Connect with us

Uncategorized

Biopharma Site Selection Goes beyond Location, Location, Location

To balance a VC downturn and an IPO uptick, companies are looking for smaller spaces that still offer location, education, and transportation advantages.
The…

Published

on

Even in the current challenging market, dozens of biopharma companies are looking for additional space to accommodate operations that are growing or expected to grow. At the same time, some companies are looking to downsize their digs. Whether they plan to expand or contract their laboratories and offices, biopharma companies are weighing many more factors than the one cited in that old saw about real estate. You know: location, location, location.

The shift reflects the biopharma industry’s slowdown following the rush of companies and institutions scrambling to address the COVID-19 pandemic by plunging head-first into rapid drug and vaccine development. “COVID-19 created what I call a sugar high,” Robert Coughlin, managing director in the life sciences industry practice of commercial real estate firm JLL, told GEN.

Robert Coughlin
Managing Director, JLL

“When we were facing a global pandemic, and the most important thing to the entire global economy and the well-being of people on earth was to find vaccines, we got a lot of attention,” Coughlin explained. “People would invest in life sciences funds when they weren’t traditional life sciences investors. Developers would build [life sciences facilities] when they weren’t traditional life sciences developers. Now, we’re coming out of a correction.”

Supply and demand

The life sciences real estate market’s challenges—and signs of a comeback—are discussed by JLL in its 2023 Life Sciences Industry and Real Estate Perspective. The report acknowledges that demand for life sciences space by startups slowed to over 10 million square feet of space as of midyear 2023 from 25 million in 2021, as capital became harder and costlier to obtain due to rising interest rates.

Demand for life sciences space is expected to increase, Coughlin said, as early-stage companies benefit from the over $22 billion in capital raised collectively since 2021 by the top 20 venture capital (VC) firms focused on life sciences investment.

Companies searching for space will face a growing supply of life sciences sites to choose from—but mostly in the largest regional clusters. The national pipeline of life sciences space getting built is three times larger than it was in 2019.

Of the 37 million square feet of investor-owned laboratory space under development in the United States, 63% is in the Boston/Cambridge region or the San Francisco Bay Area, JLL found. By contrast, only 10% of current stock is in Los Angeles, Raleigh-Durham, and the Washington DC/Maryland portion of the BioHealth Capital Region.

The “bulk of the market”

Owners and developers—and the real estate firms representing them—are encouraged by a jump in small biopharma companies seeking up to 30,000 square feet of space. They accounted for 82% of lease deals signed in the first half of 2023, up from 65% a year earlier.

Among developers eager to draw smaller biotech companies as well as larger ones are the Georgetown Company and Beacon Capital Partners. The two are teaming up to develop 707 Eleventh Avenue in New York City, a 185,000-square-foot building set to rise on Manhattan’s West Side with support from the New York City Industrial Development Agency (NYCIDA), which is managed by the nonprofit New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC).

The developers say that 707 Eleventh Avenue would be the first new life sciences property built for that use in a prime section of Manhattan in more than a decade.

Jonathan Schmerin, managing principal with the Georgetown Company, told GEN that developers envision an anchor tenant of between 75,000 and 100,000 feet, plus several tenants leasing between 15,000 and 50,000 square feet—the “bulk of the market,” in his estimation. In partnership with the NYCIDA and NYCEDC, 707 Eleventh Avenue will also include “graduation suites” for early-stage life sciences companies ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, to be built on a speculative or “spec” basis.

Jonathan Schmerin
Jonathan Schmerin
Managing Principal
The Georgetown Company

“Having a modern building with amenities, with all electric operations, with floor plates that are of a smaller size to address the bulk of the New York market, which consists of earlier-stage life sciences companies, we think, allows for us to deliver a unique A-plus product,” Schmerin asserted.

New York City and its suburbs have seen a parade of new life sciences developments emerge in recent years, reflecting industry growth, developer interest in converting older commercial buildings, and incentives from New York City and New York State authorities. “We believe that the West Side is ultimately going to be the winner as to where biotech in New York will ultimately grow,” Schmerin said, given its transportation accessibility to life sciences talent across the Hudson River in New Jersey, its walking distance from Midtown Manhattan, and zoning that allows life sciences uses as-of-right in manufacturing areas.

The West Side also enjoys a growing critical mass of life sciences institutions, properties, and companies.

The New York Mount Sinai Health System’s recently opened Discovery and Innovation Center anchors the Georgetown Company’s 787 Eleventh Avenue, a mixed-use redevelopment of the original Packard Motors Building. The West Side is also home to Taconic Partners’ West End Labs (a research laboratory complex at 125 West End Avenue) and HiberCell (a cancer therapy developer at 619 West 54th Street).

Talent competition

Analysts at commercial real estate firm CBRE have been keeping an eye on the shrinking supply of talent and escalating costs in the largest regions for life sciences activity. According to Matt Gardner, CBRE’s advisory sciences leader, these trends have many companies contemplating up-and-coming regions just beyond those ranked in GEN’s annual A-List of Top 10 U.S. Biopharma Clusters.

Matt Gardner
Matt Gardner
Lead, Americas Life Sciences Leader, CBRE

“More options are available to growing companies, creating greater flexibility for growing companies,” Gardner said. “There’s been so much investment in both coasts—in particular the Bay Area, San Diego, Boston, and North Carolina—that their talent markets are tapped out in the short term.”

Gardner remarked that when growing companies have to compete for scarce talent, one of the things they do is look at emerging markets. He cited several examples: Houston, Atlanta, Denver/Boulder, and Indianapolis.

Growth prospects

As of August, according to CBRE research, VC funding for life sciences companies rose to $4.6 billion in Q3 2023, the second consecutive quarter-to-quarter increase, bringing the Q1–Q3 2023 total to $12.7 billion. However, early-stage companies were projected to complete fewer VC funding rounds in 2023 than in any of the previous six years. Early startups in phases up to Series A saw a growing share of funding—to 41% in Q1–Q3 2023 from 39.5% in all of 2022—while funding for later-stage companies has decreased. Series B fundings have fallen 10% since 2020.

That slowdown helps explain why life sciences employment from January to August in 2023 rose just 1.4%, though above the 1% growth in total nonfarm employment. Smaller financing deals and slowing employment mean slower growth trajectories, resulting ultimately in companies leasing or buying smaller spaces than they might have otherwise.

“If you’re a seed to Series B company, you might look for 25,000 square feet today rather than the 100,000 square feet you might have been looking for two years ago,” Gardner suggested. “If you’re raising the $20 million or $40 million that we’re seeing in some of these headlines today, instead of $100 million, you’re probably thinking differently about your growth rate. We think that means the industry’s returned to what was once more the norm.”

One source of optimism for life sciences property owners, and the real estate companies that represent them, is a belief that the initial public offering (IPO) market will finally bounce back in 2024 after more than two years of companies staying away or settling for smaller-than-planned offerings followed by declining share prices.

That optimism stems from a spurt in IPOs during the second half of this year, as 11 companies went public as of November 28—compared with just 8 in the first half of this year. This year barely surpassed the 17 IPOs of 2022, and fell well short of the 158 of 2021. Acelyrin scored 2023’s biggest IPO at deadline, raising $621 million gross proceeds ($573.7 million net proceeds) in May.

“I think it’s going to come back sooner than a lot of people anticipate,” Coughlin maintained. “If people are hiring, they’re ultimately going to need more space, which will lead to more tenant demand for space—and that’s good for the real estate industry.”

The post Biopharma Site Selection Goes beyond Location, Location, Location appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending