|
Post by esstan2001 on May 11, 2016 12:28:06 GMT -5
Morning pre shareholder meeting location?
Panera Bread 5 Sugar Hollow Road, Danbury, CT 06810
8am on
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on May 6, 2016 8:52:25 GMT -5
Wait, what's that sound I hear? it's like a low hum, building...
Could it be the start of some more serious journal / white paper / magazine / social media buzz around Afrezza?
Turn up the frequency Kenneth!
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on May 2, 2016 21:01:45 GMT -5
Just updating this thread on the shareholder meeting anybody else planning on attending? Dinner the night before? Or breakfast? Kc. I am there. And I hope to meet you for a drink the night before! I should be attending; available for any breakfast meetup.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 30, 2016 15:25:03 GMT -5
Hi Just to chip in on this: the outlook in the UK is that (for the NHS) the taxpayer (lets say, in this case, the English taxpayer for the NHS in England which is in effect a State in the federal UK) is the customer: the local and nation al Government is under democratic control and that's the incentive for them to spend money carefully, since a party wanting to raise more taxes is less likely (generally) to be popular with the voters. There are also independent auditors (the National Audit Office) who report on how well money is managed. Im curious about the discussion that in the US a State the Federal Government is not allowed to negotiate. Is that the case? How do your own socialised industries such as defence, police, and post office for example manage: surely contractors cant just demand whatever they want from taxpayers and get it. Can't the Government on behalf of the people contract with whoever provides the best or most cost effective products and services? I suppose if there is no public sector healthcare provider at all in the market then there is no tool by which the electorate can supply itself with a health product in competition with private offerings. (I commented above that in the UK the impression I have is that comprehensive private insurance for those who want it is rather less expensive here because if it were not, people would not bother with it (and in fact very few do with odd exceptions like me)). Interestingly, my own (rather unusual, I admit) private health insurance entitles me to go to any qualified doctor/surgeon etc anywhere in the world for treatment included in my policy EXCEPT for the USA where (if I wanted coverage) I would have to pay a large extra insurance premium - which I don't do since I just take out travel health insurance if I am visiting for a holiday or whatever). Hence I could (say) go to Canada or Switzerland if the best heart surgeon was there, but not Illinois. Thinking aloud perhaps one solution in the USA would be for private providers to have to compete for 'most preferred insurer' status at State or US level, on a fixed term basis, with the contract value assessed on sensible criteria (not just the cheapest but also quality standards etc) and that provider could get the military and Federal/State employee contracts and perhaps tax rebates in return for a contract to provide certain guaranteed standards in its products, at agreed fixed insurance premium prices. Private people could then choose that or not, depending on what they want, but it would mean at least one product available which is of a specific legally guaranteed standard. One downside of a public sector healthcare product such as the NHS is that if its truly national, you can't opt out of it: you have to pay your taxes for it, just as one has to for defence and police and so on. However that does mean that a reliable income stream is available to fund it long term and the cost is under democratic control. If I could change something here I would make private health insurance premiums tax deductible since they are not at present, but that would be very controversial. Anyhow I'll butt out of this since Im in the UK and probably speaking out of turn. I think that there are numerous possible solutions to providing healthcare in the US, and some (preferably select-able) combination of publicly available support (credits or direct assistance) and private HC Ins. should be able to satisfy most peoples situations. Yes, states, and the Fed should be able to do as you suppose above, but IMO the issue is the myriad opportunities for corrupt politicians to hijack legislation and ensure that they've cared for some special interest in return for quid pro quo.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 29, 2016 10:56:53 GMT -5
When the customer is removed from the process of negotiating the fee or price for the service, where is the incentive to control price? It too is removed. So how did we try to fix this? By adding more Gov't controls. And how's that working out? It depends on the politics. In the US the government is not allowed to negotiate, in the UK it is. Guess who has lower prices - government controls work out pretty well in the UK and they would in the US if special interests hadn't paid off the politicians. So here in the US, we (the US Gov't) just pay whatever the Pharma wants to charge? that is pure control by the Pharma (as a result of political cronyism), not free market capitalism. In a free market, the Gov't would negotiate, or tell the pharma to take a hike and tehn find an alternate source that results in a better economic tradeoff for the people. But Hey, they are only spending our money, so who cares, right? Now the Brits on the other hand, allow their Gov't to use the tool of negotiation- which IMO is an absence of control- it is a free markets tool. And all they are saying is that the negotiated rate is all they will pay- they are acting as a free agent. And what works better? As you pointed out, the more capitalist solution, being employed by the more socialist society. Pretty ironic IMO. Until our Gov't demonstrates that it can do a better job of representing the people's needs as it was originally set up to do, I say get it the hell out of the way. It only serves the political class, with no discretion to party. I think we agree in principle, but just not on what we are calling it. :-)
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 29, 2016 8:18:11 GMT -5
The US health system is a trainwreck for sure... its capitalism . and it makes me furious.. Capitalism. Hmm.. Maybe was closer to being the case a century ago, when your Doc would visit on call. Today? It is a bastardized 3rd party payer system with a cluster - truck of Gov't bureaucracy tossed in and 17 disinterested (in health outcomes) hands grabbing for whatever money is being made available by any source. When the customer is removed from the process of negotiating the fee or price for the service, where is the incentive to control price? It too is removed. So how did we try to fix this? By adding more Gov't controls. And how's that working out? I'm an average family still waiting for my estimated $2500 annual savings, our specialist doc no longer accepts insurance. Too difficult to deal. And here I thought I could still see the same doctor. Oh, and my Ins. premiums are increasing north of 20% per annum. And yet, 50% of the health care exchanges are filing for bankruptcy. No, this is nowhere near capitalism. Cronyism? maybe somewhere in there you can find some elites skimming off vast benefit and running for the hills.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 21, 2016 9:45:25 GMT -5
For all the MannKind faithful, I got an email today from dear friends traveling in China. He was a MannKind investor, but sold out quite a while back (so, what does he know!). Interestingly, he writes: "All the people we are traveling with are doctors or dentists. One women, who is a doctor, her husband was with Merrill Lynch for many years and now just manages their money and the portfolios of friends and family from India - they are from India originally and now live in Louisville. He has owned Mannkind for seven years - many shares and has never sold. His wife thinks it is the best diabetic drug out there. I agreed, but said the company just screws everything up and too often. They have it in their account, and those of his father and kids and he reads every piece of medical information about it - a very smart individual. " Evidence that you can be quite intelligent and be invested in MannKind at the same time! WOW! who would have thunk it...
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 11, 2016 7:18:22 GMT -5
"2. To approve an amendment to MannKind’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the authorized number of shares of common stock from 550,000,000 to 700,000,000 shares; 3. To approve an amendment to MannKind’s 2013 Equity Incentive Plan to increase the aggregate number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the 2013 Equity Incentive Plan by 15,000,000 shares;" Noway, I vote for more forthcoming dilution without knowing our position in 6 months. Fellows by adding those 200mm we are saying goodbye to our long awaited short-squeeze, i.e we are fully and simply long-squeezed.
My Vote is "NO" given the position they are in, it is only prudent that they initiate this shareholder amendment ASAP, and it would probably be malfeasance if they did not from a financial standpoint. They do not have a lot of choices given where they are at, and if something better does pan out, then they do not have to access the markets and dilute.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 11, 2016 7:14:04 GMT -5
So confused. It's up in pre market. that would confirm what we know- the current price also reflects that the company needs money (maybe disproportionately so), and opening a path to it that decreases the odds of a bankruptcy is having some small positive effect on the share price.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 7, 2016 14:24:27 GMT -5
Thanks. I am aware of this option, and I am impressed with the work of compound26 . In fact, I had my idea before him, but I kind of left it languish after he got going. I also wanted to see how the MNKD/SNY team worked out. (That did not go as I'd hoped.) Anyway, the key difference is more formal. Sorry for the vague statement, but I am not really prepared to clarify a lot besides verified databases, geographically tagged and coordinated groups, streamlined insurance/pharmacy, social networked graphs, etc. Basically, everything that Afrezza.com cannot be. I view Just Breathe as a great informative site, but I propose a more active site that can do things besides provide general information -- a members-only group of Afrezza Users that can share protocols, results, and other data. A site for diabetics by diabetics where they are not just blogging or posting comments endlessly lost in free form, but rather a place that outlines how to use Afrezza when eating lasagna with a bottle of wine with timing data. Basically, it would be a combination of Just Breathe, Matt B's Afrezza Down Under, sprinkled with scientific trial-like data trackers, and a complete ecosystem with a portal for diabetics. My group put out some feelers to compound26 a while ago, and he said to go here so we came. We also had been in touch with Matt B, and recently, I tried to reach VDEX via the board's contact. We are still undecided about pursuing this endeavor, but we are evaluating. It depends on the responses that we get as well as the resources that we can expect to bring to make it worthwhile. The last year has been painful. For what you are proposing, do you anticipate it being of value (being usable) toward changing the FDA label in any way? How can you ensure the validity of voluntarily provided data unless there is some type of accepted clinical research protocol in place? Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the idea- just wondering if it can be structured in some way to also help with the FDA (anecdotal outcomes data base that would be accepted by them)... ... iin this ever changing world of First Amendment protections of free speech and Congressional pressure on the FDA to accept things short of another trial.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 7, 2016 14:14:00 GMT -5
Lets not speculate about what MNKD wants to do. The whole altruistic motives for MNKD or Al's actions (about how MNKD wants to _help_ as many patients as possible) is really unprovable. We may wish someone of Mr.Hanks's nature to endorse Afrezza but it won't happen. That costs money. Enough money that MNKD may just survive for an extra couple months to twiddle their thumbs as usual. What's required first and foremost right now is MNKD to articulate a strategy for keeping the lights on through 2016. Celebrity endorsements, TV ads, marketing pushes are all pipe dreams with the cash position right now. The idea in Hank's case would simply be to help him. Increase his awareness, maybe then he decides to try it- provide more assistance with learning proper dosing, then see what happens. If he feels this solves many of his health complications and finds this far and above better than anything else, and he is made aware that this is new, and it is just insulin, who is to say that he does NOT decide to evangelize about it in terms of helping diabetics in our society.. .especially if he learns anything about what Al Mann was trying to do from his Hollywood friends... You certainly can not know for a fact (as you state above) that someone of Hank's 'nature' won't endorse Afrezza. No one knows what he might do if presented with the story and if he experiences outcomes like Spiro, Afrezzauser, Eric, etc. But it sure makes sense to try (minimal effort and cost, and IMO Mnkd should not be looking for a paid celebrity endorsement if that is what you were thinking) among the other plans that the company needs to put forth.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 7, 2016 10:01:12 GMT -5
this is insane as Hollywood knew Al Mann and Elizabeth Perkins (his 'BIG'? co-star) is ( / was?) on Afrezza what like they don't have any forward thinking / knowledgeable Diabetes docs out there for the stars? Note to Matt P- get Hanks on it. He will then become our defacto spokesman. Late nite talk shows. Etc. Advertising budget solved.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 7, 2016 9:59:13 GMT -5
this is insane as Hollywood knew Al Mann and Elizabeth Perkins (his 'BIG'? co-star) is ( / was?) on Afrezza
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Mar 24, 2016 7:32:04 GMT -5
Inside tip, the new name will be Moogle. But I can't tell you which company we're merging with, gotta keep that a secret. Glad to know they're not going with Floogle, Kerfloogle, or Dexco-moogle!
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Mar 21, 2016 16:34:01 GMT -5
Well, We know it is made out of cheese, and we can calculate it's volume. The question is what kind of cheese... Oh man, I can't believe someone else didn't do this already. OK, here goes. 1 pound of feta according to Spiro is $10. 1 pound of solid cheese is 2 cups, cubed is 2.5 cups, and shredded is 4 cups. We'll go with solid for now. 2,000 pounds of cheese then, is about a cubic meter. That's a big hunk of cheese! The moon is 21.9 billion cubic kilometers. There are 1 billion cubic meters in a cubic kilometer. So a cubic kilometer is 2,000 billion pounds of cheese, or $20,000 billion. If MNKD was worth ONE cubic kilometer of cheese (and at a little over $2 the market cap is around $1 billion), it would be going for $40,000 a share. But since the moon is actually 21.9 billion cubic kilometers, the share price would be $800,000 billion dollars. Hey, if you're going to pump, pump big or go home! Personally, I'd settle for the price going to the same as a moon made of shredded cheddar. That's my starting negotiating position, anyway. Don't forget- It will take 6 lbs of Feta on Earth to equal just one pound on the moon. We must account for this in our valuation. And I'll be happy for the price to go to this reduced gravity moon too! :-)
|
|