Biotechs to government: stop mucking with R&D
Published 01-JUN-2016 09:45 A.M.
|
2 minute read
Hey! Looks like you have stumbled on the section of our website where we have archived articles from our old business model.
In 2019 the original founding team returned to run Next Investors, we changed our business model to only write about stocks we carefully research and are invested in for the long term.
The below articles were written under our previous business model. We have kept these articles online here for your reference.
Our new mission is to build a high performing ASX micro cap investment portfolio and share our research, analysis and investment strategy with our readers.
Click Here to View Latest Articles
Over 80% of biotech leaders are concerned about a current review of R&D policy, and are suspicious of the government’s position on the issue.
Australian biotech body AusBiotech released its industry position survey yesterday, which canvassed the thoughts of 44 companies in the sector along with another 60 companies through roundtable discussions.
It found that of 80% of respondents said they were “concerned” about a current review of R&D arrangements being led by Australia’s chair of innovation Bill Ferris, chief scientist Alan Finkel, and secretary to the Treasury John Fraser.
While 80% of respondents were worried about the changes, over 90% said stability on the issue was crucial as capital remains uncomfortably tight for companies in the sector.
“The constant reviews, threats and tweaks to industry support programs are unsettling biotechnology developers, who have long development cycles – and undermine business confidence,” AusBiotech said in its findings.
“The negative impact that uncertainty has on product development/innovation companies is destabilising and program changes cause one of the greatest costs, in practical terms.”
One CEO surveyed even went as far as to say they were “genuinely fearful” over the government’s intentions in the space.
While the R&D review is ongoing, the government has already imposed an expenditure claim threshold of $100 million on R&D funding – but it has also attempted to cut claims by 1.5%, something which it has not yet been successful in doing.
READ: Reading the biotech tea leaves part one
READ: Reading the biotech tea leaves part two
In particular, the companies surveyed said one suggestion that R&D could be linked with greater collaboration with the academic sector.
Biotech leaders suggested that any sort of formal linking could create “phantom partnerships”.
“...if industry is incentivised to work with a public sector partner and is motivated primarily by the incentive, phantom partnerships will eventuate,” AusBiotech wrote in its findings.
“It will also make the R&D Tax Incentive more complex and increase compliance costs.”
Despite ongoing uncertainty about R&D though, the sector cautiously welcomed a greater focus on innovation from the government – and also reported that the R&D spend of 41 respondents was a aggregated $2.5 billion in 2015.
This is up from $889 million from 46 companies in the previous year.
General Information Only
S3 Consortium Pty Ltd (S3, ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’) (CAR No. 433913) is a corporate authorised representative of LeMessurier Securities Pty Ltd (AFSL No. 296877). The information contained in this article is general information and is for informational purposes only. Any advice is general advice only. Any advice contained in this article does not constitute personal advice and S3 has not taken into consideration your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Please seek your own independent professional advice before making any financial investment decision. Those persons acting upon information contained in this article do so entirely at their own risk.
Conflicts of Interest Notice
S3 and its associated entities may hold investments in companies featured in its articles, including through being paid in the securities of the companies we provide commentary on. We disclose the securities held in relation to a particular company that we provide commentary on. Refer to our Disclosure Policy for information on our self-imposed trading blackouts, hold conditions and de-risking (sell conditions) which seek to mitigate against any potential conflicts of interest.
Publication Notice and Disclaimer
The information contained in this article is current as at the publication date. At the time of publishing, the information contained in this article is based on sources which are available in the public domain that we consider to be reliable, and our own analysis of those sources. The views of the author may not reflect the views of the AFSL holder. Any decision by you to purchase securities in the companies featured in this article should be done so after you have sought your own independent professional advice regarding this information and made your own inquiries as to the validity of any information in this article.
Any forward-looking statements contained in this article are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results or performance of companies featured to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this article. S3 cannot and does not give any assurance that the results or performance expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements contained in this article will actually occur and readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
This article may include references to our past investing performance. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of our future investing performance.