Guest col­umn: The 3 big waves re­shap­ing in­vest­ment strate­gies in ear­ly-stage biotech


We are at a time in life sci­ences when sig­nif­i­cant strides are be­ing made to solve some of the most com­plex med­ical chal­lenges. Rapid ad­vance­ments in sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy cou­pled with abun­dant cap­i­tal are lead­ing to new in­vest­ment strate­gies that may per­ma­nent­ly change how com­pa­nies at the cut­ting edge of drug de­vel­op­ment are fund­ed.

Let’s take a step back. For years, ear­ly-stage in­vestors and drug de­vel­op­ment com­pa­nies faced im­pos­si­bly high fundrais­ing hur­dles, ham­pered by the high cost of cap­i­tal, low clin­i­cal suc­cess rates and a long reg­u­la­to­ry process that might stretch years.

Now, this is all chang­ing. Bio­phar­ma in­vest­ing over­all is on pace to reach new heights in 2018. In par­tic­u­lar, bio­phar­ma Se­ries A in­vest­ments are ex­plod­ing; by mid-year 2018, these have al­ready ex­ceed­ed full-year 2017 to­tals. Some ear­ly-stage com­pa­nies are now at­tract­ing in­vest­ments at lev­els once seen on­ly in lat­er-stage deals.

Source: SVB “Trends in Health­care In­vest­ments and Ex­its 2018,” Pitch­Book, SVB Pro­pri­etary Da­ta

Click on the im­age to see the full-sized ver­sion


Move to port­fo­lio-style in­vest­ing

What is dri­ving this shift in in­vestor con­fi­dence and fu­el­ing new bio­phar­ma com­pa­ny cre­ation? For­ward-think­ing in­vestors and en­tre­pre­neurs are look­ing at ear­ly-stage drug de­vel­op­ment op­por­tu­ni­ties from a mu­tu­al fund per­spec­tive. Their goal is to in­crease the odds of a large re­turn from a sin­gle suc­cess­ful drug in­vest­ment, while re­duc­ing the typ­i­cal­ly high risk of a sin­gle ear­ly-stage in­vest­ment. They achieve this by build­ing and in­vest­ing in a port­fo­lio of drug de­vel­op­ment as­sets that, when pooled, car­ry a low­er cor­re­la­tion of risk and a high-enough prob­a­bil­i­ty that at least one will reach clin­i­cal and reg­u­la­to­ry suc­cess. The odds are im­proved by that fact that life­sav­ing ad­vances are be­ing made to un­lock mech­a­nisms un­der­ly­ing many spe­cif­ic dis­eases, lead­ing to more ef­fec­tive treat­ments.

While this new mod­el re­mains cap­i­tal-in­ten­sive, it works to spread the risk and, by ex­ten­sion, pro­vides a more pre­dictable pat­tern for re­turns. As a re­sult, pri­vate eq­ui­ty and deep-pock­et­ed in­vestors now have more con­fi­dence in ear­ly-stage bio­phar­ma — in a few cas­es enough that some port­fo­lio as­sets are be­ing spun out as in­de­pen­dent com­pa­nies.

This shift in ear­ly-stage bio­phar­ma in­vest­ing, in fact, has evolved in three waves.

Source: Com­pa­ny web­sites and press re­leas­es

Click on the im­age to see the full-sized ver­sion


First wave: Spin off a sin­gle as­set

In the first wave, ex­em­pli­fied by Adimab and Nim­bus Ther­a­peu­tics, small­er com­pa­nies di­rect­ly took on the risks of drug dis­cov­ery. For ex­am­ple, Adimab launched as an LLC with no clear in­ten­tion of ever ex­it­ing as a whole com­pa­ny, an event that tra­di­tion­al­ly would have led to a big lump-sum pay­day for in­vestors. In­stead, Adimab’s busi­ness mod­el cen­tered on de-risk­ing the ear­li­est stages of drug dis­cov­ery for larg­er bio­phar­ma and prof­it­ing from the over­all de­creased un­cer­tain­ty. This pro­vid­ed in­vestors with a some­what pre­dictable div­i­dend stream from reg­u­lar as­set-li­cens­ing deals, and the large bio­phar­ma as­set pur­chas­er with a source of less risky as­sets. Still, the larg­er bio­phar­ma com­pa­ny had to move ear­ly to ac­quire the as­set, and as a re­sult as­sumed a rel­a­tive­ly high risk of fail­ure. With­out trans­fer­ring all the risk, the in­vestors were left with some con­straints that lim­it­ed their re­turns.

Sec­ond wave: Build to buy

The next wave took the con­cept a step fur­ther. In­stead of de­vel­op­ing a sin­gle drug can­di­date, “build-to-buy” com­pa­nies were es­tab­lished around each as­set and spun out as new com­pa­nies. Ver­sant Ven­tures’ In­cep­tion Sci­ences, a drug dis­cov­ery in­cu­ba­tor that spawned young com­pa­nies, and or­phan drug com­pa­ny Daunt­less Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals are prime ex­am­ples. Very ear­ly on, they part­nered with a big bio­phar­ma com­pa­ny that gained the ex­clu­sive ac­qui­si­tion rights at pre­set terms. How­ev­er, ear­ly-stage in­vestors had to take a small­er re­turn on their in­vest­ments to com­pen­sate for the low­er risk as­so­ci­at­ed with a pre­de­fined ex­it. On the flip­side, strate­gic part­ners were will­ing to pay slight­ly more than nor­mal be­cause they were ac­quir­ing more-ma­ture as­sets, of­ten with sci­en­tif­ic teams in place to help bring the drug can­di­dates to the fin­ish line, in­stead of hav­ing to ded­i­cate their own R&D staff.

Third wave: Port­fo­lio-the­o­ry ap­proach

Now, in­vestors are ex­per­i­ment­ing with a full port­fo­lio-the­o­ry ap­proach, which is par­tial­ly based on an in­vestor the­o­ry called “re­search-backed oblig­a­tions,” de­vel­oped by eco­nom­ics pro­fes­sors An­drew W. Lo and Roger Stein of the Mass­a­chu­setts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy. Most in­vestors are fa­mil­iar with the con­cept, known as port­fo­lio in­vest­ing. It works like this: The goal is to own a con­trol­ling in­ter­est in a large num­ber of high-risk, po­ten­tial­ly high-re­turn ear­ly-stage com­pa­nies built around sin­gle as­sets. The idea is to spread the risk across a large enough num­ber of com­pa­nies that the bi­na­ry risk of fail­ure is re­duced, in the hopes that one com­pa­ny will sig­nif­i­cant­ly out­per­form.

To do this to­day in bio­phar­ma, an in­vest­ing en­ti­ty needs mas­sive sums of cap­i­tal, which in the past was tar­get­ed on­ly to late-stage com­pa­nies. As a re­sult, the pi­o­neers in port­fo­lio in­vest­ing with ear­ly-stage com­pa­nies have very deep-pock­ets. For ex­am­ple, Bridge­Bio is backed by pri­vate eq­ui­ty firms KKR, Viking Glob­al In­vestors and Per­cep­tive Ad­vi­sors. Bridge­Bio has fund­ed sub­sidiary com­pa­nies work­ing on a va­ri­ety of drugs to treat every­thing from skin con­di­tions to in­her­it­ed heart dis­or­ders, most of which are ear­ly-stage. In these cas­es, the in­vestors may be pre­pared to take a loss of tens of mil­lions of dol­lars in the short term with the ex­pec­ta­tion that clin­i­cal break­throughs will lead to at least some of these bets pay­ing big re­turns in the end.

The fu­ture of bio­phar­ma in­vest­ing

Oth­er com­pa­nies are ap­ply­ing a port­fo­lio-the­o­ry ap­proach to bio­phar­ma R&D with a broad­er strat­e­gy be­yond pre-clin­i­cal R&D. Ve­loc­i­ty Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal De­vel­op­ment (VPD), for ex­am­ple, is based on in­vest­ing in un­der­fund­ed or shelved drugs. VPD es­tab­lished a “project-fo­cused com­pa­ny” around the as­set. Sim­i­lar­ly, Roivant Sci­ences, which in­cu­bates and launch­es new sub­sidiaries known as “Vants,” is pool­ing as­sets and has at­tract­ed some mas­sive in­vest­ments. As its first bio­phar­ma in­vest­ment in Au­gust 2017, Soft­Bank Vi­sion Fund made a $1.1 bil­lion in­vest­ment in Roivant Sci­ences, not its sub­sidiaries. Mereo Bio­Phar­ma Group is an­oth­er port­fo­lio play that keeps de­vel­op­ment of clin­i­cal-phase as­sets un­der a sin­gle en­ti­ty.

Look­ing ahead, as the port­fo­lio-the­o­ry ap­proach evolves we en­vi­sion large pools of low-cor­re­la­tion risk as­sets com­bined with a more pre­dictable fi­nan­cial re­turn mod­el, at­tract­ing huge new sources of cap­i­tal from in­vestors, even re­tail in­vestors. This has the promise of fu­el­ing new drug de­vel­op­ment at ear­li­er stages and solv­ing med­ical chal­lenges faster. These mod­els al­so lend them­selves to very so­phis­ti­cat­ed cap­i­tal en­hance­ments, such as lever­age and se­cu­ri­ti­za­tion. We could be at the very be­gin­ning of a new in­vest­ing strat­e­gy that may lead to ma­jor dis­rup­tions in tra­di­tion­al sci­en­tif­ic in­vest­ing as we know it.


Jen­nifer Friel Gold­stein, BSE, MB, MBA, is the head of Sil­i­con Val­ley Bank’s West Coast life sci­ence and health­care prac­tice. An­drew Ol­son, PhD, is a se­nior man­ag­er lead­ing mar­ket re­search in sup­port of Sil­i­con Val­ley Bank’s life sci­ence prac­tice.

Paul Hudson, Getty Images

Sanofi CEO Hud­son lays out new R&D fo­cus — chop­ping di­a­betes, car­dio and slash­ing $2B-plus costs in sur­gi­cal dis­sec­tion

Earlier on Monday, new Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson baited the hook on his upcoming strategy presentation Tuesday with a tell-tale deal to buy Synthorx for $2.5 billion. That fits squarely with hints that he’s pointing the company to a bigger future in oncology, which also squares with a major industry tilt.

In a big reveal later in the day, though, Hudson offered a slate of stunners on his plans to surgically dissect and reassemble the portfoloio, saying that the company is dropping cardio and diabetes research — which covers two of its biggest franchise arenas. Sanofi missed the boat on developing new diabetes drugs, and now it’s pulling out entirely. As part of the pullback, it’s dropping efpeglenatide, their once-weekly GLP-1 injection for diabetes.

“To be out of cardiovascular and diabetes is not easy for a company like ours with an incredibly proud history,” Hudson said on a call with reporters, according to the Wall Street Journal. “As tough a choice as that is, we’re making that choice.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Amarin CEO John Thero discussing the company's plans for Vascepa, August 2019 — via Bloomberg

Amarin wins a block­buster ap­proval from the FDA. Now every­one can shift fo­cus to the patent

For all those people who could never quite believe that Amarin $AMRN would get an expanded label with blockbuster implications, the stress and anxiety on display right up to the last minute on Twitter can now end. But new, pressing questions will immediately surface now that the OK has come through.

On Friday afternoon, the FDA stamped its landmark approval on the industrial strength fish oil for reducing cardio risks for a large and well defined population of patients. The approval doesn’t give Amarin everything it wants in expanding its use, losing out on the primary prevention group, but it goes a long way to doing what the company needed to make a major splash. The approval was cited for patients with “elevated triglyceride levels (a type of fat in the blood) of 150 milligrams per deciliter or higher. Patients must also have either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sarep­ta was stunned by the re­jec­tion of Vyondys 53. Now it's stun­ning every­one with a sur­prise ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval

Sarepta has a friend in the FDA after all. Four months after the agency determined that it would be wrong to give Sarepta an accelerated approval for their Duchenne MD drug golodirsen, regulators have executed a stunning about face and offered the biotech a quick green light in any case.

It was the agency that first put out the news late Thursday, announcing that Duchenne MD patients with a mutation amenable to exon 53 skipping will now have their first targeted treatment: Vyondys 53, or golodirsen. Having secured the OK via a dispute resolution mechanism, the biotech said the new drug has been priced on par with their only other marketed drug, Exondys 51 — which for an average patient costs about $300,000 per year, but since pricing is based on weight, that sticker price can even cross $1 million.

Sarepta shares $SRPT surged 23% after-market to $124.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Biondi (File photo)

Paul Biondi's track record at Bris­tol-My­ers cov­ered bil­lions in deals of every shape and size. Here's the com­plete break­down

Paul Biondi was never afraid to bet big during his stint as business development chief at Bristol-Myers Squibb. And while the gambles didn’t all pay out, by any means, his roster of pacts illustrates the broad ambitions the pharma giant has had over the last 5 years — capped by the $74 billion Celgene buyout.

On Thursday, we learned that Biondi had exited the company. And Chris Dokomajilar at DealForma came up with the complete breakdown on every buyout, licensing pact and product purchase Bristol-Myers forged during his tenure in charge of the BD team at one of the busiest companies in biopharma.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Paul Biondi (File photo)

Bris­tol-My­er­s' strat­e­gy, BD chief Paul Bion­di ex­it­ed the com­pa­ny — just ahead of the $74B Cel­gene deal close

Paul Biondi, who orchestrated billions of dollars in deals for Bristol-Myers Squibb over the 5 years he’s run their business development team, has exited the company. Biondi left last month, according to a company spokesperson, in pursuit of another — unspecified — external opportunity.

After 17 years with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paul Biondi, Head of Strategy and Business Development, decided to leave the company to pursue an external opportunity. The company wishes him well in his new endeavors. Bristol-Myers Squibb  is actively searching for Paul’s successor, and will make an announcement, as appropriate.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Arie Belldegrun at UKBIO 2019. Shai Dolev for Endpoints News

Kite Phar­ma's ex-CEO con­tra­dicts founder as CAR-T patent tri­al heats up, with con­flict­ing val­u­a­tions

Two days after Kite Pharma founder Arie Belldegrun told a federal courtroom that a meeting he had with a Memorial Sloan Kettering executive wasn’t about licensing their immunotherapy patent, Kite’s ex-CEO Aya Jakobovits said it was.

The admission came Tuesday during cross-examination in a patent infringement case that features two of the biggest cancer biotechs and some of the most well-known names in American medicine.

Jakobovits initially said she was not in attendance, didn’t know it was going to happen and didn’t know what took place, according to Law360. But then the plaintiff’s lawyer handed her a document – whose contents were not publicly revealed – and asked again if she learned after-the-fact that the meeting involved a potential patent license.

“Yes,” Jakobovits eventually said.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

On the heels of promis­ing MCL da­ta, Kite hus­tles its 2nd CAR-T to the FDA as the next big race in the field draws to the fin­ish line

Three days after Gilead’s Kite subsidiary showed off stellar data on their number 2 CAR-T KTE-X19 at ASH, the executive team has pivoted straight to the FDA with a BLA filing and a shot at a near-term approval.

In a small, 74-patient Phase II trial reported out at the beginning of the week, investigators tracked a 93% response rate with two out of three mantle cell lymphoma patients experiencing a complete response.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

What does $6.9B buy these days in on­col­o­gy R&D? As­traZeneca has a land­mark an­swer

Given the way the FDA has been whisking through new drug approvals months ahead of their PDUFA date, AstraZeneca and their partners Daiichi Sankyo may not have to wait until Q2 of next year to get a green light on trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201).

The pharma giant this morning played their ace in the hole, showing off why they were willing to commit to a $6.9 billion deal — with $1.35 billion in a cash upfront — to partner on the drug.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Arie Belldegrun (Photo: Jeff Rumans for Endpoints News)

Ju­ry finds Gilead li­able for $585M and big roy­al­ties in Kite CAR-T patent case

A Kite deal that’s already become a burden on Gilead’s back just got heavier as a California jury has ruled Gilead must pay Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sloan Kettering $585 million plus a 27.6% royalty for patent infringement committed by its subsidiary. The ruling is almost certain to be appealed.

Kite Pharma — founded by Arie Belldegrun, now focused on a next-gen CAR-T company — has been facing a lawsuit since the day its first CAR–T therapy won approval in October, 2017. Juno Therapeutics and Sloan Kettering filed a complaint saying Kite had copied its technology. Gilead acquired Kite in June of that year for $11.9 billion.  Juno was acquired the following year by Celgene for $9 billion, before Celgene was acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2019.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.