Skip to main content
Premium Trial:

Request an Annual Quote

Downward Spiral?


Analysts. Can’t live with ’em, can’t profit without them — or at least that’s one view that some industry watchers in genomics have been airing recently. Analyst coverage, they argue, contributes to a vicious cycle that looks like this:

Relatively unknown industry outperforms, attracts a number of analysts. Industry rockets; more analysts join the fray. Suddenly, industry tanks — big time (have you guessed we’re talking about genomics?). Analysts flee the scene. Even if industry rights itself and starts performing again, investors are nowhere to be found without analyst coverage of that sector. Sans coverage, even good companies continue to founder, and the sector never recovers.

Certainly, analysts covering the genomics industry are fewer than they used to be. Of the five biggest companies on the GTI (by market cap), all are down from their peak coverage, mostly in late ’01. Of our six smallest firms from earlier last year, three have been acquired, one has merged, one has lost coverage altogether, and the last one, Lynx Therapeutics, is down to one analyst (from a high of just two) and has given some faint indications that a merger or acquisition could be in the offing.

But it’s not as cut and dried as it looks, contends William Blair analyst Winton Gibbons. For one thing, blaming the current genomics slump on lack of analyst coverage ignores a crucial fact: that Wall Street has seen severe layoffs. Gibbons’ own firm is down to some 25 analysts from 40. “It’s not just genomics that has lost analysts,” he says.

And as for the cycle theory, Gibbons looks at it as a fallacy. “In the end, good companies go up and bad companies go down with or without analysts,” he says. Analysts merely accelerate those ups and downs for an already in-the-works cycle — they don’t change the results, he argues. For genomics companies, which are “burning through cash and not hitting their milestones,” Gibbons says bluntly, “they could have 20 people covering them, and they’d still be worth what they’re worth.” Peanuts, anyone?


The Scan

Positive Framing of Genetic Studies Can Spark Mistrust Among Underrepresented Groups

Researchers in Human Genetics and Genomics Advances report that how researchers describe genomic studies may alienate potential participants.

Small Study of Gene Editing to Treat Sickle Cell Disease

In a Novartis-sponsored study in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that a CRISPR-Cas9-based treatment targeting promoters of genes encoding fetal hemoglobin could reduce disease symptoms.

Gut Microbiome Changes Appear in Infants Before They Develop Eczema, Study Finds

Researchers report in mSystems that infants experienced an enrichment in Clostridium sensu stricto 1 and Finegoldia and a depletion of Bacteroides before developing eczema.

Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treatment Specificity Enhanced With Stem Cell Editing

A study in Nature suggests epitope editing in donor stem cells prior to bone marrow transplants can stave off toxicity when targeting acute myeloid leukemia with immunotherapy.