An estimated timeline is not legally binding, simply an effort...

An estimated timeline is not legally binding, simply an effort on management's part, to help shareholders manage their expectations, which are very important.


Good points. I may not care if the results are not released until 2025 or some time in the future, having been around for years now, what's another one. But clearly many shareholders do.

Reading many posts such as yours I can only draw the conclusion many shareholders see something missing in the way Imugene is communicating and conveying messages to shareholders. Constant hints, innuendo and a sense of grey often appear to leave shareholders perplexed and puzzled weeks and months down the track, when no clear guidance is delivered on either clinical trial direction or results. The data when delivered is often sketchy and lacking in detail. From afar one could assume many people want to get on board the Imugene train due to their outstanding science, world leading innovators and passion for their cause, yet management do make it extremely difficult in circumstances where the company's owners, their shareholders, are more often than not left in the dark as it were. As you are aware I am an IMU Bull. I have enormous respect for Kaumaya, Fong and Priceman. Believe in the therapy. Yet for me to sugarcoat over this management issue would be to deny the fact the many shareholders are confused as to the timelines surrounding clinical trials, the announcement of interim data and the roadmap ahead. It's just a fact.

As Imugene grows these points are going to need to be addressed if they are to restore faith in the broader investment community and ensure their innovators reach their goals. Raising capital as is required in the small to medium biotech arena is made all the more difficult when investors are more confused than content. Clearly the recent transcript when it comes to announcements, interviews and expectations with respect to their flagship candidate Vaxinia hasn't been good. As you correctly point out managing shareholder expectations is of the utmost importance, however unreasonable you may perceive them to be. As they say in the bush, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Other biotech p[layers tend to provide clear timelines when it comes to announcement dates in their clinical trials, together with adjusted timelines estimates as required. Its probably time Imugene management employed the same tactic, to avoid such an outcome as has currently occurred happening in the future. It's okay as many say to assume current shareholder expectations are unreasonable, as IMO they well may be from time to time, but failure to communicate effectively with them clearly doesn't help anyone, let alone the share price. We must all accept the opinions of shareholders as a collective and understand many are not here for the long term, but here to invest in shorter time periods based on announcements and clinical trial results. Therefore whether we like it or not these company owners need to be heard. Does management need to cowtow to their needs and wants, which may at times be unrealistic? Definitely not. But before they conduct interviews and communicate with them they need to be put themselves in the shoes of the investor and provide clear guidance. Data cuts shall occur every 120 days, as an example, subject to change, or until further notice. Or as an example we aim to communicate and provide guidance in the ongoing .......trial every 120 days. To be honest it doesn't need to be this hard.

Don't misunderstand me, I am fully behind Vaxinia and Imugene as a sound long term prospect. But I'd prefer to be remembered as someone who provided a balanced as opposed to one sided perspective when discussing a topic that involves the investment of peoples money.


Opinions only