|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2018 22:11:30 GMT -5
Agreed Sayhey. Apple, Google and other large corporations certainly don't have to explain to shareholders why they snatch up little known technology companies for ridiculous multiples of street value. Leaders of large corporations have to take calculated risks with emerging technologies. Those that don't are often at a greater risk. To the original point...it was stated "there are not going to be any partners in the near future". Parsing words does not change that this is merely one individual's assumption, not a fact. Sure, small purchases of little known companies happen often behind the scenes. But MNKD will hopefully if ever acquired be at a valuation for enough money that even a fortune 100 company wouldn't slip it by shareholders (hopefully it's a billion dollars not fifty million)... not that Google or Apple would ever acquire a drug company. And Apple isn't known to be as profligate (Beats perhaps excepted) as your "ridiculous multiples of street value" might suggest. Shazam for instance was at valuation said to be less than what their prior round of financing had valued the company. Valuations get to crazy levels when there are competing bidders... and that makes it a lot easier to justify to shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2018 21:42:50 GMT -5
Is this really the case? - "a partner however would have to explain to their shareholders why they made the deal and the only argument they can make is that it's a lowball offer" I don't thing so. If I remember correctly when Brandicourt dumped MNKD he was quoted as saying something like it would take till 2020 for afrezza to become a viable product. However 2017 turned out to be a banner year for the supporting technology to demonstrate afrezza's value and to push treating diabetes beyond A1c. Articles like this don't hurt and when the architect of the Onduo protocol Steve Edleman says when talking about staying in a tight range "Afrezza might help!" that pretty much makes the argument when the exclamation point is used.diatribe.org/cgm-and-time-range-what-do-diabetes-experts-think-about-goalsThough there is certainly no evidence that Onduo will be promoting use of Afrezza. It's nice that he personally believes in Afrezza, but even within the medical field business realities, such as Sanofi funding Onduo, are often the primary drivers. Hopefully Brandicourt's estimate of 2020 will prove a bit pessimistic. Improvement in insurance coverage is probably the main factor in what is viable from a large pharmas perspective. Perhaps by playing it lean and mean, MNKD can be viable with lessor coverage than would have made it viable for bloated Sanofi.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2018 19:50:29 GMT -5
There's always some company announcing something significant. Probably were some significant announcements even 2 days ago... and yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2018 11:56:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2018 1:33:40 GMT -5
There are many ways to play with options. I sold Jan 2019 strike $5 puts for $3.25 Stock drops to 1.75 -> Break-even Stock remains at 2.66 -> 18% return Stock rises to 3.75 -> 40% return Stock closes above 5 -> 65% return I'll be thrilled with 65% return! Actually I think you're understating the potential returns. You get paid $3.25 immediately, and only stand to lose at most $1.75. If it is above 5 then you keep all the $3.25. To me I would think the best way of calculating a return is dividing the profit (3.25) by the amount you risked losing (1.75) which comes to 86% profit. Of course I did that with MNKD a lot in the past and had a big negative return.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 4, 2018 1:24:04 GMT -5
At one point I hoped that MNKD's patent portfolio would create barriers to other inhalable powder technologies, but it appears that it may only prevent companies from using FKDP for powders. My wisdom, although very limited, on relying on patents - don't ever! With my two companies I certainly didn't waste a lot of time with patents. They aren't very useful for small companies. It takes a war chest of money to give them teeth. MNKD has certainly put a lot of effort and money into getting a pile of them. But their financial straights would limit the perceived threat from them.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 3, 2018 22:34:58 GMT -5
From briefly reading this, it appears that Liquidia Techologies has made the dry powder directly from Trepostinil. In other words, Trepostinil is not loaded onto anything. The patient would be taking a dry powder form of Trepostinil. Whereas, with MannKind, the Trepostinil would be loaded onto to Technosphere partical. The Technosphere partical is very stable and has been shown to disperse well in the lung. So I wonder how well the Liquidia partical disperses in the lung. It would be my hunch that the Liquidia version will take a lot more Trepostinil to do the job than a Technosphere version. But that is just a hunch. So your hunch is that they don't have good control over particle size and much of the powder would not reach the alveoli? Though that is really only important if the API is expensive relative to the selling price.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 3, 2018 22:28:25 GMT -5
Agreed. Mike C specifically said he desired partnerships. He knows Mannkind can't get to where he wants to go without them. To say, there are not going to be any partners in the near future, is clearly a false assumption. Positive results of the STAT study would be sufficient to launch partnerships. Mike has a plan that has not been disclosed...YET! Either side of that is a pure guess. No matter which one prevails, I don't think either is a "false assumption"... none of us have actual evidence, so they are just competing guesses. IMO I certainly would assume Mike desires partnerships. Desiring things, however, doesn't guarantee obtaining them. And taking Mike at face value, he seems to have thresholds for the deals such that ones available to him, possibly ones that would have been concluded by his predecessor, are rejected as options.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 3, 2018 21:31:27 GMT -5
That was posted here and then taken down because it was a document that was apparently not meant to be made public. So that info has been known, though some believed it to be a fake document for some reason. Everything that has been said publicly is consistent with this document. I would question whether it makes sense for a company to aim at both recreational and true medical "pharmaceutical" markets. I think the recreational market is already well supplied, and given that pot is still illegal at federal level (and with hostile DOJ head) it seems problematic for a company trying to be a legit pharmaceutical company to also play in the recreational space. [just my personal opinion] Hopefully we'll get some news soon. Would be really nice to get a meaningful milestone payment, but I'm certainly not holding my breath on that. Perhaps that is why nothing has been announced. RLS may still be trying to figure out who they are. It’s entirely possible that Mike C. may not want to maintain the relationship with RLS if they cannot figure out what they will focus on. Mike C. seems to be intent on cutting away dead wood and focusing on the most important initiatives. Before Nov there was some amount of hope that the days of cannibis being a Schedule 1 drug were numbered. Even if they were to focus on the pharma market, where I believe the opportunity for a technosphere product is real, it may be that there is too much red tape to be able to do development and clinical trials on a Schedule 1 drug here in the US. Kinda nuts that it is Schedule 1.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 3, 2018 20:57:31 GMT -5
That was posted here and then taken down because it was a document that was apparently not meant to be made public. So that info has been known, though some believed it to be a fake document for some reason. Everything that has been said publicly is consistent with this document.
I would question whether it makes sense for a company to aim at both recreational and true medical "pharmaceutical" markets. I think the recreational market is already well supplied, and given that pot is still illegal at federal level (and with hostile DOJ head) it seems problematic for a company trying to be a legit pharmaceutical company to also play in the recreational space. [just my personal opinion]
Hopefully we'll get some news soon. Would be really nice to get a meaningful milestone payment, but I'm certainly not holding my breath on that.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 3, 2018 15:25:54 GMT -5
At one point I hoped that MNKD's patent portfolio would create barriers to other inhalable powder technologies, but it appears that it may only prevent companies from using FKDP for powders.
|
|
|
RLS
Jan 3, 2018 14:37:51 GMT -5
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 3, 2018 14:37:51 GMT -5
So you are saying that RLS's David Thompson is the same person as MNKD's David B. Thomson? It IS genius that they spell his name differently (Thompson versus Thomson) at the two companies! Most people would be fooled by that. Not us! You're right i have no idea, this company has done weirder things. It could be this guy too: www.socialventurepartners.org/seattle/profiles/dave-thompson/ or even David Thompson the basketball player. I don't know. The dots must always be connected. I've learned nothing from proboards if not the fine art of dot connection.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 2, 2018 17:04:36 GMT -5
Hi Dreamboat I think they are technically 'in the money' because the price is over $1 which is still the strike price (thats how I understand 'in the money' as a term, anyhow but what do I know other than how to lose money fast see www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inthemoney.asp). The problem is I have option lots which are 1/5th of their original size. Hence the options have a positive value as of now for each lot, ie they are worth something but only a fraction of what they would be if these were full-sized lots with a 1$ strike, and hence much less than I actually paid. My usual experience with options is to lose the lot so closing with something is a success Perhaps different brokerages list these non-standard options in different ways. My broker did not adjust the strike being shown, so mine are exerciseable at 5x the strike shown when I list my options.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 2, 2018 15:23:50 GMT -5
Why wouldn’t they move it again so we would not be in violation of it? I still think there will be a sit significant announcement on 1/2/18 Before or after close of market?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 2, 2018 14:57:19 GMT -5
Schwab returned all my remaining loaned shares on 12/29. Only once before in the past several years have they returned all my shares. You should move to Fidelity. Mine have not been returned. As I remember, Fidelity has more stringent requirements about participating in the paid loan program, and I would not qualify. Also, there have been times over the years that people at Fidelity got shares returned and I did not. More often than not Fidelity pays more, but again, there have been times the opposite was true. Though I may look into it again if they sit too long not giving me income.
|
|