|
Post by mnkdfann on Sept 17, 2020 20:23:09 GMT -5
I'm sure it is fine, but I'm not sure how prestigious the summit is. This year's is only its 3rd offering.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Sept 16, 2020 10:31:00 GMT -5
What does that mean? my decoder ring is coming up empty. It was a quote from a US officer during the Vietnam War after a town had been bombed and destroyed killing hundreds of civilians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_ArnettIn what is considered one of his iconic dispatches, published on 7 February 1968, Arnett wrote about the Battle of Bến Tre: "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."[7] The quotation was gradually altered in subsequent publications, eventually becoming the more familiar, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."[8] The accuracy of the original quotation and its source have often been called into question. Arnett never revealed his source, except to say that it was one of four officers he interviewed that day.[8] US Army Major Phil Cannella, the senior officer present at Bến Tre, suggested that the quotation might have been a distortion of something he said to Arnett.[8] The New Republic at the time attributed the quotation to US Air Force Major Chester L. Brown.[9] In Walter Cronkite's 1971 book, Eye on the World, Arnett reasserted that the quotation was something "one American major said to me in a moment of revelation."[10]
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Sept 15, 2020 1:21:33 GMT -5
I don't know that I've seen 2 LEAPs show up at once before. Not on Mannkind, anyway. Noticed they are still putting out weekly's too. Don't know if that's good or if that means the shorts are still at play or what. I believe 2023 is our breakout year. Will watch closely for a few months, though, like Sports said. They always start high. It is an interesting question how these come to be offered when they do and why. Does anyone more experienced in the arcane arts of synthetic derivatives know how this works? Who is responsible for opening new options and why would they do it now? 🤔 January LEAPS are issued in September. That's just the way the CBOE rolls. LEAPS are issued if there is demand and an interest for them. For instance, there are volume requirements that have to be met in the preceding months for LEAPS to be issued. And (I think) the CBOE has to find a designated primary market maker that is interested in participating. Although, it may be that the market maker role is randomly assigned. I don't know about that. www.cboe.com/education/getting-started/quick-facts/leaps"January LEAPS are listed in September no earlier than the Monday prior to standard expiration. Standard expiration is the 3rd Friday of each month."
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Sept 15, 2020 1:14:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Sept 1, 2020 8:23:01 GMT -5
Okay, then please explain what the percentiles refer to. Why would percentiles even be mentioned, if it was a straight comparison to the TSR of the index? This looks fairly straightforward to me. It compares "total shareholder return" which is generally defined as stock price appreciation plus cash dividends (you have to read the fine points of the plan to verify that). If MNKD performs about as well as the firms in the Russell index, the executives will get a 100% payout. While it is fun to talk about the payouts at the 300% level, the fact is that most companies in the Russell that are in the 90% percentile have hit a home run and been acquired at a huge premium by some other company, just like most of the ones in the bottom 25% have suffered multiple business issues (failed clinical trials, product recalls, lawsuits) such that they are nearing bankruptcy or have already gone out of business. Since most small pharmas pay no dividend, share price appreciation is the primary driver of TSR. It sounds as though you are basically restating and agreeing with what I wrote earlier (prior to the message you quoted). That MNKD's performance is being compared to the components (companies) in the Russell index. My question was really addressed to buyitonsale, to see what he thought the percentiles were referring to.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Sept 1, 2020 0:48:24 GMT -5
I do not see anything in the conditions comparing performance to the components of the index. It will be compared to TSR of the index. Okay, then please explain what the percentiles refer to. Why would percentiles even be mentioned, if it was a straight comparison to the TSR of the index? "The number of shares delivered on the vesting date, as a percentage of the target specified in Box 4 above, is determined by the percentile ranking of MannKind total shareholder return (TSR) over the period from August 27, 2020 until May 22, 2023 related to the TSR of the Russell 3000 Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Index over the same period, as follows: less than 25th percentile=0% of target, 25th percentile=50% of target, 50th percentile=100% of target, 75th percentile=200% percent of target, 90th percentile or higher=300% maximum. Payout values will be interpolated between the percentile rankings above."
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 31, 2020 21:49:20 GMT -5
MC is granted a target of 909k shares, and 300% of that target if the TSR of MNKD hits the 90th percentile of the TSR of the Russell 3000 Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Index from now until May 22, 2023. That should be some powerful motivator! I wonder what sort of return those percentile targets equate to, at least speaking historically. So if the index doubled in three years, management would qualify for the 300% share payout if they got they got the MNKD share price to $3.40 (or just a little less than that)? Am I understanding that correctly? I think the comparison is the %age increase in MNKD's share price compared to the %age increase in the components of that Russell 3000 P&B index. The index overall might double, but the 90th percentile of components in the index could be up 10 times. To get the 300% in the case above, MNKD would also have to be up 10 times.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 31, 2020 20:12:00 GMT -5
MC is granted a target of 909k shares, and 300% of that target if the TSR of MNKD hits the 90th percentile of the TSR of the Russell 3000 Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Index from now until May 22, 2023.
That should be some powerful motivator!
I wonder what sort of return those percentile targets equate to, at least speaking historically.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 31, 2020 19:51:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 31, 2020 17:20:50 GMT -5
If you do that calculation again in roughly one month (Oct 2017), we are down 66%.
So yeah, like peppy said, data can be manipulated to conform to a narrative. And like goyocafe said, Castagna is full of crap and insulting long term investors bragging about stock performance.And try using the start date as Oct 1 or even worse, Nov 1, and the number in red grows larger. I can't really fault them for this. I don't see any outrageous data manipulation. They are reporting standard metrics (3 year, 1 year, and YTD returns). If this newsletter is a going concern and they report the same metrics each month, they will do an October to October and November to November comparison soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 31, 2020 9:33:13 GMT -5
With a world-class pediatric endocrinologist now at MannKind, we can confidently pursue our Phase 3 Pediatric Clinical Trial. This new hire is a tremendous achievement, as it sets a reality milestone in place and should be a reminder to everyone that MannKind is here to stay. "Tremendous achievement" may be a bit strong. Surely, a solid hire, but I do not believe the good Doctor has experience in corporate pharma/biotech (who knows, it may be a good thing). And I've nothing against the guy (Kevin Kaiserman), he appears a solid hire, but the 'world-class' descriptor is also IMO more than a little over the top. Merriam defines world-class as "being of the highest caliber in the world" and nothing in the PR suggests KK is remotely near that good.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 30, 2020 16:29:49 GMT -5
The vdexdiabetes.com page still has the Open Letter to Mannkind Shareholders and commentary posted about garnering enough shareholders together to have a legal basis for enacting change: "Once this group of shareholders reaches the threshold of 10% of the shares outstanding, we will have more legal leverage to pursue change." Just wondering, is that still ongoing or water under the bridge? No that was from way before HfM had 19%. I had to go look to see what you were talking about. I think Bill addresses that in he’s letter. I’ll ask though. Yeah, I know it is from a long time ago, but it is still front and centre at the Vdex site. Maybe they should take those pages down, update them, or remove the links from the home page, if it is no longer current and relevant to the Vdex strategy.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 30, 2020 14:45:17 GMT -5
So I hope you get my point when I say there’s no more axes:-) So who’s ever still mad.. y’all can stop being mad and be happy! The vdexdiabetes.com page still has the Open Letter to Mannkind Shareholders and commentary posted about garnering enough shareholders together to have a legal basis for enacting change: "Once this group of shareholders reaches the threshold of 10% of the shares outstanding, we will have more legal leverage to pursue change." Just wondering, is that still ongoing or water under the bridge?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 29, 2020 13:26:07 GMT -5
As others have pointed out, there seems something fishy about Vdex numbers as they cannot be a "top provider" and have a retention rate, if the overall retention rate is not high. It's the opposite. If they have better retention than the rest, they would be more likely to be a top provider.It's not fishy at all that a provider who's main treatment method of Afrezza has better retention than the rest of the providers who are not as committed to the product. If the patient complains about coughing, VDEX teaches them how to inhale in a way that results in less coughing rather than moving them to something else. The point you are making, I think, isn't what mordu was writing about. Your comment is perfectly valid. The top provider likely would have a better retention rate. But I think mordu's point was that if Vdex is both a top provider and has high retention numbers, then how can the overall retention numbers be as low as they are? I'll assume Vdex is truthful about having great retention numbers. Then the only explanation I can see, from a mathematical perspective, is if 'top provider' in this context isn't really saying much, numbers wise. It may be a 'top provider' but still only generate a relatively small proportion of prescriptions overall.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 26, 2020 17:34:43 GMT -5
They had 63M end of June with $15 million restricted. Unless they’ve been hitting the ATM more since, they should have about $40M max end of this month they wouldn’t have agreed to the $40M minimum at this point if they weren’t going to have it. They burn $8-10M per month? So money is coming from somewhere soon. Just supposing they weren't going to have it, did they have any other real choice / say in the matter? What was their other option, refuse and default? So, actually, I guess I agree with you. I'm sure the counter party worked with Mannkind to come up with something Mannkind could reasonably meet, and they set a lowish bar together.
|
|