Category Archives: Biotech

Can This $181 Billion Fund You Have Never Heard Of Succeed At Playing The Long Game In Life Sciences?

Traditional life sciences investors have made lots and lots of money from recent multi-billion dollar exits like Receptos, Alios and Acerta. But lately I’ve noticed a different life sciences investing strategy, one closer to the way social/mobile/software investors invest. By paying higher entry prices for later mega-rounds in ambitious life sciences companies, including both therapeutics and non-therapeutics companies, these deep-pocketed investors hope to reproduce their earlier successes investing in the likes of Amazon and Tesla. Their capital, which comes without the usual board seats and tight monitoring, is deeply welcome, because it allows these companies (similar to consumer companies like AirBnB and Uber) to stay under the radar much longer than if they would have to file for an initial public offering (IPO). By the time some of these companies finally surface, they may have catalyzed profound change as well as making money.

My curiosity about this new approach took me to Edinburgh, to the shadow of its imposing castle, where I got to look at this type of investing through the eyes of one of its top practitioners, an investment management firm known as Baillie Gifford.

Never heard of Baillie Gifford? Neither had I when they first approached me in 2015 through a mutual acquaintance at MIT for a friendly chat. It turns out that Baillie Gifford is a global investment fund that quietly deploys the assets of some of the largest pension funds in the United States as well as investing on behalf of many other clients. After doing business for over 100 years, Baillie Gifford currently has 145 billion GBP ($181 billion) under management.

“Life sciences companies are an increasingly important part of our research agenda.” That was the essence of what the Baillie Gifford team told me back in 2015. Talk about turning talk into action. Barely eighteen months later, the fund had made six investments in life sciences companies in rounds totaling over $1 billion.

Table 1. Baillie Gifford’s publicly disclosed life sciences and healthcare investments (not including health IT investment ZocDoc) as of April 11, 2017.

Table 1. Baillie Gifford’s publicly disclosed life sciences and healthcare investments (not including health IT investment ZocDoc) as of April 11, 2017. Data from Pitchbook and Crunchbase

The common theme among all of these investments is “growth.” In order to have a chance at making outsize returns – think at least 50% a year if not 100% or 200% – an investor has to bet on a company that can change the world – before the change has happened. Baillie Gifford’s strategy in finding these investments focuses on identifying “mega-trends,” major changes that may be slow to take hold, but once in place, can be extremely influential. Widespread access to the internet would be one example of a modern megatrend. Within biotech, the trend toward ever-cheaper and ever-more-widespread gene sequencing would be another.

Trying to make money this way is very different from traditional biotech venture investing. But the size and number of recent such financings show the growing popularity of this model. Recipients include the synthetic biology companies Ginkgo Bioworks and Zymergen; the Google-funded, data-intense companies Flatiron Health and Verily; the Illumina spinout GRAIL; and the medical device company Intarcia Therapeutics. The Baillie Gifford portfolio alone contains Ginkgo, Flatiron and Intarcia along with therapeutics companies CureVac, Denali Therapeutics and UNITY Biotechnology.

Baillie Gifford is not the only fund coming into life sciences and healthcare investments with big dollars and long-term views. Domestic US fund Alaska Permanent Fund was a big pre-IPO investor in Juno. More recently, that fund invested in the $61 million Series A round of Cambridge, MA-based biotech Codiak Biosciences and in the $217 million Series A round of Denali. Sovereign wealth funds such as Singapore-based Temasek are also increasingly joining syndicates in biotech companies such as Alzheimer’s therapeutics developer TauRx, also based in Singapore, as well as US-based companies such as gene editing-focused biotech Homology Medicines and primary care-focused healthcare play Iora Health. Based on various analyses my firm has carried out on fund flows in this sector, I expect other sovereign wealth funds to increase, in some cases significantly, their investing activity in life sciences and healthcare.

Fewer. Larger. Later.

In contrast to typical life sciences venture capitalists (VCs) who invest in ten therapeutics companies hoping to make big multiples on two or three of them, Baillie Gifford invests in fewer life science opportunities and puts much larger amounts of money to work in each investment. The team is also unconventional. Unlike the typical crossover fund or hedge fund team stuffed with MD-PhDs and clinical development experts, the Baillie Gifford team consists of generalists. Tom Slater is one example. A 2000 computer science graduate, Slater joined Baillie Gifford straight out of college. After working on Asia and UK equity teams, Slater joined the Long Term Global Growth team in 2009, and since 2015, he has been head of US Equities. Because Baillie Gifford is owned jointly by its 41 partners, Slater has considerable “skin in the game.”

Tom Slater

Tom Slater. Photo courtesy Tom Slater

To read the rest of this post, visit:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedickman/2017/04/12/the-long-game-in-life-sciences-181-billion-fund-baillie-gifford-invests-big-in-private-companies/

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Biotech, Private company, Startup, venture capital

Can biology, even drug discovery, ever be “clouded”? It’s early but Andreesen Horowitz VC thinks so

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

Can you create biological insight on a laptop? If you could, it might overturn a fundamental paradigm of drug discovery: that it takes a great scientist or team of scientists to find a clear path through the messy complexity of biology. In the conventional model, sometimes the scientist is at a university. Other times she is in a company. But always, always, there is a series of iterative interactions – scientist running experiments in lab, scientist struggling to interpret results, scientist designing new experiments, scientist analyzing new results – until biological insight arises. If it ever does.

Of course, many drug discovery advances over the past thirty years have been driven by technological innovation: combinatorial chemistry; high-throughput screening; vastly improved imaging and prediction software; and rapid and reproducible assays run in some cases by robots on groups of cells or even individual cells leading to large and hopefully meaningful datasets.

But none of these advances has replaced the “Aha” moment of insight that arises from a human being’s engagement with a biological phenomenon that is thorny or one that had not even been perceived to exist. I always expected – and still do expect – to find that kind of insight in labs, not on laptops.

But now a renowned Stanford professor-turned-Silicon Valley venture capitalist, Vijay Pande, has set his sights on this challenge. Pande, the architect of the award-winning Folding@Home project and himself an award-winner in computational biology, recently joined a top Palo-Alto-based venture fund, Andreesen Horowitz, which formed a new $200 million fund to invest in “cloud biology” and other areas of software companies in the bio space. To read the post, click here or copy-paste http://onforb.es/1Sq3Q2G.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biotech, Health IT, Startup

It Had to be You: Why Roche Was the Lone Suitor for Foundation Medicine

By Steve Dickman, CEO, CBT Advisors

January 16, 2015

Originally published on Xconomy

The buzz from day one of the JP Morgan conference in San Francisco earlier this week was the announcement on Sunday night by Roche that it was acquiring a majority interest in Foundation Medicine (NASDAQ: FMI) for a bit more than $1 billion in cash for a little more than half the company, which translates into $50 a share. Those were just the latest eye-popping numbers from Foundation, which went public in September, 2013, amid warnings of a biotech bubble. From its initial offering price of $18, Foundation proceeded to enjoy a first-day jump all the way up to $35 a share, straining credulity for those investors focused on the fact that the company had not received meaningful reimbursement for its flagship cancer diagnostic product FoundationOne.

It’s sixteen months later and Foundation still has not received the positive coverage decisions from Medicare or major private insurers that it would need in order to even dream of making money on its sequence-based diagnostic test. The stock had ridden down to $23 a share before the acquisition and there was plenty of short interest even at that level (pity those investors who did not cover those shorts on Friday!).

Roche was the only pharmaceutical company in the world that had a rationale for acquiring control of Foundation. It is best positioned to make the acquisition a success.

But Roche still went ahead and bought an unprofitable company for $1 billion in a transaction reminiscent of its purchase of a controlling stake in Genentech in 1990. Aside from the deal structures, which in both cases leave the US management team intact if now reporting to Roche HQ in Basel, there would seem to be virtually no similarity. Roche has moved far beyond its early-1990s status as a small-molecule-heavy European pharma eager to transition into biologics. At the time of the initial Roche transaction Genentech was already a powerful product engine, having developed early protein replacement therapeutics human insulin and human growth hormone with lots more in the pipeline and vibrant science to match. By contrast, Foundation has done little more than make losses on its diagnostics business.

But there is one big parallel between that deal and this one: In both cases, Roche believes that it has seen the future of the pharmaceutical industry. And it can only grasp that future by placing a large and risky bet on a US innovator company. Roche’s thorough transformation into a company invested in targeted therapies driven by disease biology supports my thesis that it was the only pharmaceutical company in the world that had a rationale for acquiring control of Foundation and that it is the one best positioned to make the acquisition a success.

In my view, the key reasons boil down to these:

  • Roche was early and fervent in its embrace of diagnostics as drivers of drug development and sales. I know only one top executive in the pharmaceutical industry who cut his teeth in molecular diagnostics and he did so at Roche– Dan O’Day, who was CEO of Roche Molecular Diagnostics from 2006 to 2010 and is currently COO of Roche Pharma. Once the Foundation transaction is completed, O’Day and two others chosen by Roche will join Foundation’s board of directors. Aside from the personal, Foundation also fell on fertile ground at Roche on the institutional level. Roche had already changed its drug-discovery focus to be more diagnostics-driven than most other pharmaceutical companies on virtually every level. As Roche CEO Severin Schwan declared in 2012: “More than 60% of our pharmaceutical pipeline projects are coupled with the development of companion diagnostics in order to make treatments more effective.” That number has almost certainly gone up.
  • Roche was the pharma that had most thoroughly integrated clinical genome sequencing into its trial protocols, long before it had figured out how best to use the data. In my work with biotech companies, I had been hearing for years how Roche had embraced sequence data as a key success factor for the pharma industry of the future. As soon as the cost of sequencing became halfway affordable (maybe $5,000 to $10,000 per full sequence), Roche began to require genome sequence data as a key data point from every patient in every clinical trial. If there was any doubt about how highly Roche regarded sequencing, its $51-a-share Illumina bid in 2012 dispelled it. (Illumina, whose CEO Jay Flatley said at the time that the bid seriously undervalued his company, now trades at $181). An executive speaking under condition of anonymity who knows Roche Ventures well confirmed that Roche places high importance on sequence data, both data which it has itself collected as well as data being collected by Foundation. As an aside, Roche Ventures had invested in Foundation two rounds before the IPO in 2012 and had no strings attached in the form of a promised acquisition or partnering deal. That investment is another indicator of the value Roche management placed on keeping up with the world of clinical sequencing. That executive told me on Monday that Roche was counting on Foundation’s data scientists to be able to make the most effective use of their own data banks of both sequence data and outcomes data and that the prospect of joining forces was irresistible.
  • Roche realized that it would face competition if another pharma company scooped up Foundation. Roche believes that in genomic profiling, it has identified a common theme for creating value in oncology therapeutics of whatever stripe – targeted therapies like kinase inhibitors; biologics like monoclonal antibodies; and even immuno-oncology approaches like checkpoint inhibitors. Having made this observation, it did not want anyone else to catch up. Combining Roche’s clinical sequence data and its drug pipeline with Foundation’s gene-level and patient-level insights clearly would realize the most powerful synergy. But in the hands of another pharma, the Foundation team and data sets could have posed competition. Ergo, Roche decided to buy it now.
  • Roche is counting on a shift from biochemical targets to genomic profile targets, especially in drugs for solid tumors. Foundation’s “poster child” cancer cases are those in which genetic profiling suggested – against all experience of oncologists and with no evidence from n-of-1,000 clinical trials – that cancer drug X, developed for, say, ovarian cancer, would work best in cancer indication Y (e.g. prostate cancer). Because the patient is desperate, the physician prescribes the drug and voila – there is a response or even a remission. This pattern echoes what has happened in blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), in which old-fashioned chemotherapeutic agents have been replaced by biologics like rituximab (Rituxan) and are being augmented or, eventually, replaced again by kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib (Imbruvica). This will likely happen in solid tumors as well: chemo as we know it will be scaled back (though, like that other blunt instrument, surgery, it will likely never completely disappear) and physicians will chase cancer cells through various waves of genetic mutations, each of which demands a different targeted therapeutic or biologic to hold it at bay. In that world, the company that is most on top of the mutation patterns and treatment patterns and can incorporate those into both its drug development efforts and its sales pitch, wins, or at least has an edge. Diagnostics will likely be an important part of immunotherapy as well, an area where Roche is currently weak. Right now companies like Juno (NASDAQ: JUNO), Kite (NASDAQ: KITE), Bellicum (NASDAQ: BLCM) and Novartis are taking baby steps with CAR-T. Most companies are focusing on surface antigens like CD19 that are widely expressed and therefore do not require molecular diagnostics.  To realize the full potential of these therapies, companies will need to match patient-specific tumor profiles with panels of off-the-shelf biologic reagents and cell engineering products. That’s where Foundation’s tests might come in.
  • Foundation is setting new standards in cancer genome analysis. Foundation has raised the bar in the accuracy of genome-based tumor profiling (sensitivity, specificity) by something like a factor of three, and built robust and scalable informatics and analytics. Roche was already using the Foundation platform on a limited basis and realized that it was simpler to expand that use rather than to try to copy it.

Since the last few pharma mega-mergers, the industry’s biggest players have gone in wildly different directions. Novartis embraced gene therapy and gene editing. AstraZeneca doubled down on the biologics franchise it obtained with the acquisition of MedImmune. Bristol Myers and Merck have raced ahead in checkpoint inhibitors. Merck, Sanofi and to some extent Pfizer have rapidly expanded investment in “beyond the pill” and “digital interventions” (apps as drugs). And Roche took up diagnostics and genetics. For Roche, drug development, especially in oncology, is all about “genetics-driven medicine,” which in their view requires “genetics-driven drug development” and “genetics-driven marketing.” No one else has placed such a big bet on genetics though all pharma companies are certainly exploring it. For example, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi recently announced a collaboration with Illumina (NASDAQ:ILMN) to develop a “next-generation-sequencing based test system for oncology.” In some sense, if Roche wins this one, others – e.g. those betting on checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cells – might lose out.

In CBT Advisors’ world of venture-backed biotech companies, this landscape poses significant challenges. Gone are the days when a biotech’s innovation would be appreciated by as many as five or ten pharma companies at the same time (there are barely fifteen left that regularly carry out M&A) and there could be a big bidding war. The biotechs’ leverage is not what it used to be. Counterbalancing that is the obvious productivity flop in pharma R&D. Biotech is the only place pharma can turn for real innovation. And turn they do, early and often.

This creates a bonanza for firms like mine that assist early, science-driven companies in managing their public positioning and their BD pitch from day one to create the largest possible exits. Now more than ever, the right story sells, just maybe to only one or two bidders. In Foundation’s case, the billion-dollar number was probably what it took to get the company’s pre-IPO investors (who included Google Ventures and Bill Gates not to mention smart funds like Casdin Capital) to give up on at least some of their dreams of long-term returns in exchange for a sweet 10-12x (I’m guessing) on their last pre-IPO investment from early 2013.

From Foundation’s point of view, the deal does three things, all of them good:

  • Cashes out the early investors at a price they can accept.
  • Delays, perhaps indefinitely, the need to break even on selling tests and shifts the focus to drug development and companion diagnostics
  • Relieves the constant pressure to market the company’s analytic services to multiple pharma companies in deals that have been the main source of revenue for Foundation to this point. That pressure was undoubtedly going to become heavier as Foundation’s pharma partners realized that, quarter after quarter, there was no reimbursement coming from Medicare and little from other payers, leaving pharma to provide the vast majority of the company’s source of revenue. (A first small insurer in Grand Rapids, MI, announced coverage of FoundationOne and another Foundation test in October, 2014.)

Back to why the acquirer had to be Roche: remember that over the last 25 years, Roche has had the undoubtedly humbling but ultimately very profitable experience of owning Genentech. Revenues and product pipeline from that acquisition long ago overtook those products from Roche’s own drug development in volume and importance. In some sense, Genentech has come to own Roche. Since Roche is nowhere near as advanced in gene therapy as Novartis nor as advanced in checkpoint inhibitors as Merck and Bristol-Myers, the move to own Foundation is an attempt to be the best it can be as a genetics-driven drug developer and marketer. No other pharma would have seen this deal that way. When and if Foundation’s investment bank called around looking for better offers, I bet no one called them back.

For Roche, the deal will either turn out to be a leap frog or, maybe, a dead end. But if cancer therapies, especially for solid tumors, really do wind up getting developed and marketed in a genome-driven way – and many trends point in that direction – then this move will have turned out to be prescient indeed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biotech, Diagnostics

Sure, Biotech is Hot. But Are Biotech IPOs a Good Investment?

A Guest Post to Boston Biotech Watch by Christoph Bieri, Managing Partner, Kurmann Partners*

This year will see an unprecedented number of biotech IPOs at a record high investment volume. But  is it wise to invest in them?

We tracked the performance of about 350 biotech and life sciences companies which listed on NASDAQ, NYSE, LSE/AIM and the Swiss Exchange SIX beginning in 2000.  As shown in Figure 1 below, we would divide those fourteen years into four distinct phases:

  • The years 2000 and 2001, which we call the “millennium vintage”
  • The years 2003 to 2007, the “post-millennium”
  • The years 2010 to 2012, the “post-Lehman”
  • The current period, the “13/14 boom”

Figure 1: Funds invested in biotech IPOs, cumulative, Jan. 1, 2000 - Oct. 9, 2014

 

We then tried to estimate the performance of each newly issued stock. Our model assumed that somebody invested at the IPO and held the shares until today, until the company was bought or until it went out of business. We calculated the gains or losses made under these assumptions, correcting for stock splits where applicable. Grouping the individual performance by the date of IPO in the above phases results in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Performance by vintage of biotech IPOs

 

You can read the bar graph top to bottom. The top blue bar represents the total of all amounts invested at the IPO. This is followed in light green with the total appreciation (or depreciation) of the share price until today (October, 2014) if the respective company is still listed. In case the company was sold, the next bar (in red or green) shows the profit or loss the initial investors made.  The next red bar reflects the total funds invested in those companies that later went bankrupt. The net of all of these changes is shown above as gain or loss in percentage of the total investments made.

As you can see, the millennium vintage did not perform well at all. In our (simplified) assessment, investors on average took a loss. According to our analysis, the best vintage was those companies that went public in the extremely risk-averse climate post the 2008 Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. As of today, those investments have almost doubled.

We admit that there are many caveats to our analysis. The biggest factor skewing this analysis is what we see as the current valuation inflation, which has had a disproportionate effect on those companies that listed in the post-Lehman phase (hence the big contribution of “share appreciations” to the net gain). Also, those companies which went public post-Lehman had less time to go out of business, so to speak. We may have missed stock splits (reverse or “real”) or some of the other tools which companies resort to when in dire straits. We did not account for cash pay-outs, and secondary offerings, non-dilutive funding or licensing transactions are also not included. But we think we still got a pretty clear picture.

Figure 3 puts the current climate into context. This chart shows IPOs on a time axis. The bubbles indicate the size of the initial offering in millions of US dollars. The y-axis gives the stock appreciation as of today (or until acquisition) on a logarithmic scale. Not surprisingly, the “cloud” of new IPOs of the 13/14 boom are still clustered around the 1x mark on the y-axis since they have not gained or lost much value in this short time. We can also see the diverse fate of the millennium vintage, when a similar IPO boom took place.

The IPO weather forecast: Clouds on the horizon?

 

Is the current frenzy just the “return to a healthy normal”, as some industry leaders say? Or is it “the folly of year 2000 all over again”, as some others state?  We don’t know.

Biotech always makes for exciting investments, in all shades of the word “exciting”. The combination of money, science and the potential to be part of something really new and important may be satisfying all by itself for some private investors. So there is the fun factor (if you can bear the potential losses). Those who intend to profit will spread their risk broadly and time their investments carefully.

# # #

*Kurmann Partners is an M&A and strategy advisory firm based in Basel, Switzerland, advising globally on mid-market transactions in the Pharma, Biotech and MedTech industries.

2 Comments

Filed under Biotech