1. Scrip
  2. >>Business
  3. >>Stock Watch

Stock Watch: Defeat Is The Mother Of Reinvention

Not All Change Is Good... And Strategic Contagion Can Compound Errors

 
• By Andy Smith

Companies that are successful do not need to change their name, therapeutic area or product focus.

Stock Watch Image, Andy Smith
ANDY SMITH OFFERS A LIFE SCIENCE INVESTOR'S PERSPECTIVE ON BIOPHARMA BUSINESS

After seeing many biotech companies as an investor, I learned to ask those I was meeting for the first time about the company’s history. Companies have been known to rename themselves as a way of distancing themselves from unwanted associations. These may be entirely unwarranted, as in the case of Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (until 2015 known as ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), but a long period of underperformance, for example, is more relevant for an investor to know about.

Reinventions have also been the case with some Australian biotechnology companies, such as Genetic Technologies Ltd., as mining companies...

Read the full article – start your free trial today!

Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on Scrip for daily insights

  • Start your 7-day free trial
  • Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
  • Access comprehensive global coverage
  • Enjoy instant access – no credit card required
Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber?

More from Stock Watch

More from Business

Industry’s Vaccines Pipeline In A Changing Regulatory Landscape

 
• By Jessica Merrill

More than a dozen vaccines for infectious diseases are in Phase III development across the industry, as the US regulatory environment brings increased uncertainty.

Sanofi Links Up Again With Formation To Take Gusacitinib Down New Path

 
• By Kevin Grogan

Deal Snapshot: The Paris-headquartered company has licensed gusacitinib, which was in development for chronic hand eczema, but Sanofi will pursue a new indication for the dual JAK/SYK inhibitor.

Stock Watch: When The Biotech Bandwagon Music Stops

 
• By Andy Smith

The number of viable biotech companies exploiting a particular technology should be limited by intellectual property but the number of biotech IPOs exploiting that same technology always seems greater than those with freedom to operate.