Biotech leaders often fixate on share price after an IPO, but trading volume is the more important metric for long-term health. High liquidity attracts institutional investors and makes it easier to raise future capital. A stock that "trades by appointment" due to low volume signals a lack of interest and severely limits a company's financial options.
Related Insights
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.
In the current market, companies prioritize liquidity and public market access over protecting previous private valuations. A lower IPO price is no longer seen as a failure but as a necessary market correction to move forward and ensure survival.
The paper wealth generated on IPO day is a misleading metric due to lockup periods and market volatility. A more accurate mental model for an investor's actual return is the company's market capitalization 18 months after the public offering. This timeframe provides a truer 'locked in value' after initial hype and selling pressure subsides.
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.
Post-IPO, credibility is a biotech's most valuable asset. Leaders should "under-promise and over-perform" by avoiding specific quarterly guidance for clinical milestones. Instead, use broader windows like "first half of the year" to build in flexibility, as clinical trials rarely run on a perfect schedule.
Unlike in tech where an IPO is often a liquidity event for early investors, a biotech IPO is an "entrance." It functions as a financing round to bring in public market capital needed for expensive late-stage trials. The true exit for investors is typically a future acquisition.
Companies like SpaceX and OpenAI command massive private valuations partly because access to their shares is scarce. An IPO removes this barrier, making the stock universally available. This loss of scarcity value can lead to a valuation decline, a pattern seen in other assets like crypto when they became easily accessible via ETFs.
A successful biotech IPO isn't about attracting the public; it's about securing commitments from crossover investors beforehand. These investors must "bring their own beer to the party" by participating in the IPO. Their presence validates the company, stabilizes the offering, and is essential for attracting generalist funds later.
The successful $6.3B IPO of medical supply company Medline, not a tech darling, is the real sign that the IPO market is reopening. Its success proves deep, stable investor demand exists beyond venture-backed hype, signaling that the window is now truly open for giants like SpaceX and Anthropic to go public.
