IMV Inc IMVIF

If the tree falls in the forest...

[QM4455]

For the summary of the call see Qwerty's comments. He summed it up nicely. 

This mngmt team went from exciting 2-3 years back, to average last 12 months to hopeless today. 

They somehow managed to miss on all the self imposed deadlines in the last 12+ months, not a small feat. 

I expected SOME update on the registration path for DLBCL, instead got nothing. Basket trial update? Was that a bad joke... 

At this point even the analysts can't be bothered to ask good questions. I guess no one cares.

From the technical perspective if this breaks $3US all hell will break loose.
Hopefully it can hold, but hope is not an investment strategy. 

As per my previous comments, I still think they will stumble into something down the road, the question is when and will anyone care.

[alphaseeking001]

Thanks QM.  Feel free not to answer if you don't want to but are you going to continue to hold your position at this point or trim it while we wait?  Thanks again.  Talk about a frustrating situation.  Snails pace.  

[QM4455]

No worries Alpha.  I have trimmed my position into the last run up down to 200K or so, covered most of my option shorts and had about 200K shares left which I started to sell. I did expect them to deliver on DLBCL, my bad for trusting this mngmt team.  I don't like the general market set up here, and IMV has affinity to go down with the market but not go up when tape is good. Tough

[qwerty22]

Well they haven't failed yet on dlbcl but they are certainly running short of time. One detail we did get was on the measurement of pd-l1. Joanne talked about how it was measured in the past trial but then went on to say how they had yet to nail down the measure/cutoff in the next trial. Seems like if they were that close to a final protocol design they would have details like that sorted out.

[Breakthorough]

The response to this question is interesting. It talks about pssible combinations and, also, uses the expresion "making a big difference" for the combination with Pembro not only in DLBCL, but also "potentially" in Blabber and MSI-H cancers: Paul Stewardson Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Just calling for Chelsea, in terms of the ovarian cancer strategy, can you give

[qwerty22]

Do you not think that instead of that ramble if he had just said what the ORR in each of those indications was and what the thresholds were we would have known exactly what to think? If they really did set themselves ambitious targets and reached them in two indications wouldn't it be great to share that? I understand all they may have is ORR and they're waiting for duration etc but

[Breakthorough]

True. Not to share (at least) the threshold leads to supect that the numbers are not so great. The point is that this contradicts thr "making a big difference" mention. May be it also has to do with Merck controlling the data sharing...? Just asking.

[Breakthorough]

And also to this one. It says the PDL-1 expression (potential biomarker as in Linfoma) has to be explored in NSCLC patients. May be there is still room for a different trial in NSCLC, we cannot know till there are data: Tom Shrader Okay. And really the same question for the non-small cell cohort that didnt work. I mean people are kind of finding that to add to PD-1, you really have to find a place

[alphaseeking001]

Thanks QM.  Appreciate the honesty.  Also thanks to Qwerty on your read on the call as well.  If they think this is a "transformational" year as Fred says on the call then it's time to sh&t or get off the pot as it were.  I find the endless delays frustrating and costly in the extreme.  They need to make an agreement with Merck sooner than later.