It's a sad reality that you have to post this to illustrate that macroeconomic factors affect stock prices, regardless of industry or underlying company health. Duh!
Even some of the best-performing stocks of all time have lost more than 50% of their value in a short period of time (Amazon lost 80% of its value, Berkshire Hathaway more than 50% numerous times, and Apple same thing).
To Fourdollars.
Some of your comments are reasonable, but you've cherry-picked information here to make your argument, no surprise, to the negative. Sure a biotech either succeeds or fails...eventually. But the most significant portion of the time in biotech's life is in its progress phase, where (in this case) clinical trials are run, and efficacy determined. So what does the price do if the price goes up or down in the absence of enough information to suggest a failure or success? Well, having seen the large majority of the market (biotech included, check out the NBI index) reduce in value substantially, are you suggesting all of them each had their systemic failures or was it systematic? I think any rational person would think the latter.
Your comments about the lack of BP interest also is an assumption. If you baked pies for a living and someone offered you half price for a doughy pie that was still in the oven, would you take their money, or would you wait until you could sell a nice crispy pie that anyone would pay fair value for? That seems to be the logic from my position, bolster up the data and then have the potential to sell to a much larger cohort. Mind you; I'm making an assumption here too. But in my assumption, a whole bunch of scientists at the top of their fields aren't spending their valuable time and millions to push a failed therapy.
Yes, IMU ran to considerable heights in 2021 and did outperform the market and peers significantly but so did many non-bio stocks. Any stock, for that matter, can be seemingly immune (or negatively correlated) from macro, but generally, they are the significant minority, especially in a bear market.
Granted, certain factors aided the share price to decline more than the market. The major one is a shift away from growth (non-revenue producing) stocks. The raise and shoddy releases by management certainly didn't do them any favours. Still, ultimately, I believe IMU is in the most vital position it's ever been for yielding shareholder value. Should management be expected to increase the share price indefinitely in a straight line? That doesn't happen, and it's unreasonable to suggest so. They all have significant skin in the game, and if people believe they aren't seeking to get the most value for themselves and, by proxy, the rest of us, then what are you suggesting they are doing?
Also, to anyone who believes Hopper and Leslie should be ousted, you've lost it. Granted, there have been a few missteps along the way (Paul Hopper selling and loaning shares not being one of them), which I have been unhappy about, but by and large, IMU wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without them. I think genuine holders need to relax and not be influenced by obvious self-interested downrampers that seemingly know little about the company and or what is potentially on the horizon,
Expand
(20min delay)