgates." Perhaps their experience so far suggests the reservoir is near dry. As someone else mentioned, when Sanofi is excited about something's prospects, they know how to get the job done -- just reviewing the SNY presentation and what they've done for toujeo and what they are doing for praluent shows that. Maybe SNY simply decided that afrezza is only a niche drug and not worth the aggressive pursuit of market share. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 10, 2015 0:32:12 GMT -5
Continues to ask about Sanofi ending partnership. Jay: get it through your thick skull, Sanofi is not walking away. But which is worse -- Sanofi not walking away or Sanofi continuing to do next to nothing to promote afrezza? The guillotine or slowly starving to death? Unless there's a dramatic change in SNY's behavior, the new financing will likely only keep MNKD "hanging" for another year accumulating more losses and more debt, which could mean needing an even larger secondary next December. The SNY presentation clearly demonstrated that afrezza is not a priority with them, and MNKD clearly doesn't seem adept at challenging SNY's attitude or behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 10, 2015 0:06:19 GMT -5
The fact that anybody would look at this and says "yeah, why not? this works" or if your prefer the unofficial translation "Yay, we live for a few more months, that was close", proves per se how borderline desperate the feeling of the posts in this board have become. Given the situation, not 6 months ago, not 2 months ago, but the situation we as a company were faced with, how would you have raised the 125 to 150 million dollars. The label and insurance are real issues, they can be dealt with, but until they are, DTC, and high rx numbers weren't in the cards. Im thankful we had this option. If you really think about it, we had 37m after paying the debt in cash. We are required to maintain 25m due to Deerfield. How do you think the call would have went without the TASE listing, what would you have done ?? The call was as good as it could have been considering. Now as we continue to deal with issues, PWD can still get Afrezza, more amazing data will be logged, pediatric trials and other clinical trials will continue to show Sanofi and the rest of the world how superior Afrezza really is. We will be fine. Good Luck EOD Why didn't anyone at MNKD recognize the issues back when MNKD was trading up around $7 in February and June or, better yet, back in May of 2014 when it was around 10-11 dollars a share and taken some financing steps while the stock was relatively strong? It seems like the drag on sales from black boxes, spirometry, insurance, etc, should have been obvious long before the launch. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 9, 2015 23:58:54 GMT -5
Did MNKD try to sell any shares to SNY? Over the past few weeks, SNY has appeared in the news several times doling out hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in deals with various companies, none of which -- as I recall -- had any products close to marketing. One might therefore conclude that SNY is flush with cash and not afraid of risking it. Them buying in MNKD stock would have produced a favorable impression with the public -- investment in afrezza's future, etc -- and presumably wouldn't have required a discount. The impression now created -- to me at least -- is that MNKD couldn't find anyone to buy their stock and chose to dual list in Israel as a "backdoor" to get financing -- the funds there being required to purchase MNKD stock and MNKD offering a 3% discount as incentive to buy directly from MNKD. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 9, 2015 10:59:40 GMT -5
I was about to say this. AF is right, unfortunately. They've got 32.9M left in cash, but Deerfield debt covenant says they must keep $25M as a minimum. We need cash. How much do we owe Deerfield? From the SEC filing: As of September 30, 2015, we had $185.4 million principal amount of outstanding debt, consisting of: • $27.7 million principal amount of 2018 notes bearing interest at 5.75% per annum and maturing on August 15, 2018; • $60.0 million principal amount of 2019 notes bearing interest at 9.75% per annum, $5.0 million of which is due and payable in July 2016, $15.0 million of which is due and payable in July 2017, $15.0 million of which is due and payable in July 2018 and $25.0 million of which is due and payable in July and December 2019; • $20.0 million principal amount of Tranche B notes bearing interest at 8.75% per annum, $5.0 million of which is due and payable in each of May 2017, 2018 and 2019, and $5 million of which is due and payable in December 2019; • $49.5 million principal amount of indebtedness under the Loan Arrangement bearing interest at 5.84% and maturing and due on January 5, 2020; and • $28.2 million principal amount borrowed under the Sanofi Loan Facility to fund our share of net losses under the Sanofi License Agreement." I believe -- not at all sure -- the first three belong belong to Deerfield. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 9, 2015 10:51:59 GMT -5
$25 M minimum is a Deerfield debt covenant, it is in the 10q. What AF conveniently forget are the $30.1 M available from Al, the $37.5 available ATM, or the impact of TASE indexing on Sunday in conjunction with the reduced number of shares available for shorting since the 9 M from BoA were returned. One problem with the $37.5 available ATM is that the more it's used, the greater the downward pressure on share price. Using the Mann Group loan just puts them deeper in debt, and still doesn't address the issue of how to pay the 25-30 million quarterly burn while maintaining 25 million for debt covenants. Afrezza is unlikely to make a significant contribution for who knows how long. Unless Mann and/or Sanofi loosen their purse strings, I see no way out short of a large secondary. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 8, 2015 21:42:39 GMT -5
I'm afraid your logic escapes me. MNKD had limited choices -- pay the debt with cash or pay the debt with stock or a combination. Did they have sufficient cash? Won't know until tomorrow. If MNKD paid with stock, then whoever accepts the stock will likely want it issued at a significant discount to the current price. That wouldn't matter if it were in Israel or here. That would entail issuing roughly 12-15 million shares of stock. Regardless, tomorrow is the day we finally find out what actually happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 8, 2015 21:17:28 GMT -5
Still appears to be listed: Valencia listingHowever, note that by the Sanofi agreement, the proceeds of the sale must be used to pay down the balance of the 175 million dollar credit facility first. No wrong. Again. Read the agreement of what is pledge and this building isn't. From page 12 of the last 10-Q: "Additionally, if the Company sells its Valencia facility, the Company is required to prepay the loans under the Sanofi Loan Facility in an amount equal to 100% of the net cash proceeds of the sale within five business days of receipt." |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 8, 2015 21:13:39 GMT -5
It was a "star wars" presentation. Afrezza is the sneak attack. Or an after thought? Mannkind has a big quarterly ahead of them. I hope they have something up their sleeve. I'm becoming sceptical... One thing that stood out to me was on page 104 -- "Important Options for Prandial Diabetes Treatment." It describes "Apidra" as "A rapid acting, mealtime, injectable insulin for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes" that is "Available in the SoloSTAR® pen." It describes "Lyxumia" as a "Once-daily prandial GLP-1 for Type 2 Diabetes" that is "Approved in over 50 countries worldwide." It does not say one word about afrezza. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 7, 2015 22:36:55 GMT -5
I simply want to hear about cash... In connection with this (cash situation of Mannkind), I recall at one point Mannkind put its headquarter in California up for sale? Does anyone know whether it was sold? I vaguely recall it was up for sale for a price of $10/20 M, can't remember correctly. Buy, hey, $10/20 M helps at this point. Also, someone posted that the upcoming $25M milestone seems to be related to certification of Sanofi's insulin as a supply to Mannkind, does anyone have any update on that? Still appears to be listed: Valencia listingHowever, note that by the Sanofi agreement, the proceeds of the sale must be used to pay down the balance of the 175 million dollar credit facility first. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 7, 2015 22:13:15 GMT -5
Right, so they could blame the patients, other types of medication, other medical problems, poor study design, etc., but you think they would choose to blame one of their other products, Afrezza. That really makes great sense! LOL . Ya, its great know where you are coming from. "...think they would choose to blame one of their other products, Afrezza." I said no such thing. As I have now said at least 3-4 times, companies almost invariably look for excuses for why a trial fails and that includes shifting the blame away from the drug as much as possible. There are many candidates to choose from and those include other drugs in the study. However, as I have said several times now, my initial assessment was in a previous thread and was based upon a misunderstanding, where I thought afrezza had been chosen to be the only available prandial insulin. I now recognize that it is just one of the many drugs the investigators may use to treat the subjects' diabetes, and SNY would not likely attempt to to single out any particular drug to blame for any shortcomings in the results. |
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Nov 7, 2015 22:02:14 GMT -5
rrtz You are reaching and contradicting yourself so much that it becomes difficult and just to time consuming to counter your arguments. It's hard to argue against wild conspiracy theories that pretend to know the 'deep down evil motivations' of trial designers. You are making 'out there' guesses about future intentions (that I have rarely seen any drug trail designers make) on topics you yourself admit to not knowing or understanding. Not certain why you harp on this topic? Drop it. "Drop it." Well, I'd love to, but then someone turns around and claims I'm presenting "wild conspiracy theories" and I feel compelled to ask "where?" And I'm still waiting for you to provide some of the "many inconsistencies" you claim to have found. Not to mention where I am supposedly "contradicting" myself. |
|
