We’re in San Sebastián 🇪🇸 with Naveed Siddiqi of one of Europe’s largest biotech investors, Novo Holdings.
We talked about how things really are in European biotech at the moment. We also talked about his upbringing as a second-generation immigrant in the UK and the importance of diversity. I’ve known him since he was a partner at Andera. He is a sharp investor, but also very friendly and open.
💎 ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Naveed has been a part of Novo Holdings since 2019 and splits his time between London and Copenhagen. He has over 25 years of experience in life science venture investment as well as investment banking. Before joining Novo Holdings he was a partner at Andera Partners, a venture capital and growth equity firm with over 2 billion euros to focus on life science investment.
🔗 LINKS MENTIONED
- Novo leads Q4 2023 as Top Investor – Oppenheimer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b-t2Ba-fnHdyJhIq4j-d7dSCk7Vj65bw/view?usp=sharing
- Amolyt Pharma Announces $138 Million Series C Financing led by Sofinnova Partners and co-led by Intermediate Capital Group – https://amolytpharma.com/2023/01/06/amolyt-pharma-announces-138-million-series-c-financing-led-by-sofinnova-partners-and-co-led-by-intermediate-capital-group/
- AstraZeneca inks $800M buyout of French biotech to snag phase 3 rare disease drug – https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-inks-800m-buyout-snag-phase-3-rare-disease-drug
- Novo-backed Amolyt Pharma snags $80M series B for endocrine pipeline – https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/novo-backed-amolyt-pharma-snags-80m-series-b-for-endocrine-pipeline
Transcript
[00:00:00] Intro
Naveed Siddiqi: My parents originally came from India, then briefly were in Pakistan, then they kind of came to the UK because they were both doctors. I’ve embraced change and diversity because that’s what I’ve grown up with. What we should be focused on, really, is making sure that diversity is viewed as a strength, not as a weakness.
Philip Hemme: We are lacking crossover fun. Yeah. We are lacking latest technology. This deal basically seems like a pretty good case study. I’m totally
Naveed Siddiqi: with you. And it’s a very important point you pick up on there. Multiple billion dollar companies and then multiple billion dollar exits. We need more of that in Europe.
And that needs scale capital. I liked your robust discussion. Yeah, and I mentioned the more like heated discussion. You know we try to keep it not too heated. I always try to be respectful.
Philip Hemme: Welcome
to a new episode. I’m your host, Philippe. And on this show, I’m interviewing the best Europeans in biotech. To help you grow. One of the largest biotech investors in the world is actually from Europe, and that’s Novoholding, the investment arm of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, who owns the pharma company Novo Nordisk.
So I went to talk with Naveed the head of European Venture, and I met him here in San Sebastian. Lovely environment. Actually, I’ve known Naveed for quite a long time. Several years when he was a partner at Andea and he’s a super sharp investor, but also very friendly and just open minded. So we talked about what’s really happening in biotech in Europe at the moment.
And we also talked about his upbringing as a second generation immigrant in the UK and the importance of diversity in biotech, especially in Europe. So, here’s my conversation with David, and if you’re enjoying it, please hit the like, follow, or donation button.
Naveed Siddiqi: Alright, welcome to the show, David. Well, thanks for having me here. I’m very excited in this beautiful setting of San Sebastian, can’t complain. Cannot do much better. It’s actually the first episode we do open air, so Oh,
Philip Hemme: wow. You’re the first one. Fabulous. Great, so,
[00:02:09] European biotech
Philip Hemme: I think You’re, you’re one of the best in Europe, I think, to, to really have the macro picture from from your role with, with Novo.
So I want to start there, and you told me, like, despite the current, like, market condition, you think Europe went from strengths to strengths, especially since, like, 2012. Can you expand on this a little, like,
Naveed Siddiqi: yeah, what, what have you seen? Yeah, no, it’s it’s interesting because, like, I’ve been doing this now for 24 years.
So I’ve really seen how Europe has transformed over that period. I would say that I would characterize that period up to 12 as the, there was still, the jury was out about European life sciences and whether venture funds could make money here and whether biotechs could really kind of create transformational products and whether this model was viable.
Whereas since 12, what I’ve noticed is that we have now a really vibrant ecosystem. The returns which EIF has data on this when they look back. are very comparable to the U. S. And we have really a lot of capital now compared to what we, the early years, where it’s a transformational transformationally different.
So and then we have new entrants coming in not only from you know, our new funds here trying to raise, but also from the U. S. as well. Now I, I don’t want to belittle the fact that we are in a bit of a downturn, so it’s tough fundraising. But And these LPs, I, I think they, they in Europe are sitting on the money, their hands, and they could make more, more of a bet.
And we’ll talk about that. But but overall, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a dramatically different environment to when we’ve had, you know, previous financial crises, where I think it was looking very dicey at Europe. That’s good. Interesting.
Philip Hemme: I, I see like even in the bear market now, it’s almost better than in 2012.
Yes.
Naveed Siddiqi: Yes, yes, the mood is better. There’s more activity. We just saw some numbers from McKinsey this morning showing that you know, European investment activity in 23 was quite substantial on the private side. So I think that’s, that’s very good.
Philip Hemme: On the, I’m curious on the, on the timing that’s current timing, especially from the, as a company’s fundraiser.
I mean, you mentioned like it’s a good time to invest. Yeah. Like good exits. Yeah. And, I mean, obviously you guys at Novo it’s a bit different, I mean, the funds, how it’s structured. But what I, and I hear a lot of VCs, they’ve closed funds, they have funds, but what I hear a lot from operators is like, no, everyone is waiting, and they are basically holding back or waiting for good terms.
So I’m wondering, I mean, I think for you guys it’s probably not the situation, but how do you see it? Like working with, or when you co invest, you know, the people
Naveed Siddiqi: like, no. So I think you’re right. I think we were in a fortunate position because we have a lot of capital to deploy. We’re putting away, you know, last year we did 530 million.
So, so we’re very, very busy and we’re, we are using this as an opportunity to, you know, really add to the portfolio here because we see a lot of good opportunity. But having said that, I, I would totally understand and I see it myself in our portfolio companies, That is taking longer to get things done.
And I would contribute that to a few things. The most proximate to me is the, the fact that the U S public markets. Have mostly not been functioning. We had a little bit of a opening in december january where there’s a bunch of ipos went to high and x also Yeah, xbi made a big big move and then there was a a bunch of ipos that got done After february it’s been tough.
Yeah, so but it really shows that little window we had It shows it won’t take too much to turn. And I think investors are needing a little bit of that positive momentum to deploy. And I think as soon as it comes back, I think deployment activity will speed up and increase. So, I think it’s a little bit that aspect that’s holding things down, slowing things down a bit.
It’s not because of the pace of innovation or the differentiated valuations or data that’s being returned. I mean, the fundamentals of the industry are extremely strong. And I think my sense is that it’s really the macro picture which is holding things back a bit. Like the microwave in the macro non biotech picture.
Yes, it’s the great picture, which is slowing public market investment. And I think it’s, you know, when we even look at the data today from the McKinsey did, you know, there’s very little follow on finance. There’s almost no full follow on and finance things in the European public markets. And in the U.
S. Where we look at Nasdaq we’ve had strong quarters on the follow on side but it’s tapered down a bit again because interest rate cycle expectations are that, you know, they will be held higher for longer rather than, you know, the rate rate cuts the market was expecting. Yeah,
Philip Hemme: that’s,
Naveed Siddiqi: yeah, it’s, it’s good
Philip Hemme: to hear.
Actually, it’s, it’s, it’s a really macro, thing. Significant macro factors that when this get better, the rest is actually there, it’s not like a more, not a deeper crisis. That’s right. That’s right. Yeah. Actually, I mean, you mentioned the, the 500 million figure which is crazy because I mean, you’re, you’re deploying this amount of capital basically every year.
Which is basically the, yeah, the size of a fund. Let’s say the, or Sofinnova or, or Ian’s last fund, but they deploy that over whatever, seven to 10 years. Yes. Yeah. So that’s, I mean, that’s a, I mean, you deploy globally, but that’s was, and, and actually I saw a picture or a figure for Oppenheimer, that’s Q4 2023.
And I will, I will show it that you were basically the most active, or most you have invested the most. Life science investor globally, even more than like, capital or whatever, like very busy fourth quarter. That’s crazy. Yeah. Yeah. No, we, I think I didn’t even know you were like, I mean, I knew you were big, but I didn’t know you were like bigger than like even us funds.
So it’s like,
Naveed Siddiqi: yeah, no, I think it’s it’s interesting because we, we have a strategy which is quite broad, so we can do. Private and public and we can also invest in IPOs. And so when the markets are good and one we can, you know, increase our weighting to that part when the markets are, or if we think that something is very under priced, part of the market is under priced, we can increase our weighting there.
Gives us a lot of flexibility. So we can make smart decisions from capital allocation perspective. I think coupled with that, I think we could have a global kind of reach of deal flow. So we do see a lot and we have the resources to deploy. So. Those combination of factors enable us to be super active when we want to be.
We can be cautious when things are, you know, going bad all around, but I think because we don’t have any fund, to deploy, it has to be deployed at a certain point. It’s our own money. But in general, if you see our activity it has ranged between 400 to 600 million annually over the last several years.
And how much was that? In Europe? Yeah, so Europe ends up somewhere between 15 to 20 percent of that. So we end up with kind of a reasonable chunk going to Europe. And I think that sort of mirrors really the level of deal activity we see overall. And
Philip Hemme: how is it? So, and the US I guess has a bigger chunk, I guess more than 50%.
Yes. Western us. Yes. Yes. And then I saw you were pretty active in Asia as well. Yes. Which I, I didn’t actually know you were that active in Asia.
Naveed Siddiqi: Yes. So Asia, it’s not our team. There’s a separate team that, that deploys Asia. So these numbers I’m talking about are just US and Europe. Okay. So 80%
Philip Hemme: us, 20% Europe.
Yeah, exactly. It’s about that much, which is basically roughly the market size. If you compare from a. market cap of the, let’s say, US biotech compared to your biotech, I guess would be 80, 20. It
Naveed Siddiqi: tracks the overall ratios. I just saw a ratio today that 20 percent of FDA approvals are coming from Europe.
Okay. So it tracks.
Philip Hemme: Maybe while we are on NOVA as well, what I find amazing is that it’s, it’s basically, I mean, in the NOVA holding is basically with tied to the NOVA NODIS Foundation. Which owns a big chunk of the world, all this and more and controlling right. I was, I think it’s 70 percent of the voting rights.
Yes. So basically a lot of the dividends from the world, all this cost foundation and it’s, it’s reinvested and has been, has been massively profitable over. Yeah. Many years. I mean, now even more, et cetera. And it’s, it’s almost too good to be true. I mean, it’s like amazing. I think, I mean, at least from outside, amazing research, amazing products.
Still keeping a market dominance, obviously a crazy expanding market, and then reinvesting, and even the reinvestment is very, I guess, the returns are there as well. Yes. It’s kind of very positive feedback loop. And I’m always looking like the little, like, I’m trying to look off. Okay, what, why, what’s like, not what’s wrong.
But if it’s too good to be true, like where, where is the chubby ointment? Yeah. And I,
Naveed Siddiqi: I don’t find that much, like, or like, We, we have basically at, at Holdings level, just grown the overall investment activities. So now it’s venture growth, principal investments, bio industrials, Asia. We, we have expanded the overall activities, not just people’s health, it’s planetary health as well.
In the venture team, which is my team, which is just focuses on biotech. Separate from seeds. Yes. Yes. And it’s a little bit later than seeds. So seeds is in the name. And, and also their geographic fake is a little bit on the kind of making sure that could really grow the Danish ecosystem where adventure is kind of your broader Europe and the U S and later stage.
So I think the, the, the, the, the, the bit that I think, you know, where we have kind of been able to develop, I think, is. a way that we invest, which has been trying to basically make sure that this flexibility that we have being at Nova Holdings to, you know, play both private and public and to make sure that we understand how these companies evolve from an early to later stage and then be able to invest anywhere along that paradigm, I think is a, is a very powerful equation because it allows us to follow a story from its inception and have that ability to Consider it at that time or consider it a later point or a later point.
And, and sometimes that strength gives us a unique insight because we have this corporate memory of understand of understanding the development of something. And also a vantage point of understanding how this is developing against other stories elsewhere. So it has resulted us finding opportunities that have had a reasonably high hit rate.
From an M& A perspective, as well as IPO. So, for the last You mean this explains the performance Yes. novel holdings, basically. Exactly. So, up to 21, we were super active in the taking companies public. So, I think we had 17 NASDAQ IPOs between 2020 and 21. Wow. And and then since then, we’ve had in 21 six M& As.
Yes. And then we had another five last year and then we’ve had two already this year. So, so the M& A aspect has been a very important driver to our performance since then. So we run a portfolio about 80 companies, Europe, US, try to pick the best of the breed, follow them over a long time. And then having this flexibility in our model.
Is also, I think, a stray. Okay. Yeah.
Philip Hemme: Yeah. And one of the exit I wanna, I want to discuss, yeah. I’m a little more, more in detail just after that. Yeah. One thing, still staying on this like too, too good to be crew. Yeah. The only thing I kind of see, and I kind of wanted to, I mean, challenge is a big work.
Discuss it . The only thing I see is that most of the cash petty comes from the Ronalds. Yeah. And comes from, from diabetes and now obesity. Yeah. Which obviously a very tragic disease and growing, but are mostly environmental caused, at least 80 90%. Yeah. And what I’m wondering is like, basically, is it as a society the best way to prevent or to treat or to manage the disease?
Yeah. To give pretty expensive insulin or GLP 1s versus preventing? Yes. Obviously it would be less revenues and less profits for Novo Nordisk. And I know Novo as a company, and I was surprised about this, that even 1 percent of your annual turnover goes to prevention actually. Yes. Which I think is one of the only partner company doing so.
Yes. But I’m still wondering, like, is it not, I mean, yeah, more like, cannot, is there not a way to do like better slash should Novo Nordisk revenues be actually, should they be a bit lower if we Prevented or fixed the problem?
Naveed Siddiqi: No, no, no. Of course, there’s a huge societal question. I think prevention, of course, has to be the way forward as much as possible.
And I think the, the challenge is, you know, how does that get funded and how does that happen? And I think the way we could think about it is that basically the profits that Nova Holdings generates through what Nova Nordisk gives, ultimately goes to a not for profit and that prof, that not for profit.
The Nardis Foundation now is one of the largest foundations in the world. And they are really thinking about the prevention agenda and also how to kind of manage diseases and prevention better access, and trying to support that agenda as well as supporting, you know, what’s coming next in terms of, you know, moving the, you know, through quantum or stem cell research.
Right, moving to kind of really finding real cures for diseases, right, where there’s been a degenerative aspect to it and really supporting that. They set up a 200 million grant for a stem cell research center in Denmark. They’ve just done on quantum, just getting better insights into into disease. So I think that part of the equation, I think, is a foundation agenda.
And I think our job is the here and now because we have a lot of disease to treat as well. That has to be dealt with as much as the prevention agenda. So I think we’re trying to sort of see how can we could do it profitably. So the foundation has then the resources to then also advance the prevention agenda.
That’s,
[00:18:06] Billion dollar exits
Philip Hemme: yeah. Yeah. I like it. Maybe going to the, you mentioned some exits. So yeah. Amulet. I think it was, oh, it’s end of last year or is it already this year? It was this year. This year already? Yeah. Yeah. In March. In March, yeah. In March or April. Yeah. Heh. So then it’s this, yeah, I mean, I wanted, I mean, it’s, it was Lyon, France, France based company.
Yes. Billion above billion dollar deal. Yeah. Total buy a box, 800 billion upfront, which is. Yeah. At least to my knowledge, I think it’s the largest upfront, I think ever in France,
Naveed Siddiqi: or at least. Yeah. Maybe the second after advanced accelerator. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Where do you farm? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
Philip Hemme: I mean, it’s, it’s impressive.
Yeah. It is impressive. Yeah. It’s and you guys, I’ve seen actually the Series C with Sophie Noah coming in, but I didn’t know you guys were leading the Series A, which is even more impressive. Can you tell a bit more on how you came to invest in the Series A?
Naveed Siddiqi: So this is a very, I think this is a great story for Europe, by the way, and it really shows and why do I say that?
Because this is a story where the technology actually was initially came from the US from out of the MGH in Boston. And that’s why they were investors. Okay. Now yes, they, but the company got built by a serial entrepreneur in, in Leo Ance. Yes. And thi Abba, who has you know, sold to other companies previously.
And he brought his team on very quickly. Got it up and running very quickly, four and a half years ago. That’s when we came in alongside him around it with some mouse data saying they may have a differentiated product for hyperthyroidism to a. And be the second to market after another one that’s just ahead of them, which is up for approval now.
So I think, it was a European syndicate that significant series A invest financing. We co led it with the EQT guys and you know, lots of other investors came in, a mixture of a French investors would be there earlier at the seed, but then they came in, came in the A and then kind of really trying to Build a pan-European syndicate to kind of enable that advancement into the clinic.
And then successive rounds then dealt next one by end in France leading it. And then and then later on sofinnova coming in for the, for the series C leading that, last year. And then this year the company going was being sold in phase three, having delivered very exciting phase two data, but in four and a half years.
Superb execution moving something very early to, to that point and really backed by overwhelming majority of European investors. And, and I think that’s, that’s a great story. You know, we, we, we advanced the company from a very early stage, successive rounds of financing. All the way it was, we were funded to approval.
Now we were preparing to launch, you know, raise money, more money to launch it. And then we got the corporate interest. So I think it’s a, it’s a laugh, a nice message to show that we can do it here in Europe. Actually, I wanted to,
Philip Hemme: to at least the syndicate picked my interest because I think you have managed to gather, I think almost all French VC in a single company, which Chick I’ve never seen.
’cause I mean, yeah, I mean, being French and knowing them, they are always like, they never like, I mean they don’t like each other too much. . They sometimes, but let’s say and andino it is quite rare to see them really on the deal together. Sure. So here, I mean, you had both of them. Yeah. Procure investors as well, think.
Yeah. And then EPI. Yeah. Yeah. DPI, but DPI in every French. Every French biotech. But, and then even like I’ll be mad invest. Yes. And Pontifex. Yes. Well, I mean, it’s pretty great. And obviously you guys plus some other investors. I mean, yeah. I mean, I want to ask like, how, how did you manage to get them all and all friends
Naveed Siddiqi: on the board?
But I guess it, it worked well, I guess. Well, the asset matters. I think the asset was very interesting. The management team matters. Terry Abriba, if those who met him is you know experienced CEO. Yeah. Maintains great relationships with all the investors and has been really somebody who people can feel confident about executing well and then, you know, the investors who kind of came in I think also very experienced in later stage clinical stage opportunities because it became a clinical stage opportunity.
And they’re you know, the, the software growth folks, I think, you know, that’s their, their focus. It was, it was nice to have them there, with the capital available to, to, to participate and really you know, help us shape that last round. So I think those, those are all the factors that kind of come in to it.
And I think we, we’ve We’ve benefited from seeing that sort of early interest from, you know, the local French smaller investors and then the bigger group of was it the bigger funds kind of come in later? Yeah, that’s right. Actually, it’s
Philip Hemme: the, what would your, your last comment about the crossover?
I mean, not just to, to, to compliment Sofinova, but I think it’s one thing that I heard a lot, let’s say from whatever, 2015 to 2020 is always like, Oh, we are lacking crossover funds, we are lacking later stage funds in Europe. And this deal basically seems like a pretty good case study for a
Naveed Siddiqi: crossover fund.
I’m, I’m, I’m totally with you. And it’s a very important point you pick up on there. You know, we’ve had a, you know, people who’ve said, Oh, there’s a funding gap at the very early stage. True. But there’s also has been, and there is still a significant gap at the later stage. And when public markets are not active, in the U.
S., companies don’t have the access to raise and dream about being You know, raise those hundreds of millions and, and, and to kind of go public and maybe launch drugs, right? Like, we have many examples of U. S. companies who didn’t get bought, but they launched, and there have been successful launches, and they are now multi billion dollars.
Philip Hemme: After,
Naveed Siddiqi: after launching, and then not launched, yeah, multiple billion dollar companies, and then, you know, multiple billion dollar exits. We need more of that in Europe, and that needs scale capital. And it’s great to see funds like you know, the, the, the software growth folks there, but also now, you know, we have the, the, the folks at at, at Gilda, we have you know, the, the folks at for beyond and, you know, they have, they’re, we have raised, they’re, they’ve been dedicated funds raised now to do kind of growth capital.
What would be classified as growth capital where there is kind of a POC and then you can sort of fund them to the next level. And Novo is very happy to kind of come alongside those groups and reach sort of help that piece. Now, have we got enough? I don’t think so. Because we don’t, we have a, as we just saw, and I mentioned, you know, there’s, there was nothing raised on for public European companies.
You know, in this last quarter, it’s absolutely terrible for their ability to raise money. And I think that’s a real gap that Europe has to address. And it’s been a, a real failure and we will not be able to succeed if we are totally dependent on all our companies attracting us investors, going to NASDAQ, we should be self sufficient here on the on the public markets as well, if we want to really create the future leaders of tomorrow.
So this is something that has to be, yeah, absolutely. And so we need some of this capital, which is not investing. And locked up in pension funds, insurance companies to kind of you know, somehow get directed or allocated, or maybe the EIB through its policy measures, how it’s helped with the venture funds, help create that sort of later group of specialist investors who can really carry these companies forward to the next level.
And then we can actually then have You know, the, the, the future Gilead’s here in Europe as well. So, yeah, that’s a
Philip Hemme: good, it’s good. You mentioned the pension funds as well. I mean, when we, when we talked about this discussion, you said like, yeah, it’s mostly a policy problem and I’m curious about this. So what do you mean and yeah.
And how much is it a policy versus a, let’s say a return. I mean, why a pension fund? I mean, if the returns are so good, as you mentioned in funds, where, why are European pension funds not investing more in funds? Yes, I
Naveed Siddiqi: think the problem is at sort of two levels. One there is a lack of understanding of what biotech is because I think it seems very risky.
All this funny jargon we use, the terminology is very hard for a non specialist to access and understand what he’s investing in. So that’s one serious problem, which is inherent to our sector, but it doesn’t stop the US guys doing it. Right. So US journalists do invest in the sector. Why is it that we don’t?
So I think there’s a risk problem as well. And I think Europe has still developing its equity culture and risk taking culture. Yeah. And I think there is a market failure. I would, I could only categorize as a market failure because now we’ve, this industry has been going for, you know, You know, 25 years plus 30 years, right?
And there’s a clear track record. EIF has the numbers and we had, we’re still having difficulty for LPs or you are, you know, institutional money really kind of allocating these very large pools of capital to, to risk. And so I think that market failure has to be addressed at a policy level. And that is where I think more work needs to be done in Brussels and, you know, in London.
And, and I think that there is some activity that happening there. I think there’s some recognition from the politicians that this has to be addressed. We have the TB initiative in France and we had a mansion house speech in London around it. I think we’re at that juncture where we need to build some momentum here and really see some real actions being taken, which will have a consequence for the next 20 years for European life sizes.
We would truly want to have life size as a core pillar of growth in Europe. We cannot do it without addressing the capital gap at the expansion level. So it’s crazy
Philip Hemme: because as you said, as you said already throughout the interview, I mean, if, if you have like track records and you have return multiples, I mean, as a pension fund, that should be the most important metric.
Yes. Not like understanding how to do drug development. I don’t know. I mean,
Naveed Siddiqi: yes, I think there’s some rules also that get in the way also around how they. Match you know, assets of liabilities and and all those things. So I think they are trying to evaluate their own risk level. Exactly. So, and how they allocate what water level risks are willing to underwrite.
So I think this is something that can be addressed. You know, we’ve had two big moves at a policy level, which had a profound impact on the shape of Europe we see today. One is the EBRD, you know, the EBRD setting up with Eastern Europe and integration into Western Europe, right? That was like a huge policy move.
Imagine if that hadn’t been put in place, right? What, what, what that would have what we would be living into now. And then I think the second part, which is more specific to our sector, Was the way that the EIB set set up to in the 2000 timeframe to support venture funds in tech and life sciences and seeded these VCs who were a cornerstone initiative.
They, they seeded almost
Philip Hemme: every, you know, at least every biotech fund I think has
Naveed Siddiqi: EIB. They have massive, I think they have a statistic around it. It’s like 90 percent of it or something like that. So it’s, and, and we have the venture industry. The reason we started off this conversation was around. How is positive today?
If they hadn’t done that, I don’t think the private sector, we know that for a fact, they would not have stepped in because they’re still struggling to step in now. So they certainly would have not stepped in then. We would have not, we would not be having this conversation here sitting in Europe. So it is important.
It is something that has to be addressed. And it is important that now policymakers really pay attention to this and fill the gaps and yeah, if some policy makers are listening, do
Philip Hemme: your research or reach out, maybe one last thing, a bit on the, on the macro level, you touched on it when we talked about bringing all the syndicate and on the board level and that’s the people were like getting along and I think, and we discussed it before, I think, I mean, Biotech is still a people, people game.
Obviously you have scientific data and everything, but still, I would say. 50 plus percent of your success is people true. Can you like, I’ll talk, talk a bit about it of like, why, I mean, why is it the case how you, how you apply it in your investments? Like how you fill it out? Yeah. Oh, like, yeah. You mentioned even within the fund or within the company, there’s something you will work more with and not like, yeah.
Naveed Siddiqi: So I, you know, I was a great case. I think, you know, This was a story where there was an incumbent drug and you had to differentiate the drug and, convince investors that you’re going to have a differentiated story, right? Because you need to raise money. Investors are very focused on, do you have a differentiated drug?
Yeah. And then there are people who are willing to give you some backing and, and, and and there’s, and, and willing to give you lots of rope and others who want to see, you know, results today or tomorrow, right? Yeah. And you have that in all those discussions in a, in a, at a broad church like Amulet had of lots of investors, right?
And you do have people have different perspectives around that. Ten more people on the board. Yeah, yeah. It’s a big board. It’s a big board, yeah. We do, we, I mean, I was like, are we going to be able to navigate this? So I think but we did. And I think the rationale, the reason I think it worked was not because people held back and didn’t express their views.
I think what was you know, what observation for me from, from, from the AMLET case was the role that the CEO played and also the chair played, and also a little bit of sophisticated investors, making sure that they’re listening as much as they’re talking in, in the room. Two ears and one mouth.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s, I think you need, you need both. You have two faculties. You should use both. And I think we, we saw a good example of that being used. And, and yes, we had to make some important strategic discussions decisions. It was a robust discussions at times where we were not fully seeing eye to eye.
And I think it needed but what was important was I think everybody was trying to aim to the same goal, right? Which was, we want to make sure that we can raise good money. We do the right experiment. And we could show the right differentiation and we have the best team possible that we, we recruit the best team possible to do that.
And we cannot do this on a, on a shoestring. You need to have a reasonable amount of resources to do this. And you need to build a story that will appeal to people. International audience, right? It’ll also appeal to U. S. investors, et cetera, as well as European investors. So I think we were looking for all of those things.
We had an opportunity maybe to think about going public earlier. There were sort of situations when the markets were very strong. I think there was a big push to try to take this public as part of that wave. I think it was quite a lot of discussion around that because some of us were a little bit weary about a French company that didn’t have, trying to go public on NASDAQ and what that outcome might have been.
I think it would have been tough if we had done that for various reasons that didn’t go as, as, as, as, as some people wanted it to, I guess the right decision was right and the outcome was right. So, so, but we had a robust state discussion at that time around it. And yes You have in management your robust discussion.
Yeah. And imagine like heated discussion, , you know try to keep it not too heated, but it can be. But I always try to be respectful. I very, very important that these are not never there. There’s no really ever right or wrong, wrong answer. These are judgment calls, right? And sometimes you get it right, sometimes you get it wrong.
And we just hope that we can build enough coalition to whatever we think is the majority view and kind of just get, get, get it there. Yeah,
Philip Hemme: that’s cool. Maybe just before moving to your personal, personal background. Yeah. I just want to mention one thing, but which I think we’ve discussed and which I think illustrates also well the, where the European, ecosystem is now, and we have literally three, three biotechs now that are worth 20 billion
Naveed Siddiqi: plus.
Yeah.
Philip Hemme: In our GenX, GenMap, BioNTech. Yeah. And on our call you even said BioNTech was at like 80 billion. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and I think some people, first, some people don’t even realize or know, I mean, even myself. Yeah. I talk with Sander from Forbjorn and I thought, Oh, Argenix is, I thought it was still at 10 billion.
Yeah. Actually they doubled. Yes. So I think it’s also important to mention, like just looking at the market cap, I think it’s super, super, super impressive. Yeah. But even Bahidja from ImmunoCore. Yeah. I mean, I think they are pretty impressive. I would say number five in Europe, but I mean, three or four billion.
Naveed Siddiqi: We should celebrate our successes. We should, we should talk about them more. We should make sure people are aware because, you know, maybe as an industry, what we’re doing a bad job is actually talking about our story. And, you know, we’re Europeans. One of the things that we always criticize ourselves and we’re not good storytellers, right?
Actually, we have a fantastic story to talk about. And it’s, it’s something that we should sharpen our act with a great podcast to highlight it. Yeah. Thank you for doing this.
[00:37:17] Diversity
Philip Hemme: Yeah. Little self promotion. I agree. Yeah. That’s great. Maybe. So moving to, to personal background and I have 10 minutes left.
Sure. The one thing that, that is. That also strike me, or as your personal background, you are second generation immigrant, your parents are from India slash Pakistan, am I correct? Yeah, that’s right. And you grew up, you grew up in the UK. Yeah. And you told me you, I mean, you’re, I’m curious, I mean, we discussed it, but I want to hear it again for the audience.
Like, how, how was it to, to grow up as a second generation immigrant? Yeah. How was it, especially in the lifestyle? Yes. Industries as ecosystem throughout your career. Yeah, maybe, you know, starting
Naveed Siddiqi: with that. No, thank you. So look yeah, my parents originally came from India. Then we briefly were in Pakistan.
Then they kind of came to the UK because they were both doctors. And they so I had that early science and medical background. They were professionals and they came to really work in the national health system in the UK. I was born in, in the UK and the UK is my home and I’m European at heart.
So that’s kind of my, my sort of top level journey. I must say that, you know, the, the journey for me personally, has been where I’ve embraced change and diversity because I’ve, that’s what I’ve grown up with. My parents came from a very different culture. From a very different setting and still going into their world and their parents world as a young child, seeing how different that was to, to, to being in Europe was also very, you know, I, I learned that I had two parts of my brain, which I have to kind of switch gear, which I’m sure happens maybe if you’re French and German and on the border, you have to start thinking like a French person and a German person.
It was a bit like that. So I grew up with that sort of diverse as my sort of DNA in my upbringing. I had that, but yeah, probably less strong, I guess, in Europe. Yeah, I guess. Yes. Yes. A bit more differences, different, difference, religion, difference in in language, difference in culture, lots of differences and being able to, to do that.
But it may be very at ease with that. So I feel that’s a huge privilege I’ve had. The second privilege I have had, which I think is something that anybody who comes from a bit of a, you know, parents were professionals. So. We already have a a privileged position because we are, we are coming from a you know, that sexual middle class society, which has some advantages, has certain values, certain thinking.
So that’s, I think, is common. That’s not, whether it’s in India, whether it’s in Pakistan, whether it’s here, we have, that’s a common value that we have. So there’s not much diversity there. So, in a way, I had these two different countervailing forces. My career has been where I’ve felt very much at ease in and I’ve actually embraced diversity.
So I’ve worked for you know you know, Greeks Japanese French and now the, the, the Danes. And so, and then, you know, but UK is my home base and I’ve also done a lot of investing in the U. S. as well. So and now I work with a firm that’s a very U. S. European. Danish kind of, you know, UK, Dane and, and, and U S kind of culture.
So I have to sort of be able to navigate all of that. And we are, there are differences that we should respect our culture difference and what we’re good at culturally and what we, maybe our, our weakness spots are. And, and it’s, it, I think it is powerful to have that sort of vantage point. Now, the challenges and difficulties, I think, I, I would say that, In Europe we have, I’ve grown up in an age where, people have welcomed ambition, talent, skill, And where you come from and what the color of your skin is, has been something that’s been going in the rear view mirror.
And then something that’s been in the, in the, in, you know, how people define people. And the trend has been very Yes, very, I mean good, very progressive towards Yes. That, exactly. So I felt that has been a, you know, I’ve been fortunate to have that you know, as a tailwind. And I’ve never felt there’s been a challenge, but I can’t say that this is my experience is a definition of what everybody else has faced.
It can be that, and I’m aware that we still have issues where you know, discrimination or There might be equality, but lack of equity that kind of comes through in, in how people are promoted or how people are seen. So I don’t want to belittle other people’s experiences. And I think that, that, that is a factor and we should be striving to change that still.
So we have a more equitable society. But I think what we should be focused on really is the making sure that diversity is viewed as a strength, not as a weakness. And now there’s been some talk, quite a lot of political talk, which. Which tries to go away from that. And I would just urge people who are undecided to think about that and, and think that, you know, is it something that is realistic to think in a, in a world that’s so globalized, so interconnected, whether that’s the right way to think about the future.
Philip Hemme: Yeah, that’s a good one. I think I’m curious on, on, cause at this, From my view, I feel like the UK are a bit ahead Yes. Compared to the rest of Europe. Yeah. In terms of diversity and in terms of valuing ambition and Yes. And whatever strengths you have. Yeah. Do you, or did you feel it like, or do you feel it in your like,
Naveed Siddiqi: yeah.
Well, I, I work for a you know, a French firm and they welcome me and I, I didn’t experience that so. In, in the UK and they’re definitely not in Denmark either. We have Kasim, who’s our CEO, he has you know, UK, but he also has you know that sort of same second generation background.
And then in the UK, I would say I haven’t really experienced it. You know, within the health service, within the research groups, I think there are lots of great role models and examples for the next generation that’s coming up to see that, you know, there are people can be successful in that environment and, and, and, and succeed.
And I think that’s very very positive. And I think that’s something that’s an achievement, which you can all pat ourselves on the back off for as society as whole. And in the rest of Europe, yes, maybe, you know, in some environments, I’d like to see more female participation. I think the numbers are terrible there.
We just had the statistic of 11 percent only of CEOs are female in life sciences. That’s, that’s not good. You know, we, why is that? I mean, we, we need to change that. So, so that’s not good. I think there are areas where I think our inherent natural biases are coming into play and which whether it’s probably subliminal, subconscious.
But how we’re making decisions, maybe there, there is something coming there. So I think we have to keep an eye on that one. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess as with every trend, I mean, there’s a time factor.
Philip Hemme: Yes. Yes. This kind of change. Yes. So it’s like, yeah, yeah. I like it. I like, I mean, yeah, I liked your, the global message.
[00:45:04] Thanks for listening
Philip Hemme: I think we can, we can wrap up here. Yeah. Great. I mean, thank you. It was amazing. I mean, amazing, like story, personal story, company story, great successes. Yeah.
Naveed Siddiqi: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity. See. And really appreciate In this beautiful background, it was not too hot, it didn’t rain. It was not too hot.
Yeah. So so it was nice. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All the best.
Philip Hemme: Thanks for listening to the end. I’m impressed by how Navid is a big believer of European biotech and how much capital he is deploying on how much Novo is deploying, but while still doing it in a, in a smart and effective way. I also really like the diversity part and think that European biotech ecosystem would benefit, and European society as a whole, would benefit from way more diversity.
So, if you have also enjoyed this episode, please hit the like, follow, or review button. Any of these actions would help a lot. And I would also be curious to hear what you think, so if you could just leave a comment, wherever you are, down below, or send me an email at philip at flott. bio. Alright, see you in the next episode.