focused on enlarged prostate, and thinks it can help old men go to the bathroom a couple fewer times per day, don’t we already have drugs for that? Is that really how you want to spend your resources? Who cares? Even more importantly, who’s going to pay for these non-essential medications in a world of limited resources?
Exaggerated communications around the FDA: Investors should beware of any company that tries to imply they are in like Flynn with their pals at the FDA. Some companies try to play up things about FDA actions that don’t mean anything. The FDA may in fact give a company an “Orphan Drug” a “Special Protocol Assessment” or a “Fast Track” designation. None of those designations mean the FDA is likely to approve a company’s drug. That will come down in the end to the data, the data, the data. “Buyer beware of any company that throws around the often-used phrase, ‘We are excited to report that we now have a clear path to approval.’ FYI, there is no such thing,’” Loncar said.
Too many VCs: The famous venture capitalist Vinod Khosla recently said that 70-80 percent of venture capitalists add negative value to startups. Whether it’s from meddling, boardroom in-fighting, high-handed arrogance, or whatever, these are negatives that small companies can’t afford. Look for boards with people who have experience operating successful companies, or at least a few independent people with specific domain expertise.
Hey, look at the Nobel laureate on my scientific advisory board!: Some companies think they can impress people by pointing to a few smart scientists on their scientific advisory board. But investors should know that this is mostly about marketing, and these bigwigs of science often have little to do with the company. “If you need to make an appointment to meet the guy who’s bringing you your science, then you don’t have much of a business,” Henney said.
Geographic remoteness: It’s true that great science can come out of most any university or research institute around the world, but it’s extremely hard for a biotech company to emerge from a place with no community around it. A successful biotech company needs connections to skilled lawyers, accountants, regulatory consultants, and on and on. It needs to be able to recruit superb employees. Most of that action happens in top industry clusters like San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, and New York/New Jersey.
Who’s backing this company anyway? Has this company attracted a smart group of investors, or a bunch of people you’ve never heard of? Does it have a reputable law firm? Does it have a major accounting firm auditing its books, or some firm owned by the CEO’s brother-in-law? Have any of the major pharma companies supported the company in any way with a partnership? Getting backing from these actors is no guarantee of success, but you have to wonder about companies that can’t attract any credible backing.
No worries: Investors should find out what the management team worries about, what keeps them up at night. The answers can be revealing about the world this company lives in, and also can serve as a credibility test. “If they say, ‘I sleep like a baby,’ that’s a big red flag,” Henney said in his 2009 talk. All companies have their problems, and top management had better know them inside out, he said.
Thou dost protest too much: When I was getting started on the biotech beat, I remember a company that insisted it was “focused on commercialization” in every public communication. It wasn’t. It was more like a loose grab bag of science projects, an operation with multiple “shots on goal,” in the hopes that one might stick. If a company is trying too hard to make you believe something, chances are good that they’re just trying to cover up a great weakness.
