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.

BiTE® Plat­form and the Evo­lu­tion To­ward Off-The-Shelf Im­muno-On­col­o­gy Ap­proach­es

Despite rapid advances in the field of immuno-oncology that have transformed the cancer treatment landscape, many cancer patients are still left behind.1,2 Not every person has access to innovative therapies designed specifically to treat his or her disease. Many currently available immuno-oncology-based approaches and chemotherapies have brought long-term benefits to some patients — but many patients still need other therapeutic options.3

Por­tion of Neil Wood­ford’s re­main­ing in­vest­ments, in­clud­ing Nanopore, sold off for $284 mil­lion

It’s been precisely one year and one day since Neil Woodford froze his once-vaunted fund, and while a global pandemic has recently shielded him from the torrent of headlines, the fallout continues.

Today, the California-based patent licensing firm Acacia Research acquired the fund’s shares for 19 healthcare and biotech companies for $284 million.  Those companies include shares for public and private companies and count some of Woodford’s most prominent bio-bets, such as Theravance Biopharma, Oxford Nanopore and Mereo Biopharma, according to Sky News, which first reported the sale. It won’t include shares for BenevelontAI, the machine learning biotech once valued at $2 billion.

Drug man­u­fac­tur­ing gi­ant Lon­za taps Roche/phar­ma ‘rein­ven­tion’ vet as its new CEO

Lonza chairman Albert Baehny took his time headhunting a new CEO for the company, making it absolutely clear he wanted a Big Pharma or biotech CEO with a good long track record in the business for the top spot. In the end, he went with the gold standard, turning to Roche’s ranks to recruit Pierre-Alain Ruffieux for the job.

Ruffieux, a member of the pharma leadership team at Roche, spent close to 5 years at the company. But like a small army of manufacturing execs, he gained much of his experience at the other Big Pharma in Basel, remaining at Novartis for 12 years before expanding his horizons.

President Donald Trump (left) and Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed (Alex Brandon, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: White House names fi­nal­ists for Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed — with 5 ex­pect­ed names and one no­table omis­sion

A month after word first broke of the Trump Administration’s plan to rapidly accelerate the development and production of a Covid-19 vaccine, the White House has selected the five vaccine candidates they consider most likely to succeed, The New York Times reported.

Most of the names in the plan, known as Operation Warp Speed, will come as little surprise to those who have watched the last four months of vaccine developments: Moderna, which was the first vaccine to reach humans and is now the furthest along of any US effort; J&J, which has not gone into trials but received around $500 million in funding from BARDA earlier this year; the joint AstraZeneca-Oxford venture which was granted $1.2 billion from BARDA two weeks ago; Pfizer, which has been working with the mRNA biotech BioNTech; and Merck, which just entered the race and expects to put their two vaccine candidates into humans later this year.

David Meline (file photo)

Mod­er­na’s new CFO took a cut in salary to jump to the mR­NA rev­o­lu­tion­ary. But then there’s the rest of the com­pen­sa­tion pack­age

David Meline took a little off the top of his salary when he jumped from the CFO post at giant Amgen to become the numbers czar at the upstart vaccines revolutionary Moderna. But the SEC filing that goes with a major hire also illustrates how it puts him in line for a fortune — provided the biotech player makes good as a promising game changer.

To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with the base salary: $600,000. Or the up-to 50% annual cash bonus — an industry standard — that comes with it. True, the 62-year-old earned $999,000 at Amgen in 2019, but it’s the stock options that really count in the current market bliss for all things biopharma. And there Meline did well.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Covid-19 roundup: Ab­b­Vie jumps in­to Covid-19 an­ti­body hunt; As­traZeneca shoots for 2B dos­es of Ox­ford vac­cine — with $750M from CEPI, Gavi

Another Big Pharma is entering the Covid-19 antibody hunt.

AbbVie has announced a collaboration with the Netherlands’ Utrecht University and Erasmus Medical Center and the Chinese-Dutch biotech Harbour Biomed to develop a neutralizing antibody that can treat Covid-19. The antibody, called 47D11, was discovered by AbbVie’s three partners, and AbbVie will support early preclinical work, while preparing for later preclinical and clinical development. Researchers described the antibody in Nature Communications last month.

Michael Gladstone, partner at Atlas Venture

At­las rais­es new $400M fund amid spree of VC rais­es. Here’s what they’ll spend it on

You can add another few hundred million to the now Montana-sized reservoir of cash biotech VCs have raised since the WHO declared Covid-19 a pandemic.

Atlas Venture, the prominent Kendall Square incubator, has raised $400 million for its twelfth biotech fund, their first in 3 years. After a string of mammoth new raises from other major VCs in April and May, the total pot now stands between $5 billion and $6 billion, depending on how you slice it.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pfiz­er’s Doug Gior­dano has $500M — and some ad­vice — to of­fer a cer­tain breed of 'break­through' biotech

So let’s say you’re running a cutting-edge, clinical-stage biotech, probably public, but not necessarily so, which could see some big advantages teaming up with some marquee researchers, picking up say $50 million to $75 million dollars in a non-threatening minority equity investment that could take you to the next level.

Doug Giordano might have some thoughts on how that could work out.

The SVP of business development at the pharma giant has helped forge a new fund called the Pfizer Breakthrough Growth Initiative. And he has $500 million of Pfizer’s money to put behind 7 to 10 — or so — biotech stocks that fit that general description.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Leen Kawas, Athira CEO (Athira)

Can a small biotech suc­cess­ful­ly tack­le an Ever­est climb like Alzheimer’s? Athi­ra has $85M and some in­flu­en­tial back­ers ready to give it a shot

There haven’t been a lot of big venture rounds for biotech companies looking to run a Phase II study in Alzheimer’s.

The field has been a disaster over the past decade. Amyloid didn’t pan out as a target — going down in a litany of Phase III failures — and is now making its last stand at Biogen. Tau is a comer, but when you look around and all you see is destruction, the idea of backing a startup trying to find complex cocktails to swing the course of this devilishly complicated memory-wasting disease would daunt the pluckiest investors.