Interpreting JPM 2026

Why the Absence of Headlines Does Not Reflect the Absence of Activity

An Elm Innovation Advisors Perspective on the 2026 Healthcare Market

Executive Summary

The 2026 JPM Healthcare Conference arrived with elevated expectations. Following several years of market volatility, many participants hoped the conference would mark a visible turning point, characterized by a surge of announced mergers and acquisitions, financings, and strategic partnerships. When that volume of news did not materialize during the conference itself, early media commentary suggested a more cautious conclusion: that the life sciences and healthcare markets may be entering 2026 with less momentum than previously anticipated.

From Elm Innovation Advisors’ perspective, this conclusion places too much weight on the timing of public announcements and not enough on the underlying activity that drives them. Based on our experience at JPM, our active involvement in ongoing transactions, and conversations with legal advisors and investors during and after the conference, we believe the market is best understood as being in a phase of active formation rather than stagnation.

In short, the real work is happening now, and much of the resulting activity is likely to become visible later in 2026.

Expectations Entering JPM 2026

In the weeks leading up to the conference, optimism was widespread. Market participants pointed to improving macro stability, increased clarity around regulatory pathways, and signs of renewed investor confidence. Against that backdrop, JPM was widely viewed as a natural moment for dealmaking momentum to reassert itself publicly.

Historically, JPM has served as both a convening event and a signaling mechanism. When deal announcements cluster around the conference, they tend to reinforce a narrative of market strength. When they do not, the absence itself often becomes a data point.

This year, the latter dynamic took hold quickly. By the end of the first day, media coverage began to emphasize lower-than-expected levels of announced transactions and financings. For some observers, this was interpreted as evidence that the anticipated rebound in life sciences and healthcare may be slower or more fragile than hoped.

A Different Interpretation of the Same Data

Deal announcements are the end result of processes that often take many months to complete. JPM can accelerate those processes, but it rarely initiates and concludes them simultaneously. As a result, the conference is often more indicative of where conversations are heading than where press releases will land.

The familiar industry joke, that deals are always six to nine months away, captures this reality better than it might initially appear. In this case, Elm believes that this timing heuristic is broadly accurate. Many of the most substantive discussions at JPM 2026 were not about whether to pursue transactions, but how to structure them, value them appropriately, and manage risk in a more disciplined environment.

What Elm Observed at the Conference

While confidentiality constraints limit what we can discuss publicly, we are actively involved in multiple transactions that were meaningfully advanced during and immediately following the conference.

Importantly, our experience was consistent with what we heard from others across the ecosystem:

• Legal advisors we spoke with described busy schedules, active diligence efforts, and ongoing transaction processes. While none could discuss specifics, the common theme was that deal activity is underway, even if it is not yet visible.

• Investors, including several we work with directly, shared that they have raised new funds and are preparing to deploy capital. As is often the case, there is a natural lag between fund formation, investment decision-making, and public disclosure.

• Management teams were focused less on announcement timing and more on ensuring that potential transactions align with long-term strategy and withstand increasingly rigorous scrutiny.

Taken together, these signals suggest not a lack of activity, but a market that is prioritizing preparation and execution.

Why Announcements Lag Activity

One reason JPM headlines can be misleading is that they emphasize outcomes rather than inputs. Public announcements reflect decisions that were made months earlier under different market conditions. By contrast, the conversations happening at JPM reflect current sentiment, current risk tolerance, and current strategic priorities.

Recent announcements following the conference, such as the GSK–RAPT acquisition, illustrate this dynamic. These transactions did not emerge spontaneously after JPM; they were the product of sustained engagement and groundwork that likely included discussions during the conference itself.

From this perspective, JPM functions less as a finish line and more as a midpoint; a place where momentum builds, priorities sharpen, and execution accelerates.

Characteristics of the 2026 Deal Environment

Another factor shaping the timing of announcements is the evolving nature of healthcare and life sciences transactions. Compared to prior cycles, today’s environment is marked by:

• Greater selectivity in M&A, with emphasis on strategic fit and data quality.

• Increased use of partnerships and structured deals to balance risk and return.

• More intensive diligence processes, reflecting lessons learned from earlier market exuberance.

These dynamics tend to lengthen timelines, but they also improve outcomes. Transactions are being structured more thoughtfully, with greater attention to value creation over time rather than speed to announcement.

Implications for Market Participants

For executives, investors, and boards, the key takeaway from JPM 2026 is not whether enough deals were announced during the conference week. It is whether the underlying conditions for sustainable activity are in place. Based on what we observed, they are:

• Companies should assume that counterparties are engaged but disciplined (and prepare accordingly).

• Investors should expect deployment to continue through 2026, though not necessarily in headline-grabbing bursts.

• Advisors must focus on helping clients navigate complexity well before transactions become public.

Looking Ahead to the Remainder of 2026

In Elm’s view, the relative lack of deal announcements during JPM 2026 should not be interpreted as a signal of market weakness. Instead, it reflects the reality that much of the most important activity is happening out of view, setting the stage for a solid year ahead.

As these processes mature, we expect public announcements to follow. When they do, they will likely confirm what was already apparent beneath the surface: that the healthcare and life sciences markets entered 2026 not with hesitation, but with measured momentum.

Elm Innovation Advisors’ 2026 Outlook: Why Medtech IPOs Will Take the Lead

As we look ahead to 2026, capital markets are beginning to thaw after several years of caution. Risk appetite is returning, interest rate expectations are stabilizing, and public investors are again willing to underwrite growth, provided it comes with clarity, revenue, and credible paths to profitability.

Against that backdrop, Elm Innovation Advisors has a clear prediction for the year ahead:

Medtech will outpace biotech in IPO value in 2026.

That does not mean more medtech companies will go public. Historically, biotech produces a higher volume of IPOs because the universe of clinical-stage drug developers is much larger. But in 2026, we expect medtech companies to dominate in terms of capital raised and average deal size.

Why Medtech Wins in 2026

Medtech, defined broadly to include medical devices, diagnostics, and technology-enabled treatment and diagnostic platforms, is uniquely positioned for today’s market environment.

Public investors are becoming more selective. After years of funding long-dated biotech risk, crossover and IPO investors are increasingly focused on businesses that combine innovation with near-term revenue visibility. That favors medtech.

Many late-stage medtech companies entering the public markets already have:

• FDA-cleared or approved products

• Commercial traction

• Reimbursement pathways

• Growing revenue bases

These attributes reduce binary risk and shorten the time to cash flow, making medtech companies far easier to underwrite in an IPO environment where capital remains disciplined.

The Role of AI and Data-Driven Platforms

Another tailwind for medtech IPOs in 2026 will be the continued rise of AI-enabled platforms, particularly in diagnostics, imaging, workflow automation, and precision medicine.

AI-native medtech companies sit at the intersection of healthcare and technology. They benefit from:

• Tech-style growth narratives

• Healthcare-grade defensibility

• Scalable software-driven margins layered on regulated clinical value

This combination is exactly what public investors are looking for as they rebuild exposure to healthcare innovation without absorbing full biotech risk.

Biotech Isn’t Weak—It’s Just Taking a Different Path

Importantly, this is not a bearish view on biotech.

We expect 2026 to be a strong year for biotech, just not primarily through IPOs. Improving public market sentiment and anticipated interest rate cuts should lower the cost of capital and improve valuation benchmarks. That, in turn, should drive:

• M&A activity as large pharma rebuilds pipelines

• Licensing and partnering deals for mid-stage assets

• Private financings at more rational valuations

In other words, biotech value creation will likely occur more through strategic transactions and private capital than through large public debuts.

What the 2025 IPO Market Is Already Telling Us

Even the recent IPO mix hints at where momentum is building.

In 2025, medtech-oriented IPOs included companies such as:

• Medline

• Caris Life Sciences

• BillionToOne

• Beta Bionics

• Kestra Medical Technologies

• CapsoVision

• HeartFlow

• Shoulder Innovations

On the biotech side, the market saw offerings from:

• LB Pharmaceuticals

• Maze Therapeutics

• Metsera

• Sionna Therapeutics

• Ascentage Pharma

• Evommune

• MapLight Therapeutics

Biotech continues to generate volume, but the companies commanding the largest checks and most investor enthusiasm are increasingly commercial-stage, technology-driven healthcare platforms.

That trend should intensify in 2026.

What This Means for Founders and Investors

For founders, the message is clear:

• Medtech companies with revenue, data, and defensible platforms should begin positioning now for 2026 IPO windows.

• Biotech companies should focus on value-inflecting clinical milestones and strategic optionality, not just public market readiness.

For investors, this shift creates opportunity:

• Public markets will likely reward medtech platforms that look more like healthcare-enabled technology companies.

• Private biotech portfolios may see the strongest returns through exits and structured partnerships, not necessarily IPOs.

The Potential Impact of Scientific Brain Drain on Early-Stage Biotech Valuation

Elm Innovation Advisors | July 2025

Valuation dynamics in early-stage biotech are shifting. While macroeconomic conditions, capital market volatility, and risk appetite remain the primary drivers of these changes, an emerging and less frequently discussed factor may be playing a growing role: the gradual erosion of U.S.-based scientific talent due to international recruitment and relocation.

Over the past two years, countries such as the UK, Singapore, Germany, and the UAE have launched aggressive initiatives to attract top-tier researchers, including translational scientists, academic founders, and early-stage biotech leaders. These initiatives offer compelling packages, streamlined visas, generous lab funding, and public-private partnerships, that appeal to scientific talent seeking long-term institutional support and reduced grant uncertainty. Anecdotal and early data suggest that a growing number of senior researchers are responding to these opportunities, choosing to relocate or split time across international hubs.

This trend raises important questions about how talent mobility might shape investor perceptions and valuation logic, especially for early-stage biotech companies where scientific leadership is central to perceived value.

Early-stage biotech valuations are not primarily driven by revenue or profitability. Instead, they hinge on a company’s scientific credibility, platform promise, IP defensibility, and, crucially, the strength and visibility of its founding and technical team. While it is too early to quantify precisely how talent migration is affecting valuations, there is a growing awareness among investors and boards that team continuity and geographic stability are factors worth paying attention to.

There are several ways in which scientific brain drain could influence valuation dynamics. First, the relocation or departure of prominent scientists may weaken the perceived credibility of the leadership team. Investors often view well-known scientific founders and CSOs as risk mitigants and signaling assets; when those individuals exit the U.S. ecosystem, or appear less accessible, confidence in execution and platform strength can be diminished. Second, transnational movement can disrupt IP frameworks. Changes in institutional affiliation, inventorship, or know-how continuity may introduce ambiguity into IP claims or commercial rights. Finally, talent turnover increases operational execution risk. In lean early-stage teams, the loss of a few key scientists can delay timelines, create reproducibility challenges, or require expensive team rebuilding, outcomes that directly affect modeling assumptions and investor conviction.

While these factors are rarely the sole explanation for valuation changes, they may interact with broader headwinds, such as tighter capital markets or increased investor selectivity, to amplify pricing pressure. Recent transactions suggest that median pre-money valuations for seed-stage biotech companies have declined from approximately $18 million in the 2021–2022 period to around $13 million in 2024–2025, reflecting a roughly 28% drop. Series A valuations show a similar trend, falling from a pre-2023 median of $55 million to approximately $42 million today, a 24% decrease. Series B valuations, by contrast, have remained more stable, decreasing slightly from $100 million to $95 million on average, likely due to the presence of clinical data and potentially more diversified teams at that stage.

While causality is difficult to isolate, investor conversations increasingly reference team stability, scientific commitment, and geographic dispersion as diligence priorities, particularly in situations where valuation expectations remain high despite operational or team flux.

For company leadership, this underscores the importance of treating scientific talent strategy as a core lever of enterprise value. Proactive retention planning, multi-site collaboration models, and clear succession structures may all serve to reduce perceived risk and preserve valuation strength. Boards and founders should also be prepared to articulate continuity plans during diligence, especially in capital raises or partnering conversations.

For investors, it may be time to evolve diligence approaches. Beyond evaluating IP and pipeline, assessing the depth and durability of scientific leadership may help inform pricing discipline and deal structure. Human capital risk is not new, but in an environment where institutional loyalty is weakening and global science is rising, the implications are becoming harder to ignore.

Legal and transaction advisors may also need to revisit their frameworks. Employment contracts, IP ownership provisions, and co-development agreements should reflect the increasing fluidity of global scientific talent. In cross-border licensing or M&A transactions, early identification of inventorship risk or jurisdictional uncertainty can help avoid downstream friction.

The biotech ecosystem has long benefited from geographic concentration, dense networks of scientists, companies, investors, and regulators in places like Boston, San Diego, and the Bay Area. That dynamic may be shifting. While the U.S. remains the global hub for biotech innovation, other regions are investing heavily in building infrastructure and attracting talent. For early-stage companies, this creates both a risk and an opportunity: the need to defend their core team, and the ability to expand strategically into emerging innovation centers.

At Elm Innovation Advisors, we see scientific leadership as a central input to valuation, not simply in terms of credentials, but in terms of continuity, focus, and strategic alignment. As the global scientific landscape evolves, so too must the way we evaluate early-stage companies. Talent flight may not be the definitive cause of valuation shifts, but it is increasingly part of the conversation. The companies that anticipate and adapt to this shift will be better positioned to preserve value, attract capital, and navigate a more globally competitive innovation economy.