|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2019 12:41:53 GMT -5
I read it early this morning, he’s got the foreign market thing kind of upside down. I don’t even wanna try to explain it. Well, I'm not sure what part you are talking about, but at least partially it may be I disagree with you. If H(ot)FM was allowed to do the foreign deals and distributed in those 20 countries it asked about, that would affect Mannkind's ability to award exclusive distributorship rights to someone else (e.g. a bigger, better funded, better connected player) in the future. (E.g., the Australia and India deals - and maybe Brazil as well, IDR - are Exclusive Distribution Agreements.) So I agree with SO on that. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2019 12:21:30 GMT -5
I prefer not to click on any of SO's articles, but if he makes some good points then can anybody summarize? And is there a good reason why MNKD should not at least have an open dialog with VDEX instead of just giving them the cold shoulder? The article is too long, and makes too many points, for me to want or even to try to summarise it. If someone else feels like doing so, of course they are welcome to go ahead and do so. But if you read someone else's summary, be aware that you are reading an interpretation of what SO said, and perhaps not what SO really said at all. Myself, I don't begrudge SO the 2 cents (or is it a nickel) he makes from a page view. He tends to raise enough valid points (that escape many others) to make it worthwhile, IMO.SO's latest article was actually a blog post, not a regular contributed article. SO added a comment: "Had a question about what I get paid for this blog post. The answer is $0.00. SA blog posts generate no dollars for me whatsoever." So anyone can read his latest blog article / post without fear of lining his pocket. seekingalpha.com/instablog/175233-spencer-osborne/5316857-mannkind-vdex-diabetes |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2019 12:16:13 GMT -5
Is that what Spencer supposedly said? I find that a little hard to believe. No, SO did not say those things. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2019 11:12:35 GMT -5
I prefer not to click on any of SO's articles, but if he makes some good points then can anybody summarize? And is there a good reason why MNKD should not at least have an open dialog with VDEX instead of just giving them the cold shoulder? The article is too long, and makes too many points, for me to want or even to try to summarise it. If someone else feels like doing so, of course they are welcome to go ahead and do so. But if you read someone else's summary, be aware that you are reading an interpretation of what SO said, and perhaps not what SO really said at all. Myself, I don't begrudge SO the 2 cents (or is it a nickel) he makes from a page view. He tends to raise enough valid points (that escape many others) to make it worthwhile, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 18, 2019 2:46:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 17, 2019 18:51:43 GMT -5
A poster posed this question at StockTwits and a few ProBoard’s members have asked essentially the same question: “How much mnkd stock does VDEX own? How can a conflict of interest not ultimately exist that positions their rights as mnkd shareholders differently than mine...?” My answer takes the form of a counter question. How is stock ownership by VDex any different than a new partner who buys into a company by acquiring a large share position? If anything, a stock buy-in is an indication that the partner has a vested interest that motivates their team to assist MannKind in achieving successful results for Afrezza. Ultimately a partner that buys in is looking to create a return on its investment. That benefits all shareholders when the party buying a stock position is striving to improve shareholder value. Do large shareholders who buy into companies normally get special financial considerations? IDK, maybe they do. I think sometimes Warren Buffet buys into companies, and gets special warrants and benefits that regular shareholders do not get. (E.g., when he invested in Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, among others.) For the sake of the VDEX conversation, let us focus on just this: "If HFM introduces a party who later agrees to purchase Afrezza, MannKind agrees to pay a commission of 4% of sales to HFM. If HFM functions as a distributor it will be compensated as is customary for distributors." Is that a conflict of interest? Is HFM / VDEX taking money here, that would otherwise go to Mannkind and all its shareholders? For product sales that Mannkind would eventually have captured in the end, even without HFM, assuming Afrezza becomes a world wide success down the road? And what if it wasn't 4%, what if the commission was 99%? I'm not sure what the cut-off would be before it is a real problem, but I can see how it could be a problem at some level, and I can understand an argument that MNKD shareholders involved with VDEX might be coming out ahead versus regular shareholders. (Not because any MNKD shareholders are being treated differently by Mannkind, but because some of the MNKD profits are being siphoned off to a separate company that happens to be owned by a select subset of MNKD shareholders.) IOTW, all shareholders are equal but some are more equal.  The above should not be interpreted as thinking I am anti the VDEX proposal. There are enough missing details that I am staying neutral at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 17, 2019 16:55:45 GMT -5
Crazy thought. What if she resigned over the Board's (apparent and assumed) refusal to throw more support to VDEX?
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 17, 2019 14:32:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 17, 2019 14:29:59 GMT -5
"Garrett Ingram out as Chief Marketing Officer?"
To paraphrase a famous movie line, We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Marketing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 17, 2019 13:28:44 GMT -5
MannKind pays for these kind of reports! ah. That's a real issue because we know that no other pharma companies do that  Many pharmas do, but IMO small investors in small pharmas are more likely to give paid for reports (like this one from Zacks Small-Cap Research) more credence than they deserve. If effectively no (major) analysts cover the small pharma 'you' (a hypothetical third party you) are invested in, then you might get over-excited when you see a Zacks report like this one. Just for comparison, take a look at analyst coverage for Mannkind versus Sanofi. Mannkind lists Zacks front and centre as an analyst. Sanofi doesn't even bother listing it (even though Zacks covers it). investors.mannkindcorp.com/stock-information/analyst-coveragewww.sanofi.com/en/investors/sanofi-share-and-adrs/analystsBTW, not everything Zacks (of which Zacks Small-Cap Research is a division) puts out is paid for. So it is good to be aware of which reports are paid for, and which are not. It's just information investors should consider. Hopefully, one day soon some (more) major analysts will cover Mannkind. IMO, that would certainly be a good sign. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 16, 2019 23:48:01 GMT -5
A company with deep pockets would be great.. if that happens I'm all for it.. However, large trial data to change label and FDA restrictions would take years. So not so sure how quick that would change things.. Also, if there is such a partner where have they been? If someone wanted Afrezza why couldn't the DF debt have been settled earlier by a company with deep pockets? I may be wrong but I think that is wishful thinking.. I hope I am wrong.. If Mnkd has such a deal there is still no reason why Mnkd can't respond to Vdex..In the past they have simply ignored them. You would think they would want to keep all options open for the good of the company. I think uvala is not (necessarily) talking about a 'partner' per se. As he said in his first post, it could be a large pharma that gets to "buy afrezza at the fire sale".
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 16, 2019 23:18:06 GMT -5
That may be the site's fault. It looks like it groups clinics into set types. Offhand, I don't see diabetic clinics as a listing option anywhere on that site. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 16, 2019 23:01:09 GMT -5
Do we have to have four Vdex threads?! Only four IS limiting. Maybe we need a VDEX forum? |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 16, 2019 21:38:41 GMT -5
You mean, as a set-up to some kind of shareholder suit against the company? Anything is possible, but I don't think one could come to that conclusion (if that's what you meant and I'm not sure you did). No, a shareholder suit in particular didn't enter into my mind. I was thinking more along the lines of whether they would continue with their present investment(s), if they truly believe Mannkind is spiraling down. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 16, 2019 21:19:46 GMT -5
The VDEX letter says that MNKD is doomed without VDEX ("careening toward bankruptcy?"). VDEX considers itself the savior and strongly recommends that it take over the marketing. That is what I got out of it. If VDEX believes that, what will it (and its owners, apparently big MNKD shareholders) do if Mannkind rejects the proposal / refuses to play nice with VDEX? I guess just more to stay tuned for. |
|
