Stop valuing a biotech on its platform slide

Every young biotech has the slide. A circle in the middle labelled with the technology, a dozen arrows pointing out to disease areas, and the word platform somewhere in large type. It is a good slide for a first round. It is a poor way to run a company.

Buyers pay for assets

When a larger company licenses, partners or acquires, it is usually paying for something specific: a candidate with data in a disease it cares about, or a capability it can put a price on. The platform matters because it produced that candidate and might produce the next one. On its own it is a promise, and promises are discounted heavily in a term sheet.

Founders know this, which is why the platform slide so often survives into later decks while the lead program sits on page eleven. That order is backwards.

“

We spent two years explaining the platform. The deal happened in six weeks once we had one clean data readout.

Focus is not a lack of ambition

Spreading a small team across five indications to prove breadth usually means none of them reaches a decisive experiment. Choosing one program, funding it to a readout that would change a partner's mind, and saying so plainly, is not small thinking. It is the fastest route to the money that pays for the other four.

What I would put on slide two

The lead candidate, the disease, the patients, and the one result that would make it worth licensing, with a date and a budget to reach it. Then the platform, as the reason there will be a second candidate. Investors who only want the platform story will still find it. The ones who write the larger cheques later will notice you led with the part they pay for.