Selecting the Right Kind of PE Partner for your Life Science Firm: Part 3 – Mezzanine Debt Funds

By Danielle Silva, Director of Research, LSN

For life science firms, choosing the right kind of private equity fund to partner with can be a difficult task, especially if the business owner does not wish to give up a great amount of their firm’s equity. This issue can be exacerbated if the firm needs further capital in order to grow the business, or possibly finance an acquisition. Last week, we looked at one source of expansion financing, which were private equity groups that use a “growth capital” strategy. This week, we will explore another source of growth financing – mezzanine debt funds.

Mezzanine debt is usually considered a kind of hybrid financing – financing which lays somewhere between debt and equity in a firm’s capital structure. Therefore, mezzanine debt has some characteristics of equity, and some characteristics of debt, falling between senior debt and equity. Some forms of mezzanine debt are convertible debt (meaning the debt issuer has the right to convert the debt into equity), and senior subordinated debt; mezzanine debt is accordingly more junior debt, which means that mezzanine debt issuers are paid back after senior debt holders. Mezzanine debt, however, is senior to equity.

Mezzanine debt is an attractive form of financing for life science firms because it allows business owners the opportunity to access more debt, and thus finance growth or expansion activities without having to give up a good amount of equity. In many cases, business owners will not have to relinquish any equity at all.

Because mezzanine debt is subordinated, however, it has a higher interest rate than senior debt. This is because it is perceived as riskier than senior debt; mezzanine lenders are paid back after senior debt holders. Senior debt holders are essentially the first group to get repaid in the case of liquidation, followed by senior subordinated debt holders (mezzanine lenders), then preferred stock holders, and finally the remainder of the equity stakeholders. Because mezzanine lenders are thus essentially second in line for repayment; there is a higher default risk for mezzanine debt.

One important fact about mezzanine debt is that it is only issued to firms that are cash-flow positive – meaning that mezzanine private equity groups would not issue debt to a pre-revenue company, such as a biotech therapeutics company in pre-clinical development. Mezzanine firms would, however, issue debt to a therapeutics company that, for example, has a couple of products on the market and was seeking to acquire a smaller biotech therapeutics company in order to grow market share.

There are many advantages to using mezzanine debt over other forms of financing; the first, as aforementioned, is that firms have less equity dilution with mezzanine financing than with other forms of private equity – even less so than with growth equity groups who typically do not take a controlling equity stake. Generally, mezzanine lenders will take an observer position (non-voting) on the firm’s board of directors, whereas growth equity funds typically are more operationally focused, and will take an active board seat.

Another advantage is that mezzanine loans are typically longer-term than other forms of debt, and require interest-only payments until their maturity date. Some of the downsides of mezzanine funding are that it is a lot more expensive than other forms of debt, with higher interest rates than other forms of financing.

Furthermore, mezzanine funds may sometimes require firms to give up a portion of their equity upside in order for the fund to achieve their desired rate of return on the debt instrument. Thus for life science firms who are seeking an alternative form of debt to senior debt, and are looking for a form of funding that requires little to no equity dilution, a mezzanine lender may be the solution.

Strategic Investors Aggregating Early Stage Assets

By Max Klietmann, VP of Research, LSN

Recently, two major trends have surfaced in early stage life sciences investment; the concept of the virtual pharma and private equity aggregation of early stage portfolios. According to several conversations I’ve had with these two categories of investors over recent months, these entities are beginning to employ a new strategy to take advantage of the plethora of promising early stage assets available. The basic idea is to grow a synergistic portfolio around a specific silo (indication, technology, etc.) over time. These portfolios of complimentary assets can then be brought directly to market (via third party distribution) or sold into large pharmaceutical companies, whose pipelines are increasingly suffering from a myopia leaving significant market opportunities unaddressed.

The concept is quite simple and intuitive: In the case of a virtual pharma, a group of highly seasoned life sciences and pharma experts raise capital to buy a portfolio of promising early stage academic assets, vet them, and shepherd them through clinical trials via a very lean model relying heavily on CROs and outsourced development. By focusing on only fast-moving, highly promising assets (and strategically divesting those that aren’t), a very lean pipeline is maintained. This keeps capital allocated exclusively on getting product to market as quickly as possible. Then, either through licensing or third party distribution via a rent-a-salesforce, the products are sold into the marketplace.

Similarly, highly strategic mid-market PE investors (who typically invest in large scale opportunities closer to phase II or III) are making very small $1-5 million investments spread across a very broad range of very early stage assets, including academic laboratory research. The assumption is that by maintaining a hands-on approach and scrupulous focus on performance, a fund is capable of maintaining a portfolio of companies that not only have a promise of success on an individual basis, but as a collective whereby the whole is more valuable than the sum of its parts.

This approach allows investors to follow big pharma and provide solutions to upcoming pipeline gaps. It is also a more attractive opportunity for buyers down the line, because it is a fully integrated and curated portfolio with a strategic orientation towards marketability. The end result is a more efficient flow of capital through the industry, stronger drug development pacing, and an improved return profile for equity holders in life sciences companies that constitute the portfolio constituents.

Creating a Target List of Qualified Investors

By Brian Gajewski, VP of Sales, LSN

Many firms that are looking to raise capital in the life sciences arena have the difficult problem of finding a place to start – that is, figuring out how to gather a list of potential investor candidates to reach out to. As with most firms, the first pass at raising capital is with friends, family, and industry colleagues. This is a great category for the first couple million, but moving past this stage becomes a difficult task for many firms because of their lack of experience in raising capital.

Once a firm has exhausted the investments from that first stage of capital raising, the next step is to create a complete list of qualified investor leads that they can then begin reaching out to. LSN refers to this as a Global Target List (GTL). The fact that the life science arena is a global marketplace justifies getting past the regional mentality for fund raising efforts.

One of the first ways to start collecting investors is to target those that have invested in companies similar to yours over the past 5-10 years of financing rounds (another reason for the global approach). For that reason, it is very important to take the appropriate amount of time in performing research.  One best practice is to start by finding firms that are look-alikes, which are firms that have similar profiles to yours. This allows you to identify major investors in the space that have invested in similar firms based on therapeutic or device indication. For example, within the LSN platform, our clients are able to search through the past 12 years of financing in the life science industry by filtering the series & type of financing, as well as the date, sector, and phase of the product.

The next step in creating your Global Target List of investors is to create a list of foundations that might have an interest in your area of development. Foundations are a key investor in the life science industry because it fills two of their investment mandates – one being capital preservation, and the other, their philanthropic portfolio of investments. What is more interesting is that the donor lists to these foundations are in the public domain. The astute marketer can peruse this list and hopefully parse the high dollar donors and find a few nuggets that would be worth researching for an introductory call or meeting. The premise of this exercise is to remember that donors to foundations have a desire to move the science along for treatments and cures. Foundations are great vehicles to help move science along, despite being held back by process and bureaucracy. However, for some donors investing directly, companies that are moving the science along may be just as compelling.

It is important to remember that when your firm is raising capital, you are not just selling to people, but you are also selling to them a way to potentially affect the world. The most powerful reason for investors to allocate capital is that you are developing a cure for a disease that has affected them, their family or their people in their orbit.

Not only do you want to target foundations that might have an interest in your target indication, but also the major contributors to those same foundations. We are finding that more and more families are becoming interested in investing directly with a life science company.

Finally, you have to think globally, and create a Global Target List, but you must act locally – meaning, draw that two-hour road trip circuit, and figure out how many investors on your GTL are a short trip away. This is an excellent way to start to learn who your good targets are, and to give you the practice you need to make your presentations more compelling.

Now that you have a list of investors that have a specific interest in your type of company, it’s time to make sure you have the bandwidth to begin reaching out to them and tracking your success.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 1: CROs, CMOs Prime Targets for Opportunistic PE – January 29, 2013

A healthcare investment firm based in the Eastern US, which runs both a private equity fund and a hedge fund, is currently looking for new investment opportunities for their second private equity fund, which recently closed at $200 million. The firm has more than $500 million in assets, and has raised two private equity funds and one hedge fund in the past year. They have plans to invest in 3-5 new firms by the end of 2013, typically making equity investments ranging from $10-25 million.

The firm is currently most interested in firms in the biotech R&D services and medtech space. Within biotech R&D services, the firm is looking for contract research organizations (CRO’s) and contract manufacturing organizations (CMO’s). They have also recently started looking for firms within the medtech space, specifically those that are producing medical devices. The firm mainly invests in US-based companies, but has allocated to international firms in the past; they would consider European firms on a case-by-case basis.

The firm provides growth equity, expansion capital, and engages in buyout and recapitalization transactions. The firm only invests in established, cash-flow-positive companies. With that being said, the firm will not consider any companies in the medtech space that do not currently have a device on the market.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 2: VC Promises Fast Allocations – January 29, 2013

A venture capital fund in the Eastern US with around $20 million in total assets is currently looking for new opportunities in the life sciences space. The fund was created by its state legislature to promote economic growth. The organization has an evergreen structure, which means that they provide companies with incremental payments throughout the development phase of the product or company, rather than providing all of the capital to a firm upfront in one lump sum, which is the model that venture capital funds typically follow.

The fund, which is quasi-public, would allocate to a firm within the next six months if a compelling opportunity were identified. The firm’s typical investment size ranges from $300,000-500,000 per firm. Specifically, they are looking for medtech firms developing medical devices. The organization will allocate to firms that are pre-revenue, but the firm does need to have a prototype of the device. Additionally, they are interested in the healthcare/IT space.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 3: Corporate Venture Fund Seeks Therapeutics with Companion Diagnostics – January 29, 2013

A corporate venture fund with offices worldwide – one of the oldest in the world – is interested in the biotech therapeutics and diagnostics space. The fund has invested more than $500 million in the life science space since its founding, has an evergreen structure, and deploys capital on an opportunistic basis, pulling money directly from their main fund as investment opportunities are uncovered. They typically invest in up to 10 firms per year, usually allocating $1-10 million per company.

The firm is most interested in novel therapeutics, and would be especially interested in therapeutics firms that are developing a therapeutic with a companion diagnostic. They are also very interested in small molecule-based therapeutics, as well as companies producing medical devices. The firm has a global investment mandate.

In terms of their interest in therapeutics, the firm is looking for companies whose products are in the preclinical, Phase I, or Phase IIb (proof-of-concept) stage of development, and for medical device companies, the firm will look at firms that have a product in development or companies that have a prototype of their product.

Validating the Family Office Life Science Investment Strategy

By Max Klietmann, VP of Research, LSN

Anyone following my articles on investor trends in the life sciences arena knows that I am particularly interested in the emerging trend of family offices investing direct in life sciences companies. My interest in this space is that while family offices have a reputation of being very private and opaque, they compose an extremely important investor category. Aside from the findings aggregated by my research time via intensive web research and phone interviews, I try as often as possible to sit with wealth advisors and consultants to family offices to discuss trends we see and compare notes.

I recently had the opportunity to spend some time speaking with a managing director at a multi-billion dollar global wealth management firm focused exclusively on advisory services for family offices and ultra-high net worth private clients. We had a lengthy and involved conversation about the fundamental dynamics that are driving family offices to invest directly in companies, and in particular, life sciences. I wanted to validate two important trends that we have been following at LSN: That family offices are recruiting top wall-street talent and internalizing the due diligence process with institutional operations quality, and that family offices are moving heavily towards making direct placements into private companies, especially in life sciences. We reached a few conclusions based on trends we’ve seen in the market that shed some light on how this category of investors is behaving in the space today.

The trend of family offices broadly beginning to make direct investments began to really accelerate in the wake of the recession; investors became disillusioned with highly non-transparent alternatives funds losing substantial amounts of capital, while still taking a hefty management fee. My conversation partner mentioned that he began to see a heavy trend in recent years of family offices withdrawing their allocations to these asset classes. However, this is not happening because family offices don’t believe in private investment; rather, they want the ability to transparently control allocations. In order to do this in a sophisticated way, they need the operational diligence that was traditionally only reserved for large funds and banks. In recent years, however, it has certainly become a trend that a larger family office will bring this expertise in-house by recruiting top talent (at a premium in terms of wall-street compensation, but for a bargain relative to the fees charged by fund managers).

According to my conversation partner, he has seen a trend of family offices recruiting top-notch institutional operations talent and due diligence capabilities from Wall Street. This allows them to make placements directly in companies in order to have consistent insight and a more compelling return profile. It is primarily the large family offices with total assets above $100 million that are able to justify this sort of institutional approach to allocating their own capital on a consistent basis. This is a key demarcation line, as it is really only above this threshold that a family office can afford to consistently allocate capital on a regular basis towards investments in a substantial way (above angel-sized contributions).

This type of activity has recently seen a substantial increase in several industries, but especially in the life sciences sector. What makes this investor class so appealing to CEOs in the space is that the way in which family offices operate is very much unlike other private investment categories; typically, family offices seek to fulfill a philanthropic mission alongside their efforts towards capital-preservation. This makes direct investment in life sciences a particularly compelling opportunity, because it offers family offices the ability to make a targeted allocation with substantial financial and philanthropic upside.

More importantly, for CEO’s looking to raise capital, family office allocations in life sciences are often heavily motivated by a connection to a particular indication, meaning that they are strategic investors with an emotional motivation to help a therapeutic succeed in coming to market. This attitude was confirmed by our discussion, and it is likely that in a macro-sense this will be an increasingly important piece of family offices’ investment focus, as chronic diseases linked to old age become more prevalent in the coming years. These are not exit-oriented investments by any means, and it is typically the success of the therapeutic that constitutes the most important aspect of the investment.