There’s a particular kind of company that the market is structurally bad at pricing, and it’s the one whose real asset isn’t the thing in the headline. Everyone who looks at uniQure sees AMT-130 — the Huntington’s gene therapy, the 75% slowing of disease progression at thirty-six months, the FDA drama, the binary that everyone is waiting on. That is fair, and it is genuinely the catalyst, but it is also a profoundly incomplete way to understand what you are actually looking at. If you spend a week reading the company’s patent estate instead of its press releases, a different business comes into focus, and the closest historical rhyme I can find for that business isn’t a Huntington’s story at all.

It’s Alnylam — and specifically, it’s Alnylam as it existed in 2012, when almost nobody was willing to pay for what it would eventually become.

Let me build the case carefully, including the parts that argue against me, because this thesis only holds up if you are willing to carry the bear and the bull in the same hand at the same time.

Read more

There is a version of the Lakefront Biotherapeutics (LKFT) story that sounds like a punchline. A Belgian biotech that spent twenty-seven years failing to get a drug approved, blew its biggest bet on a cell therapy business it then had to quietly shutter after no buyer showed up, cycled through CEOs, and then decided the right move was to rename itself after a geographical feature and start over. That version is not wrong. It is just incomplete, and the part it leaves out is the only part that matters to an investor looking at the stock today.

Lakefront is sitting on approximately €2 billion in cash and financial investments at year-end 2026. The market cap is $1.88 billion. You do not need a spreadsheet to see the problem with that arithmetic, or rather the opportunity in it. The market is currently pricing Lakefront at a meaningful discount to its own treasury, which means you are being handed the pipeline, the Gilead relationship, the new management team, and the buyback authorization for less than nothing. That is the setup in its simplest form, and it is the kind of setup that tends to attract the sort of attention that eventually closes the gap.

Read more

Read more

On March 24th, I wrote about a draft FDA guidance that had been sent to the White House for review, with the title “Leveraging Prior Knowledge in the Development of Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Genome Editing.”

I told subscribers that this document was different in kind, not just degree — that it wasn’t about manufacturing standards or IND application requirements, but about epistemology itself, about whether prior natural history data, external controls, and cumulative real-world evidence can legitimately serve as the evidentiary backbone of a regulatory submission.

I said the bear case for AMT-130 rested on a single pillar: that the data cannot be evaluated without a randomized controlled trial. And I said that if this guidance were finalized, that pillar collapses — not because the clinical data changed, but because the regulatory standard would explicitly catch up to the scientific reality of rare disease gene therapy development.

This morning, June 2nd, 2026, the guidance published.

Read more

Saloni Dattani’s May biology roundup is mostly devoted to the developments that make this year feel like science fiction, a cure for congenital deafness, recreated snake venom, an emerging generation of antibodies, but tucked near the end is something far less glamorous and, for the purposes of an investor, considerably more interesting: a hair loss pill that actually worked in a registration trial. That pill is VDPHL01, the company behind it is Veradermics, and it trades on the NYSE under the almost too on the nose ticker MANE.

What follows is the case for why this one belongs on your radar, followed by the part of the story that should keep a serious investor honest about what is already priced in.

Read more

This is the final instalment of the Back of the Napkin Bios bubble proxy series. Parts one through four covered AbCellera, Sana Biotechnology, Prime Medicine, and Caribou Biosciences. The thesis running through all of them is the same: after a five-year bear market that punished long-duration biotech assets indiscriminately, a meaningful number of platform companies with genuine science and peak valuations from the 2021 cycle are trading at fractions of what they were worth when capital was free. When the XBI gets bubbly again — and I think it will — these are the names that get re-discovered rather than merely recovered.

I will keep this installment short. These are three names to have on the radar, not three deep theses. The framework is identical to the rest of the series: what does the science do, why is the valuation anomalous, and why does the re-rating work if the macro cooperates.

Read more

Please refer to the 2026 Genomics Stack which covers TXG, TWST, BLLN and others here.

Please refer to my TWST primer and TWST AI-driven thesis.

The spatial biology category has spent most of the last two years being treated as a cautionary tale, a casualty of the broader life science tools drawdown rather than the foundational platform shift it actually represents. With Atera now launched, the patent overhang largely resolved, and the financial profile improving in a way the tape has not yet fully priced, 10x Genomics looks to me like the cleanest picks-and-shovels exposure to a category that is still in its first inning. This primer is intended to lay out the business, the competitive position, and the reasons I am giving this name serious consideration as the life science sector exits the valley of despair.

Read more

Biohaven (BHVN) trades at roughly $9 today, down from $60+ in mid-2024. The 85% drawdown happened in stages through 2025, with each leg of the decline accompanied by a sell-side capitulation that culminated in RBC’s Leonid Timashev cutting his price target from $54 to $21 in May, to $19 in August, and to $9 in November. He has since walked it back to $22, initially in January and again at $23 in early March before trimming a dollar on the most recent quarterly. The stock has barely moved against this re-rating.

That’s the setup that put BHVN on my watchlist. The sell-side whipsaw doesn’t tell me the stock is mispriced in a particular direction but it tells me the name is mispriced somewhere along that path, and the question is which end of the swing was wrong. After working through the most recent RBC notes, I think there is a credible case that the current price is anchored to the November capitulation rather than to anything resembling a forward-looking view of the assets. Whether that gap closes from here, and on what catalyst, is the question I’m trying to answer.

Read more

Two updates worth front-loading before the unit economics work.

First, the immunotherapy coverage decision arrived on May 12, 2026, considerably earlier than BTIG’s mid-2026 window and against a guidance baseline that explicitly excluded it. MolDX expanded coverage of NeXT Personal to include immunotherapy monitoring across late-stage solid tumors, supported by the Vall d’Hebron published evidence. The stock spiked roughly 19% on the news, which both validates the coverage ladder framework and meaningfully de-risks one of the three named catalysts from the original post. Two more (CRC and bladder) remain outstanding, but the most contested one is now live.

Second, the November 2025 MolDX rate update gave us hard numbers to anchor the per-test economics. The initial Dx Breast MRD Recurrence Monitoring Test (the tissue-plus-baseline-plasma test, ordered once per cancer diagnosis) reimburses at $4,266. The Single Plasma Test (the recurring surveillance assay, ordered up to four times a year for up to six years) reimburses at $1,164. Those are the two prices that drive everything that follows.

The original post established why the technology and the coverage ladder matter but what it didn’t do is build a defensible model of what each test earns, how volume scales, where gross margin lands as the mix shifts, and what the resulting valuation range looks like under explicit assumptions. So that’s what this piece does.

Read more

This is Part 4 of an ongoing series on ‘biotech bubble proxies’ — names with the platform architecture, peak valuation history, and clinical de-risking profile to become generational multi-baggers when the next biotech cycle arrives. For Part 1, please refer to my piece on AbCellera. For Part 2, please refer to my piece on Sana Biotechnology. For Part 3, please refer to my piece on Prime Medicine. For the original post on Caribou, please refer here.

The cell therapy industry has produced two of the most significant acquisition premiums in modern biotechnology. Gilead paid $11.9 billion for Kite Pharma in 2017 before a single commercial dose of Yescarta had been administered to a paying patient. Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $11 billion for Juno Therapeutics the following year on essentially the same calculus. The market had looked at CAR-T cell therapy, concluded that the ability to engineer a patient’s own immune cells to destroy cancer represented a generational therapeutic advance, and acted accordingly. Both acquisitions happened before approval. Both were vindicated by the clinical outcomes that followed.

Read more

This is Part 3 of an ongoing series on biotech bubble proxies — names with the platform architecture, peak valuation history, and clinical de-risking profile to become generational multi-baggers when the next biotech cycle arrives. For Part 1, please refer to my piece on AbCellera. For Part 2, please refer to my piece on Sana Biotechnology.

Every few years the gene editing story gets told again, with better tools and higher expectations. The market prices the newest version to infinity, the clinical data arrives on a timeline inconsistent with those expectations, and the correction is brutal and indiscriminate. The companies that survive the correction with their science intact and their mechanisms validated are not the ones that get re-rated, they are the ones that get re-discovered. The distinction matters because discovery feels different from recovery. Recovery is a BIG grind but discovery is a re-rating.

Prime Medicine (NASDAQ: PRME) is not the gene editing story the market told in 2020. It is a more precise version of that story, built on a more sophisticated mechanism, founded by the scientist who understood the limitations of the earlier tools better than anyone else alive and spent years building something that addresses them. I am not buying it today, and I will explain precisely why. However, I am watching it closely enough that it warrants the full treatment, because the setup has a shape I recognize.

Read more

This is a follow-up piece to the original CYTK post published here.

Cytokinetics delivered solid data today and the headline is clean: ACACIA-HCM met both dual primary endpoints, with statistically significant improvements at Week 36 versus placebo in both KCCQ Clinical Summary Score and maximal exercise capacity (pVO2). The data behind the headline is worth sitting with.

Read more

Read more

CorMedix reported positive topline data on April 27 from the Phase III ReSPECT trial of Rezzayo (rezafungin) for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in adult allogeneic blood and marrow transplant patients. In the 602-patient comparison against standard of care (investigator’s choice of posaconazole, fluconazole, or TMP/SMX), Rezzayo met its primary non-inferiority endpoint with a fungal-free survival rate of 61 percent at day 90, against 59 percent for the active comparators. The trial was not powered for superiority, and the numerical delta sits firmly inside non-inferiority territory and should not be read as a superiority signal.

Read more

This is Part 2 of an ongoing series on biotech bubble proxies — names with the platform architecture, peak valuation history, and clinical de-risking profile to become generational multi-baggers when the next biotech cycle arrives. For Part 1, please refer to my piece on AbCellera here.

Every few years a platform company emerges that looks small until it doesn’t. The market assigns it a valuation commensurate with its current pipeline, systematically ignores the optionality embedded in the underlying technology, and then scrambles to reprice when a single proof of concept validates everything that sits downstream. I watched this dynamic play out in gene therapy. I believe I am watching it happen again, in a different modality, with a different disease, and with a founding team that has already built and sold one of the most important cell therapy companies of the last decade.

I am not buying this name today, and I will explain precisely why. However, I am watching closely enough that it warrants a full writeup, because the setup has a familiar shape — the kind of name that sits quietly at a fraction of its peak valuation until rates fall, biotech euphoria returns, and the market stops asking hard questions. At the top of the next XBI cycle, this is the sort of multi-bagger that gets priced to infinity. The science exists to justify it. The question is whether you are positioned before that happens or after.

Read more

Read more

This is Part 1 of an ongoing series on biotech bubble proxies — names with the platform architecture, peak valuation history, and clinical de-risking profile to become generational multi-baggers when the next biotech cycle arrives.

I‘m going to keep this one short, because the thesis is relatively simple and the key data isn’t here yet. I will be adding this one to the watchlist (which is a list that continues to grow — yes, QURE, TWST, CLPT, CMPS, GHRS etc are keeping me busy these days) and I plan to update the list monthly. However, think of this as a name to have on the radar that works on its own merits, but works considerably better as the XBI gets bubbly again. If you’re looking for a clean proxy for the next biotech cycle with a real catalyst embedded inside it, AbCellera (NASDAQ: ABCL) belongs on your list.

There’s a version of this trade that works without a biotech bubble and there’s a better version that works with one. AbCellera is currently mispriced against both scenarios and the calendar is about to start clarifying which world we’re living in.

Read more

*PT Below*

What Lilly Did This Morning

Eli Lilly announced it is acquiring Kelonia Therapeutics for $3.25 billion in cash upfront, with up to $3.75 billion in additional milestones, a potential $7 billion deal. Kelonia’s lead program, KLN-1010, is an in-vivo BCMA CAR-T for multiple myeloma. It is in Phase 1, with first clinical data presented at ASH in December 2025.

That is the factual anchor. Whatever conclusions one draws from it, the reference point for the rest of this post is that a large-cap pharma was willing to write a $3.25B upfront cheque for a pre-commercial, Phase 1 BCMA CAR-T program earlier today.

For context, Legend Biotech (NASDAQ: LEGN), which owns 50% of the profits of the only approved BCMA CAR-T on the market (a product doing approximately $1.9 billion in 2025 global sales) closed last Thursday at a market cap of roughly $3.9 billion. LEGN is up roughly 11% today on the Kelonia news, which brings market cap to somewhere in the $4.3 billion range.

Whether that is a pricing error or a rational discount for real risks is the question worth working through.

Read more

The Test I’m Running On Each Name

I’m not giving you every “platform-ish” biotech. I’m filtering for companies where the technology generates candidates more efficiently than the industry baseline, and this efficiency is demonstrated, not claimed.

The marker of a real platform is that each successive program costs less time and money per IND than the last, and targeting a new disease is a matter of redirecting the same primitive rather than starting discovery from scratch.

A genuine platform-expansion compounder needs all four of these, not three:

Read more

Read more