Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Just how good an investment is the biopharmaceutical sector?

Abstract

Uncertainty surrounding the risk and reward of investments in biopharmaceutical companies poses a challenge to those interested in funding such enterprises. Using data on publicly traded stocks, we track the performance of 1,066 biopharmaceutical companies from 1930 to 2015—the most comprehensive financial analysis of this sector to date. Our systematic exploration of methods for distinguishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies yields a dynamic, more accurate classification method. We find that the performance of the biotech sector is highly sensitive to the presence of a few outlier companies, and confirm that nearly all biotech companies are loss-making enterprises, exhibiting high stock volatility. In contrast, since 2000, pharmaceutical companies have become increasingly profitable, with risk-adjusted returns consistently outperforming the market. The performance of all biopharmaceutical companies is subject not only to factors arising from their drug pipelines (idiosyncratic risk), but also from general economic conditions (systematic risk). The risk associated with returns has profound implications both for patterns of investment and for funding innovation in biomedical R&D.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Returns for the biopharmaceutical sector.
Figure 2: Profitability in the biopharmaceutical sector.
Figure 3: Risk in the biopharmaceutical sector.

References

  1. 1

    TEConomy Partners. The Economic Impact of the US Biopharmaceutical Industry: National and State Estimates http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/biopharmaceuticaul-industry-economic-impact.pdf (Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, 2016).

  2. 2

    Cortright, J. & Mayer, H. Signs of Life: the Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the US https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/biotech.pdf (Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, 2002).

  3. 3

    Golec, J. & Vernon, J.A. Financial risk of the biotech industry versus the pharmaceutical industry. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 7, 155–165 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Cockburn, I. & Lerner, J. The cost of capital for early stage biotechnology ventures. Congressional Briefing http://buchpedersen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Cost-of-Capital-for-Early-Stage-Biotechnology-Ventures_CockburnLerner.pdf (2009).

  5. 5

    Finkelstein, S. & Temin, P. Reasonable Rx: Solving the Drug Price Crisis. (FT Press, 2008).

  6. 6

    Booth, B. Debunking myths about biotech venture capital. Forbes 22, http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebooth/2013/05/22/debunking-myths-about-biotech-venture-capital/ (2013).

  7. 7

    Howard, D.H., Bach, P.B., Berndt, E.R. & Conti, R.M. Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J. Econ. Perspect. 29, 139–162 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Fama, E.F. & French, K.R. Disappearing dividends: changing firm characteristics or lower propensity to pay? J. Financ. Econ. 60, 3–43 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Thakor, R.T. & Lo, A.W. Competition and R&D financing decisions: evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, 2016.

  10. 10

    Koijen, R.S.J., Philipson, T.J. & Uhlig, H. Financial health economics. Econometrica 84, 195–242 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Myers, S.C. & Howe, C.D. A life-cycle financial model of pharmaceutical R&D http://www.worldcat.org/title/life-cycle-financial-model-of-pharmaceutical-r-d/oclc/42739394 Program on the Pharmaceutical Industry, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1997.

  12. 12

    Myers, S.C. & Shyam-Sunder, L. in Competitive Strategies in the Pharmaceutical Industry, (ed. Helms, R.B. 208–237) (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy: Washington, DC, 1995).

  13. 13

    Lyandres, E. & Palazzo, B. Cash holdings, competition, and innovation. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 51, 1823–1861 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Nanda, R. & Rhodes-Kropf, M. Investment cycles and startup innovation. J. Financ. Econ. 110, 403–418 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Nanda, R. & Rhodes-Kropf, M. Financing risk and innovation. Manage. Sci. 63, 901–918 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Lerner, J., Shane, H. & Tsai, A. Do equity financing cycles matter? Evidence from biotechnology alliances. J. Financ. Econ. 67, 411–446 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Rajan, R.G. & Zingales, L. Financial dependence and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 88, 559–586 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Brown, J.R., Fazzari, S.M. & Petersen, B.C. Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. J. Finance 64, 151–185 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Kerr, W.R. & Nanda, R. Financing innovation. Annu. Rev. Financ. Econ. 7, 445–462 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Lo, A.W. & Pisano, G. Lessons From Hollywood: a new approach to funding innovation. Sloan Manage. Rev. 57, 47–57 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Fagnan, D.E., Fernandez, J.M., Lo, A.W. & Stein, R.M. Can financial engineering cure cancer? Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 406–411 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Fernandez, J.-M., Stein, R.M. & Lo, A.W. Commercializing biomedical research through securitization techniques. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 964–975 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Jørring, A., Lo, A.W., Philipson, T.J., Singh, M. & Thakor, R.T. Sharing R&D risk in healthcare via FDA hedges. No. w23344 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23344 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017).

  24. 24

    Philipson, T. Hedging pipeline risk in pharma: FDA swaps and annuities https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b84/3c138131fd45f279e51ddd8b2a1c8bc008d3.pdf (Milken Institute, March 2015).

  25. 25

    Carlson, R. Estimating the biotech sector's contribution to the US economy. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 247–255 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Hoberg, G. & Phillips, G. Text-based network industries and endogenous product differentiation. J. Polit. Econ. 124, 1423–1465 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Hoberg, G. & Phillips, G. Product market synergies and competition in mergers and acquisitions: A text-based analysis. Rev. Financ. Stud. 23, 3773–3811 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jayna Cummings for editorial support. Funding support from the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.W.L. first conceived of the idea of analyzing the financial risks and return of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, proposed the basic design of the empirical and statistical analysis, assembled key members of the project team, provided funding through the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering, and was responsible for overall project management, manuscript preparation, and journal submission. Initial data collection, data cleaning, and preliminary analysis of company-specific stock returns were performed by N.A., Y.Z., and C.V., and reviewed by A.W.L. and R.T.T. More comprehensive data collection, data cleaning, financial modeling, and detailed analysis of stock returns and accounting data were performed by R.T.T., who was involved in every aspect of the design of the project and the data analysis, with input from A.W.L. All aspects of the financial modeling and data analysis were reviewed by A.W.L. A.W.L. conceived of using an algorithmic approach to perform industrial classification on a rolling-window basis, and K.W.S. and C.H.W. developed the algorithms for classifying companies into biotech and pharma industries with input from and review by R.T.T. and A.W.L. All authors participated in preparing the first draft of the main manuscript, and A.W.L. reviewed and edited this draft to produce the final version. K.W.S. and C.H.W. prepared the initial draft of Supplementary Methods with input from R.T.T. and A.W.L., and R.T.T. and A.W.L. edited this draft to produce the final version. R.T.T. prepared the initial draft of Supplementary Notes and Supplementary Results with input from A.W.L., and A.W.L. edited this draft to produce the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew W Lo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–3, Supplementary Tables 1–6, Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Notes, and Supplementary Results (PDF 1695 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thakor, R., Anaya, N., Zhang, Y. et al. Just how good an investment is the biopharmaceutical sector?. Nat Biotechnol 35, 1149–1157 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4023

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing