Media Thread, page-11592

Look I totally agree. I guess my point was more from an analytical perspective, if not an objective one. As you know were I to take a purely subjective view my feelings, which are well known on these threads, are that Imugene needs to tell real life stories. In addition to real life stories they need to put product, science and the clinic in the waste paper basket for a spell and focus on the investment opportunity, the numbers surrounding it and the value proposition they bring to an unmet need and huge market, over and above that of their competitors. You speak of Big Pharma. I note one company effective in creating such patient stories, in capturing the publics attention, in producing effective media was none other than Seagen. And as you are no doubt aware they managed to sell for $42bn USD. So yes, the formula does work.


Images and stories courtesy of seagen.com (see featured content)

Every stock requires an eclectic mix off shareholders to gain impetus and momentum over time. My aforementioned article highlighted Mum and Dad investors simply because that was the question asked of LC by the Small Caps interviewer, in essence why should Mums and Dads look to Imugene as an investment. I would note that in spite of the so called speculative nature of Imugene many of these investors have flocked to Imugene. Paul Hopper is himself on record as noting the countless pip trades from retail holders pushing through Commsec's app's each day, most noticeably from retail holders of IMU. Whilst as noted by me on the weekend Imugene has far less institutional investment than their direct competitors in Replimune and Allogene. To me whether Mum and Dad investors are fed a palatable story from Imugene's communications, media and PR department is important from the perspective the company requires increased demand from these investors, in addition to funds and institutions, in order to increase the SP and the market capitalisation of the company. A higher market cap equates to lower borrowing costs, be it through finance or cap raises, and as a consequence less dilution. Therefore it is important to create an effective narrative that is easily digestible for a broader audience. In short that means 1 plus 2 equals 3, or the KISS principal, on occasions where the audience fits that bill. As suggested by you @Merino1, Small Caps was such an audience. But to be honest I'm beyond caring how the company presents. As my article noted I don't think they are going to change that side of the equation, no matter what individuals such as I have to say.

As an aside there is much discussion surrounding Allovera today. I have heard of the stock at various Imugene lunches over the years, but am unaware of the value proposition it brings to the table. From an outsider looking in I must admit to thinking if it is any good, and if Imugene wishes to continue collaborating with it, why wouldn't the company simply just buy it. Clearly the partnership with Imugene is adding value to Allovera, if their share price movements are anything to go by. So why not buy it now before the combination study is complete? Isn't it going to be worth more money down the track? Would it or would it not add to Imogene's pipeline? Add to their war chest of innovative medicine, to attract Big Pharma even more?

$70 million USD and the premium doesn't seem like much coin for their product if it's all it's cracked up to be, or is it? I don't know enough about it, nor it's area of expertise. Perhaps those in the know on these threads could provide some insight to add to the debate. Perhaps the money is better spent developing Imugene's own pipeline. I guess it's all food for thought.


DYOR Seek investment advice as and when required Opinions only