Facts are, - Share price was likely not representative of its true value in 2021. Lots of Hype.- Some bought into the hype without doing their due diligence. (don't say most of you weren't in a frenzy over the $1 party in Noosa etc).Hypothetically if the vote goes such that the board spills, and the new re-elected board is directionless, talent starts to leave, trial dates and momentum starts to blow out, competitors beat Imugene to the punch, then at least then we'll have expert commentators on this forum to find others to blame Originally posted by freebooter43
Enjoyed reading your post and don't want to go into great detail, as most of the ground is covered in my previous posts, but these statements aren't facts, they are assumptions made by you. Many leading healthcare analysts, fund managers and sophisticated investors valued IMU at close to 62 cents or thereabouts in late 2021. Why would you assume at the time Vaxinia and CF33 were worth less than Replimune? Do you realise that Replimune (RPL) was worth close to $50 USD in 2021? That based on the existing HER Vaxx and PD1 Vaxx trial data to hand in late 2021 Imugene's B cell platform would not achieve peak sales comparable to other MAB's? That Oncarlytics would not command a significant financial interest from Car T's including Kymriah, Yescarta and others? The company already had agreements in place with CAR T and allogenic therapy providers. Were you aware that Amgen paid $1BN USD for T Vec from Biovex way back in 2011, a pre revenue drug only successful in treating one or two blood cancers back then? This isn't hype, these are the facts.
It's a misnomer this line that keeps being metered out IMU ran ahead of itself and was over priced in 2021. Show me an OV with comparable pre clinical data (and post clinical now I might add) that comes anywhere close to CF33 and Vaxinia, and I might engage in conversation. Or Phase 1 trial data in lung cancer that tops PD1 Vaxx? Or any CAR T company that has shown significant tumour killing in solid tumours, as Saul Priceman M.D. did and has done with Oncarlytics?
Each one of Imugene's leading immunotherapy candidates stacks up against all their competitors at similar stages in the clinical trial process, with perhaps the exception of Her Vaxx against Enhertu. That said Her Vaxx as we know stacks up pretty well against Herceptin, a drug that made more in annual sales in one year than Imugene's entire market cap. Therefore do the competitor analysis and tell me why Imugene was not worthy of a 62 cent price then and now. Don't use no revenue as an excuse as I've spent a lot of time talking about how Gilead., AMGEN and others have spent billions on immunotherapy, CAR T's and other products pre revenue and Pre FDA approval. (Why Pfizer paid 43 billion USD for ADC's for heavens sake, the messenger as opposed to the message). Based on the collective of Imugene's pipeline many large holders I speak to (who have far more early stage biotech stock experience than me I might add) cannot fathom why Imugene is trading at anywhere near the levels it is, in contrast to similar biotech players on the Nasdaq. But as Paul Hopper once said, the share market often depicts price, rarely does it reflect share value.
Speaking of Paul Hopper and the IMU board, I to believe all should stay in search of stability. But why would you assume a new board or even directors would be directionless and and trials delayed? I might remind you that it was leading investor(s) who interviewed and appointed individuals such as Leslie Chong CEO and MD to the Imugene board initially. There are plenty of experienced players invested in and associated with Imugene, including Paul Hopper himself. I hardly think the stocks owners are going to appoint anything short of excellent candidates, if indeed they do see a need for change, (which I highly doubt at this stage of the game). But back to your post, the fact is Imugene has already gathered enough data to assume a share price much higher than it is today, as discussed by leading healthcare analysts such as Roth and Diamond Equity research, in addition to many at JP Morgan, Vanguard and other fund managers. Their OV trial results to date are mind boggling given the dosage rates applied and the stage at which trial participants are presenting.
The stupid thing is that when the intrinsic value of Imugene's IP is reflected in the prevailing share price, following on from further results, everyone shall be jumping up and down saying "Why was IMU valued at a fraction of its worth?", as we have seen with stocks such as Neuren of late. I can see no reason why based on the recent announcements Azer Cel should be valued at a mere fraction of Allogene. Or why CF33 and Vaxinia are not held in the same light as Replimune. All this talk of hype, and meme stocks is bullshit, to put it frankly. Pre revenue rubbish I say. Do the comparison with existing stocks in the oncology space and you may reach the same conclusion. Look to recent M&A activity on Fiercepharma, WSJ, endpoints, Yahoo or Forbes as a starting point. Seriously, do't get me started. if I was in an arrogant mood I'd suggest the only people failing to see a 62 cent valuation in IMU are people who've either never met Yuman Fong or Saul Priceman, or for that matter Pravin Kaumaya. And that's why no leading shareholders I know chose to sell at 62 cents in 2021, nor to the best of my knowledge would they today.
Oh and please if trolls come on and dispute valuations can you please compare Imugene's products apples for apples, as opposed to apples with oranges. And don't use the excuse research firms are paid by the company, why not actually read their research. And do your homework at what leading funds Blackrock, Vanguard and JP Morgan have actually paid for their IMU stock. And show me an oncolytic virus that has proven more effective in phase 1 trials than Vaxinia. As if we don't have to put up with enough clowns saying the stock is worth 4 cents without any substance to their posts. I'm confident most long term holders and posters are over it. And over the talk about shorting, who cares. That has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of Imugene.
Last time I checked you are only as good as your weakest link. And when I look around at recent appointments such as Brad Glover, or Paul Woodard, or before them Jakob Dupont and Ursula McCurry, Imugene doesn't have many.
Apologies for the rant. Once again I did appreciate reading your post freebooter, unlike so many others of late it did have substance to it. I agreed with most, just not all of it.
WMHB
DYOR Seek investment advice as and when required Opinions only
(20min delay)