The return of early-stage IPOs, like Scribe's, indicates growing investor risk appetite. However, companies that go public prematurely, as SANA Biotechnologies did, often struggle long-term as their valuations become subject to market whims before they have a solid clinical story to stand on.

Many private biotechs simultaneously explore an IPO and an acquisition, a process known as "dual tracking." While this drives up valuations for VCs, it raises a critical concern for public market investors: they may only be getting access to companies that large pharma has already evaluated and passed on acquiring privately.

The recent biotech market downturn raised the bar for going public. Unlike the 2020-2021 period where preclinical companies IPO'd, today's successful offerings are from companies with mid-to-late-stage clinical programs. This de-risked profile is necessary to attract both specialist and crucial generalist investors back to the sector.

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.

The reopening of the biotech IPO market is fragile. A key risk identified by investors is a series of failed IPOs, which could halt the sector's positive momentum. Consequently, there is intense pressure on bankers and VCs to exhibit "quality discipline," ensuring that only the most mature and high-potential companies go public first to build a track record of success.

Venture capitalist Bruce Booth explains that bankers, lawyers, audit firms, and VCs all have strong financial incentives for a company to go public. This creates systemic pressure that may not align with the company's best long-term interests.

The dominant biotech VC model incentivizes startups to act like real estate developers: build an asset to a certain stage (e.g., early clinical data) and then sell it to a large pharmaceutical company. This focus on short-term exits discourages the long-term, ambitious company-building required for revolutionary platforms.

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.