A common pitfall for CEOs in fundraising processes is coming off as “not in the weeds”. This often happens when a CEO is used to deferring to other team members but takes a call on their own. However, it can also be obvious that a CEO isn’t invested in the details if there’s a handoff to someone else on a basic question.
Here are some science topics that a CEO should know cold: 1) for each data set presented, should know the details of the model / experiment, particularly for in vivo work (dose groups; # of animals; duration of dosing; details of model system – e.g., if a targeted tx, # of antigens on the surface); 2) should know what other models have been tested which aren’t shown, including whether other positive controls were used; 3) should have a view on how competing molecules look in same / similar models; 4) should know what additional experiments are planned.
On the clinical / regulatory side: 1) clinical trial design (for studies run to date and pivotal); 2) ITT vs. per protocol results; 3) timeline for regulatory discussions; 4) ex-US strategy.
On commercial / competition: 1) key competitors and their stage; 2) sales of competing drugs in your indication; 3) competitor data; 4) addressable prevalence (or incidence) and peak sales potential; 5) your IP expiry.
CEOs also sometimes flounder around financing topics, especially early in the financing process, including 1) estimated cash balance and runway; 2) planned raise size / scenarios; 3) use of proceeds / key milestones; 4) insider interest. On insiders, you probably won’t have a firm commitment early on but it’s helpful to characterize whatever you DO know.
On all these points, the most uncomfortable part is often not the fact that the CEO doesn’t have the answer, but rather the deer in the headlights look that implies it hasn’t even been considered. To this end, it can help to generate a list of Q&A prior to launching your raise. Ask some smart ppl who aren’t close to the story to look through your deck and give their thoughts – the closer you are to a program, the easier it can be to lose sight of likely points of inquiry.