Summary

Adam Feuerstein’s “army of zombies” is an allocation problem: about 200 of roughly 700 public biotechs trade at negative enterprise value. The discussion argued that apparent zombies such as Taysha can revive through focused teams and surviving assets; Adam countered that a few winners do not excuse aggregate waste. CARGO Therapeutics was his clean test case: “This is what we funded. It didn’t work,” major holders told him.
Giving stranded shareholders a cash-out option emerged as the fairest way to test whether a failed company retains an investor mandate. Tess proposed letting holders take cash or stay for the pivot, while Tim Opler recalled that, in the Royalty Pharma dispute, half chose to cash out before the company’s value rose roughly 100-fold. Yet management’s incentives run the other way: Tim has found companies willing to return cash only with “a gun to their head.”
Stoke Therapeutics traded some strategic optionality for non-dilutive funding of its Dravet syndrome Phase 3. Its Biogen partnership monetized rights outside North America while preserving North American rights, addressing a financing overhang without issuing equity. The negative reaction reflected a different shareholder base: buyout-oriented investors left, while skeptics saw an encumbered asset and “dead money” through a study expected to take at least a couple of years.
Solid Biosciences paired striking three-patient Duchenne data with a financing that reopened biotech’s fairness debate. Average microdystrophin expression was about 110%, versus roughly 34% cited for Sarepta, with early hints of cardiac benefit; Solid then raised about $200 million at $4 per share before the stock traded above $6. CEO Beau Cumbo’s defense was pragmatic—“you can’t count on a good stock reaction sometimes even when you have good news lately”—but Brad Loncar questioned the advantage given to select institutions by arranging the financing before the public data release.
Bluebird bio’s roughly $30 million take-private showed how curative science can still hit the “buzzsaw of just the business case.” Its products may persist for patients under new owners, but manufacturing trouble, heavy spending, weak margins, and ignored investor warnings erased a former gene-therapy leader. Brad also framed Bluebird as an early casualty of Chinese competition, while Tim’s lesson was operational: “start the next Bluebird with 15 people.”
Septerna’s post-IPO clinical setback compounded a sector-wide credibility problem even though the company may have done nothing wrong. A bilirubin signal illustrated how much remains unknowable before small molecules enter humans, while backup PTH1R agonists preserved a possible path forward. Eric Schmidt said multiple IPOs blowing up within six months made sentiment “probably a lot worse” than XBI suggested and questioned whether investors were “on the right path.”
Confirmed SpringWorks–Merck KGaA talks and BridgeBio’s strong Attruby launch offered two potential routes to biotech M&A. Tim’s study of roughly 150 credible merger announcements found that only about half closed, making SpringWorks unattractive as a simple arbitrage despite confirmed interest; such processes typically take two to four months. More encouragingly, BridgeBio recorded over 1,000 unique prescriptions within months, supporting Tim’s observation that companies beating launch expectations are frequently acquired.
The obesity market may ultimately differentiate products more through tolerability, convenience, and capital commitment than one or two points of weight loss. Eric dismissed the fixation on 20% versus 21% or 22% reductions because patients notice dosing burden and whether they are “feeling like crap”; FDA’s shortage decision meanwhile threatened mass compounding, though Hims had already shifted toward customized dosing. Brad’s cited report that Lilly had manufactured about $500 million of oral-drug supply before data underscored how capital-intensive the contest has become.

Deep dive

1. Negative enterprise value is a governance problem, not a diagnosis

Adam defined zombie biotechs narrowly: companies whose equity is valued below the cash on their balance sheets, usually after clinical or pipeline setbacks. Roughly 200 of the approximately 700 public biotechs he tracks meet some version of that test—an “army of zombies” holding capital that could be returned or redeployed more productively.
The discussion challenged the label’s predictive value: “How do you know when something is a zombie?” Alnylam was offered as a historical warning, while Taysha—once below cash before investors backed its Rett syndrome gene therapy—showed why finding companies that “look like zombies but aren’t” can produce unusually attractive returns.
The discussion also argued that scarcity can force “hyperfocus”: the remaining team fights for survival around one program instead of dispersing effort across four. It cited Jazz, Pharmacyclics, Neurocrine, and Immunomedics; Adam rejected the last example because an activist removed an incompetent team around a drug already known to work, illustrating the disagreement over what qualifies.
Adam’s harder case was CARGO Therapeutics: sophisticated investors financed a company around a specific, scientifically credible experiment, and that experiment failed. Major shareholders told him, “This is what we funded. It didn’t work.” Brad added that anger rises with pivot distance—from absurd obesity rebrands to Galapagos using its enormous cash balance for a CAR-T deal its existing investors never wanted.

2. Cash-return optionality exposes management’s agency conflict

Tess framed the issue as an investor mandate rather than a blanket liquidation rule. After the original plan fails, a company could offer holders cash per share or participation in the next strategy: “You want your investors to choose you,” not force a new journey upon them. Reverse mergers can approximate this through dividends or buybacks for shell holders while new PIPE investors fund the incoming business.
Tim’s cautionary specimen came from Royalty Pharma roughly 20 years earlier. When its board split over whether buying pharmaceutical royalties was foolish, advisers let investors choose; about half cashed out, after which the company’s value rose around 100-fold. Optionality protects shareholder consent, but it cannot protect shareholders from making the wrong choice.
The obstacle is managerial self-interest. Tim said he had been “completely unsuccessful” over the prior two or three years in persuading a company to return cash voluntarily; fewer assets mean less money available for management compensation. He floated bonuses for returning capital, while Adam suggested rolling complementary assets together because public biotech has too many companies pursuing redundant ideas badly.

3. Stoke traded buyout optionality for Phase 3 funding

Stoke’s Biogen deal sold rights outside North America to its Dravet syndrome program while retaining North American rights. Adam saw it as a defensible, non-dilutive answer to the funding overhang surrounding a Phase 3 study, removing the immediate need to finance the trial solely through an equity raise.
The market’s negative reaction reflected competing mandates. Skeptics viewed the partnered asset as encumbered and the stock as “dead money” while Stoke spends at least a couple of years running the study; Brad noted that investors who owned Stoke principally as a buyout candidate would naturally sell when a partnership replaced an acquisition.
Adam’s honest uncertainty was that both readings could be right: he thought the deal was reasonable, but acknowledged conversations with investors who did not. The disagreement was whether near-term financing outweighed giving up a potential acquisition and waiting through the study.

4. Solid’s 110% signal came bundled with a financing fairness fight

Solid Biosciences reported only three Duchenne patients, but average microdystrophin expression reached about 110%. Tess contrasted that with roughly 34% for Sarepta and perhaps closer to 50% for Pfizer’s discontinued program, while emphasizing that cross-program comparisons remained early and Pfizer’s therapy had been stopped for safety reasons.
The update also contained preliminary LVEF observations suggesting possible cardiac benefit. Solid planned an FDA discussion around mid-year about next steps and a potential accelerated-approval route; the small sample made the signal encouraging rather than definitive.
Brad’s financing objection was structural. Solid confidentially engaged bankers and a handful of institutions and locked in the raise before putting the data out publicly; Brad questioned whether this gave select institutions an advantage. Solid then raised about $200 million at $4 per share, while the stock subsequently traded above $6 before settling around the mid-$5s. Institutions might have incentives to argue for the lowest price, while retail investors reasonably asked why others received earlier access and discounted entry.
Tess, whose firm participated, stressed that the data became public before final pricing and that institutions compete by offering higher prices; thin trading volume often makes open-market position building impossible. Adam still called the landscape an “uneven playing field,” while Tim compared PIPE discounts with underpriced IPOs: compensation for doing the diligence that later attracts everyone else, a “method to what appears to be a bit of madness.”

5. Bluebird proved the science but lost the business

Bluebird agreed to sell itself to two private-equity firms for roughly $30 million excluding a contingent value right. Adam described it as an unsurprising take-under after other financing options were exhausted amid loans and loan covenants; the CVR preserved some sales-linked upside, but its threshold appeared demanding.
The tragedy was the gap between scientific and commercial achievement. Around 2013–2014, Bluebird stood at gene therapy’s “vanguard,” helping show that devastating diseases such as sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia could be treated at a fundamental level. It then ran into the “buzzsaw of just the business case”: difficult margins, limited patient volumes, and an expensive business model.
Eric’s silver lining was that products for cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, thalassemia, and sickle cell disease should remain available under new ownership. Adam nevertheless separated industry economics from company-specific errors: construct problems around 2015, manufacturing difficulties, relentless spending, and management’s resistance when investors urged it to “throttle back.” Brad added that the CEO had cashed out roughly $80 million over time.
Brad offered a further historical reading: Bluebird’s BCMA ambitions met unexpected Chinese competition around ASCO 2015, and he argued counterfactually that without that rival Bluebird might have owned the market and been worth $7–8 billion. Tim’s response was an efficiency challenge for Western biotech: “Why don’t we try starting the next Bluebird with 15 people?”

6. Septerna’s setback deepened an IPO credibility crisis

Septerna, public only since roughly November, encountered a significant bilirubin side effect in one program. Tim saw no strategic error: this was simply “one of the risks that we all take in biotech,” discovered only once the molecule reached the clinic.
Tess highlighted the protection offered by backups. Septerna said it had multiple attractive PTH1R agonists and aimed to move one into the clinic later this year; her analogy was Eliquis, “the backup of the backup of the backup.” Efficiency matters, but it should not eliminate risk-mitigation work around a valuable target.
Eric’s broader concern was reputational contagion: Septerna was at least the second, perhaps third, IPO to blow up within six months of listing. These early losses “cast a pall over the industry,” while crowding into the same names left clients hurting and investors seemingly losing money “hand over fist.” His conclusion was unusually blunt: sector sentiment was worse than XBI implied, and investment strategy needed to change.

7. Good launches may be the cleanest path to M&A

Tim’s research on roughly 150 credible announcements that a company was “in talks” found an even split: about half became mergers and half failed. SpringWorks therefore rose appropriately after Merck KGaA confirmed discussions, but a merger arbitrageur buying afterward should expect “no profit opportunity” once both outcomes are priced.
Investors expecting an immediate announcement were using the wrong clock. Tim said these processes typically take two to four months because SpringWorks’ bankers would shop the company for the highest bid and use Merck KGaA’s publicly exposed interest as leverage. He suspected multiple bidders might emerge but emphasized that he had no transaction-specific information.
BridgeBio offered a more tangible catalyst: Attruby generated over 1,000 unique prescriptions within only a few months of FDA approval. Tess called that a strong start for a launch many had doubted, challenging the familiar “short the launch” trade and suggesting that selected small biotechs can commercialize successfully on their own.
Tim connected execution back to takeouts: in Stifel’s review, “almost every” company with a launch beating consensus eventually got bought, with surprisingly few exceptions. He expected M&A to remain strong and thought FTC policy would be manageable for most biotech transactions, making commercial traction a potential bridge between standalone value and acquisition interest.

8. Obesity winners may compete on tolerability, convenience, and scale

Eric argued that investors overfit tiny efficacy differences, treating 20% weight loss as meaningfully inferior to 21% or 22%. Patients may not perceive that distinction, but they do perceive weekly versus monthly or quarterly injections—and whether they are “feeling like crap.” His expected sorting variables were tolerability and convenience, not marginal efficacy.
Luba cited data from companies such as Hims suggesting preferences might differ by sex, though she kept the observation tentative: female patients appeared more focused on total weight loss, while male patients cared more about tolerability and effects such as muscle loss. That segmentation could influence both future development and commercial positioning.
FDA’s declaration that the shortage had ended was, in Luba’s view, a “major blow” to mass sales from compounders such as Hims. Tim added the nuance: Hims had shifted about two months earlier toward “customized compounding,” rapidly trying to qualify patients as nonresponders to currently available doses. That may preserve legitimate exceptions, but systematic use of dose customization could provoke a difficult patent fight with Novo.
Brad cited—but could not place—the headline that Lilly had already manufactured about $500 million of its Chugai-licensed oral therapy before seeing the data. For him, that inventory risk showed why obesity is increasingly a big-pharma-scale contest. As the discussion ended, Adam noted that Betaville had just circulated a Viking Therapeutics takeout rumor—“On a Friday, of course.”

AGI Is Here You Just Don’t Realize It Yet w/ Mo Gawdat & Salim Ismail | EP #153 The Adversarial Mind: Defeating AI Defenses with Nicholas Carlini of Google DeepMind