An important factor ailing the pharmaceutical industry is
that the managements of large companies are not equipped to
independently evaluate the merits of innovative technology platforms. Too far removed from the lowly laboring scientist, laser-focused on meeting next quarter’s numbers and increasingly with non-science
backgrounds, this frequently leads to odd deal dynamics driven by herd
behavior. Needless to say, while the
technologies may be deserving, much money is wasted not only by overpaying, but
also by putting it to work in the wrong places setting the stage for investor backlash and lawsuits.
We have seen this herd behavior in RNAi Therapeutics in 2006-8 culminating in Merck's $1.1B acqusition of Sirna Therapeutics and Roche's $300M+ non-exclusive platform license from Alnylam. We now know that these companies grossly overpaid for the RNAi trigger IP and that
they would soon panic realizing that they had not paid enough attention to RNAi
delivery.
Those vested in the agricultural applications of RNAi gene
silencing must similarly be feeling like in the land of milk and honey these
days. In fact, Alnylam’s reputation as a
company that aggressively enforces what it believes (?) to be its intellectual property
in RNAi triggers, has earned it a juicy $30M upfront from Big Ag Monsanto less than a month ago. This came after a
similar-sized deal for plant RNAi in May involving crop protection juggernaut Syngenta (the marriage of the plant businesses of Zeneca and Novartis) and Belgian plant RNAi
specialty company deVGen. What I did not
understand about the Alnylam deal is why Monsanto would let its collaboration with Devgen expire in 2011 and instead decide to go for RNAi trigger IP. Is Monsanto repeating here Big Pharma’s
mistake of undervaluing enablement?
This week’s announcement that Syngenta in fact is now fully buying deVGen, of course, provides a good explanation for the Monsanto-Alnylam deal:
Syngenta made deVGen an offer it could not refuse (over half a billion US dollars, representing a 68% premium over its market cap) and Monsanto was left scrambling
for alternatives and found in Alnylam a very willing provider of IP ammunition
in the fight for dominance in RNAi-based pest control. If history is any guide,
one or both companies will likely regret their decision due to lack of
enablement and lawsuits will fly in 3-5 years.
Note: although deVGen is also engaged in seed business, especially rice, it's annual $50M revenue run-rate from this part of the business would unlikely warrant the $500M+ price tag.
RNAi Therapeutics Poised
for another Round of Deal Making
Although the clinical dataflow in RNAi Therapeutics has
significantly improved the valuations of a number of RNAi Therapeutics
companies and has also generated renewed interest in the technology among the wider
pharmaceutical industry down to the VCs, we are still waiting for this
important validating deal where a large pharmaceutical company will pony up a
sizeable upfront (>$30M) in an RNAi Therapeutics deal. My expectation is that such an event would
spawn a number of further financially meaningful deals. Being
an eternal RNAi Therapeutics optimist, I hope that this time will be slightly
different in that Big Pharma will have learned its lessons and technical enablement
will feature prominently in this new round of deal making.
No comments:
Post a Comment