(Not) Ignoring Investor Metrics in Biotech Pitch Decks

Founders, let’s address a pervasive issue in biotech: the chronic neglect of financial metrics in pitch decks. Investors aren’t just looking for cutting-edge technology—they’re looking for a business. If your deck is a science lecture without a market strategy, you’re setting yourself up for failure.

This article builds on my earlier work, such as Why Incorporating Fat Tails, Black Swans, and Extreme Value Theory (EVT) Can Improve Pitch Decks and Assessing the Robustness of Biotech Valuations Using Fat-Tailed Models, and introduces European-specific challenges and lessons. Founders, particularly those operating in Europe’s complex regulatory and reimbursement environments, need to rethink how they present their companies to drive better valuations, address investor concerns, and stand out.

Why Science-First Decks Fall Flat

Biotech founders often come from academic or R&D backgrounds. Their pitch decks tend to reflect this, spending 80-90% of slides on the science—mechanisms of action, preclinical data, and the promise of their platform. While these are critical components, they miss the other half of the story: how this innovation translates into value.

Here’s why this approach fails:

1. Pricing Hurdles in Europe
   European markets are shaped by stringent regulatory requirements and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) frameworks. NICE (UK), IQWiG (Germany), and HAS (France) don’t just evaluate whether a therapy works—they assess whether it delivers value for money. A science-only pitch doesn’t address how your therapy will pass these value-based assessments.
2. Complex Reimbursement Dynamics
   Europe’s fragmented payer landscape demands an understanding of regional pricing and reimbursement challenges. Without addressing this, your deck looks naïve to investors familiar with the market.
3. Overemphasis on TAM
   Claiming your therapy targets a €10 billion market without acknowledging competition, subpopulation constraints, or payer barriers signals a lack of commercial acumen.

The Cost of Ignoring Financial Metrics

Neglecting financial rigor can have disastrous consequences for valuations, funding rounds, and long-term viability.

Case 1: Aveo Oncology

Aveo Oncology’s failure to address regulatory concerns around survival endpoints led to an FDA rejection and a 50% drop in its stock value. European equivalents, such as the EMA or HTA bodies, are just as unforgiving when crucial metrics are ignored. Founders must anticipate these hurdles and prepare investors for them.

Case 2: Nordic Nanovector (Norway)

Focused on CD37-targeted immunotherapies, Nordic Nanovector initially attracted significant attention. However, delays in clinical trials, combined with weak financial projections, eroded investor confidence. The company eventually ceased operations in 2023. Had its pitch deck included robust contingency planning and risk modeling, it might have mitigated investor concerns.

Case 3: CureVac (Germany)

CureVac, a pioneer in mRNA technology, struggled with its COVID-19 vaccine after producing lower-than-expected efficacy data compared to competitors like BioNTech and Moderna. Despite strong science, CureVac’s inability to compete commercially highlighted gaps in its strategic planning.

These examples illustrate a common theme: even groundbreaking science cannot compensate for weak financial planning.

What Happens When You Get It Right

Success stories often come down to balancing scientific promise with financial rigor.

Case 1: BioNTech (Germany)

BioNTech’s pitch decks, even pre-COVID, demonstrated a clear understanding of commercialization pathways, manufacturing scalability, and payer expectations. This financial foresight, combined with its scientific prowess, positioned BioNTech to secure funding and partnerships, including its transformative collaboration with Pfizer.

Case 2: Genmab (Denmark)

Genmab consistently delivers investor confidence through its detailed financial planning. By emphasizing partnerships, risk-sharing agreements, and reimbursement strategies, it has maintained strong valuations despite setbacks.

Case 3: Evotec (Germany)

Evotec’s strategy to diversify risk through collaborative drug discovery partnerships with pharma giants like Bayer showcases a business model rooted in both scientific and financial clarity. Its pitch decks regularly highlight recurring revenue streams and pipeline de-risking strategies.

What (European) Investors Want to See

European investors are highly attuned to regulatory and reimbursement realities. A strong pitch deck must address these elements:

1. Market Strategy
   • Define your Initial Addressable Market (IAM), focusing on realistic entry points within Europe’s fragmented payer landscape.
   • Address competition and pricing dynamics.
2. Pricing and Reimbursement
   • Include early cost-effectiveness estimates aligned with HTA metrics like QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years).
   • Highlight payer engagement plans in major markets like Germany, France, and the UK.
3. Financial Projections
   • Provide a clear timeline for revenue generation, including sensitivity analyses for regulatory delays or pricing constraints.
   • Use comparators to validate your assumptions.
4. Regulatory Pathways
   • Show how you plan to navigate both EMA and national HTA requirements. Include details on accelerated approval pathways if applicable.
5. Risk Management
   • Discuss contingency plans, such as alternative indications or fallback strategies. Investors value transparency on risks and mitigation.

Practical Advice for Founders

Here’s how to transform your pitch deck to meet investor expectations:

1. Rebalance Your Deck
   Dedicate 30-40% of your slides to financials, market access, and commercialization. This signals that you understand the business side of biotech.
2. Leverage European Expertise
   Engage consultants with deep knowledge of European regulatory and HTA systems. Their insights can strengthen your pitch and reduce blind spots.
3. Address Investor Concerns Proactively
   Be ready to answer:
   • What’s your reimbursement strategy in Germany, the UK, and France?
   • How does your pricing compare to existing therapies?
   • What’s your fallback plan if your lead indication fails?
4. Use Real-World Data
   Include comparators from European markets to validate your assumptions. For example, if you’re developing an oncology drug, reference recent EMA-approved therapies and their pricing/reimbursement outcomes.
5. Iterate Based on Feedback
   Refine your deck after every meeting. Investor feedback is a goldmine for understanding gaps and improving clarity.

Conclusion

Founders, your pitch deck isn’t just a chance to showcase your science—it’s your opportunity to prove you can build a business. European investors, in particular, need to see that you understand the region’s regulatory and reimbursement complexities. By balancing your scientific narrative with financial and market access strategies, you’ll not only attract funding but also command stronger valuations.

Remember: the best science in the world won’t matter if you can’t get it to market. Investors need to know how you’ll navigate the path to commercialization, overcome payer hurdles, and deliver returns.

So, don’t just impress them with your innovation—convince them with your strategy. Show them how you’ll win in Europe and beyond.