The huge funding gap for European biotech is structural. European institutional investors like pension funds allocate only 0.02% of their balance sheets to venture, compared to 2% in the US. This factor-of-100 difference creates a major hurdle for the ecosystem's ability to retain its champion companies.

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.

Unlike their US counterparts, European biotechs have less access to large venture funds. This forces a culture of extreme capital efficiency and discipline. This need to be "cleverer, smarter with less people and less money" is a defining feature and potential advantage of the European ecosystem.

The coalition's core mission is to prevent the exodus of successful biotechs to the US. By building a stronger capital market, they aim to keep champion companies like Argenx headquartered and operating in Europe, ensuring economic value, market capitalization, and tax revenues benefit the region, not the US.

The closed IPO window forced many private biotech companies to achieve significant clinical milestones, like Phase 2 proof-of-concept, while still private. This has created an unusual cohort of well-seasoned, de-risked companies with attractive valuations, poised to be highly appealing to public investors.

A healthy biotech IPO market won't reappear independently. It requires a robust M&A landscape first, which attracts generalist investors back to the sector and provides the necessary market liquidity to successfully support new public offerings.

The successful, upsized IPOs of several biotechs suggest the market is receptive but cautious. Investors are prioritizing companies with lower-risk propositions, such as those building on validated biological mechanisms or advancing into late-stage trials, over purely speculative, early-stage science.

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.