|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 27, 2018 3:50:08 GMT -5
Let’s get it back on topic then. Why is mannkind diluting our shares on debt not due for 3 years? Wasn’t that the whole point of restructuring the debt to be due later? Mere preparation for a deal in which the benefits will outweigh the costs of this transaction. Yes, the past five years has been a calculated preparation. Fingers crossed. The future has to outweigh the past... so we hope. Another reverse split and we'll be back to record highs again.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 15:51:08 GMT -5
Does anyone know if this changes the $25 million in cash Mannkind is required to have at end of qtr to possibly $20 million in cash? It does not.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 14:57:51 GMT -5
I wonder if her mention of "HealthCare Pro's" was a mistake?
Good article though. Wonder why she is now considering using Afrezza after have a single good experience with it 3 years prior. A good sign though, hopefully more like her that are aware of Afrezza and will start taking action.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 14:48:11 GMT -5
Needless to say, I'm a bit skeptical about that interpretation.
And if he does turn around and borrow more, even if slightly longer term, taken together with this action would still be dilutive funding, which most of us expect, but which Mike keeps hinting he has other ways. If you repay one loan with shares and turn around and borrow more from someone else... it's still dilutive.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 14:19:51 GMT -5
Interesting that they seem to have endorsed a trial length of only 2 weeks if a CGM is used. That certainly would be great for MNKD if that view is accepted by medical community.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 14:06:06 GMT -5
Wish I'd been keeping a record of all the dilution to generate a graph... or maybe I don't. I think it would irritate me.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 13:53:16 GMT -5
WHY trade shares at these low prices if the debt isn't due for 3 years from now??? Cleaning up the balance sheet might make it easier to get $ from the institutions mike mentioned. Mike has been mentioning borrowing as a potential non dilutive source of capital. Trading shares for long term debt is the exact opposite of that.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 13:25:49 GMT -5
Cracker joke? Dont' go there tingtong ... I'm asian from Hawaii so I don't really care. Ha! The thing is that we should wait till June to see where we are at. I just love that this stock has held under $2 and I've been loading up with the dips. Have you also noticed that the shorts haven't really been able to leave because the shares available are so in short supply? Love it!!! Is it true that shorts "haven't really been able to leave because the shares available are so in short supply"? The share lending/borrowing rates have plummeted, so I thought that meant shares are NOT in short supply. But i don't have the best understanding of share lending/borrowing/shorting dynamics. I would think shorts should have no problem leaving if they want to, it seems shares are plentiful based on those rates being so low. I think he meant shares being sold by longs rather than shares available to borrow. Short interest is going down without driving price up much, so to me it seems there are shares available from longs for them to exit... at least the modest level of exiting that has occurred recently.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 25, 2018 13:19:35 GMT -5
Mango - Aged made an unsubstantiated claim the other day that taking hexamer insulin IV was faster than afrezza. While I suspect it would be a photo finish, I suspect afrezza would actually win the race. Any data on this? The pancreas dumps insulin into the portal vein in hexamer form. So if you're looking for data and can't find any on it's exogenous IV use, you might compare to a clamp study with a non diabetic cohort and natural insulin response. Hexamers dissociate very quickly once they dilute in the blood stream. Disassociation of hexamers vs dissolving of FDKP... I would suspect it is a photo finish. It may be that the techniques they use for clamp studies wouldn't be precise enough to pick up any tiny difference that may exist. However, I would place a large bet there is no clinical relevance to any difference.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 24, 2018 16:45:48 GMT -5
joeypotsandpans... actually I think that falls under valid studies of organizational behavior/development, which one can now get a degree in. It's not at all a leap of logic to say that organizations performing rather different tasks can have commonality in structural behavior. So I don't lump that in with analogies.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 23, 2018 19:38:39 GMT -5
GLP-1 is not the same. It reduces glucose levels rather than raising them.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 23, 2018 17:51:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 23, 2018 16:12:04 GMT -5
At the restaurant Mike mentioned he has been in talks with Kaiser towards their better involvement in working with Afrezza...your post reminded me of that part of his conversation with us. Kaiser have a good reputation with CGMs. The Kaiser Foundation funded one of the pivotal studies that forced insurers to cover CGMs for Type 1s. We like Kaiser They don't cover Afrezza, last I checked.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 23, 2018 16:05:02 GMT -5
There are more than one model and a lot of complications, but you're referring to the difference between the health plan organization and the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM). We wen't through a whole wave in the industry where health plan organizations outsourced the pharmacy benefit management to 3rd party companies. Now some health plan insurers are (or considering) bringing it in house again. The model of having independent PBMs certainly did not result in the cost savings they claimed was their raison d'etre. From a consumer standpoint it looks an awful lot like a total scam. Will be interesting to see what, if anything Amazon does in the Rx space. They have been adding experienced people to that new business and supposedly they are going to start their own PBM. That would be as they say, disruptive. Maybe they could shave a little expense from the mail order pharmacy part of that. I'd question whether they really have anything to contribute that would be disruptive regarding PBM business. Those are already business with large scale.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 22, 2018 21:14:00 GMT -5
I remember Mike describing this pricing problem on a shareholder’s call (not an earnings call) a couple of years ago before he became the CEO. That was the first time I heard about the rebates to the PBMs. A bit later we heard him talk about how surprisingly large the cash paying population was and thoughts of a subscription service like OneDrop with test strips. boca1girl @liane Maybe Mike C and Dr. K need to create a new pitch for the insurance companies and self-insured employers that points out their BPMs interests are not aligned with their interests or their covered PWDs when it comes to Afrezza. Afrezza will lower their costs and improve the quality of life for PWDs, but their BPMs are not approving it because it doesn't benefit their bottom-line. Thoughts on the idea and whether it's worth passing on to Mike C? I think insurers' incentives may not be as aligned with patients as you might think. In many places there are at best a few major insurance options so the competition isn't... robust. They are often regulated, and in places like CA that means there is a limitation on the amount of "profit" they can make. That profit limit is based as a percentage of the premiums they charge. Premiums go up... profit goes up. Premiums go down... profit goes down. If expenses, such as paying for drugs go up, the next year they can charge more for the premium and voila, more profit. That's one theory about our broken system... no need for actual collusion but if everyone plays by the same game book they all are prosperous. Though you also see insurance denying coverage of things, making it seem as if controlling costs for those paying the premiums is a factor. My personal guess is that insurance companies want steady predictable health care cost increase over time... setting aside political risk that if they do it too much there could be a backlash and detrimental changes in regulations for them. With self insured employers the equation is pretty clear. [Edit: though I do agree some companies may well view as Aged states below. Only thing clear would be that employers right now are getting shafted by the rebate system. That and the fact that if reasonably short term cost savings could be shown such as reduced hospitalizations for hypos, self insured employers actually do have incentives aligned with their employees.]
|
|