Tag Archives: family offices

RESI on MaRS: The Family Offices Investor Panel

28 Jul

By Cole Bunn, Senior Research Analyst, LSN

cole-wp

Due to their recent trend toward making direct allocations (as opposed to fund investments) family offices have certainly caught the attention of biotech and medtech entrepreneurs, with many early stage companies keen to add one to their cap table.

Viewed as deep-pocketed, patient capital sources, entrepreneurs tend to have a lot of misconceptions surrounding family offices. Family offices are notoriously heterogeneous; they come in many shapes and sizes and no specific investment characteristics apply to them all. At our most recent RESI event at the MaRS Discovery District, representatives from four different family offices spoke to how they like to be approached, what they look for in an entrepreneur and the importance of the relationship, the types of deals they like to do and what they avoid.

Moderated by Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO of Life Science Nation and the RESI Conference Series, this session featured the following:

Key takeaways from the panel include:

  • Tailor your message based on who you’re approaching – do your homework

This point goes for all investors, but goes a bit deeper and is even more important for the family office. First off, you want to make sure you are talking to the right investor or else you’re wasting everyone’s time – it’s unlikely that an investor whose only ever played in the therapeutics space will be interested in looking at an investment opportunity in a medical device or health IT project. That being said, if your technology isn’t in the same sector but is addressing the same indication as one of their portfolio companies or there is synergy between your project and a portfolio company, this should be noted in the outreach. These types of things can go a long way and can’t be uncovered if you don’t research the investor you’re targeting.

  • A strong relationship is crucial to securing funding from a family office

Some family offices have professionals manage their money and add structure to their investment process while others are more informal. Either way, since the money is not coming from an institutional fund and family offices typically have longer investment timelines, it is key that the entrepreneur and investor have a good relationship. One investor added that a lot of the deals he’s done begun with a dialogue with the entrepreneur long before the deal was formally presented as an investment opportunity, mentioning that it takes a while to get to know someone and naturally people like to do business with people they like and trust.

  • Finding a family office takes work

Family offices are a highly sought after investors for good reason and typically don’t always advertise their investment activity thus uncovering which groups are family offices is not as easy as finding angel groups and VCs. As one investor puts it, “You can’t just expect to wake up and know which family office is interested in the sector you are in.” He further notes that the best way to find a family office is by going to relevant conferences and networking events.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

RESI Panel Announcement: Family Offices

31 Mar

By Lucy Parkinson, Director of Research, LSN

Family offices often catch the interest of entrepreneurs due to the possibility of committed, long-term capital from investors who look to the long view regarding their investment decisions.  Family offices may also have unique investment motivations that relate to the family’s particular expertise and history.  With a reputation for being deep-pocketed and flexible investors, life science CEOs are often interested in meeting with family office investors, and this panel will allow the RESI@TMCx audience to learn directly from family office investment staff about how they invest, what they look for in a life science opportunity, and how to find alignment with their needs.

Moderated by Colin Widen, CEO, Boston Innovation Capital, the panelists are:

If you’re interested in listening to this panel live at RESI, you can register for RESI@TMCx now.

RESI-Houston-2016_600

Tags: , , , , ,

Family Offices Investing in Early Stage Therapeutics: RESI Panel Announcement

20 Nov

By Tom Crosby, RESI Conference Manager, LSN

Tom 2RESI has always aimed to bring a diverse pool of investors together to meet life science entrepreneurs, and at past events, our Family Office panels have often stolen the show.  As family offices grow in importance as a source of critical development capital for life science companies, LSN is excited to announce a second panel drawn from this category of investors: Family Offices Investing in Early Stage Therapeutics.

Family offices represent individuals and families with over $100 million in total assets, and therefore invest amounts far beyond angel capital.  As investors seeking both capital preservation and a long-term impact, many family offices have been taken an interest in biotechnology, a sector where far horizons are required and an investment has the power to make a difference for thousands, even millions, of people suffering from a serious disease.  Moderated by John Nelson, Managing Director of Genrich, Inc. the panel includes the following speakers:

Amir Heshmatpour, Founder & Managing Director, AFH Holding & Advisory

Rick Jones, Director, Broadview Ventures

Melissa Krauth, Head, Life Science Investments, Claria Bioscience

Sean Stalfort, Partner, PBM Capital

What are their particular motivations for investing in therapeutic development?  How does the more flexible nature of a family office structure affect their approach to biotech opportunities?  What, in addition to capital, can these groups bring to the table for an early stage company? How does an entrepreneur find a family office that might be interested in biotech and get in touch, and what information do they look for in the initial correspondence?

bb2

 

Tags: , , ,

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 1: Private Investment Company is Flexible in Allocation Strategy

12 Dec

A private investment company established by a single high net worth individual is looking to make direct investments in the therapeutics space. Based in the Eastern US, the firm manages an evergreen structure, allowing it to have a very large range for investment size, capital structure, and holding period. The firm has no set number of allocations that it plans to make over the next 6-9 months and will evaluate all relevant opportunities on a case by case basis.

The firm is currently looking for US based companies companies in the therapeutics space and is open to considering both Biologics and Small Molecules. Companies with assets in phase II or later are of high interest, and companies in phase I that have some human efficacy data are also open to consideration. The firm is not interested in therapeutics areas with subjective endpoints such as pain and mental disorders.

The firm is looking for both private and micro-cap publicly held companies, and evaluates management on a case by case basis. Taking a board seat is not a requirement for the firm and their involvement in the management of the firm varies based on the needs of the company. The firm is interested in both leading as well as co-investing in investment rounds.

Tags: , ,

The Quest for the Perfect Investor Fit: How Much Does Life Science Expertise Matter?

2 Oct

By Danielle Silva, Business Development, LSN

Here at LSN, I speak with many life science entrepreneurs about investor fit. Typically, life science executives believe that fit is a one-way street, meaning that they need to do all they can to prove they are a fit for a prospective investor. While it is certainly true that an integral part of the fundraising process is proving that your company is a fit for the firm’s investment thesis, this is not a one-sided negotiation. It is just as important for life science companies to make sure a potential investor is a fit for what the firm is looking to attain, and therefore, finding a potential investor needs to be both a strategic and tactical play.

What many life science CEOs struggle with is whether they should favor investors that have expertise in a particular area versus investors that are experienced in a certain phase of development. The answer, by and large, depends on what the life science company is looking to achieve in the long run, but there is of course no easy answer to this dilemma. Many entrepreneurs consider the problem a simple one – why would you want an investor that doesn’t understand your technology, or one who does not have expertise in your particular indication area?

While it is certainly important for investors to have a basic understanding of your disease area, this is only truly important if you are seeking scientific advisors for your firm. If this is the case, then finding a partner that has expertise in your disease area may be favorable to finding an investor that has knowledge of your stage of development. But what if, conversely, the executive is seeking a quick exit or a recapitalization? In this case, it may be more attractive to find an investor with a laser focus on your particular area. These investors already have a great knowledge of the space and thus probably already have a solid network that will be willing to acquire the company once the firm hits certain milestones.

Most life science executives I speak with, however, are not seeking scientific advisors, and instead are seeking investors with the business acumen to help take their product from discovery to distribution. These companies would benefit from a relationship with an investor that has knowledge of their particular phase of development, and who can thereby help to scale their business. It is also very beneficial for companies to be partnered with investors who have a deep knowledge of their phase of the clinical development cycle. These investors will have the expertise to help life science firms partner with appropriate firms in the R&D services space (such as CROs and other service providers).

Again, there is no clear solution to this problem. If your company is seeking an investor with a deep network in the space, then choosing an investor with sector expertise may be the answer. These investors, however, may not be able to help you scale your business to the point where your firm is an attractive investment or acquisition target for a larger investor within their network. Simply put, the answer is convoluted, no investor is the same, and everyone brings something different to the table. Life science executives should clearly define their goals in terms of growth and exit before deciding on an investor based on sector fit versus development phase fit.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Creating a Dialogue with Life Science Investors

2 Oct

By Dennis Ford, CEO, LSN

I write about this subject often – I guess the main reason is that if I can get the message right, I can help educate life science fund-raisers that a current and accurate map does exist for raising capital. If you are in fundraising mode, please have an updated map. There, I said it!

The most interesting component of the fundraising dynamic is the concept of “introduction”. Scientist meets investor, buyer meets seller. One of the initial goals of any fundraising campaign is to get in front of potential investors, and this can be done in two general ways: the first being referral, and the second, fit. I will agree that a referral is often a good way to get a meeting, but many believe that it is the only way to get to a decent investor target.

Being a street-savy salesperson, I always get a bit riled when someone announces that referrals are the only way in. I mean, what if you get referred to an investor and he just simply doesn’t have a current mandate to invest, and if he did, it would be a medical device and you happen to be a therapeutic? My point here is that even though a referral may get you some preferential treatment in the form of a first meeting, there always needs to be a good fit. After all, it’s the final meeting that really counts. I am a big fan of the referral, but I am an even bigger fan of fit.

In my “sales guy mind,” the highest form of a qualified investor lead is a declared fit. A declared fit boils down to this: an investor actively declares a targeted and specific intent on investing in a certain part of the market. I think that is the highest form of investor target – self-declared mandate from the mouth of an potential investor. I mean, what else would a fundraiser want? OK, maybe I shouldn’t have asked that question… because I know the answer: a referred introduction, right?  No, wrong!

Of course, if you know someone who can provide an intro, that’s great. Sans that magical referral/intro, if you are a fit for the declared mandate, all you have to do is tell him via email or phone that you know what they are seeking and you are a fit. Honestly, that’s how it works. Spamming gets you a 1-2% hit rate, but reaching out based on fit gets you a 20-30% hit rate. Why? Because you match what the investor is looking for. Being armed with the knowledge of an investor’s current interest gives you the power to refer yourself.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Phase I of the JOBS Act: Are you ready for the general solicitation revolution?

2 Oct

By Lucy Parkinson, Research Analyst, LSN

Back in April 2012, the JOBS act was passed with the aim of (the clue is in the name) Jumping Our Business Startups. The SEC has moved slowly on implementing the JOBS Act and is saving the most innovative provisions for a second phase of changes, but as of Monday, September 23rd, the long-standing ban on making general solicitations to accredited investors has been rescinded. This will have a huge effect on the institutional landscape of investing, as companies can now use mass public advertising to look for investors, rather than being restricted to using funds from family, friends, and private networks of accredited investors.

So does your start-up’s fundraising campaign have to change? Not necessarily, but you may reap great benefits by using the new regulations to your advantage and seeking for investors with a wider net than was previously possible. However, obeying the restrictions surrounding general solicitation is not as straightforward as you might think. As such, any company looking to raise capital would be advised to spend some time with their lawyer before sending out a mass solicitation; similar to the domain of intellectual property, we could see an influx of law firms seeking to partner with emerging biotech companies to guide them through the regulatory quagmire and maximize their visibility with investors.

While many life science companies could benefit from following the new path laid out for general solicitations, some may wish to eschew the added regulatory burdens and stick with the old model that, in addition to accredited investors, allows them to ask up to 35 unaccredited friends and family to contribute to each funding round. This doesn’t mean foregoing all the benefits of the law; the investment groups themselves will have more room to advertise for contributions under the new law, and that may lead to investors having more dry powder to invest – particularly to under-the-radar angel firms, who have previously found it hard to advertise to prospective investors. Building partnerships with these lesser-known investors will remain as important than ever.

Will general solicitation be worth the added costs? It could be, and this is especially true for life science companies. One thing LSN has observed frequently about emerging types of investors in the life science space is that more so than investors in other industries, they often have personal motives. Essentially, what we’re seeing is funding provided by angels, family offices and venture philanthropy funds looking for more than just ROI – the founders of these investment vehicles often want to make an impact on the world by targeting a particular disease that has affected their life or runs in their family. So, when we start to see general solicitations blaring from every billboard, TV set or web search, life science pitches will have a unique draw that other startup prospects lack because in this industry, general and personal come together.

This distinction will only become more valuable when phase two of the JOBS Act rolls out equity crowdfunding. For that, we’ll have to wait until next year.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →