Alan                                                            00:16

It’s my pleasure to welcome Mats Blom to Healthcare Insights by KYBORA. Mats, pleasure meeting you. I get to interact with you because you’re the chairman of Egetis. I presume that’s highly pronounced, the name of the company, which is a really interesting rare disease company based in Sweden and that recently got an approval in Europe and is looking for an approval in the United States in the coming months. And that’s how we started to interact. But then I thought your, your background was, was very interesting as a CFO has raised capital both in Europe as well as in the United States. And I thought that your perspective on, you know, the current state of raising capital for biotech could be really interesting because you’ve done this across public company, but also private company across multiple continents.

And you have had a long career of helping biotech companies getting off the ground. So what I thought we would do first is to get to know you a little bit better. So if you can kind of give us a a high level overview of your career so far, that would be great. And then we can dig into some of the topics that I think will be of great interest to our audience.

Mats                                                           01:36

OK. Thanks a lot and thanks for having me. As you mentioned, my name is Mats Blom. I’m Swedish. I live in southern Sweden, close to the bridge over to Copenhagen in Denmark. I have a finance background and I’ve stayed in finance my whole career. I studied at the University of Lund, worked a few years as an auditor and then did an MBA in Barcelona, Spain at school called IESE. I would say the first ten years of my career was in management consulting, auditing. But after a period I did get a job in a listed conglomerate mid size listed in Stockholm owning everything from industries, private jet companies, helicopter companies. But that was a strategic decision to go into biotech because it seemed a new fancy thing at that time in in Scandinavia.

So we bought the state owned monopoly for vaccines, we bought from Pharmacia and they closed their oncology department in Lund. We bought that etcetera and created a company called Active Biotech, still listed in Stockholm. So that was my first interaction or first time of getting to know this industry. We did list the rest of the conglomerate. We spun it out and listed and we did some, you know, follow-ons sale and leasebacks and everything. You know in biotech it’s all about money and science. So I worked on the money part, spent a few years doing other stuff, but in 2007 or 8 I joined Swedish Orphan in Stockholm, which by then was a highly successful company focused on distributing mainly American companies, ultra orphans on the European market.

We did however, one asset which was our own, which was one of those amazing things that either these poor kids died or they took a pill a day and survived full lives. It was really, yeah, it was amazing to be part of that story. We ran the dual track exit process in 2010 and Swedish Orphan was bought by another Swedish company called Biovitrum, then creating Sobi, which is now probably the largest pharmaceutical company I think listed in in Sweden at least. I left at that merger and joined Zealand Pharma in Denmark because I had the reputation of being able to raise money new in the industry and being CFO. So that, that was the background. We did list Zealand in 2010 in November in Denmark and I stayed with the company for a decade.

I thought it was a fantastic company to be part of. During that year we did several follow-ons. We did a major royalty sale, which was probably the most tricky financial transaction I’ve been part of. And we did list in NASDAQ in New York in 2017. So that was a fantastic story. I decided to leave because I thought if I don’t leave, I’ll stay until retirement and I thought I was too young for that. So it’s I left, joined a small biotech in Sweden, but finally ended up in Holland in a VC-owned biotech, NorthSea Therapeutics where I spent several years. I quit there two years ago and the reason is that my wife has cancer and I wanted to be home with her.

So I didn’t feel like I could have an operational role with the traveller etcetera involved the last five to seven years. Then I started to sit as non executive directors in the few biotechs and I’m as you mentioned currently Chairman of Egetis Therapeutics in Stockholm Ultra Orfan, fantastic company. I believe I’m also on the board of Hansa Biopharma in in Sweden. We just this week made a major deal basically out licensing the full European business to serve and I’m also sitting on the board on a small private company in Denmark.

Alan                                                            05:29

Wow, what a career. And you made this move from I guess management consultant to biotech. I know you, you mentioned in your introduction that this was because this was the, the, the new and shiny things that seem interesting, but you ended up staying in the biotech space. So what makes the industry so special that Someone Like You has the capability of raising, you know, money across multiple industry decided that this was the one you wanted to spend most of your life in?

Mats                                                           06:01

I think initially I had a little bit of an issue with it. The whole industry in business model, the model where the more successful you are, the more money you need to raise. It goes a little bit against, I think against the finance guy because you know, you think you should be able to live on your on your own. But having, you know, gotten into this, understanding the, the whole network, the combination of VCs, retail specialists and also working with smart people. If you’re in this. I’ve always been in smaller or mid sized companies, 50 to 150 employees when I entered the room, the average IQ goes down because it’s so much smart people there, right?

So it’s, it’s just amazing. And suddenly, when you grow older without noticing it, suddenly you know things, you’ve done it before, you know people and you know it, it creeps on you. You know, I, I, I feel I have something to come contribute. It took some time and I don’t know when, when that happened. But during these years you’ve done things, you’ve met people, you know who to call, maybe you know what not to do, et cetera. And I must say I really enjoy the orphan space because it is, of course, fantastic to, you know, save the life of millions, but it’s more personally rewarding to save the life of 10 people that you can see in the face. It becomes very personal.

Unfortunately, in the orphan space, it’s often kids. And that’s also, you know, it feels great with these these medicines that that can help families, I think. Welcome back to the whole topic around, you know, rare disease and orphan and be curious to get your take on, you know where that is going. And, and I’ll share with you, you know, some of the things that we’re seeing from our perspective.

Alan                                                            07:51

But going back to the work that you did at the Zealand Pharma in bringing that organization as or listing that organization as a public entity both in Europe and in in the US. Can you talk a little bit about that whole process, what that taught you? And also give us a little bit of an insight maybe as the differences between an an American investor versus a European investor that, you know, people should be aware of, especially if you’re, you know, a European company that wants to raise capital.

Mats                                                           08:27

Yeah. And I must say when we listed in Denmark was 2010. I think things have changed over those 15 years. I think the European investors have become much more more, there are more specialists etcetera. But to generalize what I experienced in 2010 when we raised in Denmark, we wanted US investors, we wanted specialists and they were in the US we spent probably 70% of you know investor meetings etcetera with with the US investors etcetera. When the book was filled it was still 80% European. So I I think one learning and I’ve seen that also in follow-ons. Everybody here goes for the US investors because they have deep pockets, they are so knowledgeable.

But I think you should not forget your whole market. We’re still the companies I’ve been in are have normally been small and in the end many times it has been the local pension funds etcetera, generalists that in the end has kind of saved many financings. A big difference that I know. I think it’s the difference. We’ve had more retail in, in the Nordics. There’s a lot of retail investors. It’s a very active retail market, which is a a super challenging biotech because as I mentioned, it’s hard that you do a raise and then they say this money should take you to profitability. I think that’s been the the major mindset. And you know, if you’re in phase one or two or even phase three, you know that that raise will not take it to profitability.

There will have to be another raise and another raise. And I notice a big difference for Nordics and Europeans being, call it, afraid of dilution, while the US investors understand that’s how the model works. You know, you, if you put in money now, you need to be able to put in money in two years because if things goes well, it will need more money. And that mindset has been extremely difficult to deal with. Also with press, especially in seal on the first year, you know, 2010 to 1516 oh now they need to raise more money and it’s all been negative while the business been very positive because of this mindset, they’re not really fully understanding that that’s how it goes in a in a successful biotech the.

Alan                                                            10:52

Interesting that you mentioned that ultimately most of the companies do end up with a larger proportion of the investors coming up from from Europe. Do you think in the current environment that European biotechs may have some advantage over the US biotechs in the sense that it might be a more, I’ll call it efficient investment? It seems to me that cost of developing drugs in the United States is continuing to skyrocket where salaries are going up and up and up and up. At the same time, the probability of success is not improved and the time to market also has not improved. So in this world where you’re now competing with the efficiencies of China, does that create an environment where investor may say, you know, we want the technical proficiencies of the scientist, which we can find in Europe, but we don’t want to pay US prices for that.

Do you, do you get a sense of that? think

Mats                                                           12:01

the science and, and the organizations might as well be in Europe and the US They’re all, I mean, they’re super good here and they’re super good in Boston. I, I do not think there’s a big difference. The big difference is that the market is in the US. We couldn’t run. Most of the biotechs I’ve been in would not have been around if it wasn’t for the US market. It’s fair to say that something has to be done in Europe because there will be. If it was only European payers, there would be no innovation whatsoever. That’s that’s my view. It’s all about making it in the US. It’s the largest market and they pay well, which is needed because to run a biotech, at least in the orphan space, you know of course that most of them will not make it.

There has to be some upside for the few that makes it and currently it’s extremely difficult to make get your, even your investment back in Europe with the prices we’re talking. However, as I said, the organization, the people, the scientists running I, I could argue for having that in Europe because it’s cheaper as you mentioned. I mean, labour is cheaper. Most things are cheaper, the lawyers are cheaper, everything is cheaper here, but the market is still in the US. Every company I’ve been involved with have this ambition here, of course, to sell in the US. That’s the big market and when they grow, there’s always this discussion should we list in the US etcetera.

It seems to be a fundamental drive in in the biotechs I’ve I’ve seen here.

Alan                                                            13:28

Which is also interesting as I’m sure you’re aware of the, you know, the issue associated with most favoured nation that we’re facing now. So one of the thing we’re seeing is a lot of US biotech companies saying we were not interested in registering in Europe anymore or even, you know, undergoing clinical trials that would allow us to do that. So I think that is a a word. There is some trend that we’re seeing. And to your point, if European biotech CEOs primary strategy is to get their product in the US to get the reimbursement that they need. Do you get to a point where there’s a potential need for European companies to actually acquire US based biotech companies so that, you know, they can actually bring the product back to Europe, even though it might impact their valuation in the US?

But just so that you know, patients in Europe can benefit from these products.

Mats                                                           14:28

It’s interesting how no I I. I as a European I, I’m, I’m really worried. I can very well see companies say and forget about the whole EMA process, the clinical prize and because we’re not getting paid and as I said, it could risk our US, you know business. So I would not be surprised if biotechs just concentrate on other markets. That’s a worry I have.

Alan                                                            14:54

You mentioned a little bit the difference between I guess a European investor and A and an American investor. But can you dig in a little bit more based on your having interacted with both? So for instance, if you if you’re trying to convince an American investors to invest in your company versus a European investor, what would be the the key fundamental differences between the two, would you say?

Mats                                                           15:21

The professional life science investors, I don’t think there’s a big difference. The difference is that on our home market we also speak to pension funds generalist more and that’s a completely different story. I think the good funds in in Holland or in UK or even in Sweden or they are fewer. I don’t notice a big difference to the US, Some of the US top notch firms, I am surprised how much work they put in. Even in smaller cases. It’s more I, I think they are so extremely professional and it takes so long and we can just have fewer of those. I think. I think that’s a big difference. It is here we are also looking at the a big portion of of non specialists when in the companies I’ve been in if you.

Were to advise a young CFO in the biotech space that would want to raise capital today, whether it is in the US or in Europe, a combination of both. What, what would be kind of like top 23 recommendation, you know, do you need with the science, is the finance really important? You know, is the, is the market really what people are looking for? What are your your recommendations? Yeah, that, that, that’s a good one. I think markets goes up and down. There are period where you can almost raise money for anything, and there are periods where you can barely raise for the absolutely best as it’s amazing how cyclical it is. But in the end, I think you need to have good science, a good product, Yeah, because otherwise it is so difficult, except for those when there’s a two year boom where you can, you know, list anything.

You get money for everything. But that’s still not all the time. In the end, it’s the science. And what I would also recommend a new CFO, if you go into it, call it a private company, look at the owners, the high quality owners is what makes the big difference. Then in, in, in, in bad times, put it this way in, in times where it’s almost impossible, you know, there’s no IPO window. No one wants to put in money. Everybody wants call it that phase three assets, etcetera. What do you do with all the, you know, early research Phase one, you are stuck. Then you need a strong owner, base of owners that are ready to support you. I must say, for example, I’m in NorthSea Therapeutics where I spent the last five years was VC-owned and I think I came in after the Series A with the top notch funds like Forbion, Novo, [unclear ~18:01] in California, Sofinnova in California, etcetera.

To have that consortium believing in the company made all the difference. Then it’s not difficult to be CFO at all because as long as they believe in the case they will support you and instead of listing you make a CRC and CRD, etcetera. So I it’s, it’s you seriously, the number to have the right owners is that’s what I would look at if I would go into a, a real estate company because suddenly there is no financing and then you have to go back to your own owners. How? Much would you say is the the influential of the existing relationship that you have import the importance of the existing relationship that you have in influencing whether you’re able to raise capital or not?

I mean, do do you think investors prefer to invest with people they they already know and invested or, or do you think that you know, the idea of the science is more important? I think the science is absolute most important and the CEO. I don’t think they care so much about who is the CFO in this industry, to be honest. Oh, no, no, no, it’s, it’s about the this science and the CEO, has he done it before? You know, etcetera, etcetera. That that’s, that’s my guess. And I don’t think it helps a lot that, you know, the the whole the banks and the investors and you’ve been there. They’re, they’re so professional. So of course it’s nice to be able to say it’s high and they know we are, but I honestly think as a CFO I don’t think that influences the investment decision.

I think the science does, and I do think the CEO does. That’s my feeling I’ve heard. That in the past that, you know, one of the reason that American companies were, I’ll call it, better at raising capital than maybe Europeans was that. Their CEO tended to be have much more gravitas. If you want or or or could are much better at selling the concept right Or would you would you concur that yes. I, I would, I think there’s a big cultural difference and, and also it’s all right many times great visions that of course you’ll see a lot of of those where it’s only air behind it, but the ones that makes it makes it big. Put it this way, probably bigger.

So, so now I, I, I think it’s true and there is a cultural difference. I think to me when I see this, I react. I, I would assume if you’re still sitting on a fund in New York, you don’t notice this because this, So what you see every day, you probably notice with the Europeans or some of them that they are probably more cautious and don’t want to promise more, etcetera. So there is a big cultural difference and then you have individuals that are exceptions. But in general I think there is a difference.

Alan                                                            20:59

Let’s. Talk a little bit about the, I guess the biotech ecosystem and the Nordics because it’s something that you’re, you’re familiar with you, you mentioned Sobi, you mentioned and there’s a, you know, other companies like that that have been very successful coming out of it. What do you think has made the success of the ecosystem then? But also if you could talk to us about where you believe the ecosystem is today? What are some of the challenges that’s facing and and potentially what’s its future like?

Mats                                                           21:31

I’ll. Speak about Denmark and Sweden and I think there are different reasons in the two countries and I think those are the ones with the most biotechs. I think starting with Denmark, they have a few super successful larger pharma company, I mean Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, etcetera and they have a ownership system where they are all put up kind of trust like systems. So they have not been acquired by big pharma. They stayed in the company in in Denmark, which I think has created a fantastic ecosystem with with these companies being profitable. You get all the talent there and you work 15 years at Lundbeck or at Novo and then you join a small biotech and and people know each other.

So that whole ecosystem I think has been fantastic in starting up good companies and all and have all the expertise there in Denmark. I think this is liquid guessing in Sweden it’s a bit different because we used to have two large farmers, we used to have Pharmacia and we used to have Astra and they were not protected and they were both bought the last 15 years, you know as it’s Astra is in London and you know it’s etcetera. So but they also produced a lot of talent and many people sitting on the boards of the Swedish government are ex Astra or ex Pharmacia. I also think we have some excellent hospitals in Karolinska, Stockholm, etcetera. So it’s been very easy, I think to run through clinical trials here.

It’s so much cheaper to do it in the Scandinavia than having to do it in the US. So I think, I think that’s a that’s a good thing. And then in Sweden, I think the capital markets with a stock market with a very active retail base have made that. It’s been easy in periods on this called smaller, you know, lists the list by text in early stages. That’s been money. It’s not been smart money. It’s been a little bit more lottery ticket money. But if you’re a small company, you need the money, you, you need to take it and some of them then makes it their way up. So I, I, I think that’s been some of the reasons of the successes. I think it’s a little bit different in Denmark and Sweden.

Alan                                                            23:59

And do you see? Any specific challenges or or opportunities for the for that ecosystem moving forward as you’re kind of looking across the landscape is there?

Mats                                                           24:11

Well, for sure, I see. In Sweden, now I’m talking in the orphan space, I see the pricing of drugs being a big issue because many companies in in, in our space will not launch in Sweden. You will get EU approval, but we will not launch here. And of course you want your product on your own market, that’s for sure. There there’s no an ongoing discussion with the I don’t know if where BioArctic which is a Swedish listed company who is behind in this first Alzheimer’s drug, they’ve out licensed, but they still have the Nordics and the price that the Swedish authorities kind of approve makes it, it will not be launched. And I think that’s a huge issue not having being able to launch in your home market.

So yeah, although it’s a super small market, it’s not that it makes a difference on the economics, but somehow it’s it’s just wrong that you cannot sell your drugs where it’s been invented.

Alan                                                            25:13

Yeah, Yeah, I agree with you. It’s that doesn’t make a lot of sense for sure. And if it’s interesting, we can circle back a little bit on the on this whole issue here. Let’s let’s go back a little bit because you mentioned, you know, the cyclicality of investment and the and the environment. And as you know, right before COVID, we had one of these period where they invested in everything and anything, right. And then we’ve had since then somewhat of a drought. I think it is coming back a little bit. At least what we’re seeing this year has been better than the the prior ones. You know from from our standpoint what we’ve observed is that, you know, with the interest rate rising, the IPO window has been a little bit more closed, if I can say that.

And less and less companies that in using IPOs to exit and there used to be the going public was a nice way for VC to monetize their initial investment. Now most of them have to keep those organization and keep funding them longer, right. So it seems that the the the new method or or to, to monetize is actually to bring the product to market and have proof of commercialization and then sell the product to big pharma at that point for good valuation and good multiples. But I think that what that has created is an investment environment where only the largest VCs can invest into organization and the small firms. So the small investors have struggled especially because they’re not equipped to do the due diligence that would allow them to make the investment that they rely on a on a lead, which had to be a larger VC.

But the larger VCs are now saying, well, if I’m going to put all that money, I may as well keep the entire company to myself. I don’t need you. So what I’m going to end up doing is actually identifying the science at the academia level. I’m going to incubate it, I’m going to seed it and I’m going to fund it. And I’m going to come up with $120 million Series A and I’m going to bring it all the way to market. And I don’t need anybody to do that, right? So it’s kind of the, the IPO model has kind of gone away in in some ways. So we’ve we’ve seen that, you know, in terms of trying to find the investor and the same. And then we have the headwinds of, you know, the, the science coming out of China, of course that is you know, faster, cheaper things like that.

So there’s been some implication to that as well. At the same time, I think that investors have become a little bit more bullish in terms of the potential to use artificial intelligence to drive efficiency in the biotech development process. There is new modalities innovation that makes the healthcare biotech investment attractive. So despite all these headwinds, we’re starting to see money coming back into the system, but it’s very selective. Could you kind of, you know, give your perspective on, on where we are in the biotech on raising landscape?

Mats                                                           28:33

Yeah. No, I think you’re right on the on the private side and the VCs. And that’s what I said. I mean, it’s, it’s just if you’re if you’re early biotech with ambitions, it’s to have the right VCs and the right owners with their deep pockets is it’s just critical. Otherwise you have to rely on luck and luck in that the micro environment is fine. You know, that has nothing to do with you or anything. You know, you know that suddenly biotechs is popular again. I don’t think that many of these VCs want to go alone, but they go with their peers and they share risks, etcetera. But it, it it’s definitely that they were in longer and they have to wait the last five years when it’s been tough, there was a period when SPACs were, you know, you tried everything and it was SPACs.

It was reverse mergers because you couldn’t do an IPO, right? But now I don’t hear a lot about that. So now, so these like maybe the IPO is on its way back, but it’s hard because then the exit is a trade sale, right? And you see quite a lot of M&A right now. I think LinkedIn, it seems that happens a lot you’re.

Alan                                                            29:40

Right. We’re and especially in the rare disease space, I think we’re seeing consolidation from that standpoint, you know, for just to go to dive into that one a little bit in all of the conversation that we’ve had with larger pharma is that they’ve increased their expectation in terms of peak sales, right. So it used to be, well, the product has to at least make a billion dollars for us to be interested. Now they’ve moved to $2 billion. And I think there’s also, you know, talking about Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly especially and everything that is happening was at GLP-1, there’s a realization that if we want to, you know, achieve that kind of growth and that kind of valuation, we need to focus on very large markets.

So for us to go and get a product that is going to make 100 million or 500 million even, it doesn’t really move the needles in terms of, you know, growth for these type of organization. So they’re kind of moving away from certainly, but away from ultra orphan, orphan rare unless it’s a large rare, you know, they’re not interested in that, they’re kind of moving away from that. And because I think that because of that, we’re starting to see and also the IPO windows still being closed, we’re starting to see a lot more consolidation and we’re expecting a lot more consolidation in the rare disease space, which is very interesting moving forward. You know where, where that is going to go talking about that.

And actually it’s a good segue in the, the, the, the last 20 minutes that we have to talk a little bit more about Egetis, right? So you are the chairman of the board of a successful rare disease company. So can you tell us a little bit more about the company itself and what you’re doing and, and, and where you are.

Mats                                                           31:22

Egetis Therapeutics is listed in Stockholm, NASDAQ Stockholm and we are our lead program, which is currently our only program because we concentrate on that for financial reasons etcetera called MCT8 for a very rare disease called MCT8 deficiency, which is basically a genetic disorder that stops thyroid hormone to get into the brain, I would say. So this is a disease affecting only male because it’s an X chromosome disease and these children and when they grow up, they have very strong disabilities. And we did get approval in EU. So we’re selling here now. And that’s one of the reasons what I said. I mean to get approval in Europe is of course difficult.

It’s it’s close to us difficult as induced. But you haven’t even started the journey because now we have 28 countries where you’re going to get a price and market access, etcetera, which is well, it’s a science and an art I think because again, all these countries have different systems, timelines, some of them look at each others, others not etcetera. But we do have a price in Germany now looking price in Italy. We didn’t get a price in France. We’re resubmitting. So that is in itself a very complex story. But what we do have is that we have a high unmet medical need. We are have identified and we know a lot of our patients. We have a lot of patients on drug in all countries I would say.

But then in many countries they’re still on the non named patient base. So in many countries, they’re still unpaid, but we’re starting to get revenue and it’s looking fine. But it’s just so complex as compared to the US is also complex with a formulary etcetera. But but here it’s also the timeline. In certain countries, it can take three, 4-5 years before we have a price, but we’re in the midst of that and it’s going well. So, so in that sense, the good news is that the drug works. It works very well. So there’s a tool you can say in the US we have a PDUFA date, 28th of September. Well in breakthrough therapy designation, orphan drug designation and we’re currently collaborating with the FDA so to speak, to answer all the questions coming in etcetera.

So, so in in parallel, we’re building up the US organization, which is of course a organization for a specialist orphan drug. It’s not a lot of people, but they’re very, very skilled people needed all over the country, different regions, etcetera. And we’re ramping up and it’s looking good right now, which is great. Fantastic.

Alan                                                            34:12

One of the the challenges for rare disease companies is identifying patients. I was, as I was mentioning before we started our talk, I had a conversation with the Chief Business officer Vapes and, and also recently had another conversation with the head of emerging market at Cure Care. And, and both of them were mentioning to me, you know, this challenge of identifying patients and and recruiting them not only for clinical trials, but also for treatment afterwards. Can you talk a little bit more about, you know, how you guys go about identifying the patients for the drug?

Mats                                                           34:52

Yeah. It’s exactly like this and this, I mean this disease wasn’t discovered until maybe 20 years ago etcetera. And it’s it’s not known and there is no treatment. So many goes undiscovered. Our small team in the US have spent the last two or three years trying to find patients mainly by going to conferences but also through collaboration with genetic companies etcetera. And we are basically identifying patients every week. Although it’s an ultra rare disease and we have approximately I think it’s 50 patients on a EAP programme in the US right now getting on drug and I think we’re discovered another 100. So, so we know the pain and what I learned at Swedish Orphan many years ago is once there’s a drug, suddenly you find a patient when there is no drug, it’s, it’s much more tricky.

So hopefully once we end the drug, we’ll also see a little bit of a lift up that we we can’t do. and

Alan                                                            35:56

is there a. Specific biomarker, genetic biomarker that you can use.

Mats                                                           36:03

Yeah, you. Can measure T3 here. It’s a blood test. It’s super easy in that it costs nothing so so in that sense, but you need to know that you should take this test. Many of them are probably undiagnosed and very handicapped basically. In the US, sometimes that’s a a difficult thing to get an extra test to, yeah. Yeah. No, it’s the same. I, I know I’m not 100% certain. I think actually in Poland they would put it in in the neo testing programs. It would be in, in some areas. So that those are the things we are of course trying to push. But we’ll see. But it’s easily Once you know what you’re looking for, it’s easy. Yeah.

Alan                                                            36:44

And you are eligible for PRV as well, right, As a yes.

Mats                                                           36:47

So, so how do you look at that? These are, you know, when they were talking about, you know, maybe not renewing the program, we’ve seen kind of a appreciation of the value of these PRVs I think the last one sold for $205 million. Now that they’ve expanded the program, maybe this will, you know, the prices will go back down. How do you look at that? An asset, I’ll call it an asset because that’s what it is like that in terms of your overall capitalization plans. It is part of our capitalization plans for sure. So, so we look at these prices and we were of course, before it was prolonged, we did a major push with our NDA because we’re talking, you know, as you can see whether to do from the 28th of September.

So if it’s not delayed, we would have made it within the, within the old timelines because I think it ran out on the, it ran out on the 29th. And it’s not a coincidence. I mean, we pushed extremely hard. Should it not have been prolonged? It’s, it wasn’t being relief that even even though we would have made it, but it doesn’t take a lot of delays for missing it, right? So for us, it’s great that it was prolonged and I think not for us. I think it’s great for the patients. I just cannot see any downside of this program. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything. And in many of these smaller biotechs, it is a may. I mean without it maybe you couldn’t run a program where you couldn’t waste the money etcetera.

So I think it makes a huge difference, yeah.

Alan                                                            38:25

So what are your plans for the rest of the world? I mean, you, you’ve launched in Europe, you’re going to launch in the US yourself. What about Latin America, China, Japan, the Middle East? What are you? doing

Mats                                                           38:38

We. Have this year or or maybe it was last year, we have two partnerships and our three partnerships we have in Japan with a Japanese company who, who will launch it there. We have it in Middle East and Myanmar, Africa and and also Central Eastern Europe. So we have 3 partnerships and they call it Middle East and Europeans. One are already providing patients already in Q1. So and that’s how we go about the rest of the world. We’re trying to identify markets where it makes sense. So we have a little bit of a shortlist. What is the next, what is the next. So we take them a piece at a time.

Alan                                                            39:21

And it’s not, it’s not a genome specific, no.

Mats                                                           39:24

No, it’s not. It’s not very interesting. So you still have pockets of value in in China, Latin America, the places where you can find some additional patients. So that’s very, very, very interesting.

Alan                                                            39:38

So we’re we’re coming to last part of our of our talk. It’s been very interesting discussing with you, you know, all of these pieces. But to conclude, I’d like to maybe spend a little bit more time on some advice that you would give to individuals starting into the industry today. You know, you’ve been in the pharma industry closing on 25 years or so. Yeah. Something like that probably. standpoint,

Mats                                                           40:19

I. Should probably talk in in the call it in the on the finance part of it, because the other part is is more scientific. What I notice not having a science background, you’re of course always at a disadvantage, but don’t be afraid to ask questions. It turns out that even if you don’t understand anything or 10%, your questions are many times relevant anyways because you come from another side and somehow you can still figure out what’s good and bad and what what seems fishy. So don’t be afraid to show your ignorance. Think many times that works very well. And then I think in this industry, there are more failures than successes because that’s the answer against us all the time.

But they celebrate the small, the small victories on the way because it you kind of you’re, you’re moving a field. You have to, that’s what they have to think. You’re moving the field. Even the the failures move help someone else to do it. So on a macro perspective, I think that that’s good. Otherwise, I think it’s just let them know it’s super interesting industry to be in. It will be around because we’re still getting sick and we need cure all over the world, right? So I, I, it’s not one of those industries that disappears. It’s of course super interesting. Now what AI can do? Can it improve percentages of success? And what does that do to the whole how it works?

I don’t know. But I mean, if suddenly a phase one has a 40% chance of success, where are we then? I don’t know how things would move that that that could be interesting to fear.

Alan                                                            41:52

Yeah, it’s I agree with you. Two things. First, I’m not knowing. I was talking to the head of search and evaluation at Bayer, a very interesting scientist and what he told me — he’s super smart of course. And he told me, you know that the more we dig in, the more we realize we don’t understand anything. He was explaining to me that you can take 2 cells in the same tissue and you can actually not to start to see you. You thought that you understood how your drug worked on these two cells, but within the same tissue they would react differently to the drug, right? I mean, so it just shows you that our level of understanding is on the surface so far, even though we’re making huge amount of progress.

And I think tight with that AI is actually I was talking to another guy who was an AI specialist and what he was telling me is that, you know, what AI gives you is that the ability to explore many different alternatives at the same time for the same cost and a faster rate. So you can look at what is happening here. How does that work? And so the optionality is kind of becoming exponential into what you can do and you can go down path of exploration that you would not have been able to do in the past without spending a lot of time and a lot of money. And I think that’s really exciting in terms of, you know, where the industry is going. So I concur with you that it is a very exciting environment, fast evolving.

I mean, I remember when I started the Bristol-Myers Squibb 26 years ago. You know, this was at the time where the entire strategy was based on when the patent would expire, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, Agree. Agree. Yeah, correct. So and it’s completely different today, right? I mean, we’re not even thinking about that anymore to a certain extent, right. It’s, it’s really about bringing new innovation. And so, so it’s very exciting. So, and I would say also it is also a very international industry. My, I appreciate talking to people in San Francisco one week and, I don’t know, in Tokyo the next. I mean, I, I, I find that very appealing for a young person wanting to join a new industry.

I I find that it’s great, yeah. I agree with you. It’s and you know, as KYBORA, as a global organization, we’ve enjoyed that quite a bit. And I always tell people, you know, after having been doing this for with KYBORA 15 years now, I can go anywhere in the world and I can stay somewhere for free. Yeah. No, no, no, it is really like that. So it, I, I have enjoyed that. And this crazy week in San Francisco in January has been, you know, something you look forward to with dread and then you go there and then you just want to go home. But it’s still interesting, so. Absolutely. Last question for you, which I’d like to to ask my my guest, is to try to to understand your life.

When you were a little boy, what did you dream of being? What did you say I want to be this? If someone asked you at the time, what did you want to be?

Mats                                                           45:08

Veterinarian.

Alan                                                            45:08

OK, in the in the life science. Interesting.

Mats                                                           45:11

Yeah. Absolutely. And then I joined a science class in high school and I got in there and they asked everybody, what’s your hobby? And I was like sports and horseback riding. And the first person said mathematics and the second said chess. And I felt I cannot be here. I have to get out. And then I, my whole veterinarian career ended in one day and I and I took and I took finance.

Alan                                                            45:38

Well, but you always had the science in your mind and you came back to different kind of animal training with very good. Well, Matt, it’s been a pleasure and thank you so much for your time. I think this was very interesting and, and what an amazing career. And of course, you’ve got many more years ahead of you. So I look forward to to seeing what you’ll be doing in the in the coming years and, and you know, best of luck with Egetis that looks very exciting and the other companies that you’re you’re participating in. So I’m looking forward to to seeing the news coming from from those companies.

Mats                                                           46:17

So fantastic, thanks for having me.