No problem with your desire whatsoever. It matches mine however...

No problem with your desire whatsoever. It matches mine however as you said we only have one side of the story and there are lots of reasons why the other side of the story cannot be told. If you form a decision without the other side of a story it is the same as having a trial where the defendant is prohibited from raising a defence. I believe that it was not just in the Wild Wild West where this was done but is also the practice of the CCP and Mr. Putin.

One simple reason why a company may not be able to reveal its reasons is included in the exemptions in the ASX Continuous Disclosure Rules where an incomplete negotiation is a basis for silence. I have no doubt that parties engaged in negotiations to buy or partner enter strict non disclosure agreements before they sit down to negotiate. It is not impossible that one side said to Imugene late in negotiations if you want that much we will need more data.

No one here including myself has the full story and while ever that is the case I will not leap to adverse conclusions.

Funny thing over on another share that gets mentioned here a poster reached the status of Top Rated posts earlier today arguing that that company had been remiss in not raising more capital as it had delayed the bringing of their drug candidate to registrational trials. This prompted a defence of the company's approach of trying to minimise dilution etc;

I am unable to comment on your what if about Axel being voted out as I still have no clear idea who or what engineered his removal from the Board.

Professor Fong continues to compliment the Imugene team on the way in which it is handling the conduct of trials in which he is involved. At this stage the primary function of Imugene is the successful conduct of trials and collection of DATA towards FDA registration. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Professor Fong is not being truthful or not qualified to give an opinion on this subject so in my personal opinion Imugene is fulfilling its duty to shareholders and then some in this regard.

Raising capital is criticised from arm chairs without any evidence of what other capital was available on more favourable terms at the time of the raise. There has been some press reporting of tightness in capital markets over many, many months but without evidence I have no ability to say what impact this did or did not have on the options available to Imugene. I just know as a fact that developing new treatments in this space is capital intensive.

Finally I will say this. In my career I would have clients say to me that they wanted certain things to occur. The things they wanted usually involved what I described as strangers to simply bend over and accept they were entitled. Strangers walking down the street have no obligation to do anything when approached by beggars but at times may be persuaded with proof to accede to a beggars request.

I see this as no different where Imugene is concerned. It is one of hundreds if not thousands of biotechs around the world developing drugs. Some venture backed some publicly listed. They all need capital and they all want big pharma to buy them out for life changing amounts of money or partner with them at the earliest possible date.

At the same time Big pharma is conducting its own research and may never need to buy out any of these biotechs if their own programs succeed.
Big pharma is just like my strangers there is no law that says they have to buy or partner with Imugene and there is no law that says they have to accept the valuations that Imugene puts on its products.

Until big pharma has pressure that makes it imperative they find new drugs to sell because they have run out they will be just like my strangers and Imugene will be one of hundreds perhaps thousands of beggars.

What will eventually create an environment where Imugene will no longer be simply a beggar is compellling DATA. So far Imugene has only produced solid positive DATA. When that DATA becomes persuasive then big pharma will become interested.

No one including myself knows how much DATA will be required before that point is reached. No one knows what if any promises have been made in the background by big pharma as to what DATA needs to be in place for them to take Imugene seriously.

What I do know is that Imugene must reveal DATA to the market when it is properly reviewed and to hand. When the DATA appears overwhelming at that point I will start to expect serious interest from big pharma and institutions.

My opinion only DYOR

Fact Finder