Smaller Investment Banks Snap at Heels of Big Banks in Healthcare

Matt Eitner is the chief executive officer of Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd., operating out of New York City. Matt Eitner is an investment advisor and works with a team of wealth management experts who focus heavily on healthcare investment services, and helping companies in this field find their best banking options. The independent team of advisers also assist companies with raising capital quickly and managing high-return investments.

The healthcare industry is divided into many camps, from pharmaceutical firms that research and develop new drugs, to clinical trial operators, biotechnology innovators, hospital management companies, and health insurance groups. All of these companies in the healthcare industry require investment services, and for the most part place their trust in the big banks. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs received the highest share of business from the healthcare industry from 2013 to 2015. The top five biggest banks dominate roughly 40 percent of the healthcare investment banking market.

Smaller banks, however, are proving more competitive and slowly chipping away at the dominance of these bigger banks. Guggenheim Partners, Jefferies, and Greenhill & Co. are just a few of the smaller banks making moves in an industry always looking to improve returns.

How Does Bitcoin Compare to Gold?

Matt Eitner is the chief executive officer of Laidlaw & Company Ltd., which concentrates on investments in natural resources, social commerce, and healthcare. As CEO, Matt Eitner provides his clients with a number of investment options to fill out their portfolios, a recent one being the digital currency Bitcoin, which has generated much discussion about its potential as compared to the traditional gold standard of valuing wealth.

Bitcoin and gold have two major similarities. They are both monetary systems unbound by national regulatory restrictions and can function on the global economic scene. Also, both can be generated only in limited quantities. However, that is where common features end, for Bitcoin is an intangible asset that exists purely online. As such, the applications of these two products outside of currency differ greatly.

Until the 1970s, gold was used both to set standards for paper money systems and, as a tangible asset, currency in and of itself. It is also a raw material in chemical reactions and manufacturing, and a vital resource for the aerospace and medical industries. Most importantly, gold is irreplaceable and no other element shares its physical, chemical and aesthetic properties.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, has limited uses. Typically, it has the potential to function as a blockchain network and as a speculative asset. However, it can also be replaced by close to 2100 other cryptocurrencies now in existence. This makes Bitcoin a less stable standard to use than gold. Ultimately, while both have the potential to be valuable assets, their dynamics as currency are fundamentally different.

Constants in an Ever-Changing Private Equity Investment Market

What to Consider When Investing in Biotechnology

Investing Photo by Chris Liverani on Unsplash
Investing Photo by Chris Liverani on Unsplash

Chief Executive Officer Matt Eitner provides sound financial advice to his clients who invest with Laidlaw and Company in New York City. For Matt Eitner and his team, a particular area of expertise is healthcare, which includes the biotechnology sector.

Biotechnology falls under drug development and clinical research, and while the work that goes toward treating diseases is potentially lucrative, there are a few factors investors must consider before buying in. One factor to evaluate is where the biotech is in terms of the development process. In terms of investing, companies with multiple Phase 2 programs, where potential products have already passed initial human trials, are more attractive. Investors should also examine the funding backing the companies they are considering buying into; biotech research and development is expensive, and companies can find themselves depleting their funding before their products make it to market.

The most important factor to keep in mind, though, is the type of drug being developed and its value as a treatment or cure. While some diseases have huge potential markets, they also have huge potential competition. Other markets may be more niche, such as the so-called “orphan drugs” market that targets diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, but profits can be far higher when there are fewer treatments to compete with.