WSJ : Stripe, Advent in Talks to Buy PayPal The fintech startup and private-equi

Stripe, Advent in Talks to Buy PayPal
The fintech startup and private-equity firm Advent offered to buy the struggling payments company in July

PayPal PYPL 1.69%increase; green up pointing triangle Holdings is in talks to sell itself to a group that includes Stripe and the private-equity firm Advent International, according to people familiar with the matter.

Stripe and Advent in July proposed paying $60.50 a share for PayPal, a price PayPal viewed as insufficient, some of the people said. The two sides have since been negotiating a potentially higher price, the people said.

It is possible a deal could come together in the coming weeks, though there are no guarantees the parties will reach an agreement.

WWD : Lessons From Ralph Lauren and Coach: How to Get a Fashion Brand Back on th

Lessons From Ralph Lauren and Coach: How to Get a Fashion Brand Back on the Growth Track
Ralph Lauren and Coach have done it, but plenty of others are still trying and trying.

Coach and Ralph Lauren have two of the best stories in American fashion today.

But they aren’t thrillers or tales of derring-do. There’s very little heart-pounding excitement, on the business side at least.

Instead, both brands are methodical, step-wise case studies on having a vision, a plan on how to grow into that vision and then the fortitude to hold on and stay the course not for months, but for years.

On Thursday, Coach-parent Tapestry reported that fiscal 2026 sales hit $8 billion, a 17 percent increase on an adjusted basis, hitting its three-year plan in Year One. The company plans to add another $400 million to $500 million in sales this year. While investors recalibrated their sky-high expectations for the brand and traded Tapestry’s stock down, the company still has a sector-leading market capitalization of $25.9 billion.

Similarly, Ralph Lauren Corp.’s market cap stands at $23.1 billion after it said last week that first-quarter sales tallied $2 billion, an increase of 13 percent in constant currencies.

For both, that’s a breakaway stock performance in a world where very few American fashion brands ever see market caps anywhere near that. By comparison, the once-red hot VF Corp. is valued at $5.8 billion, followed by Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein parent PVH Corp. ($3.8 billion), Under Armour Inc. ($2.3 billion) and Michael Kors parent Capri Holdings ($1.8 billion).

Ralph Lauren and Coach have each taken a similar path to the top.

They have tightened distribution, focused more on their own retail, pulled back in outlets, cut the number of styles produced, zeroed in on higher-priced categories and invested more money into marketing to fuel full-priced sales.

It’s a strategy that’s easy to articulate and hard to follow.

Where Coach and Ralph Lauren have succeeded, the other companies listed above have set out on a similar path, but not seen the same results.

Why does this brand elevation strategy work? And why isn’t it working for everyone?

Interviews with the chief executive officers of both Tapestry and Ralph Lauren, a former chief financial officer who was key to both turnarounds, Wall Street analysts and retail professors suggest that it’s a moment-to-learn, lifetime-to-master kind of strategy.

The short of it is that:

  • The brands need to be solid from the start.
  • The companies need to be reworked on several fronts at once.
  • The gains will be steady, but not gigantic.
  • And that the shrink-to-grow-back-stronger approach will require lots of patience and the willingness to keep Wall Street at bay as the company turns around.

Think of it as the fine art of getting consumers to spend more — and like it.

Here, a closer look at how it’s done.

Jane Nielsen’s Take
If there’s a common thread between the turnarounds at both Coach and Ralph Lauren, it’s Jane Nielsen.

After 15 years at PepsiCo, she was CFO at what was then Coach Inc. from 2011 to 2016, when she jumped to Ralph Lauren for an eight-year run that started as CFO and ended with her as chief operating officer as well.

Nielsen helped start Coach’s brand elevation strategy and then took that experience to Ralph Lauren, which was starting on its evolution under former CEO Stefan Larsson. In both cases, Nielsen’s background in consumer products — where margins are slight and operations are tight — helped bring a little more rigor to the artier approach fashion companies favored.

“At both Coach and Ralph Lauren, a part of the success was clearly defining a strategy,” Nielsen said. “That strategy, I know it can be boring, but the strategic pillars didn’t change radically. They would evolve, the tactics would evolve, and your metrics would evolve as you improved. But the fundamental strategy was pretty straightforward and pretty simple and could be communicated broadly and consistently.

“What do you want the organization to do?” she said. “What are your linchpins that you are going to follow, measure, live by, edit initiatives by? And that widely communicated, well understood, not ever-changing strategy is part of the secret sauce. There’s so many things these companies can do, but just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should do it. The shoulds and the must-dos are articulated in the strategy.”

The process at both Coach and Ralph Lauren started with a deep dive into the consumer.

“What do they love about us? How do we stay true to that? How do we understand where we’re not exceeding their expectations and attacking that directly? And where do they love us, think we ought to be, and where we’re not?”

At Ralph Lauren, the exercise turned up the insight that consumers would turn to the brand for many categories that the company had not seen as part of its core, including outerwear, sweaters and handbags.

The idea was to get into those businesses in ways that elevated the brand, driving average prices higher, while at the same time reducing lower-price sales at T.J. Maxx and other discount channels.

“The answer is to continue growing the healthy parts of your business and accelerating into new parts that can give you the latitude to correct some areas where you may be disappointing or underserving your consumers,” Nielsen said.

“We had Purple Label and Polo, and there was a lot of white space where Polo ended and Purple Label picked up,” she said. “That was all [average unit retail price] accretive when we filled in that white space so that there was a continuous line.

“There was a lot of room for the bear sweater, the flag sweater, the washable cashmere hoodie that had a lot of AUR growth while it was meeting a true consumer need,” she said. “The consumer didn’t feel, ‘Boy, I bought a cable knit cotton sweater and I bought a washable cashmere hoodie.’ They don’t view that as a price increase. It will show up as an AUR increase. And it’s the outcome of a strategy to service the consumer for different needs, different tastes, different occasions. And that to the consumer feels great.”

A Journey, Not a Destination
Ralph Lauren has kept to the strategy, recording a 15 percent increase in AUR in its own direct-to-consumer business in the first quarter.

That marked over nine straight years of AUR growth every quarter for the brand.

But current CEO Patrice Louvet described higher AUR as an “outcome of our elevation strategy” and not an “objective.”

“AUR has four factors,” the CEO said. “First, it’s driven by region and channel mix. The second is product category mix. The third is promotional pullback. And then the fourth one, which is a much smaller part, is like-for-like pricing. That is not the key driver of AUR. The drivers of AUR are more mix and promotional pullbacks.”

It’s bringing a touch of the consumer products science, which Louvet knows well as a Procter & Gamble veteran, to fashion, where heart has historically led all.

“I found coming from a different industry that this industry was very driven by the vision of the designer, as it should be,” Louvet said. “But that really can’t scale if you’re not also really focused on who is the consumer you want to serve, what inspires them, what is their competitive set? What is the decision process? And how do you make sure you delight them through that?”

‘Structural Advantage’
“We’ve always had quite a bit of respect for the data side of it, understanding the consumer,” said Tapestry CEO Joanne Crevoiserat, adding that Coach was once owned by consumer products giant Sara Lee.

But lately, the company has been doubling down.

“It’s not just about having the data,” Crevoiserat said. “It’s going a click deeper and getting the understanding, the deep understanding of the consumer. But then our creative teams are leveraging those insights to inform their creativity. And we’re bringing even more creative solutions and more innovation to market.”

She described the “muscle memory” of not just getting the consumer insight but getting it to people who can use it as “a very big competitive lever.”

“It’s a structural advantage of our business going forward,” she said. “We have the confidence now to know that our strategies are working and that the capabilities that we’ve developed over the last few years are paying off. We’re not resting. We talk a lot about playing offense and staying on offense.”

But even knowing the play inside and out doesn’t make it easy to run.

Tapestry also has Kate Spade, which has been in turnaround mode for a long time and is just finishing up the painful streamlining part and is starting to build the foundation for growth.

Staying the Course
Crevoiserat has a little more leeway with the Kate Spade turnaround as Coach is really carrying the larger company right now.

CEOs pushing through reinventions without the benefit of a highly profitable powerhouse brand are forced to go to Wall Street with only the promise of better, stronger growth ahead after a period of decline.

“We are all trained to chase growth,” said Simeon Siegel, an analyst at Guggenheim Partners. “We’ve all heard growth is oxygen, growth is life, stagnation’s death. It’s very hard for a leader to ever truly entertain the idea that they couldn’t be better by being smaller.

“What did Ralph and Coach do more than anyone?” he said. “They committed to raising price, volume be damned. They committed to raising price even though that would drive revenues down. You cannot restructure and grow in the same sentence.”

Siegel said that turnarounds were one of those things that could probably be executed more easily by a robot — too much messy human psychology gets in the way.

“Because it’s a multiyear process, it’s very hard for public companies to do. You need to get in front of the public at least four times [once each quarter] and say revenues are down 20 percent to 30 percent and that’s OK.

“They build up the mental fortification to do that once. And then they believe they can do it twice. By the third quarter, people feel like they’re supposed to be delivering results already that show what they’re doing is right,” he said. “And that’s just not reasonable. And so you need that mental fortitude to say, this brand still sells a lot of product, but it sells too much.”

This just goes against the life lessons of so many CEOs, who don’t generally get their job by saying how good they are about giving away sales.

A Brand to Build On
Part of the problem might be that, while there are a lot of really well known brands, there are fewer Ralph Laurens.

“There’s a lot of brands that go into sort of terminal decline and never recover,” said David Swartz, analyst at Morningstar. “There’s others that people are trying to resurrect and sometimes that has been done successfully.”

The difference is not in just the plan or the management.

“We judge the moats of companies, meaning their competitive advantages,” Swartz said. “These companies we’re talking about, they don’t have any real competitive advantages in the sense that they can’t prevent new entrants.

“There’s essentially no barriers to entry in apparel and accessories,” he said. “And there’s new competitors coming all the time. So we would classify the advantages if they have any as intangible. That’s based on a lot of different things, including the brand’s history, the brand’s marketing, the quality of the products, the quality of the distribution, things like that. And they do differ.


“We have always said that Tapestry/Coach has a competitive advantage, but Capri/Michael Kors does not,” the analyst said. “And that’s because, in my judgment, which is based on the financials of the companies and their history and what I think is the consumer perception, I think Coach is a stronger brand than Michael Kors to begin with. The results that we’ve seen over the last few years certainly suggest that. They compete in the same market. They have very similar products. And yet Coach has been doing really well and Michael Kors has been struggling.”

Restarting on the Outs
The good news for aspiring turnaround artists is that one does not need to be on trend to start building better.

Laurent Vasilescu, an analyst at BNP Paribas, pointed out that the relatively dressy Coach and Ralph Lauren began their elevation journeys in the 2010s, when athleisure and Lululemon were dominating the market.

“Most people look at the top line as an indicator of brand health,” Vasilescu said. “But the important metric is the gross margin. We need to look at the second metric — and that’s the health of the gross margin.”

Ralph Lauren logged gross margins of 69.9 percent last year, up 1,200 basis points from the 57.9 percent gross margin the company logged just before Louvet joined in 2017.

“This is absolutely the Ralph Lauren playbook, the Tapestry playbook — reinvesting those gross profit dollars into marketing,” Vasilescu said.

Ralph Lauren spent 8.2 percent of its sales on marketing last quarter, more than double what the company was spending before the brand elevation pivot.

While many have struggled to run the play, others are making some real headway.

“Levi’s is the one that’s closest,” Vasilescu said. “You think about what they’ve done under [CEO] Michelle Gass. She’s been in the seat for about two years and it’s like, let’s get rid of Dockers. Let’s elevate, get rid of Denizen and elevate with Blue Tab. This elevation, paring down, going more into DTC, holding back on wholesale. Right now they’re at 50-50 DTC and wholesale and increasing in their marketing spend.”

Two-way Street
Exactly how to reinvest in the business — from marketing to product to infrastructure — is another trick.

Jaehee Jung, professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, said: “Quality control is very, very important because consumers are savvy. They can buy any bag they want to. And there are many of the same styles of bags at similar prices. You want to make sure that really the product stands for quality.”

And Jung said that often requires a certain communication between brand and consumer, a “two-way process” that can “create some meaning” for shoppers.

Fashion can no longer speak from on high.

“The communication can come [one way] from the brands and they can do whatever, like a very expensive campaign,” Jung said. “But when consumers don’t get it or they don’t feel that their products are really giving any kind of satisfaction psychologically or maybe social effect, like other people have it, I want to have it, then it’s not going to work.”

Be Yourself
Sang-Eun Byun, associate professor of retailing at the University of South Carolina, pinpointed four factors that are key to a brand’s long-term health and a successful turnaround.

Understanding the brand’s identity.
Cultural relevance.
Brand engagement and the participation of consumers.
Authenticity.
Byun pointed to Victoria’s Secret & Co., which languished for years but is now getting its stride back under CEO Hillary Super.

“Victoria’s Secret tried to rebrand and they included diversity and inclusion, that kind of concept,” she said, of former management. “They just tried to change or manipulate the marketing aspect rather than truly changing or evaluating their brand identity at the core.

“They have to know who they are first. And then based on their brand identity, they have to work on marketing. I think they did the opposite. They decided, oh, we’re going to embrace the diversity and inclusion. And then they focused on just one aspect of marketing. They didn’t think about what the audience really thought about them. So authenticity was absolutely lacking.”

While the company continues to embrace diversity, Super is now unapologetically emphasizing Victoria’s Secret’s sexy attitude.

“People now see that’s their true intention,” Byun said. “They invite people, real people to participate in their fashion show. The audience engagement matters. And through their audience engagement, people know Victoria’s Secret’s authentic intention.

“The branding should come first,” she said. “Branding should support marketing decisions.”

So brands looking to turn around just need to be themselves, know and talk to their consumers, draw people in with knockout marketing and deliver great product, while keeping up with technology, building first-rate production capabilities, navigating a global market, the economy and more.

Easy to say, hard to do.

>>> Engaged Capital (Glenn Welling) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F

Engaged Capital (Glenn Welling) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F filing: New FRPT position, Lowered YETI BL VFC CGNX holdings
Highlights from Q2 2026 filing as compared to Q1 2026 (all amounts are approximate):
  • New: FRPT (485K)
  • Increased: GXO (985K from 822K)
  • Maintained: EVH (5.56 mln)
  • Decreased: YETI (1194K from 1784K), BL (828K from 1368K), VFC (4522K from 4679K), CGNX (339K from 484K)

>>> Tiger Global (Chase Coleman) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F fi

Tiger Global (Chase Coleman) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F filing: New CBRS CIFR APLD CORZ V AMD DHR SPCX STX positions, Added to INTC CPNG XYZ CPAY MELI, Exited Z NFLX PCOR ZS CSGP
Highlights from Q2 2026 filing as compared to Q1 2026 (all amounts are approximate):
  • New: CBRS (3 mln shares), CIFR (927K), APLD (885K), CORZ (817K), V (799K), AMD (675K), DHR (456K), SPCX (375K), STX (285K)
  • Increased: INTC (4.25 mln shares from 1.64 mln shares), CPNG (36.47 mln from 34.6 mln), XYZ (4.58 mln from 4 mln), CPAY (2.15 mln from 1.75 mln), MELI (0.15 mln from 0.14 mln)
  • Maintained: RDDT (2.53 mln shares)
  • Exited: Z (7.37 mln), NFLX (2.44 mln), PCOR (2.34 mln), ZS (1.58 mln), CSGP (1.5 mln), ZG (1.02 mln), APP (1 mln), NTSK (500K), XNDU (500K), PAYP (400K), RVI (400K), FIGR (200K), KLAR (175K), LITE (137K), BLSH (100K), ETOR (80K), FIG (60K)
  • Decreased: CHYM (5.28 mln from 11.08 mln), GOOGL (5.81 mln from 10.63 mln), SE (12.56 mln from 15.42 mln), PONY (310K from 2.9 mln), AVGO (1.75 mln from 3.58 mln), NVDA (11.2 mln from 12.01 mln), LRCX (3.16 mln from 3.9 mln), TSM (4.88 mln from 5.57 mln), NOW (873K from 1.5 mln), APO (2.72 mln from 3.29 mln), SPOT (1.17 mln from 1.58 mln), FWONK (2.28 mln from 2.68 mln), AMZN (9.68 mln from 10 mln), META (2.82 mln from 3.09 mln), MSFT (2.27 mln from 2.5 mln), TTWO (1.81 mln from 2 mln), GEV (798K from 973K), JD (202K from 344K), UNH (297K from 350K), AMAT (1.63 mln from 1.66 mln)

>>> Discovery Capital (Rob Citrone) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F

Discovery Capital (Rob Citrone) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F filing: New AMC TE PURR WRBY positions, Added to JBS NU FISV JRVR, Exited VNET CLF, NVDA TER SOXX
Highlights from Q2 2026 filing as compared to Q1 2026 (all amounts are approximate):
  • New: AMC (51.8 mln shares), TE (7.5 mln), PURR (1.3 mln), WRBY (588K), GRPN (491K), MWH (412K), CVX (355K), HAL (305K), FIG (158K), ZM (140K), NXT (117K), TTWO (115K), FIVE (103K), KRMN (100K), LPLA (94K), RACE (82K), PUMP (75K), CIFR (71K), PAM (65K), WULF (65K), BHYP (63K), EPU (63K), RBLX (44K), OUST (41K), THYP (39K), SKY (36K), RBRK (33K), TTAN (33K), GS (27K), MTSI (27K), EWW (27K), HUT (24K), DLR (24K)
  • Increased: JBS (5.4 mln shares from 3.4 mln shares), NU (3.4 mln from 2.2 mln), FISV (551K from 310K), JRVR (1.1 mln from 0.8 mln), BBAR (1.2 mln from 1.0 mln), BAP (272K from 141K), WOLF (548K from 425K), AGRO (1.38 mln from 1.27 mln), YPF (605K from 538K), AMZN (176K from 124K), GGAL (918K from 869K), VLO (119K from 85K), AEM (77K from 43K), APP (83K from 51K), PSN (529K from 499K), SNDK (208K from 184K), CRM (72K from 50K), SHY (63K from 57K), ULTA (52K from 47K)
  • Exited: VNET (from 6.0 mln shares), CLF (1.5 mln), IFS (1.1 mln), IBIT (644K), INFQ (396K), FPS (275K), GLNG (267K), MDLN (250K), HDB (183K), ALH (150K), ARE (100K), ROST (72K), LNG (67K), NVDA (57K), TER (52K), SOXX (44K)
  • Decreased: IREN (181K shares from 1.83 mln shares), ON (162K from 1.4 mln), AMX (4.0 mln from 4.4 mln), ECHO (49K from 412K), CX (3.2 mln from 3.5 mln), PRMB (1.38 mln from 1.4 mln), JPM (0.15 mln from 0.15 mln), TV (22.1 mln from 22.4 mln), LRCX (5K from 298K), MU (1K from 276K), STUB (698K from 961K), GENI (7.2 mln from 7.5 mln), METC (5.31 mln from 5.51 mln), CAR (354K from 549K), GEO (1.26 mln from 1.43 mln), QXO (1.2 mln from 1.4 mln), PPTA (1.2 mln from 1.3 mln), PINS (666K from 773K), COF (173K from 269K), BRRR (14K from 48K), CMPS (150K from 180K), CHDN (138K from 160K), INTU (14K from 21K)

>>> Impactive Capital (Lauren Taylor Wolfe and Christian Alejandro) discloses up

Impactive Capital (Lauren Taylor Wolfe and Christian Alejandro) discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F filing: Added to GTLB LRN positions, Exited CART ICLR, Lowered SLM ABG holdings
Highlights from Q2 2026 filing as compared to Q1 2026 (all amounts are approximate):
  • Increased: GTLB (4.16 mln shares from 3.91 mln shares), LRN (1.3 mln from 1.11 mln)
  • Maintained: VAC (4.13 mln shares), WEX (1.71 mln)
  • Exited: CART (from 1.57 mln shares), ICLR (0.45 mln)
  • Decreased: SLM (5.31 mln shares from 7.82 mln shares), IWM (0.1 mln from 0.25 mln), WMS (0.78 mln from 0.86 mln), ABG (1.04 mln from 1.07 mln)

>>> Lansdowne Partners discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F filing: New

Lansdowne Partners discloses updated portfolio positions in 13F filing: New ST A NVT positions, Added to BKR IONQ TSM ARM B AMZN, Exited ALC, Lowered TECK SW SLB
Highlights from Q2 2026 filing as compared to Q1 2026 (all amounts are approximate):
  • New: ST (140K), A (89K), NVT (71K), OUT (9K), LAMR (2K)
  • Increased: BKR (2.5 mln from 40K), IONQ (966K from 796K), TSM (1.5 mln from 1.4 mln), ARM (1.1 mln from 936K), B (411K from 343K), AMZN (133K from 78K), UAL (1549K from 1531K), TXN (93K from 92K)
  • Exited: ALC (137K)
  • Decreased: TECK (311K from 2.1 mln), SW (348K from 1.9 mln), SLB (2.6 mln from 3.0 mln), LIN (239K from 449K), ETN (34K from 130K), ADI (575K from 664K), GOLF (514K from 523K), DAL (2.47 mln from 2.48 mln)

FT : Activists are giving British M&A targets a helpful shove Investors can unlo

Activists are giving British M&A targets a helpful shove
Investors can unlock value by pushing companies to spin off businesses or sell to rivals

Whenever a company attracts a takeover or an activist, it’s a backhanded compliment. The implication is that it is either undervalued or not being run well, and often both. British bosses are getting more of this uninvited attention. 

Merger proposals targeting UK groups are already at an eight-year peak in 2026, according to Dealogic. EasyJet, Schroders, Tate & Lyle, Segro and Intertek are among the trophies picked up by foreign buyers. But activism is rising too: the UK was the number-three destination for cage-rattling investment firms in the first half of the year, after the US and Japan, say Barclays analysts. UK companies in total accounted for two-fifths of Europe’s activist campaigns, according to Alvarez & Marsal. 

Are cut-price stocks the main draw? The FTSE 100 trades at just 13 times forecast earnings compared with 22 times for its transatlantic counterpart, the S&P 500. Compare the UK instead with the equal-weighted S&P 500 to reduce the dominance of huge tech companies such as Apple and Nvidia, and the UK discount is in line with its average over the past two decades. Even among mid-caps — a sweet spot for buyers and activists alike — the FTSE 250’s discount to the US Russell 2000 is only slightly below its typical gap. 


But where activists can potentially create value is by encouraging companies to cut along obvious dotted lines, or sell themselves at a premium to rivals that believe they can cut costs. That seems to be a growing part of the activist playbook. Calls for companies to put themselves on the block, in whole or in part, have made up a fifth of all activist demands across Europe this year, A&M reckons, compared with 8 per cent in 2025.

Sometimes, the call is loud. Think of Saba, the investment firm of hedge fund manager Boaz Weinstein, whose campaigns against undervalued UK investment trusts have toppled several boards. Others have done their agitating behind closed doors. Before UK logistics trust Segro was approached by US peer Prologis — it accepted a £14bn offer this month — activist Lauro Asset Management had suggested it at least spin off its data centre unit. FTSE 100 testing company Intertek too, was encouraged by activists to rethink its future before private equity firm EQT swooped.

A&M looked at more than 400 companies across Europe with a known activist holding of at least 1 per cent, but where no public campaign had launched. It found that over two years, these undertook almost a third more disposals than the wider corporate population, and also a fifth fewer acquisitions. Behind the wave of UK M&A is a wave of activist deal instigators, whether they’re visible or not.

FT : Biotech VCs have become like bankers and we might all pay the price A shift

Biotech VCs have become like bankers and we might all pay the price
A shift in business models conflicts with the long-term nature of developing new drugs and treatment

It is not news to US and UK biotech entrepreneurs but it might be to those outside the sector: many biotech venture capitalists have morphed into bankers and innovation is the victim. This shift could well see a reduction in the development of new drugs and treatments.

Bankers are all about the transaction. They can be forgiven for this focus — that is how they get paid. On the other hand, VCs get their salaries and bonuses from a management fee of 2 per cent per year of their fund size regardless of the performance of their investments. And, of course, they get a 20 per cent share of all returns above a performance threshold, so the very top VCs make huge amounts of money. 

While VCs have always looked to the exits from the companies they have invested in, this fee structure has in the past helped support the longer term, risky bets required in biotech.

But with sector fundraising down sharply, the desire for better returns to perpetuate firms has shifted the investment thesis to quicker turnarounds and exits. Analysts at PitchBook noted in a report last year that fundraising from biotech VCs fell from an annual peak of $152.3bn in 2018 to just $12bn in 2024, an outcome in line with 2012 levels.

How are quicker investment cycles possible in biotech when the product development cycle is more than 15 years? Well, the focus is now on medicines that have already proven themselves scientifically, even clinically.

Compared with their forebears, VCs today are less interested in building new companies. Like bankers and buyout firms, they are more focused on the asset and moving it forward, often with a bare-bones operation. Ergo, VCs are funding more companies that have obtained their drugs from elsewhere, not discovered and developed in house.

VCs can be found rummaging through Big Pharma’s shelves for cast-offs or going to China to license a me-too, slightly better drug, all with the hope of taking that asset to the next development step and flipping it to the public or back to pharma. 

This has given rise to VC firms featuring a front line of MDs and PhDs who gave up their clinical and science dreams to perform due diligence, some of whom have little hands-on experience in drug development. The investment thesis can often become all about the technical aspects of the asset and less about the team, the track record, the clinical need or the potential impact of a breakthrough. 

As PitchBook also reported this year that early stage deals have declined from 43 per cent of VC activity in biopharma — the bulk of the biotech sector — to 32 per cent in 2025.

“Where early rounds once funded preclinical programs focused on initial scientific validation, early-stage activity now includes consolidated mega-rounds backing clinically mature assets and experienced leadership teams. In practice, early-stage capital is being deployed later in the development cycle with greater emphasis on execution,” it said.

An adjunct is that companies are initially funded to be too big to fail, meaning if the original asset does not perform, there is money to buy something else.

But this model has its hazards for VCs. One has to know what products and data the pharma industry wants to see three years from when the investment is made. One has to find that product at the right stage of development with some differentiation from competition. And operational execution has to be flawless to get the timing right. Finally, pharma’s tastes are subject to fads and changes in management strategy. A lot has to line up perfectly.

Well-known academics with gee-whiz technology are still funded, many of them spawning half-a-dozen or more companies. But for walk-in entrepreneurs with truly novel ideas looking for seed capital (say under $5mn), it is a challenging time.

Meanwhile, China’s biotechs, the beneficiaries of enormous state funding for basic research, are transitioning from being copycats to real innovators. If you don’t mind where the intellectual property comes from, there are new drugs in that pipeline. Big pharma now shops there too, so the arbitrage for VCs is disappearing.

Many of the most profound changes in treatments and medicines still come straight out of publicly funded academic research labs and are refined by biotech companies in a process that takes years, even decades. The critical step is the handoff from academia to “industry” — that requires capital, imagination and optimism from both backers and entrepreneurs. Do VCs today have the same appetite for bold ideas that the last generation of VCs did?

(ZeroHedge) Influential Wife Of Anthropic CEO Pitched Post-Conviction Epstein On

Influential Wife Of Anthropic CEO Pitched Post-Conviction Epstein On 'Luxury Porn' Company, And Claude Has No Idea

Anthropic has filed confidentially for what could be the largest public offering in history. Yet, one of the most influential voices shaping its chief executive holds no official position at the company, appears in no regulatory filings, and has been quietly scrubbed from the internet. She alsopitched a porn company to Jeffrey Epstein - less than two years after he got out of prison for sex trafficking minors.
Her name is Cami Clark, wife of CEO Dario Amodei. According to a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, she has spent five years operating as a strategic adviser to the head of a company now seeking public capital at a valuation north of $2 trillion - all without a title, a salary, or formal disclosure.
Cami Clark and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei at a summit in New Delhi in February. Ludovic Marin/AFP/Getty Images
Her marriage to Amodei has been scrubbed from Claude too... Ask Anthropic's own chatbot about Amodei's marital status, and Claude replies that it "doesn't seem to be clearly confirmed."
Someone actively worked to keep it that way. Amodei's Wikipedia page did not mention his marriage until this summer, and it still omits his wife's name. Google searches for his wife instead return photographs of his sister, Daniela Amodei, who co-runs the company. Citing its own analysis and a person familiar with the matter, the Journal reports that targeted efforts have been made to erase references to Clark online.
In 1999, at the age of 20, she married 64-year-old Reno architect Waldemar Eklof III, who had designed buildings including the city’s Atlantis Casino Resort. They divorced three years later. On a now-defunct personal website, Clark said she dropped out of architecture school in 1999.
...
Around 2010, she and Michelle Capocefalo started Eddice, which described itself as a “revolutionary porn company.” Named for Eddice Munson, Clark’s maternal grandmother, it aimed to emphasize sex positivity in a male-oriented porn industry, and carried the tagline: “intellectually promiscuous.” -WSJ
And she would pitch that company to Epstein...
The emails
What was scrubbed from the web is now partly a matter of federal record. Clark appears in the Epstein files released by the Justice Department.
On March 3, 2011, literary agent John Brockman - the man who spent years introducing Jeffrey Epstein to scientists and Silicon Valley executives - emailed Epstein from a Wired party where he was the guest of honor.
"You should connect for dinner with my girls - Cami and Michele - who I met last month in Munich," Brockman wrote. "They're in LA raising money for porn movie aimed at women's market." He included a link to their site, eddice.com.
Clark replied to Epstein directly that night, copying her business partner, Michelle Capocefalo.
"Hello Jeffrey! We would love to have dinner with you this evening. Does that work for you?" She included her cell number.
A year later, she circled back. Epstein didn't remember her.
"Cami Clark, John Brockman introduced us last year at Ted," she wrote on March 8, 2012. "We have the free luxury porn company. Does that ring a bell?"
"yes,, a loud gong," Epstein replied.
"Hahaha I was going to say, you would be the first person ever that didn't remember us," Clark answered.
Epstein wrote back that he was "in the caribeanc until april. as you recall i live here" - a reference to Little St. James - "but am willing to look at whatever you think viable."
She pitched him on investing. Per the Journal, he declined: "Can't do sex TV." Clark then pivoted to a second venture, a social dieting app for women. The correspondence ran for roughly two years, during which she invited him to a Manhattan housewarming party and connected with him on LinkedIn.
Jeffrey Epstein was released from custody in July 2009 after pleading guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution. Brockman's introduction came in March 2011 - twenty months later.
Epstein was a registered sex offender at the time, and his conviction was highly public. The Journal explicitly notes his status in its account of the exchange.
Sounding Board
Clark does not work at Anthropic, officially. According to people close to the company who spoke to the Journal, she functions as a sounding board and strategic adviser to Amodei. She sits in the front row at his public appearances and networks with investors at Davos and the Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley. When Narendra Modi convened AI executives in New Delhi this year and restricted each to a single guest, Amodei brought his wife.
She also brought Anthropic one of its earliest and most consequential investors. Clark dated former Google CEO Eric Schmidt from 2011 to 2014, before she met Amodei. She introduced the two men, and Schmidt - by then investing in startups - participated in Anthropic's $124 million Series A in May 2021.
She later tried to convert that relationship into a formal position.
Michelle Capocefalo and Clark at a gallery event in New York in 2010. RYAN MCCUNE/Patrick McMullan/Getty Images
In February 2021, Clark pitched Schmidt on an investment vehicle called the Mother of AGI Fund. Per a 40-page proposal reviewed by the Journal, its stated purpose was to be "an elegant solution to formalize Cami's involvement in Anthropic (Dario's company), manage Eric's investment," and invest across the broader AGI ecosystem. Daniela Amodei and other co-founders opposed it, and the proposal went nowhere. Clark and Amodei married the following year.
More recently, Clark has been carrying the company's political water - telling political insiders that Anthropic's mission is to protect America and that the company is not as "woke" as critics claim. This pivot follows the Trump administration designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk after Amodei refused to lift restrictions on the Pentagon's use of Claude - a designation the company is currently challenging in court. At Sun Valley in July, she lunched with Ivanka Trump and spoke with Jared Kushner, whom Amodei had previously approached about investing.
What about the S-1?
While none of the above is illegal, Anthropic is no longer a private startup answerable only to a handful of venture funds willing to stomach idiosyncratic risk. It filed confidentially with the SEC on June 1 and is reportedly targeting an October listing. Investors told the Financial Times the valuation could exceed $2 trillion, which would make it the largest public offering ever conducted.
Registration statements require the disclosure of related-party arrangements and material influences on management. An unpaid, untitled adviser who introduced a lead investor, proposed a fund to formalize her stake, and carries corporate political messaging is precisely the kind of dynamic institutional buyers expect to see disclosed before they price a book.
So is the fact that someone - particularly someone who actively sought Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in a porn business after he was convicted for sex trafficking minors - has been made difficult to find. Anthropic's entire commercial premise relies on being trusted with a technology it readily admits is dangerous. That pitch justifies an enormous premium to enterprise customers and, soon, to public shareholders. It rests entirely on the proposition that the company is more careful, more transparent, and more institutionally sound than its competitors.