The current Economic climate is not easy for all kinds of start-up company, but the startup life sciences has grown well beyond even the start-up phase. But not yet reached profitability, which have a harder time to secure venture capital funding from the other high-tech.
The limited partners have invested capital in less capital available for spreading and faster return on investments compared with previous years. Science startups need funding the most. And has a long-term liquidity.
In addition, the food and Drug Administration (FDA) is under pressure to make changes to the regulatory pathway of several types of products that will further prolong and complicate the regulatory process.
As a result, Startup Life Sciences found themselves stuck in a state that requires a lot of capital to the more time wasted in dealing with current trends, so that the life sciences startup funded, they are having an easier path and regulations that are faster or find a way to establish value without going through the full oversight.
The Partners have terbataas capital fund to invest in VC
Like most investors, pension plans, college endowments, corporations, individuals who are very wealthy, and other investors with a typical venture capital funding hit by stock market jatunya in 2008 and influenced by volatile financial markets are prevalent since then. Wealth they have significantly disrupted partially the result, so has the ability and willingness to erpartisipasi unvestasi such high-risk and capital veteran.
A release issued by the National Venture Capital Association (AMPN) and Thomson Reuters on October 10, 2011, reported that venture capital funds to raise the smallest amount of capital in a quarter since the third quarter of 2003, as a veteran capital industry suffers along with the volatility of the economy - 52 funds wider raised $ 1720000000 in the third quarter of 2011, compared with raising funds # T53 3.5 billion in the third quarter of 2010.
Ability of limited partners and the ability to invest in venture capital funds have also been experiencing the negative impact of stagnant prime public offering (IPO)
Limited ability and willingness of partners to invest in venture capital funds have also been negatively impacted by stagnant market offering prime (IPO).
According to the release issued by the NVCA and Thomson Reuters on October 3, 2011, only five companies that supported the company go public in the third quarter of 2011, Down 77% from second quarter of 2011 and 64% from the third quarter of 2010. without the liquidity provided by a healthy IPO market, the partners have less capital available and less incentive to invest in venture capital funds.
On October 10, NVCA - Thomson Reuters release, NVCA President Mark Heesen cautioned that, unless we are willing to see the flow and quality of the IPO is more cash, limited partners will continue to contract industrial enterprises
Life Science Startups Are Less Attracting Capital from VC Funds
Life science startups are drawing less of the depleted capital from venture capital funds available. According to a release published by the NVCA and PricewaterhouseCoopers on October 19, 2011, venture capital funds invested a total of $ 6.95 billion in 876 deals during the third quarter of 2011, with the most investment going to the software sector (a 10-year high for that sector) while the life sciences sector (biotechnology and medical device industries combined) experienced a marked decline.
During the quarter, venture capital funds invested $ 1.1 billion in 96 deals in the biotechnology industry, the which constituted a Decrease of 18% in terms of dollars and 20% in terms of deals relative to the prior quarter, and $ 728 million in 74 deals in the medical device industry, the which constituted a Decrease of 18% in terms of dollars and 21% in terms of deals relative to the prior quarter.
Life science startups' long investment horizon, the which stems from the long and uncertain regulatory process for Their products, has Contributed to Their waning popularity Among venture capital firms. According to a recent survey of venture capital firms by the NVCA and the Medical Innovation and Competitiveness Coalition, 39% of the 156 venture capital firms That participated in the survey (which accounted for $ 10 billion in investments in healthcare companies over the past three years) Their reduced investment in healthcare companies during the past three years, and the same percentage of of participants expect to Reduced Their investment in healthcare companies over the next three years.
The survey also showed within the healthcare sector That, venture capital investment has shifted away from biopharma and medical devices during the past three years-61% of the venture capital firms participated in the survey That FDA regulatory challenges cited as the top factor affecting investment Their decisions.
Life Science Startups Have a Long and Expensive gestation Period
The approval process for new drugs and high risk (Class III) medical devices is expensive and long. Such drugs and medical devices must go through at least Generally three phases of clinical studies before They can go to market. Phase I trials test a drug or medical Such device for the first time on a small group of people (20-80) to evaluate the product's safety, Including identifying side effects, and in the case of a drug, to determine the safe dosage.
Phase II trials expand the number of participants in the studies of (100-300) to attempt to Establish whether the drug or medical device is effective and to further evaluate its safety and side effects.
In Phase III trials, the which examine long-term efficacy and safety, the drug or medical device is given to large groups of of participants (1.000 to 3.000). Successful drugs and medical devices will go to market during Generally Following Phase III trials or, although studies will continue in order to Obtain additional information, Including the product's risks, benefits, and optimal use (Phase IV trials).
It is common for Phases I through III of the clinical studies for a new drug or medical device to cost in excess of $ 100 million and take at least six years. Due to the amount of capital required to develop Such products, life science start-up companies can not rely solely on bootstrapping or angel funding from investors and must look to other options, with venture capital funds Among them primary.
However, even under the best of circumstances, the path to market of a product's life science startup may run up against the 10-year lifespan of most venture capital funds. And, it should be noted That Neither going nor FDA approval to market guarantees the acquisition or IPO for the company That affords venture capital funds and Their limited partners with the liquidity They desire.
As Terry McGuire, cofounder and general partner of Polaris Venture Partners and past chairman of the NVCA, asserted in a recent interview, "The [exit] process has gotten to be so long, and the capital required so deep, that it's Becoming more and more difficult, to generate venture-type returns, and therefore, make it worth your while to do it. "
The path to market for Certain products may actually Become more challenging in the near future. Under the FDA's 510 (k) system, a low risk (Class I) or medium risk (Class II) medical device can be "cleared" for use if it can be established That it is substantially equivalent to a medical device (a "predicate ") That has been cleared or approved Previously by the FDA.
510 (k) clearance requires fewer if any clinical studies, and is therefore, less expensive and faster Generally the approval process than described above. About 90% of medical devices submitted to the FDA are Reviewed under the 510 (k) system.
However, a series of recent recalls of 510 (k)-cleared devices, foremost Among them Johnson & Johnson's decision last year to recall more than 90.000 artificial hips, has led to Scrutiny of the 510 (k) process. The criticism has led to slower turn-around times on 510 (k) clearances and an internal FDA review may result in an That overhaul and slowing down of the process.
Lessons
Life science startups today face daunting prospects available-depleted along with higher capital costs and a longer path to liquidity. Those That survive, or even Thrive, do so by employing a variety of creative strategies for funding.
First and most critically, startups must seek out alternative sources of funding-from angels for early-stage companies to strategic partners, foreign funding sources, venture lenders, and government grants.
Second, startups must Strategically Consider Their Commercialization plans-for example, some companies are Able to secure foreign regulatory approval and less expensively Sooner, and then use profits from foreign sales to drive the U.S. regulatory approval process.
Companies may also Their sights set not on an IPO or large dollar acquisition but instead on an early sale, the which may mean conducting clinical trials but not for the FDA to Establish proof of concept sufficient to entice potential acquirers to fund the U.S. regulatory process Themselves ( Perhaps with an earnout payment to company stockholders).
Finally, startups must take full advantage of all of the upsides of a challenging economy, Including cheaper rent and Greater availability of talent. Innovation today is essential, not only for research and development, but for all aspects of funding and operating a life science startup. Article Source
