A LinkedIn discussion about “crossover” financing rounds deepened my sense that we’re not all saying the same thing when we’re saying the same thing. And that’s a challenge, if not necessarily always a problem, in an industry that’s only becoming more scientifically and financially complex as it matures. Because to understand one another and avoid unnecessary hiccups it helps to have a common language.

Our usual top-down biotech sector metrics showed that 1H24 was… pretty boring (though for us bottom-up folks, individual companies offer plenty of excitement). After the last few years, boring ain’t bad. With expectations of Fed easing interest rates due to waning inflation, the excitement level for the second half of the year has already picked up, but that’s not reflected in the metrics here.

There is a real and urgent need for better flu prophylaxis and therapeutics. RA Managing Director Laura Tadvalkar writes about why RA is excited to lead a transformative transaction that returns a long-acting antiviral for flu to its original developer Cidara, and RA’s new initiative to help make outlicensing from pharma companies faster and more efficient.

It’s fairly typical for companies to share confidential data with investors of their choosing before completing financing transactions, before publicly disclosing the data or the financing. How is this fair? Shouldn’t everyone get a chance to see the data so that no investor gets a better deal than anyone else? Peter Kolchinsky and Sarah Reed break down what’s allowed, what’s common, and what’s logical.

A year ago we published the first “Semper Maior” piece, making the case that biotech was on firm ground and ready for a reboot. We put out the second piece last summer, when it felt like the rebound was underway. Had the year ended in October or even November… well, you know. But here we are after a general market and XBI surge feeling like biotech is now truly recovering from its prolonged downturn. So let’s mine the data, as we have before, to get a sense of what happened in 2023 and what lessons to take with us into 2024.

There’s a convention that public biotech companies should plan to raise money by the time they get down to one year of cash left on their balance sheets to avoid a dreaded “going concern” clause in their financial statements. But if you’ve got data on the way, it’s not always necessary to try to raise cash - particularly if the only terms you can get are draconian. Here’s a roadmap for deliberately navigating through that one-year threshold, owning the clause, and letting your data guide your financing strategy.

Biotech board members and management teams are increasingly asking how their companies can benefit from what RA Capital and others call a “Series I” IPO process (also known as a data-driven or logic-based IPO). Here we’ve compiled common questions and answers.