The public markets exhibit extreme short-termism. The immediate post-deal performance of follow-on financings heavily influences investor sentiment for subsequent deals. Poor performance one week empowers insiders to demand steeper discounts the next, creating a volatile feedback loop.
Related Insights
The 2020-2021 biotech "bubble" pushed very early-stage companies into public markets prematurely. The subsequent correction, though painful, has been a healthy reset. It has forced the sector back toward a more suitable, long-duration private funding model where companies can mature before facing public market pressures.
When the IPO window opens, nearly every stakeholder—from bankers and lawyers to VCs and management—is financially motivated to go public. This collective "irrational exuberance" can lead to a rush of mixed-quality companies, perpetuating the industry's historical boom-bust IPO cycles.
While staying private can offer strategic advantages, particularly for future M&A, the biotech industry lacks a mature private growth capital market. Companies needing hundreds of millions for late-stage trials have no choice but to go public, unlike their tech counterparts.
Timing a key data readout is critical for a newly public biotech. A readout in under three months is too soon, as investors will simply wait for the results before buying. Waiting longer than a year risks losing market relevance. The optimal window to maintain momentum is 6-12 months post-IPO.
Early-stage biotech companies are vulnerable to short selling in public markets because their experiments run for 12-24 months, creating long periods without news flow. With no catalysts to drive buying ("no bid"), hedge funds can short the stocks until data is released, highlighting a structural disadvantage of being public too early.
Astute biotech leaders leverage the tension between public financing and strategic pharma partnerships. When public markets are down, pursue pharma deals as a better source of capital. Conversely, use the threat of a public offering to negotiate more favorable terms in pharma deals, treating them as interchangeable capital sources.
Contrary to the popular VC idea that IPO pops are 'free money' left on the table, they actually serve as a crucial risk premium for public market investors. Down-rounds like Navan's prove that buyers need the upside from successful IPOs to compensate for the very real risk of losing money on others.
In a capital-constrained market, positive clinical data can trigger a stock drop for biotechs with insufficient cash. The scientific success highlights an immediate need for a highly dilutive capital raise, which investors price in instantly. Having over two years of cash is now critical to realizing value.
Despite a strong year for biotech, investors are showing signs of fatigue. This leads them to sell stocks immediately after positive news and financing rounds to lock in gains before year-end, rather than letting positive momentum build further.
A massive $4.5 billion week for follow-on financings, triple the next largest week of the year, indicates a significant and abrupt positive shift in market sentiment. This end-of-year rush, which followed a dismal first half, suggests investors are regaining confidence and deploying capital into biotech, potentially setting a strong tone for the upcoming year and JPM conference.
