|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 31, 2018 2:26:00 GMT -5
I am down like 110k on a 125k investment. Scripts still are terrible. Transpaerency borders on collusion with the enemy. Absolutely not feeling it. Really, that's all I'll give a second cause I feel your pain. Transparency? Well, sadly, it might not be best now, though I am one constantly calling for more of it in the hope that there is something positive to show. I still voted for Mike. This is a form of pumping I can stand behind. Win, lose or draw, I admire Mike for taking on the challenge. But I'm really excited about the "Secondary Wholesaler of the Year" category. It's really competitive this year. That's bound to be an awesome acceptance speech.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 31, 2018 2:06:19 GMT -5
Things I'd like to see in presentations... Regional script data corresponding to TV commercials. Data on monthly/quarterly increase in "writers". Quarterly data on number of US lives that fall into each of the following categories... covered without restriction, covered with restriction and not covered. I would rather see a survey revealing how many diabetics have actually seen the ads and inquiring about their perception of afrezza afterwards. What you are asking for would require a large amount of polling paid for by MNKD. Likely not a great use of money. I'm sure they did some review of ads with trial audiences to gauge the perception of the ads... and they get data estimating the number of views of the ads.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 20:15:36 GMT -5
Though I don't think you can copyright data that comes from MNKD financial statements. His words do belong to him.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 20:13:29 GMT -5
Don't leave us hanging ... what did he say back to you? If I were a betting man... oh, wait, I invested in MNKD, so I am... I'd guess he didn't get a response. No judgement on what might have been written, just guessing Buffet gets far too much mail to read things from people he doesn't know.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 19:36:38 GMT -5
Working some hypotheticals: I have been reading about the various potentials of dilution today. I obviously hope it doesn't happen but seems like a real potential. What are your thoughts? Is my math right? Let's say that hypothetically MNKD has to dilute it's shares twice more, before taking off. Let's say that you bought in after the last dilution point, in late 2017, at 280MM outstanding shares. You purchased 100 shares of MNKD, at $2.65 share price. Now lets say they dilute in coming months, from 280MM, increasing outstanding shares to 560MM (cutting value of your current shares in half). Then, 18 months later, they do it again; this time jumping from 560MM OS to 840MM OS (value of your original purchase is now 33%, or $88.33, if MNKD shares are still selling at $2.65). Share prices would have to reach $7.95, for you to break even, back at $265 for your 100 shares. If this transition took 4 years from today; where do you think MNKD's stock price would be, then? If you think top side is $12; that's about 50% profit during the 4 year span. If you think it's touching $32; that's 400%. The next question: Do you believe this company would ever dilute beyond 840MM shares? It's first dilution took us from 140MM, to 280MM; and the next potential dilution could be coming sooner than liked. The follow up: Do you believe this company will be bought out/acquired, before they ever dilute that far? Because the buy out would likely temp bump stock prices, and your dilution would halt. I'm personally leaning towards keeping my assets in play and picking up more as MNKD dips/dilutes. This said, the fact that script counts haven't actually risen since 2015 (arbitrary rises, but essentially stagnant), and they are living pay check to pay check ATM; it's more of a gambler's play. You are confusing authorized shares with issued shares. The actual dilution only occurs when shares are issued. It may worry some investors that the authorization was so large, but others seem to not mind. I'm one of the worriers about the size, and in fact think it was a misstep to do such a large authorization at this point in time. But I think you're really getting out in left field... actually outside the ballpark if you're talking the number of shares you're speculating about. I think Mike and the BoD clearly intended this to be a one and done authorization to get them to profitability. How much of the additional 140 get issued... I would not hazard to guess. Anyone that does I think is simply blowing smoke.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 19:30:51 GMT -5
You mean when I recently said in response to something Sports posted that I was a little more optimistic than Nate on likely market cap over the next three years, saying I thought $2B might be more realistic low end rather than Nate's $1B. Or is it me saying I believe "no dilution" is likely too optimistic. I have no idea which half of my posts any given person ignores... though I've come to the conclusion many are blind to "50%" of what I say. Has nothing to do with ignoring anything you write, from an objective perspective, you are very good at trashing, but not nearly so good at pumping. Glad to hear you consider yourself objective in such matters. It's always hard to find people that think that of themselves. If only more people in the world were willing to judge with confidence like that. Far too much wishy washy listening without judging in our modern world
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 19:17:43 GMT -5
What did mike say is up to the monopolies out there ? In the question period. Here is my understanding. Mike is saying that Mannkind is currently able to get 70% of the patients being reimbursed by insurance. Someone seems to have asked Mike when do you think you can get that percentage to cross 80% and above. Mike says that is up to the monopolies out there, but we will get there. Wasn't it 70% commercial insurance and 50% Medicare?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 19:16:24 GMT -5
Yes, while not common, sometimes shareholders are merely diluted not fully washed out in a reorg bankruptcy. I wasn't the one that choose this odd wording joining "bankruptcy" with "diluting everybody" in a union. It's what the sentence grammatically means. "and" is the conjunctive used and it is negated as a singular joint situation. Grammatically if he meant neither bankruptcy nor dilution will occur then it would need to have been worded something like "article saying the company is going to go bankrupt OR dilute everybody... neither of these is in our plan". He may have simply crafted a poor sentence to convey what he meant. I think your other post may indeed be correct that what he was trying to say is that the recent Motely Fool article(s) which imply no way to profitability and no end to dilution are too dire. However, that is still a long way from having said that more dilution (even significant) will not happen before profitability. It is reasonable to assume that he expects some further dilution since a shareholder vote to authorize such was deemed necessary. I'm surprised you'd really think that some further dilution is not likely. You seem to be on tweeting terms with Mike. Why don't you ask him for clarification. Did he intend to say no further dilution will occur? I'd be willing to place a side bet with you that he would not claim that. Wow, what a response! Really unbelievable. Now, if Mike had written those words, that would have been one thing, but saying them, people say stuff like that all the time and people don't break down their verbal sentences like you just did. I will admit, though, I was looking for a grammatical error in your response, and you had some chances to go wrong, but you didn't. Nice job as far as that goes! It's not that I ordinarily would nitpick sentences but the assertion was made that he said "no dilution". If one wishes to determine whether Mike said that, it does unfortunately come down to trying to interpret what was probably an ill crafted spontaneous choice of words... unless of course he strategically picked those words to allow people to read things into it that he might want them to that would go beyond what he can actually say truthfully. I'm guessing the former. To me I think the important thing is the intent not particular words. I think he clearly intended to say he disagreed with MF's dire assessment, which was basically no path to profitability. I don't think the intent was to say no dilution. Wow... I am shocked I had one whole post without any grammatical issues... are you sure? I often can make too errors in one sentence, which is two many.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 19:05:17 GMT -5
Is the big PBM Mike referred to in the presentation CVS? Mike mentioned that Afrezza is not on the national formula list of the this big PBM yet, but Mannkind can use the newly secured contract to go to places like Blue Shield California to negotiate coverage. Below is what I found out the connection between Blue Shield California and CVS. www.smarteranalyst.com/2018/01/30/mannkind-corporation-dilution-cards/ Blue Shield Partners with CVS for New Pharmacy Drug Benefits Program
NOVEMBER 2, 2016 BY KEVIN KNAUSS 0 COMMENTS Blue Shield of California and CVS Health form a new agreement for our pharmacy benefit management program Blue Shield has entered into an agreement with CVS Health to support manufacturer rebate and pharmacy network contracting for its outpatient pharmacy benefit and has received approval from the Department of Managed Health Care.
CVS Health will manage Blue Shield’s national retail pharmacy network, and become our exclusive mail order pharmacy for Commercial and Medicare plans and our specialty pharmacy for Commercial plans, starting January 1, 2017. This new agreement will enable Blue Shield to leverage CVS Health’s purchasing power and reduce pharmacy costs. It will allow us to offer more competitive pharmacy products while continuing in our commitment to provide access and convenience for our members. The new pharmacy network changes will apply to all Blue Shield lines of business: Commercial: Premier, Core, Small Business, Individual and Family Plans (IFP) and Self-Funded/Administrative Services Only (ASO)
Medicare: Individual and Group Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug plans Pharmacy network changes that will affect how our members access their benefits at the retail, mail order and specialty pharmacy will become effective January 1, 2017. Impacted members will be notified 60 days in advance of these changes by mail and telephone. What are the pharmacy network changes? There are three areas that will be affected by these changes. The member impact for most of these changes are relatively minimal and are as follows: Retail pharmacy CVS Health will support Blue Shield’s retail network contracts. The Blue Shield network retail pharmacies will be nearly unchanged and will continue to include all key chains such as CVS, Walgreens, Rite-Aid, Costco and many others. The vast majority of our members will continue to have the same convenient access to network pharmacies near where they live and work. In fact, the network pharmacies with preferred cost-sharing will expand to include additional national retail pharmacies. Please refer to the 2017 Medicare Pharmacy Directories for more information. Mail order pharmacy Blue Shield will transition from current mail order pharmacy, PrimeMail, to CVS Health mail order pharmacy. Specialty pharmacy Currently, Blue Shield’s commercial specialty network includes two vendors, CVS/Caremark and Walgreens Specialty, with the majority of specialty prescriptions filled by CVS/Caremark. With the agreement, CVS/Caremark will become our exclusive specialty pharmacy for Commercial plans. Members shall continue to have the convenient access to pick up their specialty medications at a local retail CVS pharmacy. Medicare plans will continue to have an open specialty pharmacy network, which includes Walgreens Specialty and CVS/Caremark. Transition plan Blue Shield Pharmacy Services has been working with CVS Health to develop an implementation plan that ensures a smooth transition. As part of the plan, members who may be affected by these changes will be notified 60 days in advance of the January 1 effective date. For retail Letters will be sent to impacted members, which will provide information on up to four network pharmacies (two based on the member’s address on file and two based on the terming pharmacies address). For specialty and mail order Letters will be sent to impacted members. Members will also receive CVS Health Welcome Kits. Active specialty and mail order prescriptions For prescriptions that have active, remaining refills, Blue Shield will work with PrimeMail (mail order) and Walgreens Specialty (for specialty drugs) to transfer members’ remaining refill prescriptions to CVS/Caremark. Member payment information, such as credit card details, will not be transferred. Members will need to register with CVS/Caremark to provide this information. CVS will conduct a call campaign to these members to assist with registration. Non-transferable drugs Some selected drugs are not eligible for transfer, such as Schedule 2 prescriptions. Since Federal law doesn’t allow refills for Schedule 2 prescription drugs, members using such drugs will have to visit their provider to get new prescriptions for each fill, even when using mail order. Additional information will be provided in a future communication as we get closer to implementation. Read more at calhealthnews.com/blue-shield-partners-cvs-new-pharmacy-drug-benefits-program/#o68rqSlHDxmreKI7.99I had the same thought and had looked that up as well. It seems he was saying whatever was accomplished, with whomever it is, is only a first step. I guess the take away is the are making small steps but we don't have a big change in formularies here in Q1 like many of us were hoping for based on previous comments from management. Nice work on the HI connection. Was Mike throwing clues out on purpose?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 17:34:43 GMT -5
I bet Spencer (for hire) Osborn will hit overnight as will LFD he has been quiet for a bit. Yet what he did just write seems at least neutral (I'd say positive) about the Trep IND filing and the possibility MNKD could get a partner for it.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 17:23:26 GMT -5
I went back to that section on finance. Here are things I heard. He talks about cutting expenses saying "we can slow down hiring, we can slow down marketing... so we have a little bit of control over our own destiny". Immediately followed by "There's a Motley Fool article saying the company is going to go bankrupt and dilute everybody... that's just no where in our plans, so we can put the rumors to rest, and rest assured we've got a plan for success not failure." The last part is kinda a silly fluff statement. No company plans to fail. As for the dilution it appears all he is saying if one looks at the actual sentence as delivered is that dilution through bankruptcy is not in the current plan. It would be going beyond the sentence to assume no future dilution. It would seem dilution for debt conversion and working capital is very likely, both from what can be seen that they are doing and from the share authorization. And he also gave us another notable MNKD quote... he looks at the outstanding debt not as overhangs but as possibilities... that quote I'd certainly rank as having eye roll possibility. Sorry... half joking, but only half... think it's pushing it a bit to go beyond "I can handle this" to "I'm tickled pink by having such a damaged balance sheet". “As for the dilution it appears all he is saying if one looks at the actual sentence as delivered is that dilution through bankruptcy is not in the current plan. It would be going beyond the sentence to assume no future dilution.” That’s not at all what I get out of that. Dilution through bankruptcy? No that’s your own spin you put on there. Lol Yes, while not common, sometimes shareholders are merely diluted not fully washed out in a reorg bankruptcy. I wasn't the one that choose this odd wording joining "bankruptcy" with "diluting everybody" in a union. It's what the sentence grammatically means. "and" is the conjunctive used and it is negated as a singular joint situation. Grammatically if he meant neither bankruptcy nor dilution will occur then it would need to have been worded something like "article saying the company is going to go bankrupt OR dilute everybody... neither of these is in our plan". He may have simply crafted a poor sentence to convey what he meant. I think your other post may indeed be correct that what he was trying to say is that the recent Motely Fool article(s) which imply no way to profitability and no end to dilution are too dire. However, that is still a long way from having said that more dilution (even significant) will not happen before profitability. It is reasonable to assume that he expects some further dilution since a shareholder vote to authorize such was deemed necessary. I'm surprised you'd really think that some further dilution is not likely. You seem to be on tweeting terms with Mike. Why don't you ask him for clarification. Did he intend to say no further dilution will occur? I'd be willing to place a side bet with you that he would not claim that.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 17:02:08 GMT -5
I was hoping for a slide on the impact they have seen from TV commercials. They must have data. Things I'd like to see in presentations... Regional script data corresponding to TV commercials. Data on monthly/quarterly increase in "writers". Quarterly data on number of US lives that fall into each of the following categories... covered without restriction, covered with restriction and not covered.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 16:50:19 GMT -5
I wish someone would pay me to pump or trash a stock... if it weren't for a certain sense of integrity I'm sure I'd be good at either.You've clearly proven 50% of the above proposition. You mean when I recently said in response to something Sports posted that I was a little more optimistic than Nate on likely market cap over the next three years, saying I thought $2B might be more realistic low end rather than Nate's $1B. Or is it me saying I believe "no dilution" is likely too optimistic. I have no idea which half of my posts any given person ignores... though I've come to the conclusion many are blind to "50%" of what I say.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 16:38:36 GMT -5
Even if expanding beyond what precisely was said and trying to read more into it, which might be unwise... the Motley Fool article I believe he was referring to with regard to amount of dilution merely says "The company is thus bound to continue diluting shareholders ad infinitum." So given that they engaged in hyperbole, Mike actually could then truthfully say he has no such plans, i.e. no plans for infinite dilution, even if he felt moderate/meaningful/significant (with no particular definition for any of these terms) dilution was still likely. Could be, he’s obviously trying everything he can not to do it. I don't even think it's necessarily bad. He is increasing spending on marketing. That will only hasten the need for raising funds, but there comes a time you have to spend money to avoid simply dying from stagnation. Other than the one recent thing that I'm sure everyone knows I believe was a misstep, I think Mike will do his best to maintain shareholder value. Though, we're not out of the woods, and I think there is likelihood for a bad surprise if people are thinking dilution is not probable.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 30, 2018 16:32:22 GMT -5
cjm18... yes, I wouldn't pay for something that seems patently obvious... that another dilutive raise could be ahead. Hopefully everyone here is familiar with the financials that is certainly pointing in that direction.
|
|