# Episode 152 - August 15, 2025

An episode of [Biotech Hangout](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1568911820), 15 Aug 2025, 1 h 00 min.

Audio: https://anchor.fm/s/55bdff38/podcast/play/106916563/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2025-7-15%2F405728109-44100-2-ed5654705178e.m4a

On this week’s episode, Josh Schimmer, Eric Schmidt, and Tess Cameron kick off with policy, discussing Vinay Prasad’s return to the FDA and the implications for the biotech industry. The conversation turns to NIH’s Jay Bhattacharya, who attributed the decline in public trust in mRNA vaccines to perception rather than safety or efficacy, citing this as the reason to curtail funding. In market trends, the co-hosts discuss investor blind spots, specifically near-term product launches. Next, the group examines whether rising drug prices are sustainable and the six-month IPO drought. They also debate how non-commercial companies approach earnings calls, pointing to Summit Therapeutics’ choice to skip its Q2 call and whether most development-stage biotechs should follow suit. ARS Pharmaceuticals’ earnings/epinephrine nasal spray launch and RTW Investments deal with Aquestive Therapeutics are also overviewed. The episode concludes with data news, covering Insmed’s lung disease approval and Sarepta’s safety update. *This episode aired on August 15, 2025.

## Transcript

[0:00] You're listening to Biotech Hangout, a live and unedited
[0:02] weekly discussion of all the latest news in our industry as
[0:05] well as random stuff we want to talk about.
[0:09] I'm Josh Schumer, my Co host today are Eric Schmidt and Tess
[0:12] Cameron's. We got the skeleton crew in
[0:14] August. For more information about our
[0:16] hosts and guest speakers or to listen to the most recent
[0:18] episode and for disclosures regarding the companies we
[0:21] cover, please go to biotechhangout.com.
[0:24] As a reminder, none of what we say should be construed as
[0:27] investment advice because anyone who's ever tried investing in
[0:30] biotech knows just how very hard and volatile it can it can be
[0:34] test. By the way, I caught up with the
[0:36] I had a great introductory call with the RA Capital planetary
[0:41] Health team. Yeah, very interesting
[0:46] initiative now moving beyond biotech to invest in companies
[0:50] that are good for planetary health, thinking about
[0:55] sustainability, energy sources and optimization.
[0:59] Really, really fascinating effort.
[1:01] So kudos to the area capital team for for making that pivot
[1:05] and really trying to make a difference on a, on a planetary
[1:08] basis. And it's a very, very, very
[1:10] important. And hopefully we'll, we'll hear
[1:12] a lot more about that group in the months and years to to come.
[1:16] But we're going to kick things off now that's not so much
[1:19] biotech. Let's let's talk about some of
[1:22] the latest updates. The big one, Vinay Prasad is
[1:25] back. Eric.
[1:27] Good. Bad.
[1:29] Neither. Oh, boy.
[1:33] OK, just the latest chapter and quite the saga here.
[1:37] Look, I guess one thing you just have to say is, is that Doctor
[1:41] Makari really, really, really wants him there, right?
[1:44] I mean, I think most of us felt when he left two weeks ago, it
[1:47] was for good reason that there was just too much going on, too
[1:52] much havoc, too much chaos, too much drama.
[1:55] And and yet he's back. You know, great point.
[1:59] A great piece from Stat News this week that that maybe
[2:02] provide some advice to Doctor Prasad on his way back to the
[2:05] agency on how he might be able to do things with a little less
[2:09] drama. So hopefully everyone has seen
[2:11] that, but my take is that that these two leaders are joined at
[2:15] the hip that the doctor Makari pushed very hard and very
[2:19] aggressively to bring him back despite some of the political
[2:23] headwinds that he may have faced and and he got his wish.
[2:27] So we're we're going to have these two guys running the
[2:29] agency. That's pretty clear.
[2:31] And we can cross our fingers and hope for the best.
[2:34] Obviously, there's a lot of things that could potentially be
[2:38] at risk with regard to drug regulation and approval
[2:41] processes in the US. And, and we all need, I think,
[2:44] to, to get behind these two and, and hope they can do the job as
[2:48] best they can and, and, and maybe support them.
[2:50] So good, bad and different. Josh, I, I don't know, I mean,
[2:53] I, I think we both feel that that these two individuals are
[2:56] really, really bright and really capable and, and certainly
[3:00] engaged. I, I, I hope that they've
[3:03] learned a few lessons in their first six months on the job.
[3:06] And, and, you know, like, like all of us, they can get better
[3:09] at it. Yeah.
[3:11] Tess, what do you, what do you think and and how are you at RA
[3:14] Capital like if at all reacting to some of the leadership
[3:18] changes at the FDA as you think about your investments in
[3:21] portfolio? Yeah, absolutely.
[3:23] Look, I think that we are really looking to actions as an
[3:27] indicator for what could happen in the future.
[3:32] You know, I thought it was really, you know, really
[3:34] interesting. Just, you know, it's, it's only
[3:37] a short time since, you know, Prasad has been back.
[3:40] We know that he's very actively involved in approvals, you know,
[3:44] precedence drug, you know, got approved, right.
[3:48] This is, you know, a drug for a small patient population, you
[3:52] know, a kind of, you know, disease caused by persistent,
[3:56] you know, HPV and, you know, this, this got approved on a,
[4:01] you know, pretty, you know, pretty small trial.
[4:03] It got full approval. And I thought it was really
[4:05] interesting. In the FDA press release, there
[4:09] is this quote from, you know, Doctor Prasad saying randomized
[4:12] trials not always needed to approve medical products.
[4:16] And this approval is proof of that philosophy.
[4:19] But FDA will always demand the correct clinical study for the
[4:22] specific medical product and disease.
[4:24] Our requirements for products given to 10s of billions of
[4:27] healthy people will be different than products given to at most
[4:30] hundreds or thousands of patients with unique diseases.
[4:34] So, you know, I think we can all kind of look at past, you know,
[4:38] statements and, you know, and behaviors and, and maybe wonder
[4:44] like, what the heck is going to happen?
[4:47] You know, I think that, you know, it's it's, you know,
[4:50] really important to see. Obviously that statement that
[4:53] Doctor Prasad was making was not unique to, you know, the
[4:56] precision, you know, case example.
[4:59] So, you know, I hope that we get, you know, more examples and
[5:03] more, you know, more details on, you know, just how, you know,
[5:09] approval pathways may be evolving and changing.
[5:12] But you know, I thought that was, you know, very interesting,
[5:15] especially when contrasted, you know, to, you know, to some of
[5:19] the other, you know, regulatory decisions that have that have
[5:22] maybe, you know, occurred, occurred earlier this year
[5:25] where, where there was a little, you know, less clarity on, on
[5:28] why things didn't get approved. So.
[5:31] So PDUFA dates have always been marginal at best in terms of
[5:37] risk rewards, right? You rarely get paid to the
[5:40] upside to a meaningful degree for approval.
[5:43] That maybe that's changed a little bit lately actually
[5:46] interestingly. But in the event of a non
[5:49] approval, you know that the result can be relatively
[5:52] catastrophic. So with this, with the new
[5:56] administration, 11 might think that the risk reward of PDUFA
[5:59] dates has even further deteriorated test from an
[6:02] investor lens, how do you kind of think about those, those
[6:06] binary events and and navigating them?
[6:09] Yeah. I mean it really, you know, it
[6:12] really it really depends. I mean, obviously precedent is
[6:16] up dramatically because people were not anticipating that that
[6:19] approval would would really happen and it did.
[6:22] So you know, I think it I think it is harder to gauge, but in a
[6:25] way that like it's harder to gauge means that you know, the
[6:29] risk reward into an approval. If you think that you have a
[6:32] different view than the market, you know, what does the market
[6:36] know now about like, you know, I think for these, you know, maybe
[6:40] greater cases where it's a little less clear if like
[6:43] approval is baked in or not. You know, I think they're in
[6:47] some ways is, you know, a little bit more of a discontinuity on
[6:51] approval, right? I'd point to Eurogen as another
[6:54] case, right, where there was a, you know, a pretty, I would say,
[6:58] dramatic advisory committee, you know, bit of a, you know, bit of
[7:02] a mixed vote. And, you know, the, the, you
[7:06] know, company, you know, kind of navigated FDA interactions after
[7:10] that and, you know, got approved and I think the stock didn't
[7:12] move, you know, a whole lot on approval, but certainly moved.
[7:16] Well, you know, actually it did, you know, move quite a bit just
[7:19] before approval, after they hired some reps and then I
[7:22] think, you know, kind of on approval and then, you know,
[7:25] quite a bit afterwards. So it's interesting in some
[7:28] ways, you know, the uncertainty that's being injected into any
[7:33] company that has an open label trial or, you know, a smaller
[7:36] sample size or, you know. Didn't have the perfect control
[7:40] arm. You know, if you think you have
[7:42] a differentiated view, maybe there's, you know, actually a
[7:45] bit more of a move on the approval for those medicines.
[7:49] Different case for something where approval is, is really
[7:52] baked in and expected and where it would be, you know, stock if,
[7:57] you know, a shock if it if it weren't.
[7:59] And that's, you know, I think that's the the case for for
[8:01] INMAD and and brenzicatinib. And, you know, I think that's
[8:04] that's why we didn't see this, you know, huge, you know, kind
[8:08] of reaction to the day. So I guess it kind of dovetails
[8:13] into a related topic around binary events.
[8:16] You know, certainly Pedofa dates can be very binary events.
[8:20] Eric, maybe for you and in biotech, is it easier to make
[8:23] money playing binary events or avoiding binary events?
[8:29] No doubt the latter 100% right? In fact, you know, we've always
[8:34] discussed how the best way to play any event is well, well,
[8:39] well before anyone else is playing it right.
[8:41] When you, you could buy a stock 3612 months in advance of an
[8:46] event and, and get the run into the event without taking the
[8:48] binary risk. I, I think why is it tough to
[8:52] make money on binary events? You know, you actually called me
[8:56] out earlier today on this. You said I had rose colored
[8:58] glasses. And you're right, I do.
[9:00] And, and I think almost all of us who have been around this
[9:03] industry need to have rose colored glasses.
[9:06] And in part because, you know, there's so much hope for
[9:09] patients in our business, in part because we're rooting for
[9:13] the companies that are trying to serve these these patients well.
[9:17] And then in part because it's a really, really difficult
[9:19] business to make money in. So when you approach a binary
[9:22] event and you know, have a bit of a rose tint to your glasses,
[9:26] most likely, as Tess was just describing, the risk reward on
[9:29] that event itself is, is not going to be favorable, right?
[9:32] If, if all of us have rose colored glasses and, and think
[9:36] the likelihood of success is, you know, 70% when it's really
[9:40] 5050, that's a terrible risk reward.
[9:44] And I think we've we've proved ourselves that way time and time
[9:47] again over, you know, at least the years, decades that I've
[9:50] been watching the industry. But, you know, the time to buy
[9:54] often is 12 months before anyone's ever even thinking
[9:57] about that event, before stocks have really adjusted at all to
[10:02] to whatever potential risk benefit we might might have.
[10:06] And fortunately, we've got a lot of stocks, a lot of opportunity
[10:09] to do just that. So that's always been a
[10:11] philosophy of mine. But you know, test Josh, what
[10:14] are your thoughts? Yeah, tell us.
[10:17] I'd love to hear your take. Yeah, absolutely.
[10:19] I mean, I think it all comes down to like differentiated
[10:22] perspective, you know, differentiated perspective and
[10:25] like level of conviction and what are you doing on the back
[10:30] of that event if it goes how you want or if it doesn't go how you
[10:34] want. And I think that can you know,
[10:37] inform a lot, you know, particularly, you know, for a
[10:41] fund, you know, for for bigger funds, right.
[10:44] It's, it's hard to just, you know, efficiently kind of play
[10:48] around these events, right? Because you know, that in and of
[10:52] itself would actually move the stock, right?
[10:54] So you really have to, you know, kind of enter positions with,
[10:57] you know, conviction and the understanding that like, hey,
[11:00] like you might have to sit through some binaries.
[11:02] Because if you're trying to play around that binary, you know,
[11:05] you might cause things to go the other way just by, you know,
[11:08] being a pretty substantial, you know, percentage of, you know,
[11:12] percentage of that company's volume.
[11:15] So I think that's a key part, you know, for any, you know,
[11:18] certainly for any bigger fund of like what positions to go into
[11:21] is like, how do those, you know, catalyst set up?
[11:24] And, you know, it's always wonderful to, you know, invest
[11:28] in, in companies where like maybe you have a few different
[11:31] potential outcomes, but you're like, hey, actually in several
[11:35] of those outcomes, you know, there's, there's, you know,
[11:38] still an opportunity to buy, right?
[11:40] Maybe it's disappointing to others, but, you know, exciting,
[11:44] you know, exciting for us, you know, for some way or the other.
[11:48] Yeah, it, it often feels like moths to a flame for biotech
[11:51] investors gravitating towards the binary events.
[11:55] And often literally because, you know, so often times you get
[11:58] burned by those binary events that can be very difficult to,
[12:02] to, to drive performance with with that strategy.
[12:05] But then on, on the other hand, I think that's kind of what
[12:08] you're in some ways alluding to is that large size of funds
[12:11] relative to the small size of company valuations and market
[12:15] cap and just trading dynamics and liquidity being very
[12:19] disconnected between running a large fund and managing an
[12:23] investment in, in, in a smaller liquid kind of name.
[12:26] So interesting dynamics in, in biotech, always another
[12:30] interesting dynamic that we're dealing with this year and with
[12:33] this administration compared to the prior administration for
[12:37] whom I, if you'd asked me a year ago who the head of HHS was in
[12:42] 2024, I probably wouldn't even be able to tell you.
[12:45] But I think we all know who the head of HHS is today.
[12:48] And, and we've had some pullback in funding of mRNA vaccines.
[12:55] I think RFK justified that as, as his concerns for the
[12:59] monovalent vaccine that you would get from an mRNA vaccine
[13:03] certainly for inhaled respiratory viruses may actually
[13:06] be fodder for mutations and and escape from those vaccines.
[13:10] And his view is that it perpetuated the pandemic.
[13:13] Not sure what if any evidence there is to actually support
[13:17] that that dynamic specifically around mRNA vaccines.
[13:20] And then I think the head of NANAH, Eric J Bhattacharya had
[13:26] some some views on this as well to discuss.
[13:32] Well, yeah, I mean, I guess we've gotten now in the week or
[13:35] so since RFK Junior and BARDA withdrew funding for mRNA
[13:39] research, we've got a couple of different rationales from the
[13:43] administration as to why they did that.
[13:46] RFK Junior, as you said, Josh blamed it on the lack of, of
[13:51] safety and efficacy around the vaccine technology based on
[13:55] mRNA. And then Dr. Bhattacharya came
[13:58] out later and said, no, no, no, it's not about lack of efficacy
[14:01] or safety. It's about public distrust of
[14:03] the technology. Well, God, that that's, that
[14:06] distressing. I mean, why?
[14:07] Why would we be distrustful of the technology?
[14:09] Maybe, maybe it's our government that's been telling us to
[14:12] distrust the technology. I don't know.
[14:15] So that's a whole different can of worms there.
[14:18] But you know, the, the sad part of all of this is that mRNA is a
[14:22] molecule, right? This is, this is chemistry.
[14:25] It's a bunch of nucleotides strung together.
[14:27] It doesn't have a political will.
[14:30] It's, it's just science and, and how this technology got wrapped
[14:34] up into, you know, the debate over COVID and who was right and
[14:39] who was wrong. And, you know, it's just really
[14:42] quite sad and sickening. So, you know, I, I hope that we
[14:46] can distance ourselves from the politics here and, and put on
[14:52] RNA back into its place, which is a tool.
[14:55] Maybe it's an imperfect tool in some cases.
[14:57] Maybe have we seen through the COVID pandemic?
[15:00] It can be a very helpful tool in others and stop treating it as a
[15:04] political football. But rather, you know, a
[15:07] technology that should be assessed, should be funded,
[15:12] should be developed, should be critiqued, should be studied in
[15:17] clinical trials. And unfortunately, we're just
[15:19] not there right now. Yeah, Tess, any thoughts on it?
[15:24] Yeah, I guess I'd just point to, you know, it's, it's always a
[15:29] little bit discouraging to see, you know, a decision like that
[15:32] that kind of stems more from what does the public think,
[15:37] right? And how do people feel about
[15:39] something versus, you know, a, a, you know, real evidence base?
[15:45] So, you know, look, there's, there's as, as you said, Eric,
[15:50] there's, there's so many ways in which, you know, mRNA is a is a
[15:54] tool and, and is, you know, used for many different diseases,
[15:59] many different, you know, many different, you know, formats.
[16:03] You know, I'm hopeful that, you know, I'm hopeful that just as,
[16:06] as more applications are, you know, continue to be
[16:12] demonstrated that this, you know, that this turns around.
[16:15] And I'm also hopeful that, you know, we can, we can really
[16:21] maybe maybe hopeful is, is too optimistic.
[16:24] But I would, I would want, I would want for, you know, a
[16:28] world where, you know, decisions about funding are really based
[16:32] on, you know, societal benefit and a view of like, you know
[16:36] what, what are the, the scientific endeavors that can
[16:39] really help us as a society rather than, you know, public
[16:44] sentiment. It is amazing how a platform
[16:48] that saved the world, millions of of people's lives, saved
[16:53] millions and millions and millions of people kept out of
[16:55] the hospital, you know, in a time of true crisis.
[16:59] But that platform is somehow become vilified and, and
[17:03] seemingly by a fairly fringe group, but a fringe group that
[17:07] now has national voice and national attention, right.
[17:12] And, and to the point of it, it's now all politicized in in
[17:16] ways that are so unscientific right there.
[17:19] There's nothing wrong with asking provocative questions.
[17:22] There's nothing wrong with wanting data and and evidence to
[17:26] support the appropriate use of these vaccines, to support, you
[17:30] know, the safety profile of the vaccines.
[17:32] I'm not sure we still have the best capture mechanism for
[17:36] vaccine safety. I'm not sure one is even
[17:39] feasible. It's so hard to look.
[17:42] If you get a vaccine and something happens to you the
[17:45] next day, yes that's probably easy to correlate to the
[17:49] vaccine. Although there is also still
[17:51] noise because random things happen to random people all the
[17:54] time. But if it's a week later, if
[17:57] it's a month later, it's if it's five years later.
[18:00] How on earth do you connect something you know, to one point
[18:03] in time so long ago? And, and it's just a, it's a
[18:06] challenge for, for science and there are a lot of unknowns that
[18:11] we're dealing with. And the unknowns just get filled
[18:13] with, with conspiracy theories, speculation, half truths, some
[18:19] truths. It just makes it very, very
[18:21] difficult to navigate, especially when there's not a
[18:23] healthy, balanced pro patient, pro science dialogue to, to
[18:31] advance the field. And it's that it's, it's kind of
[18:33] left in the hands of of Mavericks and conspiracy
[18:36] theorists to RIP things apart as opposed to gently bending things
[18:40] to, to optimize them. So, you know, like just what a
[18:44] what an odd year to be living in if you're, if you're a
[18:47] scientist. All right.
[18:50] Again, it's like kind of kind of light on specific news this
[18:53] week. So I thought we talked about
[18:54] some some themes and and trends that that we're seeing. 11
[18:59] interesting trends that that I think many have have noticed is
[19:04] the successful stock performance around product launches, not,
[19:08] not 100% of them, but far more than we've ever seen before.
[19:15] So a lot of focus on on product launches, I guess Eric and and
[19:20] Tess are, is the product launch trade getting a little long in
[19:24] the tooth here or is this still an area that that you think is
[19:27] going to be able to deliver value for shareholders?
[19:32] Well, maybe maybe I'll start. Maybe first we should talk a
[19:36] little bit about why this trade seemingly has worked and then go
[19:40] on to maybe, you know, if it's getting a lot longer the tooth
[19:43] for certain products, I mean certain products are now, you
[19:46] know, getting a little bit past their launch phase is the way I
[19:48] would answer your question, Josh.
[19:50] So if you've had a drug that's been on the market now for 12 or
[19:53] 18 months, people have woken up to the fact that it's probably
[19:57] having a good launch and have priced that into the stock.
[20:00] So certainly for certain franchises, I think the the
[20:04] longer launch view is is playing itself out.
[20:08] But in other cases, you know, for for newer drug launches that
[20:11] have have yet to to transpire, I think it's still working.
[20:15] And I think the reason it's still working is because one,
[20:19] first and foremost pricing, we're just seeing more
[20:23] aggressive pricing out of box than we've ever seen before.
[20:26] It's not something new in 2025. It's been happening for the
[20:30] course of the last two 345 years.
[20:32] Every every year that passes, we we price our new drugs at a
[20:36] higher price point. Everything is priced to be a
[20:38] blockbuster. Used to be that, you know, a
[20:40] billion dollar peak revenue estimate was, was quite unusual
[20:45] in Wall Street models and, and these days, you know, they're
[20:48] all over the place. So, so when you price your drug
[20:51] at a, at a high premium, you know, most likely you're going
[20:54] to sell it quite well, especially, you know that in the
[20:58] early days with those patients who were in great need.
[21:01] The second trend in my opinion is, is about to pay your
[21:05] reimbursement pressures. I don't think we're seeing them
[21:08] as much as we used to. And I'd love your Tessa's view
[21:11] on this, but but to me and I don't know if it's because the
[21:14] PBM's have been in bed with the the healthcare insurers or what.
[21:19] It just seems like we are talking a lot less about
[21:25] reimbursement restrictions about tearing of of pharmacy status
[21:29] and co-pays and things like that then we really have in the last
[21:33] fewer 345 years. And and I think that means that
[21:36] these drugs that'll out-of-the-box are doing quite
[21:38] well. But Tessa, be curious.
[21:41] Yeah, maybe Eric, just another, you know, a different
[21:45] perspective maybe on the on the payer stuff is, you know, I
[21:48] think it's it's very much still there.
[21:50] But I think that companies have gotten a lot better about
[21:54] communicating it and investors have gotten a lot more
[21:57] sophisticated about, you know, what expectations need to be.
[22:03] You know, I feel like, you know, maybe in the, you know, maybe in
[22:06] the past, there wasn't as much, you know, focus or understanding
[22:11] on like, oh, what's like really going to drive gross to net And
[22:14] like, how important is it to be like first tier versus second
[22:17] tier? And like, what are the programs
[22:19] that you're going to do? And like, are you going to have
[22:21] a hub? And like all of these things
[22:22] that, you know, maybe well, they're, they are so critical to
[22:28] a launch into a successful launch.
[22:30] But I feel like in the past, there were certainly a lot of
[22:36] barriers, but also I think there was just a kind of lack of
[22:39] communication or lack of appreciation for how some of
[22:42] these factors actually played into things.
[22:47] And I think that's, I think that's really changed, right?
[22:50] I mean, now you have, you know, companies in, you know, with
[22:54] their, you know, when they're talking about their phase three
[22:57] data, like they already have, you know, some perspective about
[23:01] like, you know, here's how this might be positioned and what
[23:04] it's probably going to come after.
[23:05] And you know, how we can, you know, manage this on formulary.
[23:10] And I think that's, you know, I think that's that's really
[23:12] important. And you know, perhaps a part of
[23:16] why, you know, why some of these launches have actually been
[23:19] quite good is like, you know, they're, you know, companies
[23:22] know that they have to navigate this stuff and they have to
[23:25] navigate it, you know, pretty early if they're if they're
[23:28] going to be successful. So I think it's really positive
[23:32] to just see many smaller biotechs getting way more
[23:36] sophisticated and way more specific about like, you know,
[23:42] and we'll talk about the the you know, in Med approval.
[23:46] But you know, I think I think it's it's actually being pretty
[23:48] consistent across, you know, several companies where they've
[23:51] been really specific about like, here's the total population, but
[23:54] here's the launch population. Here's how we're, you know,
[23:58] expecting things to play out on the payer side.
[24:00] Here's some puts and takes on how that could go.
[24:02] Here's like at least a framework for thinking about gross to net.
[24:05] You know, here's how to think about like the RA catastrophic
[24:09] payment payer mix, all this stuff that you know is, is such
[24:13] a key part of like the complexity of a launch and what
[24:16] you need to, to make it go well. I think the level of
[24:19] sophistication has really, really improved.
[24:22] So I think the old definition of blockbuster was a billion dollar
[24:27] product and Eric to your point, everything's priced to a
[24:30] billion. So I think now the the
[24:32] blockbuster definitions probably closer to 5 billion.
[24:36] And you know, part of the way the companies are getting there
[24:39] are with, with drug prices higher than we've really ever
[24:43] seen them and often times higher than we we thought they were,
[24:45] they were going to be. So I guess it begs the question,
[24:50] what is the probability that in the next election cycle, new
[24:55] drug pricing becomes a target for for either party?
[25:05] And Josh, you're specifically referencing new drug new.
[25:08] Drug because because you know the the industry get keeps
[25:12] getting squeezed by policy makers to contain drug pricing
[25:16] and it keeps that that balloon keeps popping out in the form of
[25:19] higher and higher launch drug prices.
[25:22] Right now we have the IRA. What was the solution to the IRA
[25:25] launch of the higher price so that when you hit that, that
[25:28] discount, you know, it's it's, it's not necessarily as
[25:31] impactful as it as it might have been, but you got to imagine at
[25:35] some point drug prices now come into the cross hairs of
[25:39] politicians. Well, I think drug prices have
[25:45] been across hairs of politicians for a long, long time.
[25:48] And and now you're maybe making a subtle tweak to that in terms
[25:52] of focusing on new drug launch pricing, which you know, you,
[25:56] you may have a point. Maybe you know, there's been
[25:59] somewhat of a blind eye toward that aspect of, of the business
[26:03] as opposed to the drug price increases that companies have
[26:07] taken or, or the disparity in pricing between the US and, and
[26:11] ex US nations that we've seen. I mean those, those, those two
[26:15] concerns have been very much in the public eye and public focus
[26:19] and, and we're obviously debating and, and you know, the
[26:23] throes of potential changes to the system in that regard.
[26:28] So sure, I think it's possible that we may also see, you know,
[26:32] a little bit more attention on new drug prices.
[26:34] But Tess, you're very close to this with your no patient left
[26:37] behind stuff. Yeah.
[26:39] I mean, I think the, you know, kind of calibration point on all
[26:43] of this is like outrage, right? And in the past, like we have
[26:48] seen like real outrage at, you know, certain launch prices,
[26:54] right? Or certain, you know, price
[26:56] increases over time where, you know, the patient community is
[27:00] feeling it, you know, physicians are feeling the, the, the access
[27:04] constraints that come as a result of that.
[27:08] And I feel like that is, is really, you know, a bit of a
[27:12] check on, on where these, you know, on, on where these, you
[27:16] know, where these prices go. And, you know, I do think that
[27:20] look for, you know, we, we haven't seen that for some
[27:24] pretty high-priced launches that have happened in the, you know,
[27:27] that have happened in the past, you know, that have happened in
[27:30] the past year or two years. So, you know, I think that
[27:34] politicians and, and I think the, you know, the, the reason
[27:37] for that is, you know, the way that yes, the drugs are
[27:40] high-priced, but they're actually like also in many ways,
[27:46] like very closely managed by the payers, right?
[27:49] So, you know, yes, the, the price is high, but you know, I
[27:54] think, you know, the, the utilization, you know, kind of
[27:57] goes, goes along with that. So, you know, I, I think that,
[28:03] you know, companies are, are pretty careful in, in thinking
[28:06] through that. You know, I can't think of any
[28:08] company that that wants to be a kind of, you know, focus and,
[28:13] and source of, of outrage by, you know, patient community or,
[28:17] you know, payers or, or physician community.
[28:20] So I think it's a it's a really fairpoint, Josh.
[28:23] My hope would be that, you know, companies continue to to take
[28:26] that, you know, kind of threat of outrage into consideration.
[28:30] You know, when they're they're thinking about, you know,
[28:32] pricing their therapies and negotiating access for their
[28:35] therapies. So that they're, you know,
[28:37] really, really staying within bounds of like what society
[28:41] thinks is acceptable and what you know, what, what insurers
[28:45] are are going to put on formulary and, you know, deliver
[28:48] access for. Yeah.
[28:49] And then it also dovetails into the most favored nation the
[28:52] effort to get other countries to pay more and and perhaps as a
[28:56] quid try to get US payers paying less, which you know may require
[29:00] legislation of of some forms. So we'll have to see how it
[29:04] goes. And and appreciative that we
[29:06] have the no patient left behind narrative to kind of help
[29:10] counter some of the pressure that we may start to face again
[29:13] on on drug pricing. So then great, great effort and
[29:16] great group that that you have there.
[29:18] Yeah. And maybe just a perspective on
[29:20] the MFN stuff cuz I, cuz I actually think, I actually think
[29:23] that the MFN stuff in terms of like, hey, will raising prices
[29:27] in Europe and other geographies, will that actually lower prices
[29:31] in the US? And I think it does in the long
[29:34] term. And the way that I think it does
[29:36] in the long term is it actually increases competition, right?
[29:39] It makes it that much easier for the, you know, 4th to market,
[29:45] 5th to market company to say, like, here's geographies or
[29:50] spaces where I can actually play and win because the market is
[29:54] simply big enough because other geographies, you know, other
[29:59] people are paying. It's not just, you know, it's
[30:02] not, it's not just the US. And I think that competition, I
[30:04] mean, we saw it, you know, in space in the hepatitis C market,
[30:08] right, where we went from like, gosh, like $84,000 a year to
[30:12] like now it's like what like $15,000 a year for like a
[30:16] hepatitis C cure. And that was because of like,
[30:19] you know, second to market, 3rd to market coming in and having
[30:22] to be really competitive on price because you know, the, the
[30:26] product profile simply wasn't as, you know, simply wasn't as
[30:29] attractive. So so I think that's kind of the
[30:32] longer term view, you know, that that you know, I have that that
[30:37] no patient left behind has on on how MFN like really does
[30:41] actually bring benefits to the US market just through more
[30:45] competition and you know, simply more drugs competing and some of
[30:49] those are going to be on price. Yeah.
[30:52] All right. Well, maybe now moving on to
[30:54] another topic again somewhat relatedly that has to do with
[31:00] you know, all these, all these new forces we're we're dealing
[31:03] with that we never really had to pay attention to MFN tariffs,
[31:10] IRA dynamics, HHSFD. Josh, I I can't hear you test.
[31:28] Did he go out on your end too? He went.
[31:31] Out. There, there he is.
[31:33] There he is. You're back.
[31:34] Josh did. I we missed.
[31:36] We missed about 1/2 minute or so from MFN and and other broad.
[31:40] Dynamics to something else Oh that's that's weird well,
[31:44] hopefully you can still hear me if if I drop off just keep going
[31:47] without me but I'm I'm here so so I guess what I'm noticing is
[31:52] is because there's so many new focal points for investors to to
[31:57] follow you know MFN and tariffs and IRA and HHS and and all the
[32:03] volatility of the sector investment horizons which have
[32:08] always been short have actually continued to compress even
[32:11] further. I get almost no interest in 2026
[32:18] catalysts yet it feels like we're kind of at the point of
[32:20] the year where the interest in, in, in what's what's ahead in
[32:24] 2026 should start to pick up. But I'm certainly not really
[32:28] hearing much of that. Erica, are you hearing it and
[32:31] and Tess, are you starting to think about 2026 events?
[32:34] Are we still all kind of so in the weeds of 25?
[32:38] Yeah, that, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of it before.
[32:41] You just raised it. No, my, my call volume is
[32:44] similar to yours. It's very much focused on the
[32:46] next three or four months. And you're right, this would be
[32:50] the time of year typically when you'd start to, you know, get
[32:54] those calls and emails saying, you know, tell me at least about
[32:56] your first half of 2026 Catalyst, you know, 11 potential
[33:01] consideration and maybe this is my rose colored glasses on, is
[33:06] that folks seem to be looking to invest in near term milestones,
[33:13] including binary events right now because they want to put
[33:17] more risk on they're more aggressively positioned
[33:20] positively and favorably positioned in biotech in my
[33:23] opinion. And they've seen a very good,
[33:25] you know, last three months of performance, especially great
[33:28] three months of performance from smaller cap developmental stage
[33:32] companies. So in my coverage universe, you
[33:35] know, I still have a few 2025 events and there is a ton of
[33:40] attention and focus and interest in in some ways more than I
[33:44] would have expected for a binary given what we just talked about
[33:47] earlier, Josh, which is how hard it is to make money in binaries.
[33:50] But I think people are saying the Sedaras and cell cuities and
[33:54] Abby Vax is the world stocks up multi fold on the back of a
[33:59] binary events and and wanting to play more and and still having,
[34:03] you know, a lot of fun with what's left in 2025.
[34:05] That that's my take on this, Tess.
[34:09] Yeah. I mean, I think it just comes
[34:11] back to our previous discussion. I mean we, we are, you know,
[34:14] obviously doing doing both and have the capacity to do both,
[34:17] which is which is great in terms of thinking about the rest of
[34:20] the year and thinking about 26. But yeah, I think in, you know,
[34:25] what, what we talked about before is, is very true, right?
[34:28] When is the right time to like, really think about, you know,
[34:31] catalysts and, you know, companies that may be
[34:34] undervalued well before the event where, you know, that may
[34:39] reveal itself. So, you know, think it's always,
[34:42] always good practice to be focused on that.
[34:44] I, I just, you know, I think you're Josh, I think it's a
[34:47] really good point. I mean, we've just gone through
[34:50] such an incredible macro upheaval where literally it's
[34:55] like, can you even focus on next week because you're just trying
[34:58] to figure out what's happening today.
[35:01] So I think, you know, interested in both of your thoughts, but I
[35:04] think it's also just a bit of catch up where people are like,
[35:06] Oh my gosh, OK, like maybe, you know, tomorrow I'm not going to
[35:10] get whacked with MFN. Gee, let me think about some
[35:14] like, you know, cool. Like data that might be coming
[35:17] up like that. Sounds like fun.
[35:19] Right. No, it's, it's like there are so
[35:22] many blind spots now because you know, we, we have in the way of
[35:27] our field of view all these other forces that are pulling us
[35:30] away. I, I think there's some
[35:33] incredible risk awards just, you know, at out there with
[35:37] important events coming 2026 or beyond where, where, you know,
[35:41] the valuation of the company might reflect, you know, a 5 to
[35:46] 10% chance of working. And in reality, it's north of
[35:49] 50%. And those arbitrage situations
[35:52] often are not sustained. They, they tend to close as you
[35:55] get closer to the data set and as investors start to turn their
[35:58] attention there. And so you know, another way of
[36:01] like being able to to drive performance without taking the
[36:05] the binary exposure of each event.
[36:07] Now, on the topic of a lot of distractions that that we're
[36:12] dealing with is that the topic of earnings calls and
[36:17] particularly earnings calls for non commercial companies and you
[36:22] know, they can often be fairly lengthy in terms of the prepared
[36:25] remarks. The prepared remarks are
[36:27] generally backward looking, not materially forward-looking and
[36:31] and recaps of where the company is often, you know, a fair
[36:34] amount of redundancy Q&A section time that you know, often you
[36:41] you just hear analysts asking questions for the sake of being
[36:44] heard on a call, not really advancing that the dialogue or
[36:48] or contributing to the to the understanding of a company.
[36:51] So Tess, we'll start with you on this one.
[36:54] Your views of earnings calls particularly for for pre
[36:58] commercial or or less evolving, more or less dynamic, kind of
[37:03] more static early stage and of innovating companies.
[37:07] Are they, do you like when they do the earnings calls?
[37:10] Would you any any thoughts in terms of how they could be done
[37:13] better, if at all? And I think it's such a good
[37:16] point. I mean, I, I feel like, you
[37:20] know, in, in some ways it is just more of a distraction and
[37:24] then a benefit when you are, you know, when you are, you know,
[37:28] early stage and it's really going to be data that drives
[37:31] things. And why not just do calls around
[37:33] data? And what's distracting about it
[37:36] is like sometimes it really does matter for even like development
[37:40] stage or early stage companies because you know, they may
[37:43] choose to like include, you know, some pretty critical data
[37:46] like in the earnings release sometimes.
[37:48] And so you kind of like have to pay attention because it might
[37:52] really matter. But like like also it's, you
[37:55] know, distracting because I'd say, you know, very frequently
[37:59] it doesn't really matter. So, you know, I think that to
[38:03] the extent that there's just, you know, a lot of key
[38:07] information about like, you know, what are investors
[38:09] typically looking for in 1/4 for a development stage company?
[38:12] It's like, you know, how much cash do you have?
[38:15] When are you getting out of money?
[38:17] Are all of your program still on track?
[38:19] Are you doing anything new? Right.
[38:21] And I think that usually that can really be encompassed in the
[38:25] body of a of a press release. And anyone who, you know, wants
[38:30] more color can always take the time to, to talk to management
[38:33] and, you know, anyone who is, but, you know, we kind of just
[38:40] allows more focus on like what are the things that really do
[38:43] matter, which, you know, for development stage companies and,
[38:46] you know, discovery stage companies really tends to be
[38:49] data releases. And then I do think like as you
[38:52] get to like, hey, phase three and like you're getting into,
[38:56] you know, kind of regulatory and like planning for lunch, Like I
[39:01] do think that it's, you know, generally, you know, pretty
[39:04] helpful to actually have like start having those calls, you
[39:09] know, ideally before launch, just because there are so many
[39:12] moving parts sometimes with, you know, what you have to do to get
[39:15] ready. And it's, it's really helpful
[39:17] to, you know, to hear that, that type of detail.
[39:20] I'd be interested, you know, Josh and Josh and Eric and and
[39:23] how you think about this and where you'd like to see
[39:25] development stage earnings calls go if if at all.
[39:30] Yeah, Eric, give us your take. Well, Josh, not surprisingly,
[39:35] I'll, I'll take the other side of the coin from you.
[39:37] And, and I guess Tess as well, I actually kind of think we should
[39:41] be doing these as a kind of regular best practices going
[39:47] forward policy. And, and the reason I do is
[39:49] because you know, from a company standpoint, it's, it's a very
[39:53] competitive world out there, right?
[39:54] I mean, there are 500 companies, they're all looking for capital.
[39:57] They all need their voices heard.
[40:00] If you don't do an earnings call, if you don't communicate
[40:05] even minor updates that you've made over the last three months,
[40:10] people will forget about you. They'll assume you haven't done
[40:13] anything. You won't get the benefit of
[40:16] analysts asking you questions. You won't get the benefit of the
[40:19] loudspeaker in terms of sell side notes coming out after the
[40:22] fact. You you're in danger of kind of
[40:25] becoming a non entity. And that's a really, really,
[40:28] really dangerous place to be, Josh, even within our universe
[40:31] of coverage, I bet. I bet when you think about
[40:34] companies that do regular earnings calls, you would just
[40:37] come off the Q2 earnings season. Of course, you're probably more
[40:40] fresh and up to date on those companies that did a call versus
[40:44] those that didn't. I'm guessing, I don't know, but
[40:47] you know, that that would be the rationale for, for why these
[40:50] companies, you know, seemingly or are potentially using a
[40:55] little bit too much of our time on a on a daily basis with these
[40:59] calls. Look, I don't think anyone loves
[41:02] to to listen to Alice spell off as you just said it, but but I I
[41:07] do understand the purpose and I do think it allows me as a busy
[41:12] person is trying to keep track of 20 or 30 names very closely
[41:16] and another 30 or so names somewhat closely.
[41:19] Keeps me a little bit more up to date on those stories.
[41:23] It's yeah. I mean, I think both sides are
[41:25] have very legitimate points. I think it can, it can be a
[41:30] little challenging or frustrating in part because it's
[41:35] a little bit of information overload.
[41:37] You know, there, there are certainly days where there's a
[41:40] hundred companies reporting earnings and we've all had this
[41:45] scenario where like multiple of our companies all have their
[41:48] earnings calls going on at the exact same time.
[41:50] And so you kind of trying to, to rush through it and, and, and
[41:53] get all the key takeaways. And in a short period of time,
[41:56] it's not a great time for, for, you know, new for, for a chance
[42:02] to digest, you know, really new information of certainly about
[42:06] pipeline products. There's a fair amount of like
[42:10] wasted air time in terms of reviewing financials that, that
[42:13] don't matter. That's always the point of, for
[42:15] me, that's the point of frustration because it's, it's a
[42:17] point of tone deafness, right? Like if, if you think trivial
[42:22] numbers around R&D spending that we could have seen in a press
[42:25] release, a material to investors, it is just a little
[42:28] knock on your credibility and understanding of what, what
[42:31] really does matter. I get that there's this cookie
[42:34] cutter approach and folks may be nervous to break the mold.
[42:38] I I get that folks may be nervous to say, oh, well, if
[42:41] we're doing an earnings call for for one earnings now, does that
[42:45] mean we need to do them for every other earnings?
[42:47] I just, I don't understand why that needs to be like, like, why
[42:51] isn't there flexibility in, in the way that we narrate these
[42:55] companies? Why do companies have to do a
[42:57] call on an earnings day release as opposed to, you know, just
[43:01] having a mid quarter update around anything that's changed
[43:05] that's material to give analysts and investors a chance to ask
[43:09] the question and not be one of like 100 companies all coming
[43:13] out at the same time that that can make things overwhelming to
[43:16] some extent. It's our problem, right?
[43:18] It's not the company's problem. They're they're not doing
[43:20] anything wrong, right? It's nothing wrong with hosting
[43:23] in their next call, nothing wrong with reviewing, you know,
[43:26] all the minutiae of financials that that don't really matter it
[43:30] it is our problem, but it's it's a problem none the less that,
[43:35] you know, in theory could, could be optimized by a little bit
[43:39] more attentiveness to to companies, a little bit more
[43:42] realization of the bandwidth that they are consuming with
[43:45] long introductory comments. Maybe they have a reason for for
[43:50] making them. I generally think they tend not
[43:52] to be as effective as companies think they are.
[43:55] Like these standard earnings calls don't move stocks.
[43:59] Like no one listens to the earning call.
[44:01] And you know, for a development stage company, for the most
[44:04] part, unless there's something big in material and says, wow,
[44:07] they really changed my mind with those introductory comments.
[44:10] And so they're all sorts of kind of odd and unusual embedded
[44:14] practices that I think are just very, very hard for one reason
[44:18] to to shift away from. So an ongoing conversation point
[44:24] especially around earned those those weeks of earnings where
[44:27] we'll literally have hundreds of companies reporting that that
[44:32] week. So all right, maybe next topic
[44:35] IPO window remains closed, but a successful SPAC, our SPAC's back
[44:41] is what? What's going on, Eric?
[44:45] Yeah, actually it was. I think endpoints have pointed
[44:48] out it's been 6 months since the last IPO in biotech or last real
[44:53] IPO in biotech. That was Aardvark, Josh, I know
[44:56] you were part of that one. And that's a pretty long dry
[44:59] spell. I think the longest dry spell is
[45:01] something like 20 months or so in the history industry.
[45:04] So we're nothing like that just yet.
[45:06] But you know, six months relative to historical norms is
[45:11] still a very lengthy period. We did have a SPAC and, and the
[45:15] SPAC is the name actually we were involved with Bridge Bio.
[45:19] We sorry Bridge Bio Oncology Therapeutics or BPOT company was
[45:25] incubated as part of Bridge Bio and spun out about a year ago as
[45:28] a private company and and chose to go public via the SPAC
[45:32] process. It raised a lot of money.
[45:34] It's very well capitalized. It's got a great list of
[45:37] shareholders, you know, not that we're giving investment advice
[45:41] on this program, but, but it is a name that that we think quite
[45:44] highly of. And, and they chose the SPAC
[45:47] route, which I guess, you know, is, is somewhat interesting to
[45:50] me. I, I don't know if this company
[45:52] had gone public via the traditional IPO dog and Pony
[45:56] Roadshow whether they would have had as much success.
[46:00] I mean, obviously with the SPAC you have a pretty narrow set of
[46:04] shareholders and and backers test I don't, I don't remember
[46:07] if RA was involved in this or not.
[46:09] So chime in here and with an IPO, you know, you, you
[46:13] obviously are opening yourself up to a broader set of buyers
[46:17] though you know, lately at least IP OS have been pretty narrow in
[46:20] their support as well, maybe not quite as narrow as a SPAC.
[46:24] I do think that, you know, having not gone through the IPO
[46:28] roadshow process, the visibility and and knowledge that surrounds
[46:33] this company is a little bit lower.
[46:35] They have a lower profile than they might have otherwise had,
[46:37] but but they got what they needed, which is, you know, a
[46:41] terrific valuation, great group of shareholders, capital to take
[46:45] their oncology therapeutics forward.
[46:48] We may see more of these in this very choppy environment, but be
[46:53] curious as to what you guys are thinking.
[46:56] Well, Tess, how, how are you thinking about the IPO window?
[46:59] Like what are, what are the signals that, that you'd want to
[47:02] see as an investor to encourage, you know, companies that you
[47:07] know, in the RA Capital portfolio to test the IPO
[47:10] waters? Like is and, and is it, what is
[47:14] there a reasonable signal that you're looking for?
[47:17] Like, like, how are we even going to know?
[47:20] Yeah, I think it, I think it always comes down to like market
[47:22] demand, right? And are investors excited to put
[47:27] money into the company And you know, if they if enough want to
[47:32] do that, then hey, maybe it's a, you know, time that company
[47:35] should be public. Obviously kind of, you know,
[47:38] stage, you know, stage dependent and you know, management team,
[47:42] you know, dependent on all and all that.
[47:44] But I think it really does come down to just investor, you know,
[47:49] investor demand and, you know, really starting with your
[47:52] insiders, right? And do you have, you know, you
[47:56] know, a few insiders around the table who are really, you know,
[47:59] eager to invest more and, you know, facilitate, you know,
[48:04] facilitate a public listing? You know, I think it, I think it
[48:08] is interesting. Like just what?
[48:10] And yes, we were, you know, we did sponsor us back.
[48:14] You know, we've also had several of our companies go through
[48:17] reverse mergers or, you know, pair up with, you know, pair up
[48:21] with reverse merge companies. And what I think works really
[48:26] well with that structure is like you agree on price, right?
[48:31] And you're kind of coming to the table with like, here is what
[48:35] the price is going to be. Here is what the deal is going
[48:36] to look like. It's much more like a private
[48:39] company deal process, right? Which is what, you know, what's
[48:45] a little bit easier to do in this market, right?
[48:47] As a as a private company deal process where like you have a
[48:49] party that kind of named their price and they see if they can
[48:53] get everyone together. And if they don't, then like,
[48:55] hey, maybe the terms were quite right.
[48:57] Maybe you have to modify things. Maybe you have to, you know,
[49:00] price a little bit different and like, hey, maybe then you can go
[49:02] and get things done. You know, the IPO process is
[49:05] like it is a, you know, it is a different and, and you know,
[49:11] it's a very different process for kind of finding price,
[49:14] right? Everyone's kind of sitting
[49:16] around the table like watching each other with like, are you
[49:18] going to put money in? Are you going to put it in at a
[49:20] higher price? Are you, you know, is that like
[49:22] your real order or like are you just putting in those numbers
[49:25] because you want to wait to like see if everyone else likes this
[49:27] IPO, but you actually only want like $5 million, you know, trade
[49:32] out. Like, you know, it's such a kind
[49:34] of like, you know, challenging, you know, process to like find
[49:37] truth in. And you know, Josh and, and
[49:41] Eric, I know that we've, you know, talked about just our
[49:44] approach to thinking through that, which is really starting
[49:46] with your insiders and, and kind of, you know, in a way
[49:50] compensating them for giving you real information about pricing
[49:53] by like, you know, giving them the allocation that they want
[49:57] at, you know, a price where you're, you know, 70% covered by
[50:00] your insiders. But you know all that to say in
[50:03] a in a period of great volatility, having that like
[50:06] kind of lead investor and like pricing certainty I think really
[50:12] helps you know, deals get deals get done and makes it more like
[50:17] a like a private transaction. I think, I think one of the
[50:21] challenges I see from the IPO window in particular is that,
[50:25] you know, the the highest caliber companies who and you
[50:29] know, in an ideal world would be the first to kind of test the
[50:33] IPO window because they're going to have the best prospects for
[50:35] success are the ones who least need to do it because they can
[50:39] still access plenty of capital from from private investors as
[50:43] needed. They often have a fair amount of
[50:44] capital already. So there's not as much urgency
[50:47] for them. So we actually rarely start
[50:51] trying to open the IPO window with our best, which in theory
[50:54] would be the best way to do it, because those are the companies
[50:57] that are likely to have strong out of the gate performance and
[51:00] and really start to crank that window open wider for the rest.
[51:03] But instead, we kind of probably wind up with that middle tier,
[51:08] right? It's the companies that, you
[51:10] know, good enough to consider an IPO, maybe not the the best of
[51:13] the best, but they're the ones that are actually perhaps now
[51:17] pressured to find alternative sources of capital beyond their
[51:22] private investors. And so, you know, the IPO window
[51:26] to open in that way has to be more of a pull, right?
[51:33] Like it has to be even healthier because we're not necessarily
[51:36] leading with it with our best. And so those companies that do
[51:38] go through have to be very reasonable on valuation.
[51:42] There needs to be enough investor appetite for those type
[51:45] of companies as opposed to the elite of the elite, which is I
[51:48] think where investors are starting to focus.
[51:51] So I'm, I'm hopeful that at some point, you know, the IPO window
[51:54] will crack open just enough for the really high caliber
[51:59] companies to come through. I've got a, and I, it's not a
[52:01] short list of high caliber companies.
[52:04] It's a long list of high caliber companies, which is what I am
[52:08] super excited for, unbelievably intimidated by because I mean,
[52:13] we're, if the window really does open and these high quality
[52:17] companies start start leaping through it, we're going to be
[52:20] incredibly busy and, and incredibly busy in a really
[52:25] good, in a really exciting way, but incredibly busy nonetheless.
[52:29] So we'll see how that all evolves.
[52:30] We've got a few more topics to cover towards the end here, I
[52:35] guess Summit Therapeutics, Eric, what was, what was going on
[52:37] there? They elected not to host an
[52:39] earnings call. And funny that we were just
[52:41] talking about earnings call and now, now a company that didn't
[52:44] host a earnings call caused a problem like what is going on?
[52:48] Well, I guess this comes back to, you know, the debate we just
[52:51] had about whether development stage companies will, will or
[52:54] should host earnings calls. Someone is 1 heck of a
[52:58] development stage company. This is a $20 billion market cap
[53:01] development stage company. So they're a little bit of an
[53:04] outlier to begin with. And, you know, to the point you
[53:08] made earlier, Josh. Yeah, they, they did host an
[53:10] earnings call last quarter. They chose not to this time
[53:13] around. That change in strategy was
[53:17] viewed, I think, a little bit skeptically by some and the
[53:23] vacuum of information that it created, in particular not
[53:26] holding a conference call, led to a lot of debate and
[53:30] discussion, at least behind the scenes.
[53:32] There were a couple of disclosures, not clinical data
[53:36] disclosures, but more financial disclosures in their release.
[53:39] So we're also a little bit unorthodox.
[53:41] So it was a little bit of a storm and a teacup this week.
[53:43] It was my number one incoming call volume stock in the last
[53:47] five days. And, and I think had they hosted
[53:50] a conference call, it would definitely not have been the
[53:52] case, right? It would have it would have been
[53:55] an open forum and everyone would have had an opportunity to to
[53:58] hear management's answers to the same questions that we all
[54:01] wanted to ask. But that's not the way it played
[54:04] out. So, and, and in fact, the stock
[54:06] was was a little bit weak too. It's been an underperformer and
[54:09] a good tape otherwise for biotech.
[54:11] So, so maybe you know, another reason to to think again about
[54:16] not holding in a race call, especially if you're as closely
[54:20] watched as Summit. I mean, there aren't too many
[54:22] again, $20 billion development stage companies.
[54:25] This one is, you know, been been very volatile as a story for
[54:31] multiple reasons. Yeah, Yeah.
[54:34] I guess you just can't win when it comes to earnings calls.
[54:37] You do them, you don't do them. There's always going to be
[54:39] someone that's frustrated. But thank you for that, that
[54:42] context. I think a lot of the revenue
[54:46] generating earning companies have have already reported
[54:49] certainly from my coverage universe, it was a very mixed
[54:51] bag, although I think overall it was a it was a very good second
[54:55] quarter across the board. 11 company that did report this
[54:59] week was ARS Pharma with their their launch of Nephi, which is
[55:02] a nasal epinephrine to replace EPI pens.
[55:06] And you know, they're they're gaining traction.
[55:08] It's been one of those high volume, low price launches which
[55:14] are, which are always hard to to execute on because you know,
[55:17] it's just, you just need to wait for high, high volumes of, of
[55:21] prescription writers. It's typically a, a mile wide,
[55:24] kind of inch deep type market. In contrast to the ultra rare
[55:28] conditions where you know, you put 50 patients on drug and you
[55:31] already have 25,000,000 of revenue.
[55:33] This is a very, very different model to to their credit, they
[55:36] are, they are executing on the launch.
[55:38] They are starting to get traction.
[55:39] It's back to school season and so that's been helping them
[55:42] test. I know this is the name of of
[55:44] interest to you. I got a lot of questions in
[55:46] terms of why the stock sold off after what looked like a good
[55:50] second quarter earnings might might take on it was that, you
[55:53] know, now is actually really the time where they they need to
[55:56] deliver on this launch because as you look at the third quarter
[56:00] revenue estimates that you know, they really need to step it up.
[56:04] And so I think investors are starting to look towards that
[56:06] second quarter thinks you know, they seem to be on track to hit
[56:09] that number as well. So a little bit early in the in
[56:12] the quarter and then there are also some competitive dynamics
[56:15] that are I'm not sure if you wanted to talk about this name
[56:19] in particular. I know you're.
[56:20] I know our capital is very close to ARS.
[56:23] Yeah, yeah. No, absolutely anything.
[56:25] I think, I think just maybe on the, you know, I think this is
[56:31] an area where convenience really does.
[56:34] Matter, right? And, you know, there's a lot of
[56:37] people who are, you know, scared of needles, especially children.
[56:41] And it's great to see. I mean, with with, you know, we
[56:44] have ARS on the market. And, you know, the other thing
[56:48] that we saw this week was a questive and they actually have
[56:53] a patch, you know, therapy that you can put, you know, that
[56:56] dissolves under your tongue. And, you know, this is a company
[57:00] that, you know, they're, I think they're, you know, in
[57:03] discussions with the, with the FDA now about the, you know,
[57:07] approval path. They were talking about, you
[57:09] know, on their, on their, you know, Q2 update about, you know,
[57:13] the timing for a potential adcom and if, if that may or may not
[57:17] happen. And you know, they, they
[57:20] announced just earlier this week a, you know, funding agreement
[57:25] with, with RTW and, you know, pretty substantial, you know,
[57:29] offering of, of common stock. So, you know, we're certainly
[57:32] seeing, you know, a fair bit of of these deals kind of happen in
[57:37] the in the pre launch phase. Maybe something to just, you
[57:39] know, call out that was that was pretty interesting about this
[57:42] deal is, you know, really, you know, having the, you know, the,
[57:47] the, the strategic funding agreement, you know, that they
[57:50] provided being contingent on approval, right.
[57:53] So I think, you know, that can certainly be reassuring for
[57:56] investors knowing that if it gets approved, there is you
[58:00] know, money to to really support the the launch there.
[58:03] Yeah, excellent. All right, a couple of final
[58:05] topics. Tesla if you want to cover
[58:07] either of these, the Insmed approval and surrept safety
[58:10] data. Absolutely so insmed approval,
[58:14] you know probably one of the most you know highly anticipated
[58:18] you know launches across the the sector Brenzocatinib called
[58:22] Prince Zepri for Bronchiectasis and.
[58:28] You know, big congratulations to the team here.
[58:30] You know, this I think has been just a, you know, excellent case
[58:34] study in communicating, you know, the market opportunity and
[58:38] communicating unmet need. You know, I think the, the, you
[58:42] know, success was very broadly anticipated to our previous
[58:46] discussion about do you get paid for, for sitting through, you
[58:49] know, for sitting through approvals.
[58:51] But really, you know, really clean label didn't talk about,
[58:55] you know, prior exacerbations, you know, flexibility for, you
[58:58] know, 10 Meg or 25 Meg. So, you know, I think, you know,
[59:03] I think there's a lot of excitement around this, this
[59:05] launch and you know, we should know, you know, we should know
[59:08] next, next quarter. So that will be obviously highly
[59:11] anticipated. And then I think another one
[59:14] that we wanted to hit on was, you know, Surrepta giving an
[59:19] update on, you know, giving, giving a, an update to the, to
[59:24] the patient community, you know, really, really focused on just,
[59:29] you know, sharing more, more details on some of the deaths
[59:33] and, you know, sharing more details on what's happened in
[59:36] ambulatory, non ambulatory. I think, you know, really good
[59:41] and important to, you know, have this disclosure.
[59:44] I think, you know, always I, I think with with, you know,
[59:49] safety, you know, with safety, you know, just critical to to
[59:53] get this information out ideally as you know, early as possible
[59:58] and just essential to have this well, well characterized.
[1:00:01] So, you know, they're, you know, good.
[1:00:04] Good to see them, you know, coming out with this, you know,
[1:00:08] coming out with us now. All right, while we're at the
[1:00:10] top of our hour, as always, wonderful discussion, two of my
[1:00:13] favorite Co hosts. I hope everyone has a great
[1:00:16] weekend and we'll we'll catch you back here next week, or if
[1:00:20] not next week, sometime soon.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.