What Matters to Corporate VCs in 2024? | LSI Europe '24

Ryan Roberts 00:00
Ryan. All right. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Ryan Roberts. I'm the Chief Commercial Officer with Veranex, and I'm pleased to welcome you all to what we're colloquially calling "What Strategics Want." Today, we'll spend time with some of the giants of the strategics, both in medicine and also in industry. We've got fantastic participants who are about to introduce themselves from Medtronic, from Intuitive Ventures, from the Mayo Clinic, the ventures portion of Mayo Clinic, and Boston Scientific. So please give a big round of applause for our panelists. And we'll get to some introductions, starting on my left, Dan, a little bit of an introduction, and maybe your fund, or funds, their purpose, some of the guiding principles, and just a high level, because, you know, we're going to get into the details of why you're here and what you're looking for.

Dan Sheehan 00:59
Yeah, great. I'm Dan Sheehan. I manage the corporate venture capital function at Medtronic. I joined Medtronic via COVID starting back in 2008 and have been leading the CVC ever since. We do not have a fund. We invest off the corporate balance sheet, and so we, you know, that has advantages and disadvantages, but we tend to get, you know, each significant financing, new or follow-on approved individually. Our corporate venture function, I would say, has some independence, but we heavily collaborate. So our mandate, quite simply, is, you know, the target company needs to be strategic, meaning we could see ourselves potentially acquiring someday if the company succeeded, and then after that, we're motivated by financial returns, and we measure and present those regularly.

Murielle Thinard McLane 02:16
So I lead Intuitive Ventures. We're actually set up almost like an institutional fund, where we have to close fund. The first one was $100 million, started in 2020, and now we have a second fund, $150 million, that we kicked off earlier this year. Our mandate is more of an ecosystem play. So we are investing in the world of reimagining minimally invasive care. And so we're looking at investment from first financial motivation standpoint and second strategic. So our mandate is pretty broad in terms of what we can take a look at. We do not need business unit support. Our investment committee members are really the C-level of Intuitive as well as former board members. Thank you.

Ryan Roberts 03:12
Nir, I promise you, we'd come back to you. Sure. There are reasons for this, which will become evident in a moment, but if we could go all the way to the end. Colin, tell us a little bit about how things work at Boston Scientific.

Colin Morrison 03:24
Happy to. Hi, I'm Colin Morrison with Boston Scientific Ventures. A lot of my answer is going to be very similar to Dan's. Not surprisingly, we are a pure strategic investor. We also invest off the balance sheet, as we like to say. That gives us a lot of flexibility in terms of stage and check size. We lead most of the rounds that we participate in, or our initial investments. And I think the only thing we're not flexible on is, again, as a pure strategic investor, and maybe even more so than Dan's answer may have indicated, we are very much joined at the hip with our business units and our divisions. The top of the funnel for us is the individual strategies of each business unit. So it's broad in the sense that we've got six individual business units that cover a broad variety of therapeutic areas, but it's very focused from the perspective that it definitely has to fit within the strategy of one of those business units. Both the venture team and the business unit need to sponsor, co-sponsor a potential investment. And I guess I'll leave it at that right now.

Ryan Roberts 04:42
There'll be more. You know, there'll be more. That's Nir Goldenberg, a different kind of a fund, being with a large, world-renowned academic medical institution. Describe a little bit, not only the table stakes here of what the fund is, how it's funded, what its thesis is, but what's the approach to investing when there's no M&A option at the end?

Nir Goldenberg 05:05
Thanks. So first, nice to meet you all. I'm Nir Goldenberg. I'm a director and a member of the executive committee at Mayo Clinic Ventures, and I'm leading the technology development function for the group. We have three internal funds through which we invest: a small-sized fund, a mid-sized fund, and a big-sized fund. The bigger one is a $770 million fund through which we invest towards many strategic opportunities, which represent a future significant position for Mayo as a key health system in the U.S. Generally speaking, we are investing from super early stage, including around new venture formation, and from there all the way to Series C. We will typically not invest post-Series C. Unlike others here, we will also not lead rounds. We are pre-opportunistic regarding our investment criteria, so we will invest in all the different technical pillars, from biopharma all the way to devices, diagnostics, and digital. That's it. Regarding your question, I know that's true. We are not in the M&A game. For us, we have two significant or important criteria that we are looking for in order to unlock our investment. One is we would try to identify a corporate development angle for a specific investment, which means that the technology developed by the company needs to be able to enhance a specific domain within Mayo. For example, this could be the practice. If we can identify a significant gap or unmet needs or an issue within the practice, and the company could eventually down the line, following deployment of the tech, help with addressing that need, we will consider investment. The second alternative would be that we would invest in companies with which we have an IP-oriented engagement. This could be, of course, companies that we spun out, that we created, or companies that have licensed IP from us, or companies that are entering into co-development with us. So these are the two high-level criteria that we are looking for in order to invest in companies.

Ryan Roberts 07:26
So Nir, let's keep going, and then we'll kind of go to the others that work for more traditional med-tech large-cap businesses. Does it matter? And when you're thinking of preferences for investment, does it matter whether the opportunity finds you, or you find the opportunity? Said differently, if it comes from inside, if there's an unmet clinical need with a cool technological idea, is that preferred, or is it something you go out and find that meets the same unmet need?

Nir Goldenberg 07:55
For us, we intentionally try to keep ourselves very opportunistic and not to have any strict definitions around that, and that makes sense. Our team is on the ground, you know, here at other conferences, meeting with industry, with companies, and then identifying prominent companies that we then bring in and introduce to different stakeholders at Mayo and, you know, kind of share and say, "Hey, this company is doing something really neat. What do you think about that?" We also expect our clinical leaders to come to us and say, "Hey, you know, we think that there is an issue here. If we can find technology that can help with that issue, that would be great." Sometimes they even come to us with a company that is on the radar. So it's an inherent push and pull dynamic, and we prefer to keep it that way.

Ryan Roberts 08:50
Yeah, for our corporate leaders that work with more traditional business units, same kind of question. Do you prefer opportunities that come from the BU saying, "Hey, we saw this on the outside. We'd like you to take a look," or is your responsibility also to look for things that could help the BU? Talk about the BU alignment and how that works.

Colin Morrison 09:04
So, I think from a... So, first of all, I mean, as I said, we're in constant communication together in terms of understanding and making sure the venture team appreciates what's the business unit strategy right now. Where are their strategic priorities? I would say, you know, probably like all of the strategics, corporate strategics up here, fortunately, we're not having to turn over a bunch of rocks to find opportunities. You know, they're often seeking to meet with us, and I would say it's about 50/50. Most of our sourcing comes 50% from our business unit, business development people, and our international, regional business development folks that are constantly meeting startups at society meetings, what have you. Then I would say about 50% actually come from our portfolio, where we're on several dozen boards, and so that's allowed us to form really broad relationships with the venture community. Oftentimes, we'll have conversations about portfolio companies that might be of interest. So I'd say it works out to be about 50/50.

Murielle Thinard McLane 10:18
How about in your world, BU alignment, and is there a preference?

Murielle Thinard McLane 10:24
So there's no BU alignment, per se. What we would see is the strategy of the BU helps us inform where they're going, and in the next 10 years, we'll look obviously at areas that may be ancillary to that. But from our perspective, it's much more aligned to our long-term strategy as well as what we see in the ecosystem. Like Colin, we formed deep relationships with institutional investors, so we see a lot of opportunities that way more than through the BU angle.

Ryan Roberts 11:01
Dan, plenty of business units, not a separate fund. How does that inform the decision-making and preference?

Dan Sheehan 11:13
Yeah, so it's actually not a metric that we track, but I would say it doesn't matter, and we have good relationships, collaborative relationships with our business units. So we're often, you know, joining each other for meetings, introductory meetings, pitches. We have an active portfolio, so we get inbound from the portfolio. I think, you know, I always view business units as sort of, you know, I don't mean to characterize, this is a gross generalization, but very, very myopically and a mile deep. But when you get, you know, 20 degrees to the periphery, on either side, the expertise and like an emerging, new, you know, technology area is, you know, we're sometimes in front of them on that.

Ryan Roberts 12:04
Which may make sense, yeah. If you're a business unit operator, you've got an operating plan coming up next year, and you're trying to figure out how to get there, where each of your roles seems a little more strategic, where might we be in five to 10 years with shots on goal?

Dan Sheehan 12:18
So I guess most of the strategy between, you know, the relative interest level, because we're willing to champion and originate, even if it's not on a specific strategic plan somewhere. I would say it's far from a surprise though when we bring something forward that might be a different perspective than, you know, a published strategy document.

Ryan Roberts 12:43
What about so? So one more on this thought of business unit alignment. If you can think of a deal or a project that you can disclose, what are shots that you might consider taking that have no obvious BU alignment? How do you think about those? Or maybe the corollary, what's completely off-limits? What are your guiding principles of what's off-limits? What would you never take a look at?

Dan Sheehan 13:21
So since you're here, when you go first, because you know when you go first, everyone else gets the chance to think about the answer, right?

Dan Sheehan 13:21
So Medtronic is a mission-driven company. So there are certain sectors that are not part of the mission. You know, aesthetic procedures are not part of the Medtronic mission. I know that because at COVID, we did extensive white space work. It was not just ventures, but it was across the company. One of the areas we were highly focused on when Medtronic acquired us was the aesthetic space. There were several emerging targets that were very promising, and we learned very quickly that that didn't fit the mission to restore health and improve lives. So that's a showstopper. We have so many business units we have not delved into even med-tech white spaces. For us, it would be ophthalmology or sports medicine, or, you know, orthopedic, non-spine orthopedics. So those are areas where we have, we don't even, you know, we'll take a meeting, potentially, if it's a relationship, but most of the time, we don't even engage.

Ryan Roberts 14:36
Murielle, any cardinal rules of things that would be completely off-limits?

Murielle Thinard McLane 14:40
So very similar to Dan, we have clinically meaningful is important to us, so impact on the patient, so aesthetic would be off-limits from that standpoint. The other obvious one is biotech, so we don't take molecule risk from that standpoint. So those are the two that I would say are definitely off-limits—anything that doesn't fit into that world of minimally invasive care. So I'm sure there's more to it, but we'll look at ophthalmology. We'll look at areas where Intuitive is not present, obviously, with a certain angle to it. But I think we have a bit of a broader mandate than Medtronic or Boston from that standpoint.

Ryan Roberts 15:27
Nir, off-limits guiding principles?

Nir Goldenberg 15:31
I think that for us, as long as we can see that there is a clear benefit for patients, we would consider, you know, to partner, to collaborate, to invest. So there needs to be a very clear alignment with Mayo's mission, which is, you know, the needs of the patients. The patient comes first. So that's the only kind of high-level criteria. Regarding that dynamic with business units and what is off-limits, I think it's an interesting question. Sometimes you do, mainly when you are trying to innovate for a health system, you're trying to bring new technology into the practice or into different domains. Sometimes there is some inherent tension, and people are concerned. For example, currently, you see that quite a lot. We see that around automation, right? When you're kind of evaluating, again, collaborations or investments in automation-oriented companies, there would be always some concern internally. This could be within a specific cohort, let's say nursing or surgeons, or so on and so forth. So there is always a joint discussion, and we try to, you know, listen to those voices, but then still bring that innovation in and then see how do we provide better care and enhance the way we are positioned again for the benefit of patients?

Ryan Roberts 16:52
You know the question that's coming, but I'm going to ask a follow-up when you're when you're finished, so get yeah strategically, or just cardinal rules. Where do you not want to play?

Colin Morrison 17:00
Yeah. So let me maybe first answer by our initial filters on every opportunity we look at. So I'm going to sort of answer it through the other end of the lens, if you will. But we did the simplest way would be to think about it as, is it a call point that we currently call on? And do we have a commercial footprint within that call point? Because especially, I mean, we're not as large as Medtronic, there are sort of the obvious bottom line investment conversations that would take place because of the expense of setting up completely new independent infrastructure, say, standing up a new division, right? That's obviously a massive investment that, while you never say never, and could be up here in a few years taking back these words, but for today, that's probably not an area that we're going to go forward with.

Ryan Roberts 18:00
Thanks. Follow-on question. I'm thinking about the innovators in the room. Thinking about whether inviting a strategic to the party or being invited by you to your party makes sense when you get down into actual deal evaluation. What influences? What are the top three things that influence go or no-go decisions to even move forward, let alone strike a deal?

Colin Morrison 18:25
Yeah, so maybe I'll start off on that one. Figure we're going, yeah, going back this way. Enter here. I've totally beat up the strategic fit. So, all right, set that aside. I think the simplest way that we sort of look at this, if there is a strategic fit, I mean, you oversimplified. You think about it in terms of team, technology, terms, and timing—those are the four core questions we ask and form the basis of our diligence, forming the basis of really identifying those, call it five to seven key questions that you need to have answered affirmatively before you would consider investing in a company. Most of the time, most startups, you know, depending on the stage, will have two or four, three or four. Oftentimes, that means it's not a no. It means it's sort of more of a no, just not now. Broadly speaking, that's sort of our approach and the way we look at all of these areas. Probably the biggest challenge that we encounter, that may be more specific, is when you have a really early-stage company, and most of our investments end up being Series A, Series B. We're not afraid to go early by any stretch, but when you start stacking the risks, and I'm sure all the innovators out here hear this from the financial investors as well. But, you know, how much has the founder, the CEO, have they thought through just that, even at a high level, appreciating and understanding the risks that are coming down the road, even though you're not there, you're not funded, you're not ready to address it yet today. But beyond clinical strategy, regulatory pathway, do you have an understanding of where that fits, but then also operations? Are you designing the product from the get-go with an idea for future scalability of the product, or is it going to require a full design for manufacturing project after a potential future acquisition? And then, of course, particularly to the U.S. market, the sort of issue that tends to catch a lot of really, really great ideas and make it difficult to move is the reimbursement landscape and how clear that is, or how much work there's really still in front of that area. So that's kind of how we look at it.

Ryan Roberts 21:06
So Nir or Murielle or Dan, do you think Colin's got all the answers? Or do you guys take a different look at it? What do you agree with, and how might you look at it differently?

Murielle Thinard McLane 21:16
So I think I'll add two things. SUD, how transformational for us. We're really looking at it from that lens as well as what is the expected return for us as we're looking at it more as an independent than calling maybe.

Nir Goldenberg 21:35
Do you have a perspective?

Nir Goldenberg 21:37
I think pretty similar, maybe a bit different. I think team for sure agree. And then novelty, strong and unique IP position, which is kind of, you know, sometimes guarantees that there is a potential for the company to be, you know, unique and to transform or disrupt the specific segment. Then clinical or pre-clinical evidence, clear one, high clarity there is required. And then, of course, market potential, which is, you know, this is kind of high-level definition for reimbursement and clarity around what's the goal to market strategy, and so on and so forth. I think these are the key four buckets that we are assessing around our due diligence.

Dan Sheehan 22:25
Yeah, so I don't really have anything to add. I think it's all been covered. I think as I've, how shall we say it, maybe matured or aged, whatever in this field, I think it's still, I like to be a little more spontaneous than, you know, a 10-line checklist. I think every now and then, a technology or a company has a clear value proposition, and that's really compelling. They may not have all the rest of the boxes checked, but because of a business somewhere at Medtronic, I understand how that value proposition resonates. And so that's the fun part. I think when, and, you know, sometimes those aren't even provable with level one evidence per se. There are more, you know, time savers, you know, or market growers that may be considered somewhat incremental, but they can be quite exciting.

Ryan Roberts 23:44
Colin, I like what you said about, I'll rephrase this, kind of thinking with the end in mind, right, in the context of take the right shot into the right segment, which might be evolving or changing, and think back through your regulatory strategy, your reimbursement strategy, all the way through getting it from the napkin to the first pilot that can go to before human interaction. There are hundreds of things, especially in early-stage companies, that can go wrong. So Dan, I don't know if you've got some fun anecdotal stories of, man, we took this shot, and I couldn't believe it, but this is the way it went wrong. But when you think about our audience, you think about, what are your heuristics, what are your rules of thumb? When you think about when I'm going to make a bet, what's in the back of your mind of what could go wrong, and what guidance would you give to the audience?

Dan Sheehan 24:35
Yeah, so, I mean, so it's basically a science-based process, so it is trial and error. Everything you do in innovation is trial and error. So I think it's a matter of, you know, can you move the pile toward the end game in an appropriate enough fashion? Because, you know, I used to more than half of the things on my thesis when we close an investment going wrong, it's just, it's not an if, it's a when. If you can keep control of all the variables on the scientific experiments, so that you know what to do next and how to reshape the program, the company, the target market, so on and so forth.

Ryan Roberts 25:27
Yeah. So you guys have all done dozens, if not hundreds, of deals. Maybe turn the coin over to the other side. What are your rules of thumb? Are you saying with if everything else were equal? That's what I like to see, because that's when it always goes right. Do you have any advice for the audience in terms of what they must have? We've heard other panelists today talk about passion, and did they put their own money in, and are they convicted to the cause? And is there talent? What are your heuristics, or rules of thumb, when you say, if it doesn't have that, I'm not sure if they can make it?

Colin Morrison 26:01
So a lot of that is probably the stage of the company. Are we talking about a company that's got 30 to 100 employees, or is this, you know, an entrepreneur with an idea and maybe two employees, you know, and an advisor? So it really varies. But if we're talking about the early stage, then again, I think there are a ton of those intangibles, and I want to pick up a little bit of what Dan said is, and I couldn't agree more. So I'm 28 years into this as a strategic. I've never been on the other side, but interacting with the innovators out there and the entrepreneurs, I'm continuously humbled by the passion, the effort, the flexibility, the sort of like—and I heard a great comment, oh gosh, not too long ago, from the founder of Inari, who basically said, if you're in startup land and you're not having one near-death experience a year, right, you're not trying hard enough. So what I would just emphasize is that one, like Dan said perfectly, we expect half the stuff to go different than planned. Two, and I'm sure this is the case with all of the companies up here, when we make an investment, we're more than a check, and that's really important. We actually, while not being prescriptive of, "Hey, you need to do this this way," we make all of our different functional areas open to being sounding boards, providing feedback, and it's everything from, you know, operational issues on the manufacturing line to protocol design and development to appreciating regulatory pathways. So, I mean, we're there to be side by side once we're in. I know you had earlier mentioned about when's the right time to bring a strategic on, and I think that's completely individual from company to company, and you have to make that call, but there are definitely, you know, there are puts and takes, pros and cons, for sure, but there are a lot of pros to having a strategic on your cap table.

Murielle Thinard McLane 28:25
I'll add to Colin. I think team is really important, and the CEO in particular. So you talked about a lot of the characteristics, and I will say grit and resourcefulness. It's really, really important because there will be tons of pivots or things that go wrong, and being able to manage that with clarity, going back to first principles, is really, really important—intellectual honesty from that standpoint—and leveraging your board. I mean, we're there as more than a check. That's why you bring a strategic to the table. So being open to receive advice from those of us who have seen it from this side or the other side, I have been on the other side. It's not for the faint of heart. I have a ton of admiration for it. So just being able to take all that input and that resources that are frankly coming with or along with the check is an important piece that we will look at as we evaluate companies, and that's part of the intangible and the magic, right?

Nir Goldenberg 29:28
I totally agree. I think that, you know, previously, you asked us, what do we evaluate when we do our due diligence, and we, some of us, said team, right? I think this is what we mean when we say team. We all know, like, just off the bat, it's going to be, they're going to be some method, right? It's a methodical process, and it's a trial and error. But for sure, there are going to be some chaos. We hope to see that there is a good team that will be able to master the known, but also master the unknown, and to go through all those pivots and find the right way to move forward, and just go through those challenges and just keep on pushing the technology forward, company forward, to bring it all the way to the finish line, to bring the solution to the patient. So I think this is what we mean when we say a good team. That's what's behind that.

Ryan Roberts 30:20
Let's shift gears a little bit. You've got global perspectives. This is clearly a global audience. What does your experience over the last few years with respect to regulatory changes? How does that influence how you're thinking about investments, and what advice can you give to our audience? I mean, if you like MDR, you're really going to like cybersecurity and PFAs, right? What have you seen in the changes, and what does it mean for this audience?

Colin Morrison 30:52
I'll go ahead and just start, and I'm sure lots to add in there. But first of all, I think fundamentally, we've seen a shift from being probably 10 years ago, primarily a U.S.-based portfolio, to now. I would say in recent years, we're probably doing at least 30, if not 40% of our deals with U.S. companies. I think there has been a ton of innovation now coming out of Europe. We're seeing a spike in new company formation, really clever ideas, but also Asia. I mean, 10 years ago, I wouldn't even visit Asia because it just wasn't worth the time. So I definitely see a globalization of opportunities in venture. I guess I think individually, clearly as it relates to Europe, since here we are in Portugal, I mean, yeah, the MDR piece, the other shift. It used to be the obvious, "Hey, CE mark, get clinical experience in Europe, then go to the U.S." Now, I would say half, if not most, of even European-based companies are looking at the U.S. market for EFS versus initial experience in Europe, or a 50/50 split.

Ryan Roberts 32:22
Maybe I'll add to the question. So same question, maybe with an enhancement. Does it matter where your investment target is thinking they're going to launch? What have you learned about regulatory? What's your advice, and does it matter in your evaluation?

Nir Goldenberg 32:39
I think it doesn't really matter. I think that it's a case-by-case decision. I think that if there is a strong rationale behind, you know, which territory or geography you're going to launch first, and it's clear, and the thought process is clear, I think that's the important piece. Just to add to what Colin said, I think we are all in the same boat. We're all, you know, with the shift from the MDD to the MDR. I think we are all seeing, you know, those just stricter regulations and those increased costs, and also those delayed certifications, which is painful for all the industry. So I think, you know, today, we're trying to be sensitive and then work closely with European companies and sometimes guide them and let them, you know, kind of think and learn how what will be the first good steps towards the U.S. market. So how do you think about your go-to-market pathway? How do you think about your initial commercial steps into the U.S.? I agree with Colin regarding the deal flow. We're seeing the same many prominent companies, very good technology coming out of Europe and Asia, which is great to see.

Ryan Roberts 33:57
Murielle or Dan, does it matter in your investment thesis what their target market is for launch?

Murielle Thinard McLane 34:03
I would say, however, now it makes it all the more important to have a very well-defined FDA pathway and really think through that than before, because this is going to be the way to the market. Europe is sort of not an afterthought, unfortunately, but with MDR, it's created some complexity to leverage the European market. I would say, I would echo what Nir and Colin have said. There's a lot of good technology in Europe, and I think with MDR, it's actually made them focus more on the U.S. market earlier and in some ways has been beneficial to those companies, though it's created some headwind because now they really have to think early on about that U.S. path, which for most med-tech companies will be 40% of your revenue down the line. So I actually think that rigor is a welcome rigor on one hand, while at the same time, yes, creating some delays.

Dan Sheehan 35:08
Yeah. So I, you know, it does not make a difference to us what the initial target market is, but like Murielle, I think the U.S. has to figure prominently in your clinical evidence and evidence-generating strategy, and you know, especially as it plays to reimbursement.

Ryan Roberts 35:33
All right, with an eye on the clock in respect to the audience and what comes next? We'll go rapid-fire, two-part question. When's the right time to bring in a strategic, and without inciting a riot, can two strategics play in the same sandbox? Dan, go first.

Dan Sheehan 35:51
Yes and yes. I'm biased, so I think, you know, I think strategics bring value to syndicates, and I've been involved in multiple situations where we're not the only strategic in the room. I think, as a starting-out place, it's not any of our preferred places to be, but at the end of the day, you know, I think strategics can coexist. I've worked closely in a couple of companies in my current portfolio, where we've actually collaborated to help lead tough decisions at the board level on financing with, you know, the two strategics in the room. So, you know, I know the hypothesis of, you know, zero is the best and two is better, or, you know, one is a problem. I think we're becoming much more ubiquitous, and the provider base of investors is growing significantly, in my opinion, and we're doing a lot more with them, and they bring a great different set of eyes and a whole bunch of skill sets to the party that are welcome.

Ryan Roberts 37:17
Colin and Murielle, same perspective, or does yours differ?

Colin Morrison 37:21
I mean, I'd say, by and large, the same. I think the added flavors I'd put is that, just like as you envision the construct of your board and how important it is to have a highly functioning board, well, the strategic participation, 0, 1, or 2, plays into that. But no different than there are certain financial investors that you don't want to put in the same room together. So I think it, you know, you have to look at it through the lens of what's going to be most beneficial for your company. Like everything else, there are pros and cons, puts and takes. The potential con of having two strategics is that it might cause both strategics to sort of pull back just a little bit or be more circumspect of the non-financial help, just knowing that it might end up in the hands of a direct competitor. But having said that, I mean, Dan's a great guy. Well, it's just, it depends on the situation and what flavor of strategic.

Nir Goldenberg 38:37
You're good with the strategic in your sandbox?

Nir Goldenberg 38:41
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we do that. So we co-invest with other health system venture arms. I think, generally speaking, it brings tons of value. There are sometimes some challenges, but I think it's a good thing. So I'm okay with that. I think for the companies here, if you could get to that structure, I think it's very good for the company.

Ryan Roberts 39:02
All right, in 10 seconds or less, we'll see how the executives do it. Executive Summary, what's your one piece of advice for an innovator in the room if they're considering having a strategic in their investment scheme? Go right down the line.

Unknown Speaker 39:16
Oh boy.

Colin Morrison 39:17
I think I've been long-winded this whole conversation, so we'll...

Unknown Speaker 39:21
Go to you, one piece of wisdom.

Nir Goldenberg 39:24
I think just, I think the joint dialogue is super important. I think for us to listen to the company and the company listening to us, getting to know each other, and truly listening and getting to understand what is important and what is not important. I think that's the key.

Ryan Roberts 39:41
One vice: clear and consistent and transparent communication, right? Got it.

Murielle Thinard McLane 39:49
That's a good one. In addition to that, I would say strategics are actually, you know, could be a very valuable asset on your cap table. Think of them as... seeing that right? They come in with so much success behind them. Leverage that as much as you can. You will not find the level of depth and resources from any of us and what I'm saying with the corporation that are behind us in an institutional, no offense to the institutional, that's not how they built, so leverage it.

Ryan Roberts 40:21
Clear, transparent communication. Leverage the experience and be humble enough to listen. I feel like I'm in marriage therapy. Dan?

Dan Sheehan 40:30
Yeah, I'm not sure I can boil it down to one sound bite. I think life is all about people. So the people that you're interfacing with at the strategic matter, and so, you know, I think we view the relationship the same way the relationship with the entrepreneur and the board matters so well.

Ryan Roberts 40:54
On behalf of LSI and certainly on behalf of the audience, I want to thank our panelists. Let's give them a big round of applause.