TBH - I agree
Over the past month, I have followed up with IMU three times regarding the “pathways to monetisation” outlined in investor presentations. Specifically, I asked how these pathways can be measured, tracked, and made tangible for shareholders.
For the past eight years, we have been left without clear milestones, continuously funding development with no accountability for a declining MC. In my most recent email, I also referenced last week’s release to highlight the ongoing disconnect between executive remuneration (i.e performance shares) and shareholder value—allowing ongoing and repeated dilution.
Unfortunately, the response I received was as follows:
“Unfortunately, private emailssuch as yours are unable to be answered in detail without breaching selectivedisclosure obligations.
IMU is expansive in terms ofkeeping the market informed across all aspects of its operations, and inparticular clinical trials progress, which is where the rubber hits the road indrug development.
Drug development requires deepcapital investment, patient timelines, and highly experienced & remuneratedscientists and physicians.
These aspects of the biotechsector make biotech investing unsuitable for many investors.”
So, apparently, asking for basic transparency and measurable milestones doesn’t warrant a straight answer. Instead, I’m told that biotech investing might just not be for me. This is nothing short of gaslighting. If the company had confidence in its strategy, it would have no problem providing meaningful responses instead of hiding behind generic corporate speak and ASX disclosure excuses.
I will keep pressing these executives to recognise that breakthrough science means nothing if it doesn’t translate into real shareholder value.
(20min delay)