Comrades,
An amazing day today: I think the news of this announcement is yet to fully sink in with shareholders, and the SP rise was largely driven by the ASX 300 inclusion today as wonderfully noted by other posters amongst other threads. Who knows what effect the inclusion into the ASX 200 will have in early December - I am very excited too for the future of this company and the SP. In 12 months, my life has changed because of this stock; and may I say partly due to the community on here. I invested 95% of my wealth into the ASX during the Covid downturn having learnt lessons as a kid during the GFC. I was tipped off to IMU by a good family friend and took out loans to finance everything else (post grad education) so I could invest every last dollar into IMU and other health stocks. I created this very account to post about this stock over a year ago and to those who I replied to and referenced, thank you. I'd firstly like to say thank you to everyone on here, all of the IMU dinosaurs and the amazing analysis that you willingly put up. You have no idea how much of a impact some of you truly have. Or maybe, some of you do..... it seems these latest festivities have created a few more alcoholics amongst the community
@fourdollars, you are the only one to touch on
@Zior's intelligent question thus far. I too shared Zior's thoughts on why the announcement itself was not deemed 'price-sensitive' when I woke up in astonishment this morning. I agree with everything you say too in relation to the logistical nightmare that the ASX faces every day and I think you have hit the nail on the head. I think that the ultimate responsibility for this lies within the in-house counsel of IMU. I can perhaps see why it was deemed non 'price-sensitive' because there is no material change to outcome of the study update from the 27th August 2021, but as shown below, I still have questions. This seems the most logical reason as briefly pointed out.
The key and new piece of information that is arguably 'price-sensitive' in this announcement is the phrase "The clinical results continue to indicate that PD1-Vaxx is showing early signs of immune responses in patients...". This is pretty big news: its more than a hint I would argue and I am myself confused as to why it is not price-sensitive. It is important to remember when considering the legal meaning of 'price-sensitive', that it is not necessarily whether the new information will materially impact the share price, but what
effect it will have on investors. The best legal summarisation on the meaning of 'price sensitive' I have seen is by Chief Justice Martin in
JubileeMines NL v Riley (2009) at paragraph 34:Rather, the effect of the section [1001D Corporations Act] was to obviate the need to address the question of whether
a reasonable person would be taken to expect a 'material' effect on price to be produced by deeming that question to be answered in the affirmative if the information would, or would be likely to,
influence persons who commonly invest in the relevant securities in deciding whether or not to subscribe for, or
buy or sell those securities.
Based on this definition, I cannot see why this announcement is not price-sensitive, which is why I agree with you
@fourdollars. The fact that between the 27th August and now there have been further positive signs (i.e. no change) as to immune responses is information that could possibly tempt further investment or more dollars being put in from existing shareholders. I think this is a small oversight by both IMU and the ASX, but good on you both for pointing this out. Both of your posts are top quality and many would be lost without your guidance, thank you.
Always DYOR, not financial advice.
Much love,
Roger.
