Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Biotech share price is highly volatile, compared to most other industries. There is limited explanation for what causes such a high volatility. The purpose of this study is to explore how R&D strategies selected by biotech firms affect their share price volatilities. Specifically, the paper empirically investigates the impact of drug discovery and development diversification on share price volatility. Design/methodology/approach Regression analysis is applied to observe the effect of R&D strategy on share price volatility. Share price volatility is regressed on the measure of drug discovery and development diversification. Strategies are classified into two categories: diversified vs. concentrated. Meanwhile, other factors that have an influence on share price volatility such as firm maturity, firm size, and book‐to‐market ratio are controlled. For robustness, a return model is also used to further test the effect of R&D strategy, and sensitivity analyses using alternative drug discovery and development diversification measures are performed. Empirical data was collected for publicly‐traded biotech firms from COMPUSTAT, CRSP and Biospace. Findings The major finding of this study is the significant impact of R&D strategy in term of drug discovery and development diversification on share price volatility. Firms that have more diversified drug portfolios are associated with lower share price volatilities; and lower stock returns. In contrast, firms that have more concentrated drug portfolios are associated with higher share price volatilities; and higher stock returns. Research limitations/implications Future research can explore effects of other aspects of the drug discovery and development as well as other firm attributes on biotech share price volatility. In addition, share price volatility may have impacts on managerial issues such as employee stock option issuance. Such impacts should also be studied. Originality/value This study targets a major aspect (i.e. R&D strategy) of the very fundamental value drive in the industry (i.e. drug discovery and development) to shed light on the limited understanding of what contribute to biotech share price volatility. The benefit of produce diversification has been examined in some other industries; however, its benefit is largely unknown in the biotech industry. This study has implications for investor risk assessment and corporate risk management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".