|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 14:11:25 GMT -5
One would think VDEX doctors might be among the 40%ers. Then I am surprised it is only "40% market share with some doctors". I had imagined the VDEX doctors would be writing much more as a percentage of their market share. Maybe VDEX doctors are significantly higher than 40%. Perhaps Mike, even when doing some spinning, wouldn't feel comfortable using data for prescribers that are admitted shareholders of MNKD and on a mission to prescribe Afrezza. I personally would be pretty disappointed in Mike if it were only VDEX docs that he is talking about... i.e. getting a bit into the territory of stretching the truth. I guess we won't really know. Might be nice if he stated how many prescribers were in that 40% group.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 14:04:48 GMT -5
I think further dilution is almost inevitable this year. I'm hoping that positive momentum will allow it to happen at prices higher than where we are. Still certainly some risk. If we drop much further (even if simply part of overall market nastiness) then we start getting into territory where the the 20% restriction on discounted PIPE offerings would make it difficult to fund the burn rate. Maybe we get close enough to $1 to raise the specter of delisting again. I'm betting against the shorts at this point and doing some buying, but can see where they may still view their position as having legs. Think of how many times over the years someone here has made the statement that they couldn't understand why shorts weren't covering... and at share prices multiples above where we are now. I know but it wasn’t me. This is the first time I can remember feeling this way. I had an illusory moment when we had the run up to last year's PIPE of believing that something significant had changed. Fortunately I couldn't convince myself enough to throw a lot of money at it. Will likely be looking for more opportunities for options straddle position. I guess I still view the risks as being significant enough to pay a bit for some insurance. Though today's buy was simply shares with no hedge.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 13:55:44 GMT -5
I would like to know how we are going to stop this! Unlikely it can be stopped, but the positive side of the double edged reality of twitter posts about Afrezza (i.e. very few patients or medical professionals see this stuff) is that his posts are likely to have no effect on success of Afrezza. I think it mostly the warring MNKD stock longs and shorts that are looking for #afrezza stuff on twitter.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 13:46:50 GMT -5
Will MNKD post; The ADA STAT STUDY presentation to be on the new Afrezza you tube channel? If the youtube channel is something they are using in patient focused marketing then I don't believe they could put the STAT study presentation on it since that would not be FDA approved for consumer marketing.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 13:40:08 GMT -5
compound26 ... I almost would take the flip side of your bet and say China is the signed term sheet. To me it seems it is taking a pretty long time to conclude the deal. So I'm speculating that it may be a term sheet with someone other than AMPH and thus the term sheet would give time for AMPH to review and either exercise or decline their right of first refusal. But you may well be right, though I'm confident enough in my view to wager you a dime.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 13:32:26 GMT -5
I don’t see any reason for the shorts not to cover now, we deluded there’s only good news on the horizon. Assuming scripts keep moving up. There’s a good possibility we can squeeze through to the end of the year...why would they want to pay all that interest? I think further dilution is almost inevitable this year. I'm hoping that positive momentum will allow it to happen at prices higher than where we are. Still certainly some risk. If we drop much further (even if simply part of overall market nastiness) then we start getting into territory where the the 20% restriction on discounted PIPE offerings would make it difficult to fund the burn rate. Maybe we get close enough to $1 to raise the specter of delisting again. I'm betting against the shorts at this point and doing some buying, but can see where they may still view their position as having legs. Think of how many times over the years someone here has made the statement that they couldn't understand why shorts weren't covering... and at share prices multiples above where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 13:15:55 GMT -5
Anyone know how long it takes to get from a signed term sheet to a signed contract during negotiations? It seems like the terms would be the most difficult part of that process and the rest would be relatively quick and easy. It would be very difficult to say. If a term sheet says the agreement shall have "customary terms and conditions" and it's a type of deal where there actually are pretty universal terms and conditions, it can go pretty quickly. Likewise, if it is something very straightforward without a lot of long term ramifications for either company it might fly by. I've had deals done within a few days of a term sheet. But other deals can drag on for a long time. I'm sure these international marketing/distribution deals have a lot of moving parts... and are pretty significant commitments by both parties. It is also possible if one of them is for China, there could be added delay if the term sheet is with someone other than AMPH, then the term sheet would have to afford the requisite review period for AMPH to exercise or decline their right of first refusal. I once got played by a larger company that concluded a term sheet for joint marketing... a lot of foot dragging by them and an extension of the term sheet... finally came to conclusion they were simply using the term sheet as a way of trying to keep us away from any of their competitors, but really weren't committed to going through with it. Live and learn.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 13:05:24 GMT -5
.... and bought more at $1.67 Have tripled my position since converting from call to equity. Time will tell, but if Mike delivers on his narrative, I'm content to average down. I also bought some today ($1.70)... though relatively small amount compared to the position of shares and Jan 2019 $1 strike calls I already had. I wouldn't care to predict whether we go down further before going up, but either way I'm comfortable with spreading out some buying. I had been waiting for this round of financing as I figured that was going to be a somewhat painful proposition. Very glad I did the wise thing and sold my May calls back when they were in the money when we were above $3. Using profits from that to buy now.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:55:22 GMT -5
As Mike says, ignore the rxs numbers. Should I ignore the '40% market share with some doctors' comment?' Why would it be presented if it was not meaningful? If providers who have embraced Afrezza are not high decile prescribers, it is great for their patients but not for sales projections. I am comfortable with 'charts that go up' (vs hitting projected numbers), but I think candor is a reasonable investor expectation. If it's not a lie (I assume it is not) and it sounds good... it seems self evident why it might be used in a conference held for potential investors. Surely you realize companies spin the facts to present themselves within the best light possible without stepping over the boundary of being untruthful. The company is not there to present a balanced view of the pros and cons of investing in MNKD. In this case it also means something that some doctors (even if currently very small number) believe Afrezza is suitable for a significant portion of their patient population. That is clearly better than if no doctors at this point believed Afrezza should be prescribed to anyone other than the rare patient who simply refused to use injectable insulin.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:45:16 GMT -5
40% market share with some doctors? Are they high decile prescribers? If they are, I think weekly numbers would be higher. I am still a MNKD believer, but broad-stroke comments (spin?) like this give me pause re: sales projections. Stupid question, possibly, but does this include doctors writing scripts at VDEX clinics? (Or don't they do that there?) One would think VDEX doctors might be among the 40%ers.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:42:32 GMT -5
Where are the "Several Territories Already Exceed 1% Market Share on Mealtime Insulin Market"? To gain credibility, he really needs to identify exactly how many there are and where they are. Based on the numbers "otherottawaguy" is reporting in his "competing scripts" thread, I don't see how it's possible. Overall, 1% of $300,000,000 a week is $3,000,000. At the current around $600,000 a week, afrezza barely has 0.2%. I could easily believe that is the case of 1% in isolated regions... if you have some region/city where a very influential endo is using Afrezza a lot in their practice and talking to local colleagues about it... especially if coupled with relatively good payer coverage in the area. Obviously I haven't the proof, but it doesn't seem unreasonable so I personally would choose to trust management. So far haven't seen any lying on their part.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:30:35 GMT -5
Don't forget $6.25M due Deerfield 5/11/18, $2.77M due AMPH 6/15/18, and more. I believe, the China deal with AMPH will allow Mnkd to renegotiate the insulin payment term to AMPH. $20M between 2 partners (India, China) has been bandied about by S.O. That seems to be low ball. The wild cards are: Equity stake by one or two partners: $50M for 10% stake might set the floor Pps to raise more money cheaply. TreT licensing/partnership: After Phase I SAD study, Switch Study will start 1Q19, Pivotal PK Trial will start in 3Q19. Potential partner may emerge in 2019. Co-promo International rev by Brazil, Mexico in 1H19, by India, China in 2H19. Lower COGS due to higher volume. Canada marketed by Mnkd, no NAFTA tariff, low shipping cost. APAC: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam by Takeda ? MENA partnership? Why does $20M seem low? Is there some comparative data you've used to make that assessment, or is it assessment made relative to the cash needs of MNKD? Why do you feel a company getting rights to one region would buy MNKD shares directly at a price over double what they could buy them for in the open markets? Is there some example of such a regional partner doing something like that in the past? Are your timelines for Mexico and China consistent with how long it takes to get drugs approved, and when are you assuming applications will be filed in each? Bear in mind that MNKD seems to be partnering first and then counting on the partner to prepare the submissions, so as with Brazil there is likely quite some delay from the partnership deal conclusion to when the application is filed. Will be interesting to see if China is one of the two and if it does end up with AMPH. It's possible the first term sheet was with a company other than Amphastar for China, and the seemingly long time for conclusion could thus be because of the requirement to allow AMPH time for review and right of refusal.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:09:05 GMT -5
Lower rate of hypoglycemia was statistically significant. It was rate of severe hypoglycemia that was lower though due to number of subjects and infrequency in both arms of severe hypoglycemia it did not reach the traditional probability cutoff for "significance". Personally it would seem reasonable to assume that if overall hypoglycemic events are lower, the incidence of severe ones would be also. Especially when the data itself indicates a 90% probability of that being true... just not the 95% level required to be statistically significant. Though detractors would simply say it didn't hit the target... though I'd be really interested if a detractor could come up with a plausible physiological mechanism by which hypoglycemia overall would be reduced but with no reduction in severe hypoglycemia.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 9, 2018 18:53:32 GMT -5
I thought Castagna used that 35% reduction in his comments about the STAT results, during his 4Q17 earnings call, although it won't surprise me if Dr. Kendall finds similar results and more from MannKind's archive of pre-market trial data. I think the mention of 35% reduction has always been in context of the Affinity-1 trial.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 8, 2018 13:54:58 GMT -5
I wonder if the investors that purchased shares at $6 in the fall were offered and purchased shares this time from Wainwright to average down. I remember seeing that at least one law suit was filed against Wainwright consequent to the shares they purchased at $6. I would expect all the investors (except Kent Kresa) to have shorted their shares near the top of the market. That day the price peaked at $6.96 and closed at $6.71 despite dipping to $5.72 with volume over 48 million. They got their shares at $6.00, shorted near the peak, and made out like bandits. The people who got caught that day were retail, or momentum traders who were not watching the market properly. Even more got caught on the way down as the position unwound because they couldn't believe it was just a spike and was over. If they could do that once (spike the share price) then why didn't they do it this time? There is a limit to how often you can pull that trick without getting the SEC all over you... Aside from SEC, there's a limit to credibility about how great the label change will be and how insurance coverage is going to improve in January... especially when it's April. [Cynic in training, not yet ready for the stage]
|
|