Next Phase Newsletter

By Michael Quigley, Research Analyst, LSN

With the number of Biotech IPOs in 2013 having already doubled the number in 2012, this year is shaping up to be the biggest for biotech in the last decade. These kinds of numbers are leaving many investors and companies alike wondering what exactly is fueling this wildfire. General investor confidence across the market paired with low interest rates could be one answer. However, other industries are not experiencing the same growth that biotech has been seeing as of late. Over the past three years, the NASDAQ biotech index is up 128%, which is leagues above the S&P 500’s return of 52%. (1) These returns are one result of the FDA’s recent increased willingness to approve drugs, paired with an improved understanding of the molecular substructure of diseases, which contributed to drug approvals in reaching their highest levels in over a decade in 2012.

These numbers – however promising – do not tell the whole story on this IPO eruption that we are seeing as of late. The JOBS act of 2012, for instance, plays a part in this development. Included in the act was a clause that allows for companies looking to IPO to speak with investors months before making a public declaration of an IPO, a strategy known as “testing the waters”. This lets investment firms effectively premarket an offering before any SEC filing, which allows them to address the interest of the fund’s own investors in a biotech company’s equity. This streamlining of deal structuring in the space is what has delivered the vast number of successful Biotech IPOs this year –  companies have seen as many as two-thirds of investors participating in their IPOs coming straight from their one-on-one meetings. (2)

A continuation of this IPO trend will push big pharma to invest in earlier stage companies to keep pipelines robust, unless they wish to compete with the prices offered by public markets for mergers and acquisitions. This additional exit option will also put increased pressure on investment firms, as they will no longer be able to offer deals with less-than-favorable terms to companies they look to invest in (for fear of losing them to the public markets). Just as with pharma, this could push these investment firms to look to develop relationships with earlier stage companies in the space long before thoughts of IPO are on the table. The bottom line is, this surge of IPOs is adding a new supply of investment in the biotech space that will increase competitiveness among current investors, causing them to offer better terms – and look to earlier stage companies – for their newest investments.

1. “Strong Biotech Market Fuels IPO Surge.” NVCA Today. William Blair & Company, n.d. Web. 25 July 2013.

2. Herper, Matthew. “Why The JOBS Act Is A Lifesaver For Life Sciences Companies.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 19 July 2013. Web. 25 July 2013.

Tags: biotech, biotechnology, CMO, consulting, CRO, family offices, Fundraising, investor, Investors, issue, letter, life, Life Science, life science nation, medicine, nation, news, newsletter, pharma, Pharmaceutical, private equity, research & development, science, startup, venture capital

By Danielle Silva, Director of Research, LSN

As you may have already heard, the SEC voted 4 to 1 on Wednesday July 10, 2013 in favor of implementing section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. The act lifts the ban on solicitation, as well as on certain restrictions regarding the advertising of private offerings that have been in place for around eight decades.

In the past, in order to openly raise money, a company would have to go public, a difficult milestone for many early stage life science firms to attain – especially if the company does not have a product on the market.

In my research, I’ve encountered a large number of firms in the biotech and medtech space that have chosen to pursue this route (with no products on the market), which ultimately leaves them with a penny stock on an obscure or over-the-counter exchange, providing little legitimacy to investors, and forcing the company to raise all subsequent rounds through PIPES (private investments in public equity). Therefore, the approval of this section of the JOBS Act is great news for firms in the life sciences space – especially early stage firms that are struggling to bridge the valley of death – who will now be able to adopt a more aggressive outbound marketing campaign.

Outside the realm of marketers for alternative investments, many individuals and firms are not familiar with the legality that in the past was associated with private placement offerings. Before the approval of 201(a) of the JOBS Act, companies had to establish a “relationship” with an investor before they could attempt to obtain funds. To illustrate, imagine this scenario: a life science firm seeking capital e-mails a family office that they believe would be interested in their technology. In order to be in compliance with the regulations surrounding private placements in the past, the firm could not reach out to the investor again (even if they seemed interested in investing) for 30 days. The section of the JOBS Act that was recently approved, however, completely eliminates this so called “cooling off period,” which was originally implemented because companies soliciting investments were required to have established a prior relationship with an investor.

What doesn’t change, at least, with the passage of the most recently approved section of the JOBS Act, is whom firms can market their private offerings to. This means that firms will still only be able to raise capital from accredited investors, or those investors that have at least $1 million in liquid assets (for example, $1 million, not including their house, cars, etc.) or investors that have attained at least $200,000 in household income consistently over the past two years. Companies raising capital must take reasonable steps in order to ensure that the investors that they target are in fact accredited.

As one of the most controversial components of the JOBS Act still waiting to be ruled on by the SEC, this section covers the issue of crowd funding, which we covered in a previous article. If this section of the JOBS Act were passed, it would mean that startups could receive funding from the general public, i.e., unaccredited investors. As it stands, currently soliciting investments from unaccredited investors in exchange for an equity stake in a startup is still illegal.

Even if the crowdfunding piece of the JOBS Act is passed, it is questionable whether or not these platforms will be a valuable fundraising tool for life science startups. By fundraising through crowdsourcing, an entrepreneur may be forced to give up a great deal of equity, which in the end would obviously hurt the entrepreneur if the company gets bought out. Equity dilution is also of course a huge red flag to institutional investors, so after a firm raises capital through crowdsourcing it may be very difficult to get additional funding from larger more sophisticated investors. Furthermore, crowdfunding may lead to additional headaches for startups, like having to answer to hundreds of LPs instead of just a handful.

What further complicates the JOBS Act issue is the fact that the definition of an accredited investor may be subject to revision in 2014 as a part of the Dodd-Frank Act. What this means is that if the crowdfunding portion of the JOBS Act is not approved, companies may have to start raising funds from a new tier of investors next year.

So what are the overall implications for companies in the life sciences space? Basically, life science firms that are looking to raise capital will be able to implement an aggressive outbound marketing campaign, and be able to follow up & meet with interested investors as soon as possible instead of waiting the required 30 days to follow up with a potential investor. Although the definition of an accredited investor may change next year, the approval of section 201(a) of the JOBS act will certainly make the fundraising environment in life science arena a little bit easier.

Tags: biotech, biotechnology, CMO, consulting, CRO, family offices, Fundraising, investor, Investors, issue, letter, life, Life Science, life science nation, medicine, nation, news, newsletter, pharma, Pharmaceutical, private equity, research & development, science, startup, venture capital

By Dennis Ford, CEO, LSN

LSN has been tracking the emergence of new investor categories in the life sciences arena, as well as the trends surrounding the activity of existing investor categories. The basic underpinnings of LSN’s view of the capital markets surrounding life sciences has been that the VC’s lack of funding (although that trend may be reversing) has left a void that is being filled by other emerging categories of investors. Among these emerging sources of capital are hedge funds and private equity, which are largely misunderstood by life science entrepreneurs, especially when it comes to early stage activity. This article will help readers who are seeking to raise capital understand how these investor types can be productive sources of investment. These three categories of investors have begun to blur the lines around their traditional definitions, and it is becoming increasingly important that biotech and medtech CEOs understand these investor groups.

Hedge funds are traditionally thought of as players active only in public markets. However, as fund managers have come under increased pressure to generate alpha (outsized returns), many managers have turned to more VC- and PE-like strategies, and have gotten more creative when it comes to making allocations. For example, some hedge fund managers maintain a portion of investable funds for private direct investment. This can either be in the form of one-off “side pocket” investments on an opportunistic basis, or as an integrated piece of an investment special situation strategy. There are a number of hedge funds that have begun to make this sort of “crossover investment” in the life sciences arena, and a quick glance at the list of investors in some of the largest private placements in recent history make that clear.

Private equity is also challenging the historical map – PE is traditionally thought of as the restructurers of larger, post-revenue companies. However, this is changing, especially in the life sciences space. Biotech and medtech opportunities have a highly compelling potential for returns, and PE firms have a higher tolerance for the long time horizon to commercialization. Many firms have therefore begun implementing strategies to aggregate assets and shepherd them through the pipeline. This portfolio of assets can then be passed to a large strategic partner as a one-stop solution to a pipeline gap, where a full portfolio of drugs is worth more than the sum of its parts.

To distill it down to a single idea: The lines are blurring between VC, PE, and hedge funds from a life science entrepreneur’s perspective, especially when the hedge funds admit and commit to the need to take a long term approach to the investment. To add to the topsy-turvy nature of the future life science investment, a deal might even have a combination of some – or even all – of these three entities in it. All of these players have begun orienting themselves (at least in part) towards early stage direct investments. This is good news, because these players have large capital reserves, and can bring a significant amount of investible cash back into the early stage marketplace. However, as these lines begin to blur, it is more important than ever for an entrepreneur to understand the landscape and exactly where to go when it comes to raising capital to move products and services forward.

Tags: biotech, biotechnology, CMO, consulting, CRO, family offices, Fundraising, investor, Investors, issue, letter, life, Life Science, life science nation, medicine, nation, news, newsletter, pharma, Pharmaceutical, private equity, research & development, science, startup, venture capital

By Dennis Ford, CEO, LSN

The Redefining Early Stage Investments conference presents a powerful opportunity to start to create new networking opportunities with a group of investors that are probably not on your radar screen. Timing is everything. Luck is being in the right place at the right time, and knowing what to do when you get there. As a few readers may note, I have been proselytizing on how the life science investor landscape is changing, and that the real issue for life science fundraising executives is how to map the new landscape. Never daunted by a challenge, my team and I decided to do something about the dearth of compelling life science investor conferences, and host our own.

The RESI conference is poised to be one of the most important events in the life sciences space this coming fall. As I’ve discussed previously, this event is groundbreaking in that it is focused on redefining the investor landscape in early stage life sciences, and making the right connections to move the industry forward. As all of us in the industry are aware, the life science investor landscape has changed; venture capital has largely consolidated and dried up, but there is a plethora of new entities entering the space with capital to allocate.

LSN tracks these new players, and we will have a strong representation of 8 new categories of investors – senior decision-makers from some of the largest pharmaceutical & device companies, patient groups, philanthropic organizations, investment banks, and family offices will all be joining the action on September 16th. LSN fully expects 100+ of these investors to show up, and more than 60 have already confirmed. We will also be joined by next-generation technology transfer, licensing and funding experts, and there will be a free fund-raising boot camp.

I have been told by a few conference vendors they are surprised and impressed by what LSN has been able to accomplish so far. This is due mostly to our presenter and panelist line up; LSN has been able to round up under one roof a who’s who of the early stage investors and start-ups, and we still have six weeks to go until the show. I urge all biotech and medtech readers to take a look at the program, and take some time out to reeducate yourself regarding the new landscape unfolding in the life science investor arena.

On the other hand, all the sponsors, exhibitors and attendees I have talked to are interested for two reasons: one, they need access to new life science start-ups, and two, no one has mapped the new investors, and actually got them all in one venue. The RESI conference presents a powerful opportunity to start to create new networking opportunities with a group of investors that are probably not on your radar screen. I have been going to investor conferences for the past year all over the world, and the turnout is usually a few VCs with varying amounts of dry powder (capital). This conference will not only be different, but it will be ground-breaking.

Tags: biotech, biotechnology, CMO, consulting, CRO, family offices, Fundraising, investor, Investors, issue, letter, life, Life Science, life science nation, medicine, nation, news, newsletter, pharma, Pharmaceutical, private equity, research & development, science, startup, venture capital