A lesson from my recent pivot into the lifesciences and healthcare field is an old familiar one.
The first
area I explored is the field of drug discovery. More particularly, single
product narrow focus drug discoverers. It is the equivalent of looking at
mineral explorers listed on the ASX. The main rationale for this approach is
that drugs are important drivers of the
entire industry. I need to first understand the drugs and treatments in order to
understand the ecosystem.
Being a
numbers person, naturally I started looking at the various published studies on
the historical success rates of various drugs in different areas eg oncology,
vaccines, infectious diseases, etc. The supposition is that if I know the
probabilities of success, I may be able to put bets on expected positive
outcomes. I could then size the positions based on the Kelly Criterion and run
a portfolio on this basis.
For
example, say the base historical success rate of oncology is 3%. If the total
addressable market for a particular drug in development is over $1b, we can
estimate that if the drug achieves commercial success, the market cap of the
company should be well over $5b. Given a 3% success rate, the
entry price for a positive expectancy must be below $150m (assuming no dilution).
Let’s say
we can get an entry at $100m. At 3% probability of success based on being undiluted
(an unrealistic assumption already), but with a potential 50 bagger, we have a positive
expected outcome. The Kelly Criterion based on this number says we should risk
1% of the portfolio. A more practical half Kelly stance puts us on 50 basis
points.
Let’s now say
we can find 200 positions at 50 basis points to fill out our entire portfolio. What
can possibly go wrong?
We have
just made an assumption of independence of outcomes between all the bets. In
other words, we are assuming all of them are separate throws of dice with each
outcome not influencing one another. Biology does not work that way, so drugs
seldom work (or don’t work) that way too. Developments with one drug candidate can
have significant influence on many other drug candidates in adjacent areas.
When the debris has settled, I might just find that 20% of my portfolio has
been wiped out because they are in essence all connected in some way. It could
be a particular biological pathway, it could be a mechanism of action, it could
be a flawed delivery mechanism, it could be a previously undiscovered genetic
problem, it could be a downstream side effect, it could really be anything if I
just did not know where to look.
More
importantly, my competitors will usually have an army of 15 or more PhDs in
various areas of medicine and science, and they collectively have over 300
years of experience. They have expert networks and resources from which to draw
upon. They are paid very well to monitor a much larger pool of drug candidates
in development, way bigger than my pool of 200 that I will struggle to just
keep up with. And I bet you they knew where
to look well in advance.
This is one
contest I want to avoid.
Let me know
your thoughts in comments below.
Yours
One-Legged.
No comments:
Post a Comment