i). Ginkgo is IP creation biz (a #synbio $TXN/ $INTC/ $AMD) housed in automated CRO (see $PPD $WUXAY $CRL) "on steroids." That gets paid in cash+ stock/royalties
ii). Biology inherently hard to scale, but part of revenue magic of Ginkgo is code reuseability
^There's a type of Biotwitter poster (or pro investor) that specializes in clin trial analysis & turns nose at co's that break old bio financial mold. Struggle to understand software too
Ginkgo's reuseable code base could enable:
10 deals per yr x $100M = $1B rev
$SRNGU/ $SRNG
^ Ginkgo has a dedicated "Deal Team" and seems to always running out of physical lab space, so it is now building an annex across the street from the already massive Drydock building
Big difference from 2013, when Ginkgo was proving its tech with SBIR and Scottish govt grants
^Before $MRNA/ $BNTX vaccines found effective vs most current COVID variants (and on path to FDA pediatric approval), Ginkgo was planning to #NGS pool test every U.S. school for huge cost savings
^ @GillianTan@crystaltse@kristenvbrown: found it interesting to compare size of cash trust for $SRNGU/ $SRNG to other healthcare/biotech/medtech SPACs.
Like nothing seen yet
$1.5B is huge
Stopped tracking them in December, but closest one was $500M
^ Ginkgo's human capital and extreme focus on #DNAsynthesis and Abstraction + Standards (concepts from computer science/electrical engineering imported by Knight/Collins/Endy) set it apart from $NVZMY
Ginkgo is more nimble and can jump into completely new projects in new markets
^A roughly equivalent $NVZMY vs Ginkgo valuation can be made if you assign a generous terminal value to Ginkgo in DCF. That's what it boils down to
Will be interesting to build a Ginkgo model & compare it to $AMRS/ $CDXS too (close direct comps) ( $AMRS is a Ginkgo partner too)
^ $ABCL is a Canadian #synbio co that was able to IPO during pandemic due to its #COVID antibody partnership with $LLY (bamlanivimab)
Ginkgo has an antibody program with @TotientBio. Also runs multiple $BLI machines, and may see more antibody therapeutics programs in future?🧐
^ $ABCL had a huge step up in valuation when it IPO'd. Specialist healthcare funds in early 2020 crossover round made something like 20x from late venture to IPO pricing (not sure the exact number, but it was big)
A $20B valuation assumes Ginkgo is worth more ~2x $ABCL's
^84% of $ABCL's $233M in rev came from bamlanivimab royalties, which got FDA EUA for COVID. Unclear if those will continue now that vaxes are being rolled out. Might be a 1-yr bolus
Ginkgo has more avenues for growth, in both regulated areas (therapeutics) & less regulated areas
Last few bits on Ginkgo. Then going to head off
$TXG is interesting "adjacent" comp also valued around $20B. Far ahead of competitors in tech, like Ginkgo (even though $TXG is a #singlecell tools/software provider). Ginkgo rev could move into parity with $TXG with quick growth
^ Also, Contract Research Organizations (CRO's) in chart are service providers. Unlike Ginkgo, they don't take equity/royalties. And Ginkgo unlocks new value through IP creation, not just running experiments to spec
This gives Ginkgo profile skewed to upside
$PPD $CRL $WUXAY
End of Ginkgo discussion
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Great clip from Voigt lab explaining technical barriers to creating *reliable* cell programs ("regulatory networks") with HUNDREDS of genes (like🦠found in nature)
$DNA has chipped away at some of these, though it can still only design reliable programs with ~5-10 genes
🧬
^Barriers $DNA has chipped away at:
Design:
•Codebase has many well-characterized parts
•Software to string 1000's of design variations together
Build:
•@Gen9Bio tech for synthesizing big pieces of 🧬 ("challenging")
Test:
•Methods for debugging cell programs (reporters)
Circa 2016, Voigt lab at MIT said the limit for cell programs ("regulatory networks") in academia was ~2-4 genes
Compare this with naturally-occurring cell programs that might have hundreds of genes
“Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”
- @DavidRelman, Stanford Med School
“One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site… That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal.”
“If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect”
-Jamie Metzl, World Health Organization advisory committee on human genome editing