BIOTECH IPOs: WHAT ENTREPRENEURS CAN LEARN FROM A BANNER YEAR
(Part 2 out of 2)

“What happened in 2000 was there was an overflow phenomenon from the tech boom on the one hand and the tech burst on the other. There was an overabundance of capital looking for opportunities,” Sammut says. “As 2000 wore on and the tech stocks were in free-fall, there was still capital searching for good opportunities, and it buoyed the IPO market”. 

The 2000 biotech boom also coincided with the mapping of the human genome — a milestone that investors mistakenly assumed would lead to an immediate revolution in drug development. “That has not materialized,” Sammut notes.

Now, however, he points out, there are strong signs that the genomic revolution may be starting. In 2012, the FDA approved 39 novel drugs — the highest approval rate in 16 years. The agency green-lit another 27 in 2013. “A large proportion of those drugs were products of the biotechnology industry. That, I think, sounded a wake-up call,” according to Sammut. “Are we at last seeing the fruits of nearly 40 years of investing in biotechnology? We’re at least seeing the front end of that.”

The performance of the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index reflected some of the industry’s recent accomplishments, and likely encouraged managers of privately held companies to jump into the IPO market. The index had a 66% return in 2013 — its best performance in at least 10 years, says David Krein, managing director and head of index research at Nasdaq, adding that in 2012, the biotech index rose 32%. “The big run of IPOs was backloaded in the second half, but it really came after a two-plus year run on biotech stocks generally,” he notes.

Biotech also outperformed the health care industry as a whole. “The health care sector itself was up 42%. So even within health care, biotech was a leader,” Krein says. The Nasdaq US Benchmark Index — which reflects the broader market — was up about 33%, he adds.

Some of the new biotech offerings performed so well last year that they were added to the Nasdaq Biotech Index, including Epizyme, Agios Pharmaceuticals and Chimerix. Because the index serves as the basis for the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology Index Fund, which is an exchange traded fund (ETF), any company added to it automatically gains access to a whole new group of individual investors. “The ETF market has become in aggregate quite significant in investor portfolios, so these index changes actually result in meaningful capital flows,” Krein says.

Weighing the Pros and Cons of the IPO

The ability to exploit favorable market conditions and gain access to new investors is one of the major advantages of going public, states Wharton finance professor Luke Taylor. But that alone should not drive the decision to go public, he adds. There are, in fact, at least as many cons to the IPO as there are pros, Taylor notes.

“The cons are increased disclosure. You may not want your competitors seeing all your performance information,” he says. “If you’re public, you’re under a lot of pressure to produce short-term results, possibly at the expense of long-term results. There’s a lock-up period of roughly six months when the founders and VCs cannot sell their shares. And you do lose some control.”

Taylor has done research looking at all the factors that surround the decision about whether to go public. The bottom line: Entrepreneurs should ride the news cycle. “As soon as a company gets enough good news, it should go public,” Taylor says. Once a company has enough good news, he adds, the so-called diversification benefit of going public — the ability for the founder and other investors to take their money out of one company and spread it around — outweighs the benefits of staying private. The capital raised also gives the company the ability to accelerate clinical trials of lead drugs, and to take other projects off the back burner, he notes.

Biotech companies that went public in 2013 witnessed the effects of both good and bad news. Acceleron Pharma, for example, rose 164% from its September IPO through the end of the year, according to FactSet. Much of the gain came in December, when the company announced that it had advanced its anemia drug into mid-stage trials, prompting a $7 million milestone payment from its biotech partner, Celgene. On the other end of the stock-performance spectrum was Prosensa Holdings, which dropped 64% from its June debut. It didn’t help that shortly after the IPO, Prosensa announced that its experimental drug to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy failed in a late-stage clinical trial.

One of the most important lessons the biotech industry will take away from the boom of 2013 will come from observing how the CEOs of the newly public companies manage their capital over the long run, Danzon says. “One of the facts about biotech is that oftentimes, the companies that do succeed have a strategy that is quite different from [what they intended initially],” she notes. “It’s as much betting on management as it is on the actual drugs. If the original strategy fails, there’s always the question of how managers will pull themselves out of that hole. That’s something we’ll only see over the next five-plus years.”

Fuente: KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON

Haciendo click en los links siguientes, accederán a los Contenidos
de algunos de nuestros CURSOS A MEDIDA:

Programa Ejecutivo en PENSAMIENTO ESTRATÉGICO

http://msg-latam-meic.blogspot.com.ar/2014/04/programa-ejecutivo-en-pensamiento.html

Programa Ejecutivo en MANAGEMENT ESTRATÉGICO

http://msg-latam-meic.blogspot.com.ar/2014/04/programa-ejecutivo-en-management.html

Programa Ejecutivo en GESTIÓN DEL CAMBIO

http://msg-latam-meic.blogspot.com.ar/2014/04/programa-ejecutivo-en-gestion-del.html

Taller de ESTRATEGIAS EFECTIVAS para ESCENARIOS TURBULENTOS

http://msg-latam-meic.blogspot.com.ar/2014/04/taller-de-estrategias-efectivas-para.html

Por dictado IN COMPANY, consultar al mail: msg.latam@gmail.com

ó al +5411-3532-0510