Can­did Truths From A Biotech IPO

Tak­ing a biotech com­pa­ny pub­lic is a com­pli­cat­ed jour­ney with nu­mer­ous chal­lenges. On the heels of Anap­tys­Bio’s suc­cess­ful IPO ear­li­er this year, John Car­roll asked me to share some can­did truths from the per­spec­tive of a biotech CEO that has lived through the twists and turns of the IPO process. Be­low are my first-hand ob­ser­va­tions, writ­ten as friend­ly ad­vice to any biotech CEO eye­ing the pub­lic mar­kets:

TTWs Are Your Friend
Al­most every pre-IPO biotech is like­ly to fit with­in the emerg­ing growth com­pa­ny de­f­i­n­i­tion of the JOBS Act, which al­lows you to con­fi­den­tial­ly pitch your po­ten­tial fu­ture IPO to po­ten­tial in­vestors that are al­lowed to pro­vide high-lev­el feed­back re­gard­ing their in­ter­est. These con­ver­sa­tions, called Test­ing-The-Wa­ter Meet­ings (TTWs), are the sin­gle great­est tool in your IPO tool­box. TTWs al­low you to de­vel­op re­la­tion­ships with in­vestors, un­der­stand which are like­ly to in­vest in your IPO and how they view you rel­a­tive to com­pa­ra­bles. The biggest mis­take you could make is not to take ad­van­tage of this op­por­tu­ni­ty to ed­u­cate po­ten­tial in­vestors about your val­ue dri­vers, and show them your progress over time to­wards key mile­stones. Know­ing your sto­ry in ad­vance will help in­vestors make an ed­u­cat­ed de­ci­sion dur­ing the lim­it­ed time­frame of the IPO road­show. Be­fore launch­ing our IPO, we at Anap­tys­Bio con­duct­ed ap­prox­i­mate­ly 100 TTWs across 40 dif­fer­ent well-known pub­lic mar­ket biotech in­vestors.

ECM Is The Epi­cen­ter
Ir­re­spec­tive of which in­vest­ment banks you choose to use, the most im­por­tant fac­tor in the ex­e­cu­tion of your IPO will be the Eq­ui­ty Cap­i­tal Mar­kets (ECM) per­son(s) in your syn­di­cate. It is easy to over­look ECM peo­ple be­cause they will not be the most vis­i­ble, bois­ter­ous or well-coiffed mem­bers of the bank­ing team. But make no mis­take, ECM peo­ple are specif­i­cal­ly re­spon­si­ble for in­ter­act­ing with in­vestors, and will there­fore have the best un­der­stand­ing of what the mar­ket thinks of your sto­ry. You need to work with an ECM crew that is dili­gent­ly work­ing on your com­pa­ny’s be­half, is not dis­tract­ed by oth­er pri­or­i­ties and can pro­vide hon­est feed­back with­out sug­ar coat­ing. Keep that in mind as you eval­u­ate in­vest­ment banks.

Cross-Overs Mat­ter
A pre-IPO pri­vate fi­nanc­ing round with heavy par­tic­i­pa­tion from pub­lic mar­ket in­vestors, known as a cross-over round, is a big con­fi­dence boost to any biotech IPO. Da­ta shows that com­pa­nies with a cross-over round built bet­ter IPO or­der books, were more like­ly to suc­cess­ful­ly price with­in their IPO price range and have trad­ed bet­ter once pub­lic. It is dif­fi­cult to know whether it is ac­tu­al­ly the cross-over round that makes the IPO more suc­cess­ful, or that the qual­i­ty of the com­pa­nies able to at­tract a cross-over round would have had bet­ter IPOs any­way – but in ei­ther case a cross-over is high­ly rec­om­mend­ed. The re­al rea­son you want to do a cross-over round is to in­crease the po­ten­tial in­sid­er par­tic­i­pa­tion in your IPO raise – which back­stops your risk of not be­ing able to build an IPO book through the road­show. Think of it as in­sur­ance – you give up some di­lu­tion pri­or to the IPO but dra­mat­i­cal­ly in­crease your chance of get­ting the com­pa­ny pub­lic.

The Win­dow Is Gen­er­al­ly Ajar
You will hear many peo­ple spec­u­late about whether the pub­lic mar­ket is cur­rent­ly “open” or “closed” for IPOs. It is a mis­nomer to be­lieve that that the mar­ket, and specif­i­cal­ly in­vestors in­ter­est­ed in IPOs, are that bi­na­ry. While I agree that cer­tain pe­ri­ods are not a good time to launch an IPO (e.g. Sep­tem­ber/Oc­to­ber 2015 right af­ter Hillary’s fa­mous tweet), in­vestor ap­petite for your new is­suance will be dri­ven far more by the qual­i­ty of your sto­ry than mar­ket tim­ing. Hence the IPO win­dow is gen­er­al­ly “ajar”, mean­ing that in­vestors are al­most al­ways on the look­out for qual­i­ty in­vest­ment op­por­tu­ni­ties ir­re­spec­tive of macro mar­ket noise. Ed­u­cat­ing them in ad­vance through co­pi­ous TTWs (see above), and fo­cus­ing on clin­i­cal da­ta cat­a­lysts (see be­low), can shield your IPO against wob­bly mar­ket con­di­tions.

Nav­i­gate to Clin­i­cal Da­ta
Pub­lic mar­ket in­vestors are gen­er­al­ly look­ing for a tan­gi­ble path to post-IPO val­ue in­flec­tion points, which for most biotechs means clin­i­cal da­ta cat­a­lysts. The longer it takes for an in­vestor to un­der­stand what, when and how you will gen­er­ate mean­ing­ful clin­i­cal da­ta, the more like­ly they are to dis­en­gage. The pri­ma­ry fo­cus your IPO pitch ought to be on your most ad­vanced pro­gram(s) and their prox­i­mal clin­i­cal read­outs, where “prox­i­mal” means the next 18 months. A longer hori­zon to clin­i­cal da­ta is like­ly to im­pact your in­vestor ap­peal.

Al­lo­cate For The Long-Term
As you de­vel­op re­la­tion­ships with pub­lic mar­ket in­vestors, you need to un­der­stand who is like­ly a long-term in­vestor that will buy IPO shares and hold them through thick and thin, ver­sus who has a short-term mo­men­tum men­tal­i­ty that will lead to dis­ap­pear with small gains (or loss­es) short­ly post-IPO. While every in­vestor is en­ti­tled to their own strat­e­gy, biotech com­pa­nies are gen­er­al­ly best served by pa­tient cap­i­tal that can help build val­ue over time. The per­for­mance of your stock post-IPO will heav­i­ly de­pend up­on what pro­por­tion of your IPO buy­ers are long-term ver­sus mo­men­tum. IPOs filled with mo­men­tum play­ers are more like­ly to “break is­sue” short­ly af­ter pric­ing and find them­selves in a tough spot for ex­tend­ed pe­ri­ods of time. Fig­ure out which in­vestors are most­ly like to take a long-term view, fo­cus on con­vinc­ing them to par­tic­i­pate in your IPO or­der book and al­lo­cate as many IPO shares to them as pos­si­ble.

The CEO Ref­er­en­dum
While you may have dealt with VCs dur­ing your pre-IPO life, pub­lic in­vestors are a whole new lev­el of scruti­ny. Of course your de­vel­op­ment pro­grams need to be well po­si­tioned, and of course your CMO needs to be cred­i­ble and yes your CFO needs to be ex­pe­ri­enced – but in ad­di­tion to all that YOU as CEO need to be rock sol­id. Pub­lic in­vestors will push you, test you, dili­gence the heck out of you and will on­ly in­vest if they can look you in the eye and see con­vic­tion. Tell them why you be­lieve in the com­pa­ny and show them how you will ex­e­cute. Bot­tom line: IPOs are a very pub­lic ref­er­en­dum about the CEO of a biotech com­pa­ny. Wel­come to the big leagues.

Hamza Suria is the CEO of Anap­tys­Bio, a San Diego-based de­vel­op­er of ther­a­peu­tic an­ti­bod­ies. Biotech Voic­es is a con­tributed col­umn from se­lect End­points News read­ers. Con­tact the pub­lish­er, Ar­salan Arif, for more de­tails.

Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks (Evan Vucci/AP Images)

A P val­ue of 0.38? NE­JM re­sults raise new ques­tions for Eli Lil­ly's vaunt­ed Covid an­ti­body

Generally, a P value of 0.38 means your drug failed and by a fair margin. Depending on the company, the compound and the trial, it might mean the end of the program. It could trigger layoffs.

For Eli Lilly, though, it was part of the key endpoint on a trial that landed them a $1.2 billion deal with the US government to supply up to nearly 1 million Covid-19 antibodies.

So what does one make of that? Was the endpoint not so important, as Lilly maintains? Or did the US government promise a princely sum for a pedestrian drug?

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Noubar Afeyan, Flagship founder and CEO (Victor Boyko/Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Flag­ship launch­es Sen­da Bio­sciences with $88M in back­ing, look­ing to pi­o­neer the field of 'In­ter­sys­tems Bi­ol­o­gy'

Flagship Pioneering has a fresh company out this week, one that aims to lay the groundwork for a whole new discipline.

Senda Biosciences launched Wednesday with $88 million in Flagship cash. The goal? Gain insights into the molecular connections between people and coevolved nonhuman species like plants and bacteria, paving the way for “Intersystems Biology.”

Guillaume Pfefer has been tapped to run the show, a 25-year biotech veteran who comes from GSK after leading the development of the company’s shingles vaccine.

Daphne Koller, Getty

Bris­tol My­er­s' Richard Har­g­reaves pays $70M to launch a neu­rode­gen­er­a­tion al­liance with a star play­er in the ma­chine learn­ing world

Bristol Myers Squibb is turning to one of the star upstarts in the machine learning world to go back to the drawing board and come up with the disease models needed to find drugs that can work against two of the toughest targets in the neuro world.

Daphne Koller’s well-funded insitro is getting $70 million in cash and near-term milestones to use their machine learning platform to create induced pluripotent stem cell-derived disease models for ALS and frontotemporal dementia.

Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks at the Rose Garden, May 26, 2020 (Evan Vucci/AP Images)

Eli Lil­ly lines up a block­buster deal for Covid-19 an­ti­body, right af­ter it failed a NI­AID tri­al

Two days after Eli Lilly conceded that its antibody bamlanivimab was a flop in hospitalized Covid-19 patients, the US government is preparing to make it a blockbuster.

The pharma giant reported early Wednesday that it struck a deal to supply the feds with 300,000 vials of the drug at a cost of $375 million — once it gets an EUA stamp from the FDA. And once that 2-month supply deal is done, the government has an option on another 650,000 doses on the same terms — which could potentially add another $812 million.

Ar­cus and As­traZeneca part­ner on a high stakes an­ti-TIG­IT/PD-L1 PhI­II can­cer study, look­ing to im­prove on a stan­dard of care

For AstraZeneca, the PACIFIC trial in Stage III non-small cell lung cancer remains one of the big triumphs for AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group. It not only made their PD-L1 Imfinzi a franchise player with a solid advance in a large niche of the lung cancer market, the study — which continues to offer data on the long-range efficacy of their drug — also helped salve the vicious sting of the failure of the CTLA-4 combo in the MYSTIC study.

No­var­tis buys a new gene ther­a­py for vi­sion loss, and this is one pre­clin­i­cal ven­ture that did­n't come cheap

Cyrus Mozayeni got excited when he began to explore the academic work of Ehud Isacoff and John G. Flannery at UC Berkeley.

Together, they were engaged in finding a gene therapy approach to pan-genotypic vision restoration in patients with photoreceptor-based blindness, potentially restoring the vision of a broad group of patients. And they did it by using a vector to deliver the genetic sequence for light sensing proteins.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CMO Merdad Parsey (Gilead)

Gilead hits the brakes on a tri­fec­ta of mid- and late-stage stud­ies for their trou­bled fil­go­tinib pro­gram. It's up to the FDA now

Gilead $GILD execs haven’t decided exactly what to do with filgotinib in the wake of the slapdown at the FDA on their rheumatoid arthritis application, but they’re taking a time out for a slate of studies until they can gain some clarity from the agency. And without encouraging guidance, this drug could clearly be axed from the pipeline.

In their Q3 report out Wednesday afternoon, the company says researchers have “paused” a Phase III study for psoriatic arthritis along with a pair of Phase II trials for ankylosing spondylitis and uveitis. Late-stage studies for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s are continuing, but you can see for yourself how big a hole this leaves in the inflammatory disease pipeline, with obvious implications if the company abandons filgo altogether.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Patrick Soon-Shiong at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, Jan. 13, 2020 (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Af­ter falling be­hind the lead­ers, dissed by some ex­perts, biotech show­man Patrick Soon-Sh­iong fi­nal­ly gets his Covid-19 vac­cine ready for a tri­al. But can it live up to the hype?

In January, when dozens of scientists rushed to start making a vaccine for the then-novel coronavirus, they were joined by an unlikely compatriot: Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire doctor most famous for making big, controversial promises on cancer research.

Soon-Shiong had spent the last 4 years on his “Cancer Moonshot,” but part of his project meant buying a small Seattle biotech that specialized in making common-cold vectors, called adenoviruses, to train the immune system. The billionaire had been using those vectors for oncology, but the company had also developed vaccine candidates for H1N1, Lassa fever and other viruses. When the outbreak began, he pivoted.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Q32 Bio grabs $60M to kick off hu­man stud­ies for next-gen com­ple­ment drugs — with some Covid-19 tweaks along the way

For a company that launched in the early months of the pandemic, Q32 Bio had its fair share of run-ins with the new normals under Covid-19.

The original plan, for instance, was to conduct first-in-human studies of the IL-7 receptor antibody it licensed from Bristol Myers Squibb in the Netherlands. But they realized shortly after that while the country was beginning to open up clinical trials, there were additional restrictions on drugs that tampered with immunological mechanisms.