Biotech needs more GE

My Dad sold industrial electrical supplies for GE, and from that exposure, I always thought that the drug discovery tools supply & services industry was similarly attractive to GE's for its' scale, business fit, customer base, and exposure to a growth market. (Many of GE's businesses can be described as supplying essential component technology to Fortune 500 business, be they jet engines, electrical transformers, or wind turbines.)

I had been saying that drug discovery was ripe for GE since 1998, when on the executive team at Upstate Biotechnology, at my suggestion, a GE acquisition was listed in our business plan as an exit scenario. In 2003, GE entered the drug discovery market by buying Amersham, and I felt vindicated, and hopeful that GE would continue investing in the drug discovery industry.

That generally hasn't happened, though things may be changing - GE today announced the acquisition of SeqWright, a Texas-based sequencing CRO.

(btw: a good overview of GE Healthcare businesses is available here.)

The press release for the SeqWright acquisition trumpets SeqWright's connection with GE's existing Clarient molecular diagnostics business. (Clarient having been acquired just a year and a half ago), but even together GE still only has its' toe in the molecular diagnostics water. (Especially since the always awesome World Map of High-Throughput Sequencers lists SeqWright as having only 3 machines - one each of 454, SOLiD, and HiSeq.)

The release also affirms that GE's business model in this space is SERVICE, not proprietary R&D/assay development. In other words, both GE and Roche have roughly similar M&A appetites in this space, but GE chose to buy modest capacity in SeqWright, while Roche wants to own an entire technology platform, if the Illumina deal were to close.

(Ironically(?), WSJ's coverage of the GE's acquisition of SeqWright says that Roche is a customer of SeqWright, which I'd bet wouldn't continue if Roche buys ILMN.)

The SeqWright deal reinforces GE's interest in the biotech industry (and more specifically, molecular medicine) not only as a validation statement, but for the fact that more big-league, results-oriented capital is being committed to biotech, as GE invested to generate tangible cash & EPS, whereas the majority of biotech investment is done to create speculative future value (and often only equity value, not cash-flow value.)

Let's face it: biotech needs more investors like GE, and more of their business mentality. GE's acquisition of SeqWright was, in effect, more capital voting for biotech businesses with customers and cash flow, as opposed to transformative technologies or "cool" tech platforms. VCs: why fund any technology company (i.e. company not developing leads) that you couldn't imagine selling to GE? As an example, consider a genetic engineering company like Amyris - sure, they can do proprietary biofuel R&D that might someday pay off, but isn't the highest NPV likely to come from selling the company's capabilities to generate cash flow?


One reason that GE hasn't been more active in the drug discovery industry is that there are not many acquisition targets available to provide scale. Only LIFE, QGEN, VWR, and ThermoFisher could add >$1B in annual revenue to GE, but in general, these companies have generally been valued at a price that would make difficult a non-dilutive acquisition for GE. Still, I can't ignore that LIFE CEO Greg Lucier is a GE-alum, and that QGEN would make a just about perfect complement to GE Healthcare's Life Sciences business.

I could also see GE getting involved in the pursuit of ILMN (it's the Amersham of 2012), but their lack of public involvement to date suggests to me that they either can't make the price work for them, or that GE invests in more predictable technology. (Why make a multi-billion dollar acquisition in Sanger sequencing if other tech platforms (like nanopore sequencing) might overtake Sanger tech?)

(btw: Roche upped their bid last week. ILMN didn't budge at all. I don't think this deal is getting done right now, but rather in 6-18 months time, after the ILMN board of directors experiences an unfavorable quarter.)

As for SeqWright, congrats to them and to any other CRO that manages to get liquid. Deal terms weren't announced, but if SeqWright was growing fast with the rest of the sequencing industry, and cash-flow positive, they probably got a decent price, though, on the flip side for GE, trading GE stock for an ongoing, competitive DNA sequencing lab is more EPS efficient and less risky than opening a lab using their own cash to buy equipment and hire staff, so there is a limit to what GE would pay. GE may have even made acquisition overtures to many sequencing CROs to see who would bite at the lowest price.

Let's hope that GE has a good experience with SeqWright, and further invests in the molecular medicine industry.

Read this!

Will New Business Models Enhance or Endanger Drug Discovery?

A great thought piece by Stewart Lyman at Xconomy, well worth a read. Lyman analyzes the business models that have generated biotech "wins," and concludes that the current vibe is that VCs are oriented towards creating limited, focused companies (tending towards virtual) instead of the ambition a decade or more ago to built fully integrated drug discovery operations.

This reflects the fact that the end consumer (in this case the pharma companies that buy successful or promising therapeutic programs) wants to buy specific assets and nothing else. Lyman doesn't mention it, but this is as much due to the fact that the public markets are closed for any venture with less than half a billion in valuation. 

(This is mostly due to 2 reasons:

-the fact that Sarbanes-Oxley imposes costs on smallish companies that make it impractical for companies of <$500M to be public. In yet another example of regulation trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped (see also: Dodd-Frank Financial Reform), Sarbanes-Oxley has killed the US IPO market for small to mid-size companies.

-while $100M-$500M in capitalization for a young company may seem large to you and me, it is a tiny number to Wall Street, making analyst coverage unreasonable, and not profitable enough to justify underwriting efforts.

(end rant))

Since VCs can only get liquidity from pharma acquisitions of their investments, companies are not being built to last, but rather built to flip. At the same time, the size of seed VC investments has risen, so biotech  start-ups need to have a quick use of $5-10M in seed capital AND a clear path to liquidity. Gone will be the days where therapeutic assets slowly incubate via SBIR funding (and other non-profit vehicles.)

(Luckily CROs now enable quicker and less expensive R&D. Young biotech companies don't need to build and staff non-core departments in order to progress a lead compound.)

The problem with this model as I see it (and not emphasized in Lyman's article) is that the smallish, asset-lite "disposable" biotech model now in vogue is absolutely terrible for anyone on the day-to-day team at the biotech company. Sign on to one of these "lite" companies and you take a GIGANTIC career risk. 

Scratch that - it's not a risk if something is practically guaranteed - and unless you believe your compounds and company will smoothly grow and progress from discovery to phase III without a hiccup at any stage, you almost certainly will go through restructuring, replacement, or a reduction of one form or another.

To the VC, each $5M biotech investment is a bet with a 1:20 likelihood of payout, but with a 50X payout with a win. The VC wants to take 40 "shots on goal" with their $200M VC portfolio, with the probabilities suggesting 2 "wins" worth a total of $500M.

To the scientific and business staff, though, that means that there's only a 5% chance that their specific efforts will result in a profit. With these odds, a career in academia, at a big pharma, or at a CRO looks a LOT less risky.

So until someone comes up with a business model for VC investment that ISN"T built to flip, start-up biotech's will have a hard time attacking the talent they need to run rings around big pharma. It seems strange to suggest it, but perhaps VC needs to be mindful of the business case for talent, not just for ROI.

Personal note: my opinion is also based on my experience starting a therapeutic discovery start-up.  It was a great experience, but the risk/reward math is just not favorable for biotech employees, and I won't ever work in early stage therapeutics again, if I can help it.