If anyone will enable the world to engineer biology, it's Gingko.
Their team has built a platform for biological engineering since day 1.
This is the summary:
* platform for engineering biology (unfair advantage is they've taken this "not a product company" approach since 2009)
* investing up the ecosystem by taking upside in products they engineer for larger companies (not sure if they have an unfair advantage here besides creative financing and momentum, IPO helps with that)
* investing downstream into startups by providing their platform in exchange for equity (YCbio partnership seems like an unfair advantage here)
* mindshare of new minds (iGEM itself is a breeding ground for future synbio employees and leaders who dream of joining Ginkgo, Ginkgo founders co-created iGEM)
Pretty perfect flywheel right there, even if it risks being a spaghetti monster from a corporate structure and cashflow standpoint.
So cool to see this finally coming to light as an IPO. While I don't understand the SPAC benefits, Ginkgo's structure to be able to invest resources into synbio startups in an equity exchange sets them up really well for future cashflow even if the present is not.
I sold my Ginkgo today. I like the company but... Most of their revenue is stock in affiliated companies. I don't think they have a real business today, and the valuation is insane.
Amyris actually has a synthetic biology business. It's less flashy but it's real.
I’m a major contributor to a synbio software package https://github.com/TimothyStiles/poly and I also do quite a lot of robotics in the space (have a full DNA foundry running in my house, that took a lot of software).
Already starting something in the space, but I’d be happy to talk!
That's very cool! I'll be reading your blog for the next few days; I very much like your view of innovation and liberty. I've only had a quick scan so far, but it seems absolutely dripping of the fun proteases we love to mouth-pipette.
If I may ask, how did you get started? What would your advice be for the motivated amateur? I started in a microbiology degree, transitioned to math, and now I'm about to graduate with my compsci. It's always seemed that there are much deeper connections than was revealed during my courses.
I once told my biology professor that my dream was to innovate in lab technologies. He told me, point-blank, to squash that; the field is oversaturated and we've got as good as we're likely to have for a few decades, so he said.
Do you agree? If not, what do you think are the most glaring market inefficiencies?
I'm interested, but in the it's-something-I-aspire-to-some-day-when-I'm-not-so-incompetent sense. However! I'd love to engage with you to hear about what's up! Is your inbox open to general curiosity, or would you rather keep emails limited to serious takers currently?
Sounds interesting. Maybe this question would sound weird but how do you get an idea for a product? I mean in synth biology. Like. I think that I can produce this chemical with bacteria more simply/cheaply?
VC is a long-term business, with the average time from founding to IPO ranging from 8-10 years depending on the year. If you look closer at this list, you'll see companies about to IPO (Amplitude, Relativity Space, Embark Trucks) and several multi-billion dollar exits (e.g Segment <> Twilio, Twitch <> Amazon).
Lastly, the business is all about power law, so these small exits outperform the remaining portfolio by orders of magnitude. I bet they are beyond excited with their returns.
As someone who works in the biotech space it’s still fuzzy to me what Gingko offers. Looking at their pitch deck I see partnerships with milestone payments across multiple industries agriculture, chemicals, bio security and now pharmaceuticals.
Does Gingko have a proprietary technology to offer or are they just a centralized platform?
I did notice their latest focus is pharmaceuticals where the huge margins are, but most biotechs will treat manufacturing as a patented process. So with Gingko just take royalties? If so there are plenty of other biotechs (probably many no one has heard of) that do this very successfully.
I noticed they went public via SPAC, which, as an investor, screams red flag and scares me.
Can anyone shed light on why they would go this route? Is it accurate to say best case is because they wanted less hassle / quicker to market and worst case is that their financials/books are a disaster and they didn’t want anyone looking too closely before the founders raised money and cashed out?
Genuinely curious and would appreciate any insightful replies
Most of the answers here are wrong. The real reason is that when companies go public through a regular IPO, they can't show projected financials, only actual results.
Ginkgo has poor results so far, but huge projections, which a fair number of people believe. So, SPAC.
I don't really understand SPACs. Is there a good article explaining what they do and why you take them instead of going public directly. And what happens to those SPAC shares now if you bought some?
Plenty of material on SPACs online, but per your question, the shares of the spac (SRNG) convert to the target (DNA). If you had units (SRNGU), you also got 1 share (DNA) + 1/5 warrant (DNA.W) per unit.
What exactly is a "hard tech" company? And is this a recent change? Tech companies have been going public without issues for years until the last ~24 months when SPACs exploded (and mostly churn out negative returns after the initial pop [1])
Isn't a standard IPO also great for a tech company with future revenues as long as you believe in your business and future prospect?
Really trying to wrap my head around why a company would do this, and also why this isn't a huge red flag as well
They are a great company and could have gone traditional IPO. However, with going SPAC they were able to bring 2 billion dollars into a company with super high valuation. They make less than 50mil and we’re valued at 18 to 20 billion. So don’t buy in now, you will have plenty of chance to buy this great company
Edit: Also just to add on by bringing in that 2 Billion dollars they have essentially secured the future of the company for a long time
> If you invest in a SPAC at the IPO stage, you are relying on the management team that formed the SPAC, often referred to as the sponsor(s), as the SPAC looks to acquire or combine with an operating company. That acquisition or combination is known as the initial business combination. A SPAC may identify in its IPO prospectus a specific industry or business that it will target as it seeks to combine with an operating company, but it is not obligated to pursue a target in the identified industry.
It's not bad per se, it's just how it works. Like pretty much everything in life the outcome is dependent on the people involved. You're not getting the potential for more upside without the introduction of more risk.
Chamath is currently leading four biotech SPACS: DNAA, DNAB, DNAC and DNAD, each with a stated target, neurology, oncology, organs & immunology. Anyone looking to invest in the SPAC today should consider the likelihood of this happening, the potential targets, and the sponsors history.
Or you can wait for an announcement around a proposed merger, even up to the day the official stock starts being traded.
Again, just depends on risk tolerance. It's nice to least have the option to take part in these deals.
SPACs are a great way to not have to hemorrhage IPO money to wall street bank cartels, and to lose billions w/ undervalued IPOs. I'm not sure what you're on about.
Readit News
Their team has built a platform for biological engineering since day 1.
This is the summary:
* platform for engineering biology (unfair advantage is they've taken this "not a product company" approach since 2009)
* investing up the ecosystem by taking upside in products they engineer for larger companies (not sure if they have an unfair advantage here besides creative financing and momentum, IPO helps with that)
* investing downstream into startups by providing their platform in exchange for equity (YCbio partnership seems like an unfair advantage here)
* mindshare of new minds (iGEM itself is a breeding ground for future synbio employees and leaders who dream of joining Ginkgo, Ginkgo founders co-created iGEM)
Pretty perfect flywheel right there, even if it risks being a spaghetti monster from a corporate structure and cashflow standpoint.
So cool to see this finally coming to light as an IPO. While I don't understand the SPAC benefits, Ginkgo's structure to be able to invest resources into synbio startups in an equity exchange sets them up really well for future cashflow even if the present is not.
(Disclosure Ginkgo bought lab equipment from me in the early days, and I just bought their stock today) https://www.ginkgobioworks.com/2009/09/01/pearl-biotech-open...
Amyris actually has a synthetic biology business. It's less flashy but it's real.
These guys are MASSIVE in the space. Think Google back in the day.
I predict this will be a hot stock.
Edit: if you're also interested in starting synthetic biology startup please get in touch.
Already starting something in the space, but I’d be happy to talk!
If I may ask, how did you get started? What would your advice be for the motivated amateur? I started in a microbiology degree, transitioned to math, and now I'm about to graduate with my compsci. It's always seemed that there are much deeper connections than was revealed during my courses.
I once told my biology professor that my dream was to innovate in lab technologies. He told me, point-blank, to squash that; the field is oversaturated and we've got as good as we're likely to have for a few decades, so he said.
Do you agree? If not, what do you think are the most glaring market inefficiencies?
VC is a long-term business, with the average time from founding to IPO ranging from 8-10 years depending on the year. If you look closer at this list, you'll see companies about to IPO (Amplitude, Relativity Space, Embark Trucks) and several multi-billion dollar exits (e.g Segment <> Twilio, Twitch <> Amazon).
Lastly, the business is all about power law, so these small exits outperform the remaining portfolio by orders of magnitude. I bet they are beyond excited with their returns.
You'd think there would be a prolific Discord or telegram channel publishing interesting public or quasi-public documents?
Does Gingko have a proprietary technology to offer or are they just a centralized platform?
I did notice their latest focus is pharmaceuticals where the huge margins are, but most biotechs will treat manufacturing as a patented process. So with Gingko just take royalties? If so there are plenty of other biotechs (probably many no one has heard of) that do this very successfully.
The business model is still not clear.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/24/1032308/is-ginkg...
Can anyone shed light on why they would go this route? Is it accurate to say best case is because they wanted less hassle / quicker to market and worst case is that their financials/books are a disaster and they didn’t want anyone looking too closely before the founders raised money and cashed out?
Genuinely curious and would appreciate any insightful replies
Ginkgo has poor results so far, but huge projections, which a fair number of people believe. So, SPAC.
Isn't a standard IPO also great for a tech company with future revenues as long as you believe in your business and future prospect?
Really trying to wrap my head around why a company would do this, and also why this isn't a huge red flag as well
[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysi...
Edit: Also just to add on by bringing in that 2 Billion dollars they have essentially secured the future of the company for a long time
https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/what-...
> If you invest in a SPAC at the IPO stage, you are relying on the management team that formed the SPAC, often referred to as the sponsor(s), as the SPAC looks to acquire or combine with an operating company. That acquisition or combination is known as the initial business combination. A SPAC may identify in its IPO prospectus a specific industry or business that it will target as it seeks to combine with an operating company, but it is not obligated to pursue a target in the identified industry.
Chamath is currently leading four biotech SPACS: DNAA, DNAB, DNAC and DNAD, each with a stated target, neurology, oncology, organs & immunology. Anyone looking to invest in the SPAC today should consider the likelihood of this happening, the potential targets, and the sponsors history.
Or you can wait for an announcement around a proposed merger, even up to the day the official stock starts being traded.
Again, just depends on risk tolerance. It's nice to least have the option to take part in these deals.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html