5 ms·

Thanks for this. I am always confused how an investor should approach investing in the biotech space without any medical knowledge. Any thoughts you can share?

hvdfhbj 6y ago
I've invested in a few smallish ($200M to $2B) biotechs over the past decade or so. While I eventually got out with a small profit, I have sworn off ever investing in one again. Too much time and too many grey hairs from following the hope-and-disappointment cycle as you read the tea leaves from ambiguous trial results and FDA announcements.
- Balgair 6y ago
  Are there any specific instances that stand out to you that you can share?
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    Mesoblast. I won't bother to share the full story of all this company's ups and downs over the last decade but let's just say that the amount of time I spent tracking the news on it was far out of whack with its importance to my portfolio.
    - Balgair 6y ago
      Thanks for sharing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoblast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoblast You're not kidding, they have been a roller-coaster!
stanford_labrat 6y ago
My personal recommendation for anyone unfamiliar is to begin by read the relevant literature re: the field being worked in by the company. You can access most things through pubmed. Admittedly that will most likely be a slog. But realistically you need a deep understanding of the molecular/biological context when investing in this space to understand whether or not a drug will be successful. I worked for a YC biotech (S18) this last year in a scientific role, but bridging the gap between investor to startup has been something I've been thinking about as a possible career in the future...
- Balgair 6y ago
  One way I have seen is to have a cadre of scientific/medical advisors with skin in the game (usually, on the board). This is also one of the paths out of debt for MDs that don't want to practice or MD/PhDs in general. With a few people that actually know the science/art, you can then focus on the finance and other issues. The science part isn't always hardcore mol-bio, as many devices can be a bit more like traditional engineering (even internal ones). But many of the problems that the various agencies will cite will be mol-bio related. Even as a hardcore investor, unless you have the many years of background, or can get people with background to put their own money in it, you are going to have a hard time. Paying just for consulting isn't likely to be appropriate due-diligence. Biology is monstrously complex and frustrating even in one individual, let alone a population. As such, it takes a lot of research to have a good clue of what is going on, more so that you can likely pay consultants for. EDIT: Again, I want to stress that every situation is different and that I am only relating my personal experiences here.

hvdfhbj 6y ago

I've invested in a few smallish ($200M to $2B) biotechs over the past decade or so. While I eventually got out with a small profit, I have sworn off ever investing in one again. Too much time and too many grey hairs from following the hope-and-disappointment cycle as you read the tea leaves from ambiguous trial results and FDA announcements.

Balgair 6y ago
Are there any specific instances that stand out to you that you can share?
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  Mesoblast. I won't bother to share the full story of all this company's ups and downs over the last decade but let's just say that the amount of time I spent tracking the news on it was far out of whack with its importance to my portfolio.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Thanks for sharing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoblast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoblast You're not kidding, they have been a roller-coaster!

stanford_labrat 6y ago

My personal recommendation for anyone unfamiliar is to begin by read the relevant literature re: the field being worked in by the company. You can access most things through pubmed. Admittedly that will most likely be a slog. But realistically you need a deep understanding of the molecular/biological context when investing in this space to understand whether or not a drug will be successful. I worked for a YC biotech (S18) this last year in a scientific role, but bridging the gap between investor to startup has been something I've been thinking about as a possible career in the future...

Balgair 6y ago
One way I have seen is to have a cadre of scientific/medical advisors with skin in the game (usually, on the board). This is also one of the paths out of debt for MDs that don't want to practice or MD/PhDs in general. With a few people that actually know the science/art, you can then focus on the finance and other issues. The science part isn't always hardcore mol-bio, as many devices can be a bit more like traditional engineering (even internal ones). But many of the problems that the various agencies will cite will be mol-bio related. Even as a hardcore investor, unless you have the many years of background, or can get people with background to put their own money in it, you are going to have a hard time. Paying just for consulting isn't likely to be appropriate due-diligence. Biology is monstrously complex and frustrating even in one individual, let alone a population. As such, it takes a lot of research to have a good clue of what is going on, more so that you can likely pay consultants for. EDIT: Again, I want to stress that every situation is different and that I am only relating my personal experiences here.