Verdad Capital's research shows biotech stocks heavily owned by multiple specialist funds significantly outperform those with none. This "consensus" among experts acts as a powerful quality screen in a sector where traditional financial metrics are useless, as stocks with zero specialist ownership generate near-zero returns.

The venture market has shifted from seeking contrarian bets to piling capital into consensus winners, even at extreme valuations. The new logic resembles the old adage "you can't get fired for buying IBM," where investing in a perceived leader with a 1x preference is deemed a safer, more defensible capital allocation decision.

It's a fool's errand to predict specific trial results. A robust quantitative approach to biotech focuses on underlying drivers and base rates. It positions a portfolio so the random, unpredictable nature of trial events plays out favorably over time, guided by factors like valuation and specialist ownership.

High-conviction shorting in biotech is dangerous due to promotional news and massive upside catalysts. A quantitative approach, diversifying shorts across many names with negative signals, provides better risk-adjusted returns than a few concentrated, "fraud" bets that have burned fundamental managers.

The strong biotech market performance in 2025 was not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. Outperformance was concentrated in companies with strong fundamentals and backing from specialist investors, indicating a healthy, discerning market that rewards quality over speculation.

Instead of hiring dozens of PhDs to analyze clinical trials, a quantitative firm can use the 13F filings of top specialist biotech hedge funds as a proxy for deep domain expertise. This "approved list" from experts can be modeled as a quantitative factor that has been shown to outperform.

In an scientifically inscrutable sector, the percentage of a company owned by dedicated biotech funds serves as a reliable proxy for quality. A complete lack of specialist ownership is a major red flag, suggesting the company is likely marketed to uninformed investors and may have poor science.

Rather than using static categories like "oncology," biotech firms can be dynamically grouped based on the similarity of their entire clinical trial portfolios. The collective momentum of this custom "peer group" is a predictive factor, capturing thematic investor sentiment around specific scientific approaches.

Sequoia's internal data shows consensus is irrelevant to investment success. A deal with strong advocates (voting '9') and strong detractors (voting '1') is preferable to one where everyone is mildly positive (a '6'). The presence of passionate conviction, even amid dissent, is the critical signal for pursuing outlier returns.