|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 10, 2017 16:45:52 GMT -5
Newbie level question, are the script numbers that IMS and Symphony report actually reporting / estimating the same thing? That is, total scripts filled anywhere? (Originally, way back, I thought they were possibly reporting on scripts filled at different sets of pharmacies.) They may vary in which pharmacies they have data from, but I believe they are both trying to estimate the same thing which is total sales. Each is missing some data but they make estimates for what is missing. Though perhaps there is some difference I'm unaware of, such as one covering in patient hospital prescriptions and the other not or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 10, 2017 14:30:51 GMT -5
Will IMS report a different revenue number also from Symphony revenue number? Does anyone on this board know this answer? Will the gross revenue number reported by IMS also proportionally higher than Symphony number? If so, we may get a positive surprise four weeks later. IMS has always reported their own data for Afrezza and will continue to, but no one that participates here has been posting that data for a long time other than this one number. I would think it highly unlikely one would be showing a proportional increase over some time period out of line with the other service, despite the absolute numbers perhaps being different due to how they do their estimating.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 10, 2017 12:30:37 GMT -5
akemp3000... It would help me visualize if you generated a cumulative distribution function curve Would also be interesting to know a few years ago (assuming you were following MNKD then) what probability you would have attached to MNKD eventually using up all of their then authorized shares, as they now basically have. That would help me predict a probability for the accuracy of your predictions
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 10, 2017 11:30:13 GMT -5
akemp3000 ... what I state is what the proxy vote is. That is why I say 100%... because it (requesting the vote) has already been done. Read the proxy if you haven't. You can imagine/hope that they don't use the right to dilute by close to the 140M they will have shareholder authorization to, but it is the right to do so they are requesting. I do find it interesting that you stated it to be your guess of what would happen and now state that as 30% likely... i.e. you seem to be stating/betting on something you think with 70% probability will not come to pass.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 9, 2017 20:29:58 GMT -5
You asked for thoughts. My guess is the request to authorize shares is twofold. One is to use a small amount of the shares to do a joint marketing deal with a large BP either domestically or internationally. The balance would remain on the shelf for future opportunities in the next two or three years just as Mike stated. If say 28 million (20%) of the 140 million were sold at $6 per share, this would generate $168M to help fund the new marketing partnership. While there would be a dilution component, the upside of the new partnership would outweigh the dilution and the pps would rise. Imagine the credibility and press at this important moment in time if it were announced that someone like Merck has recognized that Afrezza is the "real deal" and has decided to buy-in and team up with Mannkind to market and sell Afrezza. This would especially be big news following the failed Sanofi deal. Some may question why any BP would pay $6 when the current market price is $3. Recent history just proved this can happen. This is the beauty of having the new shares to use in negotiations for a serious buy-in. If this announcement were to occur following the vote, then Michael Kovacocy might just be spot on suggesting $10 by the end of the year. All of this is of course just a swag guess. As to thoughts regarding the charts, I love following them and sincerely appreciate the great effort it takes to create them but as an investor as opposed to a trader, my hope is that a one sentence announcement relegates all prior charts to history. This is what I'd like to see. GLTA What percent likelihood do you attach to your guesses? All I can say is there is 100% likelihood that management is requesting the right to dilute by 140M without seeking further approval. I realize that if I made any further prognostication it would be pure speculation or trying to convince either myself or someone else of a story I'm making up. Just my perspective
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 9, 2017 20:11:17 GMT -5
tingtongtung ... Engineer to engineer, shares in a company are fungible. If not to prevent truly creating fake shares (which some like to think happens anyway) they wouldn't have to be numbered. At any given time you simply own a pool of shares that convey a certain percentage rights of ownership and control. The recognition of profits or loss when you go from X% ownership to Y% ownership is a rather arbitrary accounting issue. I wouldn't view one way as "fairer" than another in the abstract. One might say changing the rules of the game mid play is inherently unfair, but changes to tax laws are always that. Some players will be hurt and others will benefit. [entirely personal opinion]
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 8, 2017 14:28:16 GMT -5
To which additional money are you referring?Shelf The authorization up for vote really isn't a shelf registration, and it certainly isn't somehow magical money. There is no money pending that management has talked of. Investors must be found before money comes in. There is dispute over how many shares should be authorized, but authorizing shares should have been a no brainer (would have been if not for MNKD's history and the magnitude they went for). Most companies that have financial problems have shares authorized but just can't find buyers for the shares. You're certainly engaging in counting chickens before they've hatched if you think authorizing shares somehow assures funding will come in.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 8, 2017 13:22:28 GMT -5
me ... perhaps SEC should tighten the rule on fail to delivers (delays in delivery), but setting that aside because in the end shares are delivered, it makes sense that those wishing to drive the price down and profit from shorting would do the bashing and shorting in a coordinated manner the same way those wishing to drive the price up and profit from buying would would coordinate positive spin with buying... or in the recent case of MNKD coordinate the positive spin with doing a PIPE. Nothing illegal about being savvy with driving one's trade... as long as one isn't fraudulent in the negative or positive info being pushed. I'm just pointing out that MNKD has little if anything to rebut. They can complain about the level of shorting, but shorting isn't going to go away in general, and it won't diminish for MNKD until they show a path to profitability and those remove the overhang of further large amounts of dilution.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 8, 2017 13:11:03 GMT -5
kc, Do you think the number of "impressions" is driven by the followers you and the 8 people that retweeted have, or do you think that large number of followers is simply because of people following or searching for $MNKD or #afrezza? If it is the former that could mean it is getting new exposure for Afrezza. If the impressions were generated because of the $MNKD tag then it likely means it's a bunch of investors (and shorts) that had it "impressed" on them rather than introducing Afrezza to people that were unaware of it. I am not a twitter user. Am I correct in assuming that it is only the following mechanism by which people see tweets... - People that follow you the poster or follow one of the 8 people that retweeted - People that follow particular tags... $MNKD or #afrezza - People that search particular tags... $MNKD or #afrezza
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 8, 2017 12:52:23 GMT -5
I thought I would post this here because I think MNKD has this very thing happening to them and Deerfield seems to be big in these things in the past. Go to MiMedx website and click on the link that reads: Letter to MiMedx Shareholders Corrected MiMedxw It seems MiMedx (assuming their rebuttals are the truthful side of the story) had shorts really putting out false information. With MNKD even those (that I know of) that write hit pieces have done so by merely by pointing at sales of Afrezza and speculating that it will be a flop. It's much harder for a company to write a rebuttal to that if the underlying statements about past sales are correct... other than perhaps to issue forward looking guidance, but then you need to be sure to actually achieve it or you've just lost credibility for the company and given it to the shorts.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 8, 2017 12:41:28 GMT -5
How soon after the vote has conclude will the results be announced? On another note, there was some options activity suggesting the anticipation of a major price move. Is that still the case and what is the consensus on what direction the stock price might take? It seems unlikely that the vote will fail (despite a minority of us voting against it), so I would assume there won't be much of a share price reaction at all. I think it is already baked in... i.e. part of what pushed us down to where we are.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 8, 2017 12:38:10 GMT -5
Todays script numbers are showing a sharp increase in refills 227 v 161. With the shortened week last reporting period, this looks like the refills are starting to rise as well. With the approval of the shelf offering and additional money pending, coupled with higher lows trending for several months and a new rise in refills, only time will tell if MNKD can meet their guidance numbers. I don't care if they overshot this time...it's all coming together and WS will reward investors for their decisions. The PLAN is being executed and it is beginning to run the marathon with better predictability. Those in short positions are playing dangerously. When the switch is turned on...well, we know the obvious.
TRX 474 (360) NRX 247 (199) Refills 227 (161) TRX$ 543k (426k)
Source: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/2679/symphony-script-data#ixzz50faulqx3
Best regards!
To which additional money are you referring?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 7, 2017 16:39:56 GMT -5
We got a cash payoff from SNY, and they “repurchased insulin” as a settlement at the end of the partnership. As part of the agreement, there was probably a non-disclosure agreement and the agreement not to sue, simple as that. I don't know, but I would be surprised if the SEC would make an exception due to a non-disclosure agreement. If that was the case, then couldn't shady companies could enter into token NDAs with friendly third parties just to keep information from the eyes of investors? Yet I've never heard of that happening. I may well be wrong. It's now a defunct agreement. Almost by definition that makes it presently immaterial to shareholders. It hardly seems like an exception that the SEC would rubber stamp not releasing it fully at this point. I don't think the FDA considers an NDA in their process of evaluating these requests. They would consider whether there is a valid business reason for secrecy which outweighs shareholders right to know. Since the info is now immaterial, almost any business argument for continued redaction would likely meet the threshold.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 7, 2017 12:37:33 GMT -5
Interesting. So I guess this means that we won't get to see the redacted sections of the Sanofi agreement. I really want to know what kind of information is being concealed and why it is so important to keep it a secret? I am assuming that's what this is regarding. Right? Withholding full information about the MannKind-Sanofi Agreement borders on MannKind breaching fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. I never thought that I'd seriously consider taking legal action against MannKind until today. This is deeply troubling to me as a shareholder. Given that the agreement is now over it would seem less important than ever that the info be shared with shareholders. We know what did happen, so what's the argument we need to know what might have happened, or what they thought was going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 6, 2017 14:07:54 GMT -5
That's impressive the one message with 12k views. I think that is rather rare that social media posts get that many views. Most of the posts from Afrezza users I see are doing really good to break 100 views/likes/shares or whatever. Found the line about "This isn't a promotion for Afrezza. However... " kinda interesting. It was quite positive about Afrezza for someone not doing promotion of it. Wonder what they would have said if it were promotion. As for the basic question this poses, I think we've learned now from several years of great social media posts about Afrezza that it does not substitute for traditional advertising. Pharmaceuticals simply don't have much potential for "viral" interest. It would probably be a good idea to keep re-tweeting that one particular post. I have exactly zero followers on twitter, so I could retweet until the cows come home with no effect. For those with thousands of followers on twitter, I'd definitely recommend that
|
|