When VCs hand out mega-rounds to Vir and Gos­samer, are they bet­ting on the jock­ey or the horse?

Fol­low­ing a pe­ri­od of un­prece­dent­ed re­turns for bio­phar­ma in­vestors, flush VCs are sink­ing big­ger and big­ger rounds of cash in­to com­pa­nies whose pipelines are still in their in­fan­cy. Tak­ing this trend to a new lev­el is an in­creas­ing­ly pop­u­lar move to back biotech ex­ec­u­tives who are known to be star per­form­ers with mega-rounds ris­ing north of $100 mil­lion – even if their pipelines lack a star pro­gram.

There was a time when a few mil­lion bucks would back a promis­ing as­set, and then — if the pro­gram proved worth­while — in­vestors would re­cruit a star team. But back­ing man­age­ment be­fore sci­ence is a trend that’s pick­ing up steam, ac­cord­ing to sev­er­al in­vestors I met at JP Mor­gan this year.

Ni­na Kjell­son, Canaan

Some con­sid­er these bets ex­ceed­ing­ly risky, as VCs are es­sen­tial­ly hand­ing the C-suite cash and hop­ing they dig up some­thing use­ful in re­turn. Oth­ers ar­gue the move means in­vestors are play­ing it safe with this strat­e­gy. Af­ter all, a res­olute CEO root­ing around for sev­er­al op­tions to pro­vide a re­turn may be more de­pend­able than the some­times-finicky sci­ence of a one-star pro­gram.

“It’s a clas­sic de­bate in the VC world,” said Canaan’s gen­er­al part­ner Ni­na Kjell­son. “Do we in­vest in the jock­ey or the horse?”

Com­pa­nies like ARCH Ven­ture Part­ners and Flag­ship Pi­o­neer­ing of­ten bet on the jock­eys.

The trend means one thing for cer­tain: in­vestors’ wal­lets are filled to the brim, and their strate­gies are chang­ing as a re­sult.

The plan, of course, is to get trust­ed lead­ers in po­si­tions where they can de­liv­er one (or hope­ful­ly many) re­turn. This has evolved in­to a busi­ness mod­el in which an um­brel­la com­pa­ny finds promis­ing as­sets to ad­vance, and then spins them out in­to sep­a­rate en­ti­ties to see if the sci­ence sinks or swims. That way, one fail­ure doesn’t tank the whole en­ter­prise and the vet­er­an ex­ec­u­tives can dri­ve on.

When your re­sume war­rants mega-rounds

George Scan­gos

We saw this re­cent­ly with the eye-pop­ping fi­nan­cial back­ing of Vir Biotech­nol­o­gy, which went from launch to rais­ing over a half-bil­lion in seed mon­ey in its first year. In­vestors are bank­ing on a vet­er­an ex­ec­u­tive team that in­cludes CEO George Scan­gos, the for­mer boss at Bio­gen and Ex­elix­is.

Then there was the re­cent deal with Gos­samer Bio, a start­up led by two for­mer Re­cep­tos ex­ec­u­tives that emerged ear­li­er this month with $100 mil­lion in seed mon­ey. The com­pa­ny is be­ing tight-lipped about what as­sets they al­ready have, but we do know the plan is to snatch up ear­ly- and late-stage as­sets and de­vel­op them un­der spin­out en­ti­ties.

To some de­gree, De­nali fits in this pic­ture, too. The com­pa­ny’s pipeline is chalk-full of pre­clin­i­cal as­sets, and yet the com­pa­ny raised mega-rounds to get start­ed and then scored a $287 mil­lion IPO.

In­vestors shore up risk by bet­ting on re­peat teams

Jay Lichter, Aval­on

Jay Lichter, man­ag­ing part­ner at Aval­on Ven­tures, said he sees this as a risk re­duc­tion strat­e­gy on the part of the in­vestor.

“It re­duces risk a lot when you’re back­ing a group who’s proven to ex­e­cute on pro­grams,” Lichter said. “Give them a bunch of mon­ey, toss them a few pro­grams, and the chance that all will fail is close to ze­ro. One will turn in­to a ven­ture re­turn.”

Both Lichter and seed stage in­vestor Wal­ter Moos of Shang­Phar­ma agreed that the trend is an in­di­ca­tion of in­vestors with heavy pock­ets.

Wal­ter Moos, Shang­Phar­ma

“This is prob­a­bly one of the most di­verse fi­nan­cial ecosys­tems I’ve seen in my 35 years in the in­dus­try,” Moos said. “[VCs] need to in­vest more mon­ey per as­set be­cause they have so much more cap­i­tal to de­ploy. There’s a lim­it on how many com­pa­nies the part­ners can han­dle, so the deal size gets big­ger.”

It’s al­so pos­si­ble that VC firms are di­ver­si­fy­ing, Lichter said. In­vestors might con­sid­er vet­er­an-led teams as more ma­ture ven­tures that de­serve pri­vate eq­ui­ty-sized deals in­stead of VC-sized deals.

Big bets or pub­lic­i­ty play?

Are mega-rounds for nascent pipelines smart? Kjell­son said she’s not a big fan of huge seed rounds, even if the team is ex­pe­ri­enced.

“I’m a lit­tle bit more sober these days to make a bet on a team with a $100 mil­lion check ver­sus a $10 mil­lion to $15 mil­lion check,” Kjell­son said.

Of course, many of these deals are mile­stone gat­ed, she says, and as Moos points out, “like biobucks, lots of that mon­ey nev­er shows up.” Moos thinks these mega-sized rounds can some­times be a play for pub­lic­i­ty.

“It can draw more top man­age­ment, co-in­vestors, or even grab the at­ten­tion of Big Phar­ma,” Moos said.

Lichter tends to agree with Kjell­son. He says too much mon­ey in the bank makes biotechs slug­gish as they be­gin to op­er­ate like a “small big phar­ma, with all the bu­reau­cra­cy and po­lit­i­cal struc­ture.”

“I’ve nev­er been a fan of big fi­nanc­ing,” Lichter said. “I think it draws you away from what’s great about biotech, which is be­ing nim­ble. Be­ing close to death. It’s shock­ing how hard peo­ple will work when they have six months of cash and they have to get to work to stay alive.”


Il­lus­tra­tion: Shut­ter­stock

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 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

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

Is a pow­er­house Mer­ck team prepar­ing to leap past Roche — and leave Gilead and Bris­tol My­ers be­hind — in the race to TIG­IT dom­i­na­tion?

Roche caused quite a stir at ASCO with its first look at some positive — but not so impressive — data for their combination of Tecentriq with their anti-TIGIT drug tiragolumab. But some analysts believe that Merck is positioned to make a bid — soon — for the lead in the race to a second-wave combo immuno-oncology approach with its own ambitious early-stage program tied to a dominant Keytruda.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

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

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.

UP­DAT­ED: Es­ti­mat­ing a US price tag of $5K per course, remde­sivir is set to make bil­lions for Gilead, says key an­a­lyst

Data on remdesivir — the first drug shown to benefit Covid-19 patients in a randomized, controlled trial setting — may be murky, but its maker Gilead could reap billions from the sales of the failed Ebola therapy, according to an estimate by a prominent Wall Street analyst. However, the forecast, which is based on a $5,000-per-course US price tag, triggered the ire of one top drug price expert.

Credit: AP Images

Covid-19 roundup: BAR­DA sup­ports Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed with big $628M con­tract to ser­vice Amer­i­ca's vac­cine pro­duc­tion needs

Another BARDA contract designed to service America’s Covid-19 vaccine needs has been deployed.

The White House-led initiative designed to bankroll development to bring a vaccine to the American public by this fall — Operation Warp Speed — has via BARDA handed a meaty contract to the maker of an FDA-licensed anthrax vaccine to open up its manufacturing apparatus to shore up production of Covid-19 vaccines.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Adam Keeney (NodThera)

As NL­RP3 play­ers head for first clin­i­cal face-off, No­vo, Sanofi fu­el trans-At­lantic con­tender with $55M

In the relative short history of inflammasome research, Adam Keeney sees two time points marking major breakthroughs: the early 2000s, when the role of inflammasomes as a major innate immunity node was elucidated; and 2015, when Pfizer found out a compound it thought was targeting IL-1 actually blocks NLRP3. Keeney’s biotech, NodThera, was founded the year after alongside several others to create its own superior small molecule drugs.

FDA de­lays de­ci­sion on No­var­tis’ po­ten­tial block­buster MS drug, wip­ing away pri­or­i­ty re­view

So much for a speedy review.

In February, Novartis announced that an application for their much-touted multiple sclerosis drug ofatumumab had been accepted and, with the drug company cashing in on one of their priority review vouchers, the agency was due for a decision by June.

But with June less than 48 hours old, Novartis announced the agency has extended their review, pushing back the timeline for approval or rejection to September. The Swiss pharma filed the application in December, meaning their new schedule will be nearly in line with the standard 10-month window period had they not used the priority voucher.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hill­house re­casts spot­light on Chi­na's biotech scene with $160M round for Shang­hai-based an­ti­body mak­er

Almost two years after first buying into Genor Biopharma’s pipeline of cancer and autoimmune therapies, Hillhouse Capital has led a $160 million cash injection to push the late-stage assets over the finish line while continuing to fund both internal R&D and dealmaking.

The Series B has landed right around the time Genor would have listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, according to plans reported by Bloomberg late last year. Insiders had said that the company was looking to raise about $200 million.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.