|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 15:02:17 GMT -5
I think the center of the argument or discussion is do you like what Mike is doing. When the reverse split was necessary to stay listed the company could have issued a 1 for 10 shares reverse split. In that they issued a 1 for 5 reverse split suggests to me that the shareholder were kept in mind. From this I find confidence that the shares requested will be used to sustain the company to do what MIKE KNOWS and what we do not. Do you like Mike and the Managment. Is the company making strategic moves to bring Afrezza to market? If so. It's a yes vote. Or one can like some things they have seen since Mike took the reigns, but still think this is too many shares to authorize. If the argument that shareholders never know as much as management were a valid argument to rubber stamp everything they propose, there would logically be no legal requirement to seek approval from shareholders. Shareholders, as with any voting, should base their decision upon the knowledge they actually have (and management has the obligation to convince shareholders through what they tell us) and vote based on the one issue at hand. Like or dislike management, one should vote on whether this is an appropriate number of shares to authorize at this time. Even if I didn't particularly "like" management I'd authorize shares that I thought was a reasonable request.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 14:23:19 GMT -5
No longer trending down and at least one analyst, Kovacocy is telling shorts to cover now before the vote on Dec 13. I don't think I'd take one day as having broken a trend. Of course Kovacocy is telling shorts to cover. He has predicted $10 share price by end of year. I think this share authorization is helping shorts not hurting them, and that the generally assumed "yes" vote on this is already being reflected in the share price weakness. That said, I think management has set themselves up with a bit of a lose-lose scenario as MNKD detractors will beat up on MNKD either way... i.e. "management thinks they need to dilute by 50% before reaching profitability and based on history they probably will" if yes vote and "look, shareholders don't have confidence in management" if no vote. So I don't anticipate share price strength in either case. It will now take some real good news to get us back on strong share price appreciation path, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 14:16:55 GMT -5
I wonder what is causing the jump this morning. It almost made me want to buy a little more but I'm wondering if its just a quick hype before it goes back down Yesterday I sold all of my shares with a cost basis greater than $25 to capture the tax loss, that’s the reason the stock price is up today. I will be more than happy if we can get to $10 by year end as predicted, because now my average cost is below $4. 31 days from now, I might be in the position to buy more. I would have held onto those shares if I didn’t have capital gains to offset. I would think I'd be thrilled, unless of course the shock of it causes me to have a heart attack.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 14:02:11 GMT -5
It is the timing, that I find annoying. I agree that MNKD needs some a stockpile of shares authorized to be flexible. It would be fine if they do this when they have delivered based on earnings etc. Right now MNKD has not delivered based on a key metric of shareholders. The FDA Label change is not a tool with the potential to create value. That's all. Authorizing shares now is giving management a pass and a tool to survive without performing. I do not like that. I somewhat agree. I wish they would have waited until 1Q18, after we see the sales from 4Q, but they may need the shares for some strategic partnering before then, who knows. I know some like to always believe there is a great "deal" lurking in the background. Setting aside the likelihood of that, which is purely an emotional/philosophical exercise... my opinion is that if some shares are needed now, it should not need to be 140M of them. I don't think I'd like any "partnering" if it involves giving anywhere near half the company to the "partner".
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 13:44:18 GMT -5
As to lakers use of 'maximum flexibility' and your interpretation to mean that MNKD should add a billion more shares to be at max, is grossly exaggerated. I'm pretty darn sure he means maximum flexibility within the new shares being authorized, to the extent possible. I voted 'yes' in all three accounts my 457, my 401 and my personal trading account.
I'd be willing to give him that flexibility within the new shares being authorized... IF there were far fewer shares being authorized.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 28, 2017 13:40:34 GMT -5
I want MNKD to succeed and don't wish to have my stake in it diluted by 50% so I'm voting NO. I do not believe they need nearly 140M additional shares to be successful. DBC I normally agree with you 99% of the time but this one I don’t. It’s been a very long road with 1 step forward and 15 steps backwards. If the medicine doesn’t kill you it will make you stronger. Right now MannKind has taken years worth of medicine and is now starting to have a consistant pulse. Heck they might even be half alive today. Mike Castagna and the Board of directors has guided the ship in the darkness of the valley of death and is now starting to see the new dawn. A yes vote is confidence that we are heading in the right direction. We don’t have to issue any new shares for dulition. We need Tresury shares to make good things happen in the future. What would the company be able to do today if they had a potential friendly party be it an international partner who wanted to buy a 15% to 20% interesting in MannKind. They couldn’t do it today. They could only do it if there was treasury shares to issue to the potential partner. Sure some hostile entity could buy 10 or 20% on the open market cheap but that would not add any EQUITY to the company. The board proved they could raise EQUITY that would stick to the company and be able to be used for advertising. Prior to that 61 million raise they could not have started advertising. We all love Afrezza and see what a paradigm treatment shift it bring to the lives of diabetics. Voting Yes will give us the opportunity to get that partner be it international or a domestic one who will be committed to seeing the company survive. Al Mann should have gone down that path but perhaps he was either to confidant he could do it alone or couldn’t agree to give up that amount of control. Times have changed and we have started to come back from the walking DEAD to actually having a bit of swagger. A yes vote gives Management the tools to move the ball towards one of many goal lines. We are moving forward instead of 15 steps backward. In conclusion my FANTASY is that the vote passes and then Mike thanks all the shareholders for their support in authorizing the additional shares. The next week he make an early premarket announcement that MannKind has a new investor in the company who has bought 15% of the new shares at a price of $20.00 per share. Say that’s 42,000,000 shares X $20.00 = $840,000,000 Great liquidity and an international partner. What would happen to share price if that occurred? You would see the PPS surpasss that $20.00 figure. FANTASIES do happen just ask Mike Castagna about his hometown Eagles. They are flying high. Perhaps Mike is the air beneath the wings of MannKind. Looking back over they last 24 months many of us had the bleakest view of our investment in MannKind. Look how many steps forward Mike Castagna and the board have moved the football down the field. How could you not vote YES and put your confidence in Mike and the Board. Big difference between 15% - 20% of company vs 50% of company... and big difference as to whether price is $2 or $10. As for $20, if that were at all realistic and expected by management, why on earth then do you think we need to authorize 140M new shares. Do you think we need to raise $2.8+ billion dollars to make Mannkind profitable? It seems like you hold logically conflicting ideas in your mind... that there is an imperative to authorize this many shares and yet something is waiting in the wings and we'll get such a high price, few of them will ever be used. In my thinking (and based on history of MNKD), authorizing that many shares will harm the price at which shares will trade by emboldening shorts, and will in fact be somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy with more shares then being needed to raise any given amount of capital. I was very pleased with seeing the last offering occur at $6 and applauded Mike for that. I hope this isn't as bad of a misstep as I think it might be. I will now be pleasantly surprised if we don't issue some of these new shares below $6. If they get even $10 for new shares (much less $20) I will concede that I was totally wrong about this share authorization... and there was/is some analyst/blogger believing we were going to $10 before end of year. The Board has certainly had missteps before. I'd like to have blind confidence in them, but not yet at that point... and I certainly don't think Wall Street has confidence yet. And I believe a good chunk of Wall Street will still be attacking and shorting the company and not buy into 140M new shares being a move of strength. I am more confident than in recent past. Still, there is a reason shareholders get a say about certain things and I don't see anything wrong with me saying doubling the authorized shares is a step too far right now.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 27, 2017 14:56:25 GMT -5
The link above doesn't work for me. Can you provide a different link or the title of the paper? Thx Try this link, DBC: voteyes.toauthorize140-millionmoreshares/com Or this tried and true link... JustSayNo.com
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 26, 2017 15:37:16 GMT -5
The reference to 140 is that microvascular blood vessels rupture when exposed to high sugar. We know this happens when people who have 2 hours plus exposure. Here is an example cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2840-8-23. Is 140 hard and fast, probably not but its not a bad general target number. The link above doesn't work for me. Can you provide a different link or the title of the paper? Thx
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 19:46:50 GMT -5
Mike C claims that the 140M shares would be employed in a 3-5 year timespan. How does one come to such a projection? That sort of long term guidance is rather specific and is highly dependent on how the share price fluctuates during that time, amongst many other variables. For me, him providing the "3-5 year" frame was a "yellow flag". Anyone else know why and/or how he'd make such a prediction? That comment, which was likely off the cuff, isn't what is the yellow flag for me. For me, regardless of how the CEO might spin it, the yellow flag is simply the quantity up for authorization. Any CEO would say the full amount isn't needed immediately, but they don't pick numbers at random, so it seems management considers it possible that they would need to dilute by 50% (or 100% depending on how you want to look at it).
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 19:36:59 GMT -5
Mike C claims that the 140M shares would be employed in a 3-5 year timespan. How does one come to such a projection? That sort of long term guidance is rather specific and is highly dependent on how the share price fluctuates during that time, amongst many other variables. For me, him providing the "3-5 year" frame was a "yellow flag". Anyone else know why and/or how he'd make such a prediction? Wasn't his point that we can't see the future and want to be ready for whatever comes when it comes? He doesn't want to be in a position where he has to return to shareholders to approve new shares every time something comes up. That wouldn't be good for share price either, and would leave him in a position of weakness in regard to negotiating as opportunities come along, and powerless against a hostile takeover. I would respectfully disagree. I think authorizing no more than 50M now and waiting for the price to appreciate to much higher values before seeking more authorized would have less negative effect on stock value. Of course that assumes MNKD makes substantial progress in the coming year. If they don't, the share price is doomed any which way.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 18:10:02 GMT -5
Nope that was I. So you know, I have never sold a single share; I have sold put options through 2020 that doubles my position. Ah, yes... I would have lost no where near as much if I hadn't sold so many puts over the years... when it comes to MNKD I feel very put-upon.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 18:03:27 GMT -5
LosingMyBullishness... approval for peds is a LONG way off, so that's not going to impact share price for quite some time. I would think that ultimate approval is already assumed... i.e. only room for a bad surprise and share price reaction as they work through the trials.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 14:15:52 GMT -5
Interesting that 180 was chosen as the threshold definition for hyperglycemia and upper limit for "time in range". I've seen people here on PB state that damage occurs above 140 but I'm not sure anyone has provided reference to what research supports that.
I wonder how many on RAA prandial could manage the 70-180 time in range if they had a CGM.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 13:48:37 GMT -5
Though the track record of the board has not been good with regard to use of authorized shares. They are asking for a huge new authorization after burning through essentially all previously authorized shares and seeing the share price collapse by 95% from IPO. Whether you believe Mike will only use a small portion of the authorized shares, I think those shorting MNKD will assume history repeats itself and most or all of these shares eventually enter the market to push price down further and/or allow them to exit their positions gracefully. I'm getting the sense that DBC is not in favor of the authorization of this many shares, but I'm still not really sure, cuz it says so much of what he thinks of Mike that how could he still be invested in MNKD? Apparently, he and stinkypete think somewhat alike - bedfellows? Not exactly alike, mind you, but enough alike that I worry about DBC, being akin to stinkypete, and I really have enough to worry about already. DBC, if Mike does as you fear, well, okay, but there are so many other ways he can sink the share price, that he does not need this in his arsenal. And if you're concerned that he just wants to raise money to make sure he has a good paying job for as long as possible, well, he could raise money privately, or sell the company for a sweetheart price in exchange for some financial assurances, etc. I don't believe in the false choice that shareholders must either sell their shares or agree with anything and everything management asks for. If that were good corporate governance, states and SEC would simply allow BoD to have full control of companies without any need for shareholder approval. I urge other shareholders to use their own judgement and exercise the control they have over corporate actions through the power of their vote. I'll leave you guessing which way I plan to vote I don't think I've shared a bed with anyone named stinkypete recently.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 25, 2017 13:40:18 GMT -5
So they better rush to enter Canada. Ceta is coming and most of my options are expiring in Jan. Yur options Depend on whether Dr. D will convert before 1/15/18. For that to happen, there needs to be good news before that, i.e., partnership, Tresprostinil IND, A's Can filings in Jan. Converting debt to shares at a discount isn't going to impress anyone. It's simply giving a creditor an assured profit at the expense of common shareholders. I also don't think filing for IND or Canada would be considered a great accomplishment... filing doesn't mean approval or assurance of revenue within any reasonable time frame. It only shows intent, and that intent has already been stated. A "partnership" would all depend on who it is with and what the terms are. If we got a partnership for an international region and it didn't include a significant upfront payment, it might be the same non-event for the shares that was the Brazil deal. LosingMyBullishness... I've been burned repeatedly on call option on MNKD. I've mentally already given up on Jan 2018 calls. I'm just hoping my Jan 2019 calls pay off. Fortunately they are currently in the green, having bought them basically at our all time low. Hope your 2018 calls were purchased post rev split.
|
|