Why IMU is a multi multi bagger, page-3319

Thank you for your sentiments and for asking me to contribute my thoughts/opinion on Mr.Axel Hoos departing GSK and joining Scorpion. My response, is herein :

For years Axel Hoos has been driven by a desire to find effective solutions to one of the worlds leading killers, cancer. He has expressed the view that B cell therapy could be the science capable of replacing our existing standard of care, chemotherapy, (along with its many side effects and cost prohibitive structure). Yet in the high stakes world of Big Pharma its not all about the science. Or the medicine for that matter, let alone the patients. The pressure his Glaxo Smith Kline head Emma Walmsley has been under at the hands of their leading shareholder, NY Fund Manager Elliot Management, is proof of that.

That said Hoos has played the corporate game for 9 years at GSK, no doubt bouncing the ball and patting the baby as and when required. Along the way he has cultivated if not nurtured a passion for oncology, the field he now chooses to court. At GSK he has been instrumental in developing a respectable oncology department, whose highlights include the launch of the first BCMA-targeting multiple myeloma therapy – Blenrep (belantamab mafodotin), late last year. Along the way he has no doubt fine tuned his managerial skills, which shall hold him in good stead as CEO at the green shoots biotech, Scorpion Therapeutics.

Why not Imugene? Despite being a driving force behind the successful HER Vaxx trials, and more recently an invaluable member of the Imugene Board, Imugene is not the answer. For the Imugene train is ostensibly being driven by others. Yes Hoos has provided much needed impetus to the Imugene train, for all intense purposes he has the inside track. Yet the Oncology department there is being driven by Yeuman Fong and The City of Hope R&D department, at the behest of Hopper and Chong. As far as green shoots are concerned the Oncology race is all but run at IMU, particularly now with the advent of Saul Priceman’s City of Hope oncarlytics pipeline. No, IMU is not the answer. Now Hoos needs to run his own race. To be the master of his own destiny, as it were.

And let's face it, the dance cards are full at IMU. Hoos isn’t in a position to play the field there. As a non executive director at IMU he sits unnervingly on the sidelines in the event of any attempt at courtship by GSK . That is assuming Elliot and the GSK heirarchy would even allow him to sit on the sideline. And he becomes increasingly jealous of any advances from Merck or indeed Roche, whose combinations appear to appeal to the IMU debutante. Now may be the perfect time for Hoos to step outside the dance hall, take in the night air, and divorce himself from the action on the ballroom floor. He doesn’t need journalists, regulatory authorities and the dance floor adjucators casting dispertions on his own ballroom technique, as they have done other IMU players, in recent times.

For Hoos doesn’t need the accolades, boardroom trophies and the spotlight that comes with B cell success at GSK, Merck, Roche, or wherever the IMU stable ends up being held. Those in the know are aware of his role in the pending outcome. And so is his forthcoming balance sheet. With 23 million shares in IMU Axel is acutely aware of the monetary windfall about to be bestowed upon him at the conclusion of the existing B cell trials at IMU. He realises that recent Big Pharma sales of 2 billion USD and under aren’t even in the ball park when it comes to HER Vaxx and PD1. He can comprehend that if he stays outside the dance hall for long enough his IMU shares shall have reached between $1 and $2, before the last dance is called. For unlike the market, who are still driving to the Dance Hall, Hoos knows that $5 to $10 billion dollars is the ultimate prize on the B Cell dance card. All he has to do is stay outside for a little while longer.


NB. Do your own research. This response is purely an expression of my opinion and not a statement of fact. It is not intended as legal, financial or investment advice and should not be construed or relied on as such.