Our clients sit in one of four areas of advanced therapeutics. Each has its own science, capital cycle, and unit economics — and a different set of questions a CEO and Board have to answer.
Clinical-stage cell and gene therapy programs face a uniquely complex set of decisions: autologous vs. allogeneic, point-of-care vs. centralized manufacturing, GMP build vs. partner. Every one of those decisions reshapes the capital plan.
We've worked across CAR-T, iPSC platforms in neurology and regenerative medicine, and gene therapy for rare disease. The repeating questions are the same — how to fund the manufacturing buildout, how to structure partnerships that don't compromise the asset, when to push for IND and when to wait for the data that justifies the spend.
The financial models for these programs are not the same as a small molecule program. Cost of goods, throughput, and capacity all behave differently. We help teams build models that reflect that reality and survive scrutiny from a sophisticated cell-therapy investor.
ADCs are having a moment. So are bispecifics, T-cell engagers, and the broader space of next-generation oncology biologics. The capital landscape moves quickly and benchmarks change quarterly.
Our work in this area runs across private and public-stage companies. For private companies, the questions are how to compete for a Series A or B against the dozen other ADC programs that just raised. For public companies, the questions are PIPE structuring, comparable benchmarking, and how to position a clinical update for the next financing event.
We've supported asset diligence on novel payloads, comp analysis against recently-priced rounds, term sheet review for PIPEs and at-the-market facilities, and investor communications around clinical updates and earnings.
AI-native drug discovery companies don't sell drugs yet — they sell the bet that their platform will discover better, faster, or cheaper. That requires a different narrative, a different model, and a different kind of capital partner.
We work with seed and Series A teams to define what “the platform” actually is, how to defend it against the next well-funded entrant, and how to structure partnerships that don't give away the upside before there's revenue.
The unit economics for an AI-native discovery company are not the same as a traditional biotech. Costs tilt toward compute and data, value capture is via partnerships and pipeline, and the investor narrative has to credibly bridge from compute to clinic.
Comprehensive cancer centers, children's hospitals, and academic medical centers are increasingly the launch point for next-generation therapies — particularly cell and gene therapy. The economics, governance, and capital structures are unique.
We've worked with multiple AMCs to scope, build, and finance translational programs — GMP cell-therapy cores, precision medicine institutes, and high-performance computing for bioinformatics and AI/ML. The repeating questions are how to make the economics work, how to navigate philanthropy alongside operating revenue, and how to spin out commercial entities without losing the academic mission.
Our experience runs from the inside — Director of Strategy at the Center for Personalized Medicine at Children's Hospital Los Angeles — to the outside as advisor on external review committees, growth strategies, and market sizing for cell and gene therapy programs.
A 30-minute intro call is the fastest way to see if there's a fit.
Book a 30-minute intro