|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 7, 2018 0:14:10 GMT -5
Though someone posted the link to another site to look up formulary coverage that seems to have contradictory info. Simple logic tells us they cannot both be accurate. Belief in formularylookup may be more of confirmation bias than Occam. Well then what’s stopping you from giving us the URL and telling us what the contradictions are. I did earlier in this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 6, 2018 14:15:07 GMT -5
Formularylookup is showing a significant increase in commercial plans that cover without PA. Question is whether it's real or a data glitch as has happened in the past with that site. Occam's razor here tells us that it is real. Though someone posted the link to another site to look up formulary coverage that seems to have contradictory info. Simple logic tells us they cannot both be accurate. Belief in formularylookup may be more of confirmation bias than Occam.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 5, 2018 14:55:19 GMT -5
DBC, I do understand that you post a lot; still, your posting activity seems to have spiked in the last day or so. What's up? People keep quoting or addressing posts to me. That was all three of the ones I've posted today... oops, make that four now But it's not a competition... there are others that I could never match when it comes to frequency of posts.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 5, 2018 14:36:13 GMT -5
MNKD has stated they are looking for a partner to call on PCPs and not endos, so by that criteria it would seem Abbott nor Dexcom would not fit what MNKD says they are looking for. Mannkind could and should have many partners to sell Afrezza. Logical. You may be using the term "partner" differently than what was meant in the post I was responding to. I certainly don't see that it would make sense to have multiple groups of sales reps calling on the same set of doctors. But a broader use of the word "partner" in business could mean anything... or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 5, 2018 14:32:12 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there are restrictions on changing formularies midyear for the Exchange plans? It seems odd there would be such a drastic change in Commercial plans but not Exchange, since the Exchange plans are offered by the same companies. Why would UnitedHealth Group have 89% Covered for Commercial and 77% Not Covered for their Exchange plans. I would think it's the same committees/board that decides the formularies. Any thoughts? The coverage news still does not address the issues of pre authorization for Afrezza. Formularylookup is showing a significant increase in commercial plans that cover without PA. Question is whether it's real or a data glitch as has happened in the past with that site.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 5, 2018 14:30:05 GMT -5
Skeptic... it's right there in his name. Are you skeptical that he is sincere? I think he’s very sincere. I also think he’s on here, and since he quotes me all the time on SeekingAlpha I thought I’d return the favor. Let’s just leave it at this:-) Nate's saying the short position is overcrowded? It's been insanely profitable for all those "misinformed" people over the years, so not surprising it's crowded.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 19:59:10 GMT -5
MNKD has stated they are looking for a partner to call on PCPs and not endos, so by that criteria it would seem Abbott nor Dexcom would not fit what MNKD says they are looking for.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 19:55:05 GMT -5
Skeptic... it's right there in his name. Are you skeptical that he is sincere?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 19:14:06 GMT -5
SO presents way more data analysis than most anyone else talking about MNKD, Nate and MK inclusive. He explains what he's doing, so I don't see where you think he is misleading. Yes, he doesn't factor in a hockey stick into his sales model, but Nate has never even had a model where he tries to predict sales growth over some period... he merely says he believes in the hockey stick theory and thus don't worry about doing analysis on past data (my paraphrasing of what he seems to be saying). If there begins to be evidence of exponential growth (and the data doesn't seem to support that yet), I'm sure SO will adjust his models. To me it seems pretty straight forward what he's presenting (i.e. the opposite of misleading). If you don't want to look at the status quo reality and prefer to focus on the might be's of the future, he's not your guy. I used to do my own modeling similar to what SO was doing to try to ascertain cash burn and working capital requirement over time. Now that management is giving guidance on cash burn, I'm willing to accept that rather than bothering to estimate myself. SO does ZERO analysis and has little understanding of diabetes. SO is a numbers recorder and makes "projections" based on simple regression.
Historical performance will not predict future results when it comes to MNKD. It seems all the bad news is now behind MNKD, studies have been found and MNKD has on board a huge player in the community. The only question is when will sales take off; 1 year; 2 years; or 3 years. Brandicourt said 2020 which is 2 years. Until then cash will continue to come into the company as needed through additional offerings. How many is the question; 1; 2; or 3. Mike has kept the ship afloat and now has a real navigator in Dr. Kendall who can get MNKD to the promised land. None of that in SO analysis but it is in Nates. LOL... so building models on past data is NOT analysis... OK. One must use a Ouiji board to qualify as analysis? If you want to believe historical data has no relevance to MNKD... fine. You can believe that for any company and to the extent its true for any company then analysis and model building on past data won't be useful. Don't knock someone for simply presenting the reality of the here and now. You claim SO isn't a numbers guy and give as evidence that he doesn't speculate that Dr. Kendall will get us to the promised land? I think you have a very different concept of numbers than most people. I'm an engineer by training, so numbers analysis absolutely doesn't involve dreaming about the promised land. I engage in that sometimes being a long suffering shareholder, but I certainly can separate wishful thinking from looking at the reality of a company's current financial situation.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 18:05:38 GMT -5
Can anyone check this website -- lookup.decisionresourcesgroup.com It looks like an alternative to formularylookup. I tried myself but form some reason it won't cooperate; every drug I tried came up with a little red "x" beside it. You have to scroll down below the drugs and select up to 5 insurance plans. They don't have ability to show summary info. I guess it's meant for consumers to be able to check on the plans their employers offer to see if there drugs are covered. It appears that most of the United Health plans are showing as Not Covered. So looks like there is discrepancy between this site and formularylookup.com. Though I guess if there really were a change just now, some sites might update quicker than others. Hoping improvement is real... but not yet jumping on board with celebration.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 17:40:29 GMT -5
DBC - he’s not a numbers guy. That’s my point. His approach is simplistic and miss leading. But you have a point about not reading him. SO presents way more data analysis than most anyone else talking about MNKD, Nate and MK inclusive. He explains what he's doing, so I don't see where you think he is misleading. Yes, he doesn't factor in a hockey stick into his sales model, but Nate has never even had a model where he tries to predict sales growth over some period... he merely says he believes in the hockey stick theory and thus don't worry about doing analysis on past data (my paraphrasing of what he seems to be saying). If there begins to be evidence of exponential growth (and the data doesn't seem to support that yet), I'm sure SO will adjust his models. To me it seems pretty straight forward what he's presenting (i.e. the opposite of misleading). If you don't want to look at the status quo reality and prefer to focus on the might be's of the future, he's not your guy. I used to do my own modeling similar to what SO was doing to try to ascertain cash burn and working capital requirement over time. Now that management is giving guidance on cash burn, I'm willing to accept that rather than bothering to estimate myself.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 17:06:13 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there are restrictions on changing formularies midyear for the Exchange plans? It seems odd there would be such a drastic change in Commercial plans but not Exchange, since the Exchange plans are offered by the same companies. Why would UnitedHealth Group have 89% Covered for Commercial and 77% Not Covered for their Exchange plans. I would think it's the same committees/board that decides the formularies. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 16:50:29 GMT -5
SO has been projecting sales forward using a simple trend approach. Nate says it’s nonsense and to expect a hockey stick. Announcements like this are why SO projections are nonsense. There is no forward looking variable in what he does. Entirely based upon historical performance. Instead of his commentary along the lines that this is one less excuse for MNKD if they can’t sell. Why not “this could really change my prior projections by....” He presents what he is doing honestly. If you don't want analysis based on what has happened to date, simply don't read him. He's a numbers guy. There are plenty of sources for speculation about a wide range of what could happen in the future... and mostly they've gotten MNKD wrong so far, both the negative end of the spectrum and the positive.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 15:53:56 GMT -5
What Is the Short-Interest Ratio? The short-interest ratio is a comparison between the short interest in a stock and the total number of outstanding shares of that stock. For instance, if a company has a short interest of 15 million shares and outstanding shares totaling 150 million, then the short-interest ratio is 10 percent (15 million / 150 million = 10%). How to Use These Numbers As you are monitoring a stock, you need to pay attention to the trends of the short interest, days to cover and short-interest ratio numbers. If the numbers are trending higher, you know investor sentiment in the company is deteriorating and the stock price has an elevated risk of dropping. In this situation, you may want to consider selling your shares if you own stock in the company, or you may want to consider shorting the stock yourself or buying a put on the stock if you don’t already have a position in it. Conversely, if the numbers are trending lower, you know investor sentiment in the company is improving and the stock price has an increased chance of rising. In this situation, you will most likely want to hang on to your shares if you own stock in the company, or you may want to consider buying the stock yourself or buying a call on the stock if you don’t already have a position in it. investorplace.com/2009/05/short-selling-basics/amp/With the one exception that if short-interest ratio is trending lower because the company is increasing the denominator by dumping shares on the market, that would hardly mean sentiment is improving. Hopefully our numerator starts to fall.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 14:53:32 GMT -5
Schwab returned ALL my shares today... either huge supply of shares or shorts are leaving... All of mine returned by Schwab between 13th and 23rd. If this really is short covering then it should show up in the next Open SI report. Price isn't reflecting a large exit by shorts, so a bit confusing.
|
|