How to Play the Biotech Meltdown in the Age of RFK Jr. and Tariffs
More investors are even wondering if the whole model—risky science, costly funding, political uncertainty and long waits for payoffs—is simply broken. For many of the nearly 200 companies trading below their cash value, it probably is. That illustrates the pitfalls of passively investing in an index for this sector.
Despite that bleak backdrop, there are still some opportunities for patient investors. After all, the U.S. is still the top spender on drugs by far. And that isn't something RFK Jr. or President Trump is likely to change.
That isn't to play down the overall risk. Even before RFK Jr.'s appointment, biotech was already reeling. Wave after wave of bankruptcies, shelved drug programs and layoffs had hollowed out the sector. Dozens of companies that went public during the pandemic-era boom have been locked out of capital markets. Over the past five years, the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI), which tracks small- and midcap biotech stocks, has lost 14%, while the S&P 500 has gained 89%.
Just as markets began to hope for relief from falling interest rates, RFK Jr. delivered a fresh shock. His firing late last month of Dr. Peter Marks, the Food and Drug Administration official overseeing vaccines and biologics, along with mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services, has investors and biotech executives worried drugs could now face arbitrary delays or politicized decision-making. For instance, one Massachusetts-based biotech had its FDA dispute-resolution process suspended after staff warned there might not be enough senior officials left to review it.
There are also concerns about long-term funding. The Trump administration's budget cuts at the National Institutes of Health are clouding the sector's innovation pipeline, while China's growing biotech industry is siphoning off deals.
Even without direct tariffs, Trump's threat of 'sectoral' levies on imported pharmaceuticals is chilling investment. Deal flow, too, has dried up. Eli Lilly LLY -4.35%decrease; red down pointing triangle Chief Executive David Ricks recently warned that if drugmakers can't raise prices to offset tariffs, they will be forced to scale back research and development.
Yet there are countervailing forces at play. There is, for example, a push to rescue U.S. biotech before China, which heavily subsidizes its industry, emerges as the clear winner. On Tuesday, a bipartisan congressional commission called for $15 billion in funding to jump-start biotech research and manufacturing over the next five years.
'We lost our leadership in semiconductors, and we are close to losing that position in biotech if we don't act now,' said Sen. Todd Young (R., Ind.), who chaired the commission. 'We can either make targeted investments now, or we can wait and pay a very heavy price in terms of economic and national security.'
Conditions at the FDA might also not be as bad as the market fears. Despite RFK Jr.'s purge, the agency is still approving drugs at a normal pace for now, points out John Crowley, CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the industry's main trade group. Industry leaders are closely watching whether new Commissioner Marty Makary, a respected Johns Hopkins surgeon, will install strong scientific leadership to replace officials being ousted by RFK Jr.
And Marks's interim replacement, Scott Steele, has also been well-received by the industry. 'We believe he will be seen as a science-forward hire,' Mizuho strategist Jared Holz wrote. Crowley even suggested that a revamped FDA could end up easing drug approvals.
Large-cap names like Gilead GILD -3.66%decrease; red down pointing triangle and Vertex VRTX -1.41%decrease; red down pointing triangle are one obvious place to hide out from the storm. These companies have outperformed the broader market this year, thanks to strong growth and U.S.-centric operations that shield them from tariff shocks.
And the biotech washout is also creating attractive discounts in smaller companies still poised for growth. Take CG Oncology CGON -0.84%decrease; red down pointing triangle, focused on bladder cancer, and Cytokinetics CYTK 1.42%increase; green up pointing triangle, developing treatments for heart disease. Both are down sharply this year despite potential FDA approval for new treatments that would create opportunities in large markets.
Or consider Alnylam Pharmaceuticals ALNY -6.98%decrease; red down pointing triangle and BridgeBio Pharma BBIO -1.73%decrease; red down pointing triangle, both of which recently won regulatory approval for therapies to rival Pfizer's blockbuster heart drug for ATTR cardiomyopathy. While these companies have held up better than the industry, in a healthier market their stocks would be up much more.
Biotech, as an industry, is going through a brutal shake out. But individually, a select crop of more mature companies will weather the storm.
Write to David Wainer at david.wainer@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's judicial picks could reshape abortion rights for decades
CHICAGO — During Donald Trump's campaign for president last year, he sought to ease the concerns of voters alarmed that the Supreme Court he helped shape during his first term had overturned the constitutional right to abortion, saying that he did not oppose abortion but thought the issue should be decided by individual states. More than six months into Trump's second term in the White House, a review by the Associated Press shows that several of his nominees to the federal courts have revealed antiabortion views, been associated with antiabortion groups or defended abortion restrictions. Several have helped defend their state's abortion restrictions in court, and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication abortion. The nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White House. Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague answers. In the years before the 2024 campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the states. Throughout his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe vs. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That's been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of antiabortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to abortion. One Trump nominee called abortion a 'barbaric practice,' while another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the antiabortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.' One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb' in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Legal experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access nationwide. Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.' 'It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said that 'every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling.' 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,' Fields said in a statement to the AP. Trump focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for voters. Antiabortion advocates say it's premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives, but they're hopeful based on the names put forth so far. 'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national antiabortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Abortion-rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time. 'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he's going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing antiabortion extremists at all levels of government,' said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, Fernando writes for the Associated Press.
New York Times
4 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Attacked California's Congressional Maps. Republicans Want to Save Them.
The national battle over redistricting fueled by Texas Republicans' effort to draw new congressional maps has created an odd dynamic for California Republicans. They are trying to save California's system for drawing political districts, while President Trump is trashing it. 'California's gerrymandered,' Mr. Trump said last week. 'We should have many more seats in Congress in California.' The week before, Vice President JD Vance wrote on X that 'the gerrymander in California is outrageous.' Political scientists who study redistricting say that the state's system for drawing maps, which is overseen by a bipartisan independent commission, gives Democrats a slight statistical edge. Even so, Republican officials in California say that the commission is considerably better than the alternative: letting the Democrat-dominated legislature draw the lines. 'I would argue that independent redistricting benefits Republicans in California,' said Matt Rexroad, a Republican political consultant and redistricting expert. The commission is receiving more scrutiny as a fierce tit-for-tat over redistricting ricochets across the country. At Mr. Trump's request, Texas lawmakers have drafted new maps to help Republicans win five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has vowed to respond in kind, by redrawing congressional districts in his state to create more seats that Democrats are likely to win. Mr. Newsom's plan would toss the independent commission's maps through 2030 and replace them with intentionally partisan districts created by Democratic lawmakers. That has California Republicans working to preserve the maps Mr. Trump criticized as they try to block Mr. Newsom's attempt at a Democratic gerrymander. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
4 minutes ago
- Fox News
Summertime and the living is uneasy on Capitol Hill
Senate Republicans faced a choice recently: Remain in session and confirm more of President Trump's nominees, or finally abandon Washington for the vaunted August recess. Senators hung around – a little while – knocking out some of the President's nominees for administration positions. But not all. That drew the ire of some conservatives, Trump loyalists and President Donald Trump himself. Trump seethed at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for requiring the Senate to run lengthy parliamentary traps and incinerate valuable floor time to confirm even non-controversial nominees. The President finally unloaded on the New York Democrat in a digital coup de grace, telling him to "GO TO HELL!" It's notable that Trump has not yet met with Schumer or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., during his second term. But then again, this is a two-way street. And Democrats remember multiple tumultuous meetings with Mr. Trump during the last time he was in office. It culminated in verbal grappling between the President and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, and ended with Democrats abandoning the meeting after only a few moments. So, it's far from certain any such meeting would yield anything remotely productive. But back to the "August recess." First, it's important to establish that members of the House and Senate are not on "summer vacation." Sure, there are always some breaks to visit with family and friends. Lawmakers are people, too. But truly, this is not a "break." Lawmakers are always "on." Not everything they do is centered around Washington. Any congressman or senator worth their salt will tell you that spending time back in their home states or districts is just as important – if not more so – than what goes down on Capitol Hill. Meeting with constituents. Visiting businesses. Conducting town hall meetings. Stopping by local coffee bars. Breaking bread at diners. Chatting up the local press corps. Members also use this longer respite for political travel and fact-finding missions overseas. These "CODELS" – short for "Congressional Delegation" – are a critical function for lawmakers to build bridges with foreign leaders and make their marks on how the U.S. approaches the rest of the globe. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have recently led groups on trips to Israel. At least one other major trip is booked for later this month. So, the "August recess" is not inherently a "bad" thing. It's an essential part of the job and probably one of the biggest misnomers in American politics. Still, many Americans simply dismiss August as a "vacation" for House members and senators, and it is a challenging optic for Congress. Which brings us back to the tension between staying in session to get "something" done and returning home. It's clear the Senate could have stayed in session to plow through more of President Trump's nominees. Schumer and other Democrats simply weren't going to relent and allow Republicans to confirm a slate of nominees "en bloc." That's where the Senate greenlights a large slate of nominees all at once and approves them either by unanimous consent or via voice vote. The Senate confirms the nominees all at once. The House certainly could have stayed in session to hammer out a few spending bills ahead of the deadline to fund the government by October 1. But here's a stark reality – especially for the Senate: Lawmakers and staff desperately needed a break. Period. Full stop. Since May, the Senate in particular has conducted multiple overnight, round-the-clock and weekend sessions. Not just a few. The Senate voted deep into the night or overnight on the Big, Beautiful Bill. Then the Senate was back for late-night sessions confirming nominees. Yes. This is the people's business. But the floor staff and support teams were exhausted. Senate leaders were mindful of that. And that's to say nothing of the lawmakers themselves. It's anecdotal, but lawmakers probably needed a break from one another, too. That makes them happier – and probably more productive when they return to Washington. But this still doesn't solve the political dilemma facing Republican senators with a substantial core of their party demanding they remain moored in Washington to grind out nominees. And it may not satisfy President Trump, either. There's lots of Senate talk now about "changing the rules" to accelerate the confirmation of nominees. One thing is for sure: the Senate won't change the "rules" to expedite the confirmation process. The Senate boasts 44 standing rules. It takes 67 votes to break a filibuster on an actual rules change. But what Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could do is back the Senate into a special parliamentary posture where he can initiate a new "precedent" to confirm different types of nominees. That's a maneuver that late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., executed to confirm some of former President Obama's nominees. The same with former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to confirm Supreme Court nominees. "New precedents" in the Senate require some complicated parliamentary wrangling. But only a simple majority is necessary to make good on this gambit for nominees. So, it's easier and much more plausible than "changing the rules." To the lay person, a new "precedent" doesn't sound important. But there's a reason why the Senate only has 44 standing rules and a voluminous book of precedents. You can accomplish a lot in the Senate if you're able to concoct a new precedent. And note that it's not just Republicans who want to change the way the Senate does things for some lower-tier, non-controversial nominees. Some Senate Democrats have expressed interest in changes, too. There are only so many minutes and so many hours. Time is just as valuable to Democrats as it is to Republicans. Everyone on Capitol Hill knows that more long nights and overnight sessions await lawmakers in September and the fall as the Senate attempts to confirm additional nominees. That's to say nothing of avoiding a government shutdown in October. This is why Senate Republicans elected to stick around for a bit recently – and then call it a day. Or a month. After all, there is only so much time available in August.
