Specialty in technology industry: talk about pharmaceutical ecosystem

Source: American and Chinese pharmaceutical sources may 16, 2018 [news event]: xconomy today published an interview with Bob Nelson, partner of arch, a venture capital firm This person ranked fifth in this year's Forbes Midas high tech investment ranking He once participated in the creation of vir and Denali, and invested in Juno, and also invested in beam, which we said yesterday He is a top investment expert in biotechnology He pointed out that the problem for the pharmaceutical industry now is that it is too short-sighted and too indecisive to terminate poor quality projects He said innovation is not in big pharmaceutical companies, but in biopharmaceutical companies, so if any big pharmaceutical company buys another big pharmaceutical company, then the CEO and the board of directors should be dismissed on the same day He ridiculed that there are too many micro innovative wastes in large pharmaceutical plants, 90% of the product lines are non targeted small molecule drugs and micro innovative products, so in the face of the subversive innovative products of biotechnology companies, there is only a shiver [drug source analysis]: to some extent, he said these problems are correct, but biotechnology companies and large pharmaceutical companies, like apple and orange, attract different types of investors, do different business, and are difficult to compare directly Biotech Corp is more concerned about the advanced technology and winning the lottery once, while the pharmaceutical companies are more concerned about the reliability of technology and investors expect long-term stable returns Most biotech companies do not have the pressure to make profits or to find new drugs for a long time They usually only need to earn a huge return on one technology or drug to count as success This greatly increases the tolerance space for risk In order to obtain subversive technology, investors at the expense of high failure rate and market value, while investors in large pharmaceutical companies count how much money they make from you every quarter, and don't do a single point In the third quarter of last year, sales of the new base rose 11% compared with the same period of the previous year, but 4% lower than investors' expectations As a result, the new base fell 16% on the same day, and 10 billion US dollars evaporated Therefore, it is really difficult for big pharmaceutical companies to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term plans, so they must tilt the balance point to the side of reliability Without foresight, it's not that we don't want to be aggressive, but that Huang Shiren forces us to be too tight Big pharma also knows that gene editing may one day subvert disease treatment, but it's hard for so many people to participate in the early investment of such new technologies (the new base may be an exception) Long term and continuous discovery of new drugs with a certain market value is a huge pressure Biotechnology companies can take greater risks in many aspects without this pressure It's like some teams want to play in the playoffs for many years in a row They have to be careful in terms of protecting players' injuries, allocating physical strength and tactical stability And some teams just want to put all their eggs in one basket and win every 20 years, so the risk is totally different Nelson said the lack of decisiveness in ending poor quality projects is a common problem for big pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies, but it may be due to different reasons In order to maintain a stable new drug market to supplement the market with patent expiration or loss due to other competition factors, a certain number of projects must enter the next milestone every year, so sometimes it is inevitable that the dwarfs will pull out generals Biotech companies usually have only one or two projects, and once they stop, they close down It's a test for everyone to tear Ma su It often happens that Cai Mao and Zhang Yun are killed by mistake So it's also important to terminate where the project is going It's a healthy model to give these assets a chance to come back from the dead Lilly recently spent a lot of money to buy back two drugs that were discovered by Lilly but sold to small companies because they were not regarded as promising (last year, 960 million bought back 5ht1f agonist lasmiditan, and yesterday, 570 million bought back Aurora inhibitor AK-01) Although this can be regarded as Lilly's fault, I think that in the current imperfect evaluation system, any enterprise may be in the wrong order Tom Brady was 199th in the draft and Jordan didn't make the high school team It doesn't matter if it's what you found when you bought assets Big pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies are two components of the pharmaceutical ecosystem There are more innovative but uncertain basic research in the front end, more stable and less innovative generic drugs in the back end As Nelson said, innovation may not be in the big pharmaceutical companies, but most of the innovative products will end up in the big pharmaceutical companies Because communication and marketing with drug regulatory departments also need high-level support, and biotechnology companies are at a disadvantage in this regard So big pharmaceutical companies don't have to be afraid of biotechnology innovation, which is a win-win thing Although no one can beat the antelope, it runs fast The lion is the king of all animals, but it often starves to death Is that saying true? Whether you are an antelope or a lion, you'd better start running as soon as the sun rises, rather than sitting there laughing at each other's weaknesses Both big pharmaceutical companies and Biotech Corp need to improve, but the two types of companies have different goals and different selection pressures, so it is not surprising that the composition of product lines is different.