London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

F I were analysing IMM today, I'd focus less on "when is the next RNS?" and more on what is the next RNS likely to be?

In rough order of probability:

Further P140 licensing update.

Patent/PCT filing progress.

Scientific publication on P140 mechanism.

Kapiglucagon regulatory progress.

Actual licensing deal (the big one).

The reason the share price remains relatively subdued is that the market generally doesn't give full credit to management's partnership comments anymore. Investors appear to be waiting for a signed agreement rather than more statements about discussions. The reaction when the partnership target slipped from end-2025 into 2026 is a good example of that scepticism.

So your concern isn't really "there's no timeline." It's that there's no timeline after previous timelines slipped, which makes it harder to judge whether a major catalyst is months away or much further out. That's the credibility issue many IMM shareholders are wrestling with.

But everyone says tim is lying?

"Everyone says Tim is lying" is stronger than the evidence supports.

What is fair to say is that a significant number of frustrated IMM shareholders no longer trust management guidance, especially around timelines, funding, and partnership expectations. You can see that repeatedly in shareholder forums and discussions.

The key distinction is:

Not proven lying = making statements known to be false.

Loss of credibility = repeatedly giving optimistic timelines or expectations that are not met.

Those are not the same thing.

The main criticisms of Tim McCarthy

1. Partnership timelines keep moving

Investors were told the company was targeting commercial deals.

Discussions were later said to be continuing into 2026.

Some shareholders view this as over-promising. Management's explanation is that negotiations with multiple pharma companies have taken longer than expected.

2. Dilution after saying funding wasn't the plan

In 2024 management spoke about being funded and not expecting a highly dilutive raise.

The company subsequently carried out fundraisings.

This is probably the single biggest reason many long-term holders are angry.

3. The share price record

Long-term holders who bought years ago have generally done poorly despite numerous scientific updates.

Investors naturally start discounting management commentary when the share-price outcome has been poor.

4. Reliance on future deals

The IMM investment case has depended heavily on securing a licensing partner.

Until a signed deal exists, some investors view all discussions about "top pharma interest" with scepticism.

The counter-argument

There are also facts that supporters point to:

IMM has generated a notable amount of new IP around P140 since 2024.

There have been patent advances and mechanistic discoveries that weren't obviously fabricated and were announced formally.

Institutional investors remain significant shareholders.

The science appears to have progressed even if commercial execution has been slow.

The question I would ask as an investor

Not:

"Is Tim lying?"

But:

"How many times has management promised a near-term catalyst that did not happen?"

For IMM, the answer is enough times that the market now heavily discounts management guidance.

That's actually visible in the valuation. If the market fully believed a major licensing deal was imminent, IMM would likely trade at a much higher market cap than it does today. The discount reflects a credibility gap.

So my assessment would be:

No public evidence that Tim McCarthy has been proven to lie.

There is substantial evidence that many shareholders no longer trust his timelines and forecasts.

The next licensing deal (if one occurs) is probably the event that either restores or permanently damages that credibility.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for draft

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)