Immunovia Finally Has Revenue. It Also Has a Rights Issue It Promised Not to Need

The PancreaSure test went from SEK 101,000 to SEK 843,000 in a quarter, 36 surveillance programs are live, and the bill is being handed to shareholders at a steep dilution

IMMNOV.ST · Earnings Call · 2026-11-02

Eight Times Nothing Is Still Almost Nothing

Immunovia's third quarter produced the number that every micro-cap diagnostics story lives or dies on: actual revenue. Net sales rose to SEK 843,000 from SEK 101,000 a year earlier; for the nine months, SEK 1.6 million against SEK 0.3 million. The operating loss narrowed to SEK 17.7 million from SEK 25.1 million, and the monthly cash burn came in at SEK 5 million — comfortably inside the “SEK 8 million to SEK 10 million per month” — Adam Bäckström, CFO · 2026-11-02 guidance the company had repeated for a year. Cash at the end of September: SEK 19.6 million. On the commercial side, the metric management has trained investors to watch moved again. Thirty-six high risk surveillance programs are now using PancreaSure, and twelve of those have crossed into full adoption — more than ten tests, ordered consistently quarter over quarter. The names attached to that list (Memorial Sloan Kettering, Northwestern, Michigan Medicine, Stanford, Beth Israel Deaconess) are the reason the CEO can argue that pancreatic cancer surveillance is a market where Immunovia is setting the protocol rather than chasing one. But notice what the burn undershoot actually was. Adam Bäckström attributes the improvement to revenue plus "good cost control and lower spend on clinical study during the third quarter." A burn beat produced by spending less on the evidence package that reimbursement depends on is not the same as a burn beat produced by operating leverage. That distinction matters more than the SEK 5 million headline.

The Check Nobody Wanted to Write

Here is the tension that defines this report. In February, asked directly how the company would fund itself, management was explicit about the instrument it preferred not to use: “we strongly prefer a directed issue in order to reduce the fees and really reduce the dilution that we know comes with rights issues” — Jeff Borcherding, Chief Executive Officer · 2026-02-24. Grants, non-profit capital, strategic equity or milestone payments from partners were floated as the non-dilutive paths. Nine months later, the answer is a rights issue. Roughly SEK 63 million before costs, 80% secured by management, board and underwriters — about SEK 50 million — with units of two shares and one TO4 warrant that could add SEK 31.7 million in May 2027. Subscription window: 9 to 25 November. The proceeds carry the company only through the second quarter of 2027; the warrants, if exercised, stretch it into the third. Against a market capitalization in the low single-digit millions, the dilution is not a wrinkle, it is the story.

I really want to acknowledge the fact that we realize that the rights issue is very dilutive for shareholders. I realize that, that is painful. I am sorry that we have had to resort to another rights issue to fund the company into 2027.
Jeff Borcherding, CEO · 2026-11-02

The rights issue is the single highest-momentum keyword on this call, and it is not new in kind — the company last went to shareholders this way in 2021. What is new is the concession. The non-dilutive path was explored and did not close in time. Every strategic-partner conversation is now, implicitly, a conversation about how soon dilution stops repeating.

MolDX, and the Vanishing $897

The operational milestone of the quarter is quiet but consequential: the coverage application for Medicare went to MolDX at the end of September. In February, the target was submission "in mid-2026"; it landed at quarter-end instead — a slip, but a delivered one. Management is candid that the clock is not theirs: “there's not a firm time line in which they have to respond to us” — Jeff Borcherding, CEO · 2026-11-02. A contractor advisory committee is the next plausible public event. What has changed in the payment mechanics is more interesting than the filing itself. Patients now average about $200 per test with an 80% collection rate; insurance billing began in February 2026 and, while still tiny, is generating insurance payments on more claims and at higher values than expected after appeal. The CEO now speaks of an average selling price benefit from those payments — a sentence he could not have uttered in February, when he said he simply did not "have enough data to speak about the realized average selling price per test." Which raises the thing that has quietly fallen out of the narrative. Earlier calls anchored investors to a full Medicare reimbursement rate of $897 per test. On this call, that number is gone. The language is now $200 per patient, appeal rates, and "preliminary data" for partners. That is a more honest framing, but it is a meaningfully lower near-term revenue per test than the one the bull case was built on, and nobody on the call asked about it.

New Words: Group Practices, and a Nod to the FDA

The genuinely new commercial idea is a second channel. After a year of courting academic centers, Immunovia piloted group practices — starting with Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Associates in rural New York, where one physician proved the workflow and roughly two dozen clinicians are now being rolled in. It is a hedge against the slow protocol-change cycle of academic medicine, and it feeds the ASSURE registry. Two other additions deserve flagging. First, FDA approval appears as a strategic intention for the first time — not required, since the test is run as an LDT, but pursued because it helps with certain commercial payers, with a 2027 conversation planned. Second, the licensing pipeline now has shape: a "promising" Japanese life sciences partner deep into diligence, multiple earlier-stage China conversations, and new pharma outreach. Set all of this against the market. The global tape over the last 90 days has rewarded exactly this kind of asset — early stage cancers is among the strongest thematic movers, and blood based biomarkers has compounded over the trailing year. Immunovia sits inside a wave the market is already paying for, with a product that is further along commercially than its balance sheet suggests — and a share count that is about to remind everyone why that gap exists. The verdict: this was the quarter Immunovia stopped being a promise and started being a very small business. Adoption is real, the second channel is real, the MolDX file exists. But the funding structure chosen is the one management said it wanted to avoid, the reimbursement prize is in a third party's hands with no timetable, and the revenue per test being discussed is a fraction of the number investors were shown a year ago. The next catalyst is not a data readout — it is a coverage decision the company cannot schedule.