《EFPIA：2023年歐洲生物制藥中小企業融資環境調查結果分析報告（英文版）（19頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《EFPIA：2023年歐洲生物制藥中小企業融資環境調查結果分析報告（英文版）（19頁）.pdf（19頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、1Financing environment of biopharmaceutical SMEs in EuropeSurvey ResultsJune 20232Survey focusing on the financing environment of biopharmaceutical SMEs in EuropeSurvey period:November 2021 to July 2022Objectives:Small European biopharmaceutical companies operating in Europe were surveyed in order t

2、o map the financial environment they are evolving in.The outcomes of the survey will help raise awareness among European decision makers about numerous obstacles that small companies are facing in Europe and that are hampering innovation.It will also help propose solutions to enhance the European bi

3、opharmaceutical funding ecosystem for SMEs and small mid-caps(public and private).Method:Polled online,available on LinkedIn and Twitter,sent to EMA registered SMEs and national trade associationsFeedback received from 43 SMEsSurvey background3PART I-RESPONDERS PROFILES4Presentation of profiles whic

4、h responded:Demographics 53%of responses are from CEOsMost of responses represent Nordic and Western European biotech SMEs90%of responses are SMEs of 5 years70%14%16%Licensing the rightsCommercialising on your ownUndecided2/3 would licence their rights and not commercialise on their own7Presentation

5、 of profiles which responded:Capital structures16%are listed companies84%are privately owned*Ownership type:wording used in the surveyHigh level of control/Low liquidity,e.g:small group holding 50%High level of control/High liquidity,e.g:single owner holding 20%Low level of control/High liquidity,e.

6、g:fragmented ownership with no holding 5%Ownership is concentrated among a single(1/3)or a small group(1/3)of owners,retaining high control of the companyControl HIGHLiquidity LOWControl HIGHLiquidity HIGHControl LOWLiquidity HIGHOther0%10%20%30%40%*8Main findings9PART II FINANCING:SITUATION AND OPP

7、ORTUNITIES10SMEs turn to a variety of private funding instruments to finance their development,complemented with public grants and loans.25%of SMEs rely solely on public funding0%20%40%60%80%Government loanGrantIPOFollow-onVenture loanAlternative financing(e.g.royalties,ATM,equityUpfront/milestone p

8、ayment(licensing)Rights issueConvertible debtPrivate placementIn the details,almost 80%of SMEs were funded by private placements 2/3 also benefited from Grants,and 1/3 from government funding3 out of 4 SMEs list private funding as their main funding source22%27%51%Mostly Public(75%Public)MixedMostly

9、 Private(75%Private)Approximate part of funding(private vs.Public)in volume11In actual volumes of raised,the most commonly available instruments often provide the less impact,and vice versa-5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0AlternativefinancingRights issue Venture loan Licensing:upfront/mileston

10、esFollow-onPrivateplacementConvertibledebtGrantGovernmentloanIPOMedianAverageIn volumes,private placements provide relatively reduced amounts of funding.Although not an instrument commonly used by SMEs,alternative financing yields the highest funding volumes,35mo on averageGrants and loans,although

11、used by the majority of SMEs,yield less funding volumes than any other private instrument(excl.IPO),2,5mo for a median SME12EU-based SMEs select EU-based financing.Non-EU SMEs also capture this opportunity while diversifying their funding sourcesOnly Europe68%6%of EU SMEs seek a major funding comple

12、ment in the US20%of EU SMEs seek a minor funding complement in the USOther complement6%EU SMEs are turning to EU-based financing,which may be completed with US-based financing for 1 in 4 SMEs.Rarely,EU SMEs will seek funding in other regions than the US0%20%40%60%USEuropeHomecountryMiddleeastNon-EU

13、SMEs(UK,CH)are turning to varied regions for financing,including EU-based financing or local financing,often completed by US-based financing13When it comes to getting advice,SMEs favour direct contact with investorsSMEs also turn to national rather than EU institutions for public financing advice Pr

14、ivate investment funds;2,26Other;2,77National financing institutions;3,31Consultancy firms;3,53Bank advisors;4,14European financing institutions;4,21Legal advisors;4,220123456781,001,502,002,503,003,504,004,505,00Averaged ranking:Most to least valuable partnerranking scoreHalf of the responders cont

15、act Other trusted partners,which are:10%of responders did not secure advice from external partners35%are the funders own networks45%of these other partners are individual investors Consultancy firms,while not the most valuable partner,complement the preferred partners advice Public fundingPrivate fu

16、nding(*1 being the most valuable,8 being the least valuable)14SMEs highlight the need for private funding in order to secure public financingHalf of the responders face Other obstacles:25%are the lack of public funding in the region50%of these barriers are funding not matching research areaLack of a

17、ccess to relevant sources of private funding;2,41Inadequate market conditions;2,86Lack of news flow;2,89Other;3,08Complexity to evaluate options available;3,31Inadequate company structure;3,522,002,503,003,504,0001234567scoreAverage ranking*:highest to lowest barrier to public funding(*1 being the h

18、ighest barrier,8 being the lowest)15SMEs highlight the need for adequate market and product conditions in order to secure private financingInadequate market conditions;2,1Lack of near-term news flow;2,7Other;2,9Lack of access to relevant sources of public funding;3,0Inadequate company structure;3,2C

19、omplexity to evaluate options available;3,81,52,02,53,03,54,04,501234567ScoreAverage ranking*:highest to lowest barrier to private fundingOther obstacles include,for 22%responders:Not enough private funding available This is particularly expressed in the anti-infectious therapeutic areas of research

20、Lack of risk willing capitalToo little private money in the European risk financing marketLack of risk financing,and lack of risk financing among private vs.public actors,as well as in the UE vs US explain this statement(*1 being the highest barrier,8 being the lowest)16SMEs share their experience w

21、ith EU institutions and mention key priorities to better finance the growth of EU biopharmaceutical SMEsShorter time-to-approval(simplified/accelerated process)More clarity on existing options,eligibility criteria and overall processLarger ticket size(funding)OtherMore attractive terms and condition

22、sEasier implementation once financing granted1,502,002,503,003,504,004,5001234567ScoreEU priorities to focus on,ranked*by importanceOther suggestions include,in order of occurrence:-Provide more incentives to apply for funding via collaborative projects-Larger funding rounds-Simplify the processes-M

23、ore risk funding instruments(*1 being the most important,8 being the least)17For almost 90%of SMEs,funding needs in the next 2 years are below 50MNone10M 10-50M 50-100M 100-200M 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%18Private investment funds,VC and family offices are the top 3 preferred organisations to get funding

24、from in EuropePrivate investment funds;2,91VCs;3,07Family offices;3,50Investment banks;3,72Large pharmaceutical companies;3,77EIB;4,42Other;4,67Large pharmaceutical companies VC;4,79Business angels;4,96Regional agencies;5,102,002,503,003,504,004,505,005,506,0001234567891011ScoreAverage ranking of preferred organisations to contact to get fundingPublic fundingPrivate funding(*1 being the preferred organisation,8 being the least preferred)19Thank you