Facing capital constraints, biotech companies must make a strategic choice. They can either dilute ownership by raising more venture capital or dilute their pipeline by partnering a secondary asset to fund their lead program. This "equity vs. assets" framework forces a clear-eyed decision on capital strategy.
During capital-constrained periods, founders must be ruthless in their focus. Every dollar and hour should go towards "killer experiments"—those that directly accrue value and hit the specific milestones required for the next fundraising round. "Cool science" that doesn't advance these goals is a luxury companies can't afford.
The best time to raise money is when your company doesn't desperately need it. Approaching investors from a position of strength gives you leverage. If you wait until you're desperate, you will be forced to accept expensive, highly dilutive capital.
While a challenging fundraising market seems negative, it forces startups to operate with discipline. Unlike in frothy markets where companies expand based on hype, the current climate rewards tangible results. This compels a lean structure focused on high-value projects, creating a healthier long-term business model.
In a tight funding environment, a significant portion of startups now secure pharma partnerships *before* their Series A. This pre-validation has become a major draw for VCs, signaling a shift where corporate buy-in is needed to de-risk early-stage science for investors.
Over 20 years, Alnylam raised $7.5 billion. Remarkably, this was evenly split between equity financing from capital markets and non-dilutive funding from pharmaceutical partnerships. This balanced strategy was essential for financing a long, capital-intensive R&D journey while managing shareholder dilution.
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.
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.
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.
Financing discussions should carry the same strategic weight as M&A talks. Philip Ross argues the cost of capital from selling stock is often theoretically higher than from selling the entire company. This reframes the decision to dilute ownership for funding as a pivotal choice that boards and management teams should not take lightly.
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.