|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 26, 2020 16:45:51 GMT -5
I wonder ...
Did MC buy those shares with the foresight that the share price would run in advance of warrant expiry, and he could make some quick coin from the trade?
Or did MC buy in the expectation that his apparent 'vote of confidence' would encourage the shares to run in advance of warrant expiry, and so bring always desirable $$$ into the Mannkind coffers by making exercise of the warrants more probable (I assume they were indeed exercised subsequently). That is, was it MC's turn to goose the SP this time around, a bit like - IIRC - Kent Kresa did for the October 2017 run?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 25, 2020 18:38:05 GMT -5
More fun to believe the 3,370,000 shares trade at $1.78 was shorts doing all they could to keep the price below $1.80. And ultimately they failed! This presages a new 52 week high tomorrow, almost certainly.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2020 20:13:54 GMT -5
Hmm, how does that matter? Yahoo Finance shows trading on European exchanges as negligible. A few thousand shares. And if someone in Europe is trading MNKD on the U.S. market exchange, then the closing in Europe shouldn't affect their trading in the U.S. What big Pharma that may have shorted MNKD are in Europe? Short covering out of Europe my guess. Orders being filled each morning. What are your guesses, how does this matter mnkdfann? I remember when you asked me something about a price prediction on the SPX..... you are getting under my skin. Huh? Who said anything about shorting? I just asked why trading hours in Europe would matter, since volume there is negligible (at least according to numbers on Yahoo Finance).
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2020 17:23:30 GMT -5
Exactly. And I figured hypothetically that with all the new shares available, MC could sell shares at the market to preserve cash. If their cash burn was $11 million a quarter, they could sell less than 30 million shares over the next twelve months (roughly 500,000 shares per week) to preserve all their cash on hand. That would still take them to only 250 million shares outstanding and 150 million shares on the shelf. As the stock price goes higher and revenues start to materialize, it begins a virtuous cycle, as opposed to the destructive death spiral we’ve all been in the past several years. Just thinking out loud, but it would seem to me there is too much risk for the warrant holder to exercise them at $1.60 and they might have a better option soon in an equity offering to obtain new ones. Also, I’m thinking selling shares each week with the ATM might not be a good idea in this very uncertain economy. Seems to me their best bet would be to do an equity offering very soon while the share price is up and before market conditions worsen At the very least, surely the warrant holder would gradually exercise as many warrants as they can so long as they can keep selling the shares into the market above the exercise price. I suspect that has already been going on. (Best case would be that they exercise them all and hold all of the shares long term, but I agree with others who've said in the past that action is unlikely as that is not the their business model.) I do expect an equity offering sometime soonish, though.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2020 15:50:37 GMT -5
MNKD Nasdaq real time volume, 3,895,865 shares. MNKD Nasdaq summary volume, 6,961,771 shares Avg. Volume 2,417,696 1.8300-0.0300 (-1.61%) At close: 4:00PM EDT The volume coming in during the morning hours, dropping off in the afternoon, yesterday and today. It looks like buyers/short covering. Europe closes at 11:30 eat? Volume has been dropping off after Europe closes.Hmm, how does that matter? Yahoo Finance shows trading on European exchanges as negligible. A few thousand shares. And if someone in Europe is trading MNKD on the U.S. market exchange, then the closing in Europe shouldn't affect their trading in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 16, 2020 13:13:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 9, 2020 9:17:48 GMT -5
Thanks to Mango, here are dates for peds trials completion date. Now, if the trial completion is January 2021, any guesses on when the first pediatric prescription will be sold? The Peds clinical trial is thought to be a major milestone and monumental event amongst both investors, and the MannKind team alike. I noticed that an update occurred yesterday, March 8th, 2020, and so I have included a link to the History of Changes in a side-by-side fashion with the previous date of changes for easy viewing. Estimated Study Completion Date is January 2021, while the Estimated Primary Completion Date is July 2020. Mango's Pediatric Trial post
mnkd.proboards.com/post/199858FWIW, as noted in the next posts in the thread, the update was actually a year previous. In 2019. Mango made a typo. No updates since. As was noted by another poster: "For a major milestone and monumental event, pretty awful that there have been no updates in over a year to this. Every previous year there were at least 5 updates." mnkd.proboards.com/thread/11816
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 3, 2020 23:37:15 GMT -5
These comments may be what some are thinking / talking about: mnkd.proboards.com/post/206063"I think the dose for each inhalation is only about 1mg (could have increased slightly lately), and Remdesivir requires 100mg/day. Even if a 75% smaller dose is required due to administration by inhalation, that is still a lot of puffs..." "Mike did mention on the Q1 CC that they considered and rejected a drug because of dosage issues, and the number of inhalations he mentioned lines up with this. So while he did not mention the drug name, I believe he was talking about Remdesivir." seekingalpha.com/article/4343933-mannkind-corporations-mnkd-ceo-michael-castagna-on-q1-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=singleMike C: "In terms of developing treatments for COVID-19, we evaluated four opportunities that I talked about recently. At this point, we decided not pursuing two of them one because it's likely an OTC product, that we won't be able to move forward in our current capacity or FDA regulations. And the second one is, because it would require probably 10 to 15 cartridges of inhalation powder, three to four times a day, which just is not a feasible solution."
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 27, 2020 19:46:01 GMT -5
This is exactly why common shareholders will never win. Notice how all the broker non-votes magically voted yes for the "Charter Amendment" (additional shares) while "abstaining" on other things like the "Plan Amendment" and nomination of board members. 40.8M shares voted against the additional shares so they would have lost if not for those 105.6M "broker non-votes".• Our stockholders approved the Charter Amendment. The tabulation of votes on this matter was as follows: shares voted for: 126,692,259; shares voted against: 40,863,104; shares abstaining: 2,774,238; and broker non-votes: zero. • Our stockholders approved the Plan Amendment. The tabulation of votes on this matter was as follows: shares voted for: 46,076,940; shares voted against: 17,217,362; shares abstaining: 1,474,263; and broker non-votes: 105,561,036. I suspect it is not a matter of them abstaining, I think it is that they are not entitled to vote on all agenda items. (And when they are allowed and do vote, it is only because the actual shareholders opted not to.) My guess is that a Charter Amendment is non-routine, so brokers were ineligible to vote on that matter. www.broadridge.com/ca/article/dont-let-broker-non-votes-hold-you-backBroker non-votes are activated in cases where a beneficial shareholder does not give voting instructions to the broker, bank or other nominee holding the shares “in street name.” In most cases, beneficial shareholders can give voting instructions to the broker or banker, who then returns a proxy on behalf of the entitled shareholder.
When entitled shareholders fail to provide voting instructions, the broker is still permitted to vote on behalf of the shareholder, but only on routine agenda items. Regulations prevent brokers from casting votes on non-routine agenda items.
In practice, routine items almost exclusively involve matters related to director elections and the appointment of auditors. Everything else is considered, by rule, non-routine. Non-routine matters are those that substantially impact the rights and privileges of shareholders. Among other things, this may include: mergers, advisor and sub-advisor changes, redomiciles and investment objective proposals.
In cases where both routine and non-routine items are on the agenda, the broker may cast a vote for or against the routine items only. These votes are counted toward quorum and the proxy preference is registered. At the same time, the BNV is activated for the non-routine items. Importantly, the BNV — while also counting toward quorum — is always tabulated as an against vote. As a result, the BNV has a positive impact on the quorum and a negative impact on the favorable percentage for non-routine matters.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 19, 2020 13:36:43 GMT -5
What would you like to see addressed at this year's ASM? For me, I would like to know what is happening with our COVID-19 program, in detail, since our entire pipeline has been halted to focus solely on it. I expect major progress is being made daily, and a huge update from Mike on Thursday morning. Last thing we need is another bogus partnership like so many we have seen before. I wouldn't expect much change from what Mike said just about two weeks ago, unless I am missing something (which could well be the case): seekingalpha.com/article/4343933-mannkind-corporations-mnkd-ceo-michael-castagna-on-q1-2020-results-earnings-call-transcriptIn terms of developing treatments for COVID-19, we evaluated four opportunities that I talked about recently. At this point, we decided not pursuing two of them one because it's likely an OTC product, that we won't be able to move forward in our current capacity or FDA regulations. And the second one is, because it would require probably 10 to 15 cartridges of inhalation powder, three to four times a day, which just is not a feasible solution.
There are two other products that we remain under investigation. I'll continue to watch the marketplace as this evolves and see whether or not we move these forward. As we said previously, we're not going to invest a lot of shareholder money on COVID-19. But we will seek outside partners and opportunities to fund opportunity – fund these opportunities we're happy to dedicate our personnel and our infrastructure around these.
I'm hopeful as the vaccine comes available that we could be one of the partners to make an inhalable vaccine, like we've seen with the flu. But yes, we still need to find the vaccine before we get too optimistic on anything like that. In addition, mostly, it's really important that we sustain our business on reducing activities, which reduces our spend here in Q2 and through the year.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 2, 2020 16:44:27 GMT -5
I think that's been there fore.....eeevvvvvvveeerrrrrr! In that case, has itellthepast777 hacked into itellthefuture777's account?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Apr 30, 2020 18:15:29 GMT -5
Oh, yes, there is a footnote: "For the avoidance of doubt, Businesses that have received PPP loans are permitted to borrow under the Facility, provided that they are Eligible Borrowers."
Very good, then.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Apr 30, 2020 18:08:11 GMT -5
U.S. businesses are eligible for loans if they meet either of the following conditions: (1) the business has 10,000 employees or fewer; or (2) the business had 2019 revenues of $2.5 billion or less. Loans would have a four year maturity, and principal and interest payments on the loans will be deferred for one year. AND (among other restrictions): "has not received specific support pursuant to the Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act of 2020 (Subtitle A of Title IV of the CARES Act)." So, it appears Mannkind is ineligible as it already has a PPP loan. If it plans to return the PPP loan, it had better do so before this new "Main Street New Loan Facility" money runs out.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Apr 29, 2020 11:12:31 GMT -5
They were following the rules as initially written. They would have been foolish not to apply. But now that Congress is clarifying their expectation, they may want to reconsider. I'm with you, either way is fine with me as long as they can back ip their reasoning. I agree, and I believe they can quite reasonably make the case that their script/revenue growth trajectory declined due to the pandemic, and it significantly impacts their ability to access the last tranche of funding. In addition, per the SBA, pharmaceutical manufacturing is allowed to have up to 1,250 employees and still be eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program. I don't see how. Based on various of the scripts forum threads, both appear to have held up remarkably well.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Apr 28, 2020 18:45:32 GMT -5
|
|