生物科技公司初期投资实战宝典

    • 大多数药物探索公司最初的首轮融资计划都过于乐观，而且都未能实现，因此融资要体现出这个因素。几乎所有处于探索阶段的初创型公司在设立之初都会在宣传时说：“30个月后我们将推出一种研究型新药（IND）”。根据我们的经验，将计划付诸实施后，采用新的化学方法研制IND需要36-48个月。就连完美执行的计划也可能无法实现预定目标：制药公司Avila的BTK项目在该公司设立42个月后才提出IND申请，比首轮融资计划预计的时间晚了12个月。考虑资金和时间要求时，将几乎必然出现的耽搁和失误包括在内很重要。这里的第22条军规是，如果一名创业者宣传说在48个月内可推出IND，投资者就会反应平平，甚至是Atlas这样的初级投资者。这就造成大家都提出过于乐观的计划并将这个期限定为30个月。在尽职调查初期坦诚这一悖论及其周围的问题是一个非常好的选择。

    • 自行展开一手资料尽职调查。针对一项新投资建立财团后往往会出现所谓的泳池效应，即每位家长都认为其他家长会小心照看孩子，结果造成没有人这样做从而出现不好的情况。伟大的风投公司XYZ承诺实施投资并不意味着它进行了完善的尽职调查。我们经历一番波折后发现，不同的公司以及同一公司的不同合伙人往往会进行程度不同的尽职调查。共享顾问和专家没问题，重要的是直接和他们进行对话，只听一位风投伙伴说“那个叫约翰什么的前研发负责人认为这是有史以来最热门的项目”还远远不够。

    4. 超模和投资模式：情人眼里出西施。生物科技领域有许多不同的投资模式，而大多数公司都有自己的首选。一些公司善于进行上市后私募投资（PIPE）和使用后期资产，但这不是我们所涉猎的领域，因为我们倾向于早期创新，同时渴望一直从事能给我们带来回报的工作。十年来我们采用过多种模式，并从中吸取了一些教训：

    • 尽早介入让我们能塑造目标公司的DNA。无论是最前沿还是最尖端，我们实施过的一些最佳投资都来自亲自动手来创建合资公司的模式。这是本博客一再提到的主题，因此暂不累述。

    • 如果可以按重大里程碑事件为界分批投入资金，那就应该这么做。通过节流资金，投资者不仅可以监督科技的去风险过程，还可以观察管理团队的执行情况以及如何实现其提出的目标，这和前者同样重要。以前，未分批的大规模融资曾多次烫了我们的手。我们无法很频繁地将资金划分为很小的批次，最理想的情况是恰当地把它设计为9-18个月为一个投资批次。

    • 后期“机会主义型”或投机型医药投资的风险往往比看上去要大得多。之前我曾更笼统地谈到过这个主题（见此处）。我们对此有亲身体验，因为我们以前曾被这种投资的美丽表象所吸引。从2003-2005年，我们一直没有处理好风险较低、经过重新配置的后期资产，比如Ivrea、ARCA、照隅（Shogoo）、Newron、Xytis和Nitec。我们从中得到的主要教训是避开这样的公司。从2007年初开始，这些公司已经在我们所有的新投资中销声匿迹了。

    • Most drug discovery companies fail to deliver on their overly-optimistic initial Series A plan, so factor that into the financing. Almost every new discovery-stage startup comes in with a pitch that says "in 30 months we'll have an IND." Unless you have your lead scaffold in hand now, you're not likely to get there in 30 months. In our experience, it takes between 36-48 months to get to an IND around novel chemistry when the plan hits reality. Even a superbly executed plan can fall short: Avila's BTK program filed its IND 42 months from the start of the company, 12 months later than forecast in the Series A plan. Factoring in the almost certain delay and slippage is important when thinking through capital and time requirements. The Catch-22 here is that if an entrepreneur pitches a plan for 48 months to an IND, even to an early stage investor like Atlas, it's likely to receive a lukewarm reception. This leads to overly optimistic plans from everyone that 30 months can do it. It's very healthy to have a frank conversation about this paradox and the issues around it early in a diligence process.

    • Do your own primary diligence. Often when syndicates form around a new deal, the proverbial summer pool effect happens: Since every parent thinks other parents are diligently watching the kids, no one does and bad things happen. Just because great VC firm XYZ is committing to do the deal doesn't mean they did great diligence. We've learned the hard way that different firms, and different partners in the same firm, often do varying degrees of diligence. Sharing consultants and experts is fine, but having a direct dialogue with them is important: taking a fellow VC's word for it that "former head of R&D John Doe thinks this is the hottest program ever" is simply not sufficient.

    4. Super models and investment models: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of different investment models work in biotech, and most firms have their favorite. Some firms have done well with PIPEs and later-stage assets, but it's just not a space we've engaged in given our early stage innovation bias and the desire to keep doing what works for generating returns for us. Our experience with different models over the past decade has led to a few lessons for us:

    • Going in early allows us to shape the DNA of the company. Whether it turns out to be the bleeding edge or leading edge, some of the best deals in our portfolio over time have come from the roll-up-your-sleeves model of venture creation. This is a recurrent theme on this blog, so I'll leave it at that.

    • If you can tranche the capital into a deal around important milestones, you should. By metering in the money, an investor can monitor not only the derisking of the science, but equally important we can observe how the team executes and delivers what they claim. We've been burnt repeatedly in the past on the big raises that weren't tranched. These can't be anorexic high frequency tranches of funding, but appropriately designed 9-18 month tranching is optimal.

    • Later-stage 'opportunistic' or spec pharma deals are often much riskier than meets the eye. I've riffed on this theme before more generally (here), but we know this first hand because we've previously been seduced by their siren song. We've not done well with low-risk repositioned late stage assets like Ivrea, ARCA, Shogoo, Newron, Xytis and Nitec from the 2003-2005 period. Our big takeaway lesson was to avoid these type of plays, and you won't find them in any new deals since early 2007.