3 ms·

Most people who aren’t named Sam Altman will never access the best seed investments. I would’ve invested in Stripe in 2012 too but couldn’t even if I wanted to.

by tempsy 7y ago

Most people who aren’t named Sam Altman will never access the best seed investments. I would’ve invested in Stripe in 2012 too but couldn’t even if I wanted to. The idea that you can’t find the risk reward is untrue. I’d consider investing in biopharma to be equivalent in risk reward to early stage startup investing. The difference is that these companies go public early because that’s traditionally the only way they can raise. And if you want to rev up the risk to make 10x-100x you can options trade in the public market as well. I mean, Nancy Pelosi of all people will make $130K in Facebook call options expiring this week. http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/ptr-pdfs/2018/20010631.pdf http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/ptr-pdfs/2018/20010631.pd...

strbean 7y ago
> I’d consider investing in biopharma to be equivalent in risk reward to early stage startup investing. Similar risk reward, but it seems harder to have any insight into a pharma startup's chances of success. Sure, it is easier to gauge potential market (% of people affected by condition X), but whether they will be able to develop a product is a total dice roll.
- tempsy 7y ago
  it's definitely a gamble...not sure how to necessarily measure whether it's any more or less than early stage tech investing, though. at least your investment is liquid, which is big, and the timeline for trials, readouts, etc. is known relatively far in advance. you can look at things that an early stage investor looks at like team, hiring, etc. beyond just progress. IMO this decade will be absolutely massive for biopharma. Plenty of good opportunities, especially for those complaining that the reward is public markets is not as high as early stage.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Both are obviously a gamble, but pharma is more of a black box than tech. As an investor, I can make an informed option whether there is a market for subscription indoor cycles like an Peloton. I could be wrong, but I can look up the market numbers and weigh them against my personal experience and world view. When it comes to pharma, almost nobody has domain expertise of the subject. To put it another way, the leading risk in tech is market adoption, while the leading risk pin Biopharma is technical feasibility.

by tempsy 7y ago

strbean 7y ago

> I’d consider investing in biopharma to be equivalent in risk reward to early stage startup investing. Similar risk reward, but it seems harder to have any insight into a pharma startup's chances of success. Sure, it is easier to gauge potential market (% of people affected by condition X), but whether they will be able to develop a product is a total dice roll.

tempsy 7y ago
it's definitely a gamble...not sure how to necessarily measure whether it's any more or less than early stage tech investing, though. at least your investment is liquid, which is big, and the timeline for trials, readouts, etc. is known relatively far in advance. you can look at things that an early stage investor looks at like team, hiring, etc. beyond just progress. IMO this decade will be absolutely massive for biopharma. Plenty of good opportunities, especially for those complaining that the reward is public markets is not as high as early stage.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Both are obviously a gamble, but pharma is more of a black box than tech. As an investor, I can make an informed option whether there is a market for subscription indoor cycles like an Peloton. I could be wrong, but I can look up the market numbers and weigh them against my personal experience and world view. When it comes to pharma, almost nobody has domain expertise of the subject. To put it another way, the leading risk in tech is market adoption, while the leading risk pin Biopharma is technical feasibility.