Thank you so much. It is my absolute pleasure to be joined today by Dr. Maria Berkman to talk about how to become a tech VC without really trying. My name is Jennifer Silva. Before I let Maria start telling us about her path, I want to tell you how I first heard about Maria. We didn't plan that. I didn't tell you. So. Speaker's notes. I know. I didn't put it in the speaker's notes because I thought you would get. Well, as many of you know, I've been very fortunate. I work as a pediatric electrophysiologist in St. Louis, and I've had the opportunity to found two companies. What that means is that you go out with a little tin can, asking lots of people for money. And somebody very early on into our first company said, oh, you're a female founder. You need to go find Maria Berkman, and you need to make her your friend. And I was like, I don't know who this person is. So I LinkedIned you. I looked you up on LinkedIn. And I read about all of your accomplishments. Now, in full disclosure, Sentier did pitch to Broadview and is not a Broadview portfolio company. But just knowing that the ecosystem of innovation and cardiology was trying to link us together made me want maybe be very interested in your career path. So I'm actually quite delighted to be up here with you today. Thank you. I'm delighted to be here with you. And I remember those early meetings well. And continue to think really highly of everything you've built. And we'll talk about venture and success rates of companies pitching to VCs. And with a 1% funding line, most people I meet don't end up in our portfolio. But the relationships often outlast the initial introductions. That's right. And I think we're going to touch on that as we go through our session today. Quick note of housekeeping. If you have questions for Dr. Berkman, please put them in the app, and I will get to them and thread them into our conversation today. So I thought we would just start super easy now. Tell us a little bit about your path. You have a really interesting story. So I was thinking about this on my flight here and last night. It's always interesting for me to think about my own path and the degree to which it was planned versus unplanned. And the honest answer is it was never planned. Right? And if we jig way back, and I go back, you know, 25 years, I don't know a single 18-year-old that knows what they want to do really, you know, with specificity and determination as they're entering college. And yet that is when if you have an inkling of wanting to be a physician, you have to make that call. So I think I was very much a kid who wanted to do the hard things first. I think I didn't have the terminology for it, but I always understood option value, the ability to keep all my options open. And so I made the somewhat simple-minded decision to become premed because I thought, well, the hardest thing I could possibly choose is being a heart surgeon. So I'll just be premed, I'll see if it works for me, if I like it. And, you know, seven, eight years later, I was a third-year medical student at UCLA and actually really loving my medical school years, really loving my clinical years in particular, being in the OR, being with surgical colleagues. I think there was a pivotal sort of turning point, and I had to think back to when my eyes opened to the industry side of the medical world. Never mind the investment side, that didn't come until much later. But this was UCLA, early to mid-2000s, so a solid 20 years ago. Back then, it was certainly in our institution, there was a firewall between big pharma, big med tech, and the practice of medicine. Down to silly things like, and I hope UCLA administrators aren't in here, but we had a pen exchange. If you were a medical student caught with a pharma pen, you had to turn it in and get a UCLA pen in exchange because they didn't want our minds tainted by industry influence. We didn't learn any brand names, right? So we only knew molecular names of drugs, and then we'd land in clinic, and a patient would ask us for something simple, and we're like, I don't know what that is. So we're digging through our palm pilots, which is what we had back then, to figure out what it is the patient's even asking us for. So I was very naive to the industry and, you know, getting a very much a purist medical education. And then I do remember this one. I was telling one of my portfolio companies about this yesterday. There's one day I was on a surgical rotation. I was the third year med student. I was with two interns, a couple of fellows, and the attending physician, and we went out to lunch just to grab a quick bite just outside the hospital. There was a patient, a person at the bus stop, having what we assume is an MI, kind of the classic, you know, hand over chest, in a lot of pain, and there was nothing we could do for him. We had five fully trained MDs and me, and you know what we did? We called the ambulance to come from across the street and get him, because without the proverbial bag, we had no tools other than administering CPR, which this person didn't need yet, and it started to dawn on me the degree to which modern medicine is really grounded in the tools that we leverage every day. And I started to really wonder about everything that happens from invention through financing through commercialization to get tools into physicians' proverbial bags. That was when I realized, you know, maybe an MBA would be A, fun, B, give me a year to think, C, kind of open my eyes to what's happening on the innovation industry side of the ecosystem. So I added on an MBA. I became a dual degree student. I then, I think, you know, hardest choice I've ever made in my life was whether to pursue full-time residency versus or a full-blown residency versus management consulting, and management consulting was indeed, you know, something I, it was something I tried as a summer MBA, and it was a space where I thought, well, for someone who's coming into business school with no knowledge whatsoever of business, what's the absolute fastest way I can see lots of different industries, lots of different business models? And so I came out to Boston, did a summer internship at a firm called Monitor Group, and ultimately this is where my path kind of, you know, is a little bit, it's not a straight line. I, it was 2008, and, you know, Lehman Brothers had just closed. I was graduating with both my degrees, and I thought, let me go hide in residency for a year because the business world seems to be in disarray. So I came out to Boston. I was in the Mass General Brigham System as an intern, and I did a year of training, just enough to maintain a license and keep the door open, again, back to a kind of optionality and option value. But ultimately, you know, I think I checked the box on knowing that maybe patient care wasn't what I wanted to do for 40 plus years, and went into management consulting, spent two great years at Monitor Group, really saw, you know, Fortune 100 pharma companies, med tech companies. You just introduced me to one of my former clients here. And I have to, at this point, credit the Boston ecosystem with exposing me to venture. Boston uniquely has just, you know, a culture of innovation with all the academic medical centers, incubators, and VCs, all within a very small radius of each other. And over time, I realized, you know, this sounds like it would be the perfect blend where I could leverage both my medical training and my business training, and really have a lot of fun along the way. So 2012, I met the nascent Broadview Ventures team. I took a big risk. I didn't, I don't know that I fully appreciated at the time that I was coming on board as the second full-time investor into the firm. And I've been there since, and we now have a team of 11 people and invest broadly across everything and anything cardiovascular, stroke, cardiometabolic, and immediately adjacent spaces as well. Yeah, I think that your story, I didn't know the details of, so thanks for sharing that. I think that the dual MD, MBA phenotype is more common these days than it was when you were pursuing it. I think so. It, you know, when I was pursuing it out of, I think, 120 medical students, seven of us became dual degree, and I'm the only one who left practice. Yeah, so it is still quite rare, but, and I meant to look up the current numbers, I think it is becoming more accepted. It's becoming a, you know, a path that's a little bit better trodden. So I always say, you know, there aren't a lot of, not a lot of MDs leave practice, but when you look at now my world, the venture world, there are a lot of MDs in the venture practice. Yeah. I teach the med students at Wash U, and there is a strong cohort for MD, MBAs, and it's always interesting to hear why they do it. Yeah. Very rarely do they talk about financing and venture, but we can get to that. We can get to that later. In our session, we're talking about how to become a tech VC. You're med tech. Correct. Can you talk a little bit about the differences, the definitions, what's unique? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the title of our talk is tongue in cheek. I'm not a tech VC. I actually know very little about tech, but I've been forced to learn quickly. But first, let me, let me start with med tech. So, you know, med tech, first of all, is, it's a sub sector of life science venture, which is a sub sector of venture broadly. And so it's a, it's a relatively small ecosystem. You know, the number of venture funds that exclusively focus on med tech is, it's relatively limited. You know, there are probably less than a hundred funds. And the, you know, the, the willingness and the interest to invest in med tech has, it's really, you know, way kind of ebbed and flowed over the years. Yesterday in the cardiovascular investment discussion, there was some conversation about whether we're currently in a bit of a downturn and all those dynamics kind of, you know, move through med tech, just like any other sector of venture. But I, what I've really come to appreciate and enjoy about med tech investing is I do think it's a, it's a very dedicated group of investors. So a lot of us who've been doing it, you know, who started in it relatively young, we really stay with it for years and many cases, decades. We always say there are far easier ways to make money than med tech VC. Because innovation takes a very long time. You have to be very patient with your time and your capital. And look, by definition, we are dealing with, and we're investing in technologies that aim to treat the sickest of the sick patients. So I find that what I've really enjoyed about med tech venture is it is a dedicated, passionate group of investors who celebrate the clinical wins just as much as the financial wins. Yes. When you hear med tech VCs bragging, it is often about the pivotal trial that was successful, the product that got approved, you know, the product that became standard of care and changed guideline therapy, not the multiple that we made on that investment and innovation. So I think that, you know, maybe I'm drinking my own Kool-Aid, but it's a space I've really enjoyed. Now, tech, right? Yeah. Big tech. Tech has big tech. So we talk about big tech and kind of tech venture. When I started 12 years ago, we were very much separate camps. So tech VCs and med tech VCs didn't go to the same conferences. We really didn't invest in the same companies. I think we spoke slightly different languages. Check sizes were different. And as big tech focused on really direct to consumer, right? Innovation, the kind of, you know, Ubers and open tables and Amazons and all of that sort of like consumer facing innovations. We continue to really focus on taking what was, you know, surgical standard of care and evolving it to minimally invasive, to structural heart EP kind of, you know, and I'm speaking about cardiovascular primarily here. Over the last, I'd say, five to seven years, I mean, in some ways, I think there are a couple of things happening. In big tech, a lot of the low hanging fruit has been arguably gathered, right? I mean, we can get anything delivered within 24 hours. Transportation industry, you know, consumer goods, all of that has been kind of techified. Healthcare hasn't been nearly to the same degree. And so I think it's natural that big tech is starting to look more and more at healthcare as the next major frontier. In parallel, where med tech VCs have, I think, and med tech innovators and big med tech has to be credited with this. I think there have been a lot of major unmet needs relatively well addressed, right? We have TAVR, we have good coronary solutions. It's not to say we've solved it all, but we have a reasonably robust set of pumps, cardiac pumps and circulatory support devices on market, et cetera. So, as we've managed to improve, you know, patient engagement in the hospital, in the clinic, and their treatment in the cath lab EP suite OR, where we've really struggled is knowing what happens to our patients outside of those touch points, right? And so that is the and that's where big tech shines, right? I think where big tech has really improved things is connectivity and efficiency. Both of which we desperately need in healthcare delivery in particular and in our engagement with patients between their clinic visits, admissions, and so forth. So, there's this convergence now, which seems natural, and yet it doesn't feel that natural when you look at what happens on the ground in any given company and when these different phenotypes of investors try to come together. Yeah, I will tell you from the outside looking in, the investors are quite different when you talk to tech investors versus med tech investors. But one thing I do really appreciate, and I even noticed this yesterday on the panel, is that there is a collegiality amongst med tech investors. It's a small enough group that you know each other. I think generally you like each other. I'll say that just having watched it from the outside. And that you often have talked about similar companies, and so you're following up with each other, whether or not it's part of your portfolio, because there is this dedication to advancing the field in general. Right. Which I think is unique. It is. It is. And so now, you know, sort of back to the title, I mean, I think all of us in med tech investing are learning quickly and doing our best to, you know, in a kind of med tech appropriate way, figure out that next frontier of digital AI enabled, ML enabled innovation. I think, so here's some of the dynamics at play. For the med tech investors, a lot of us are mechanistic investors. We want to be able to describe the mechanism of action super crisply to ourselves, to our investment committees, to the physicians we speak with, when we're talking about a portfolio company. That's really hard to do with AI. I can't for the life of me describe to you how the machine learning algorithm that powers one of my portfolio companies actually works. I'm really honest about that. What does that mean? That means we're now as we move into that frontier of innovation, we're finding experts, we're actually going out to the kind of the tech ecosystem and finding experts who can help us do the diligence and validate that what we're investing in is real, viable, patient appropriate, safe, reliable. I mean, these are major questions. Culturally, when you think about, I'm sure if there was a tech VC in here, they'd disagree with me, but the adage you always hear about, what do they say? Run fast and break things or fail fast and break. We can't break things because we don't work with things, we work with patients. There's this cultural kind of understanding emerging from the tech side that, oh, we're in a regulated field now, so not only is there the FDA, but there's just the Hippocratic oath that every one of our PIs, implanting physicians, and many of us as well, took to, hey, do no harm. We can't be reckless. We have to take things in a more measured manner. We'll see how much of a stomach tech VCs have for that kind of more measured pace of of med tech. Of med tech risking and getting through to approval. I think this is classic, right? I recall early on, when we were doing early R&D for Centier, we were pitching to a local high net worth individual who was the founder of Answers.com, if you remember that old website. But turns out, as an undergrad student, when he built that platform with his buddy, they were able to sell that, and now they're investors. And the first thing he said to me is that you need to try this in patients now. And I was like, you're insane. We're nowhere near ready to try this in patients. I thought the first thing he'd ask you was, what's your ARR? He didn't. He didn't. It followed. And then he asked how quickly could I sell things? And I was shocked that that was the first thing on his mind. He's like, you have to go straight to that. And I said, well, there's all of this other stuff. And he said, I don't think you and I talk the same language. Now, he's lovely, right? His son goes to school with my son, and I still see him every day. And he's like, you're still working on that. Kills me. Yes, I am still working on that. Because it takes a long time. It takes on average 12 to 20 years, if we're really honest. Yes. Right? If we're really honest, one of the biggest success stories is from our portfolio is actually it's what became the evoke valve, the tricuspid valve that just got approved. We put our very first check into Cardi AQ in 2009. Approval happened early this year. So we went from literally garage-based innovation to co-founders. First, I think we put in $750,000 modest convertible note to first in human five years later to purchase by Edwards another two or three years later. And then all of the pivotal work that was now very well funded, right? With Edwards being able to support a very robust effort. And still, it's a 15-year, right? So this isn't to be doom and gloom. It's just I think we're all learning quickly. Yes. MedTech VCs are learning about tech rapidly. We're doing our best to keep up. You know, we are looking for partners in tech who can help us de-risk the technology where we can help them de-risk the clinical side of the equation. The other dynamic is, you know, when you build a company that's purely MedTech, you know how to build that company from you, the proverbial you, I guess we, who engage in company building in terms of how to staff it, right? So you'll have your technical team. You'll have clinical, regulatory. You'll have, of course, you know, commercial. If you're so lucky one day, et cetera, kind of the usual. In tech-enabled companies, you're also layering in a hardware or software and or hardware kind of verticals and expertise. Hardware is hard. The regulatory path is different, right? Software as a medical device is a brand new path that we're navigating, so your regulatory expertise has to evolve with it. It does roll up to slightly larger, more robustly staffed companies from the get-go, which unfortunately makes them a bit more expensive to get off the ground. Up front, that's right. Up front, yeah. So there are many more permutations, but that's kind of a starter on how the two are coming together. I think it's really interesting, and I recently was at the University of Chicago where they termed another tech. It was called Deep Tech. And I was like, OK, you have me at a disadvantage. What is this? And they're just like, it's basically all of it. OK, great. So there's another thing that I now have to pay attention to. There's always a new thing. Wonderful. Your background and your degree as an MD, how does that impact you as a med tech investor? What is positives, negatives, thoughts? Not knowing what I don't know, I guess. I mean, it feels like a shortcut, a little bit. It feels like a little bit of cheating, because I can ramp up on things pretty quickly. So it's been a long time since I've seen patients, but I can still speak the language mostly. I still have a good foundational understanding of pathophysiology, anatomy, to some degree pharmacology. So it helps in the ramp up, which we need, because a lot of venture is pattern recognition. And it's being able to triage a large number of opportunities very quickly. And really, I mean, we talk about pattern recognition, gut instinct. It really is a decade plus of seeing innovation, seeing pitch decks. How much of that is my MD? I don't know. It's hard to quantify, but sometimes it does feel like a little bit of a shortcut that I don't mind. Well, you're in a room of many electrophysiologists. So when you say pattern recognition, our ears perk up. We're good at this. So what is the pattern? What is the pattern? Or what are some insights on some patterns? As far as what we look for. Yeah. Yes. So maybe let me start by speaking just to our fund, because this is another thing that we'll touch on later. When you've met one venture fund, you've met one venture fund. So we all have different investment mandates. We have whether you're speaking to someone who's a traditional VC or someone like me where I'm managing an organization that's a philanthropically funded, mission-oriented investor. We all have different promises we've made to those who fund us. For Broadview, what that means is we're really looking for first in class, best in class, often high risk, but high reward innovation. So a very important filter for us is we won't do me-tos. We don't do a lot of fast followers. I mean, we shouldn't be doing any. And we really look at line of sight to improving patient care, whether that's hard outcomes, quality of life, or another metric that we can robustly point to to say, you know what, this will improve the standard of care for patients in the population that this startup is trying to address. So very much kind of a patient first approach. It's going to be different for every VC, right? But whatever that first criteria is, you have to meet that. And then as we start to get to know companies, all the other factors come into play, the team. I mean, I can't speak enough to how much team matters. And not just the expertise of the founders or the founding managing team, but can you see yourself really partnering for many years, right? We often say it's harder to get out of an investment than a marriage. And sometimes that's true. So when we invest, we assume we'll be working with that company for three to 10 years, right? So we look for teams that are exceptionally talented, but also exceptionally good to work with. I can tell you being married to my co-founder, there is some truth in that. There is some truth in that. What do you think the future of VC investments looks like? If you had a crystal ball, what would it tell you? I don't have a crystal ball. I hope AI doesn't replace me. I hope that's not the future of venture investing. No, look, I think innovation is moving very quickly. I'm really excited to see what happens with pockets of innovation like nanotechnology, material science innovation. Some discrete examples, we're currently looking for and actually doing a search for a truly durable, low-cost polymeric valve. That's one example of material innovation that we're particularly excited about. But beyond that, I don't know that anyone can see more than five to seven years into the future. So we're seeing what's happening at incubators and academic medical centers and what's just happening in labs across the country. And we're really excited about a lot of it. And cautiously optimistic that that's going to all start bubbling up into patient-directed innovation soon. We have a couple of audience questions that I thought I would throw in, if that's OK. Yeah, perfect. So the first question is, do you need to have subject matter expertise for the tech and medicine part? How do you ensure a funding group has the support to understand what you're presenting? It's an interesting question. That's a great question. How do you know? So is another way of saying it, how do you as an innovator, entrepreneur, know that you're speaking to an educated audience? Yeah, so I think of this question and I think about it as there's this magical unicorn that I'm sure you've heard of called the smart investor. What is that magical unicorn? I have been fortunate to have met lots of investors that I just like. And I'm like, I like you. I think I can work with you. I think that makes you a smart investor. I don't know. Yeah, that's a great question. So I think first and foremost, it's really important to acknowledge that we as VCs don't know everything. We can't, right? I mean, in the same way that there's no longer such a thing as a general cardiologist who does structural and EP and heart failure and pediatric, we can't know everything. Right. So. None of us can. None of us can. So we leverage a lot of other smart people, right? And so one way, if you're, I'm assuming this question's coming from a startup, if you're looking at a VC and thinking about approaching them, go on their website. I mean, I know it sounds super simple, but VCs typically list all of their advisors right on their website. So you'll see the flavor of technical experts or clinical experts that we're working with to evaluate technologies. They're not all going to show up on the first call, right? That's just not going to happen from a bandwidth and kind of practical standpoint. But what I think we train our teams to do is, again, I'm going to keep saying pattern recognition, is to recognize it's to have a high degree of sensitivity, right? We don't want to miss something great. And so being able to recognize a kernel of innovation that you haven't seen before, that's crisply explained to you from a, whether it's a founder or CEO, who seems transparent, believable, and knows enough to really get the message across, that's probably going to get you to phone call number two where we'll call in whoever the subject matter expert on our team is. So I'm not wasting my chief scientific officer's time on phone calls one and maybe two. But if we're on call three, I want him asking the hard questions, right? Yeah, I think it's a great point. What I hear you saying is, not only do we, as VCs, have to do diligence, but so should you as innovators and people seeking venture, right? And I think that's really important, going into the conversation, understanding what that group looks like. Who do they have advising them? What are their other portfolio companies? Does that seem like a fit or not? We have more questions, actually, now that are filtering in. So we're going to do a little bit of jumping around. Who should not pursue venture capital, and why? I know, that's a big question. That's a really good question. Anyone who wants to maintain complete control of their company. I was just going to say, I was going to give you a five-minute minute to think about that and say, if you want to keep control, don't do that. Because look, on the venture side, we cannot invest millions, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, and have zero control over that investment. That breaks our model, right? So it's just that basic alignment of expectations. Once you take venture capital, you won't control your board. You'll have equal stay on the board, but you won't have outright control. And you become subject to the time horizons and kind of the, unfortunately, there is the pressure to move things at a venture pace once you take that venture investment. And I say unfortunately, because it's all arbitrary. Why are venture funds set up as 10-year investment vehicles? I don't know. I don't know who came up with that. But that's the way it is. But that's the state of the industry, and that's what we all work with. It doesn't perfectly match the amount of time it takes to develop a medtech innovation from inception to approval. So this is the complex puzzle we all have to solve together. I think the other thing is that you have to be willing to listen. And until you're willing to appreciate that there are pieces that you know very well, you, the innovator, know really well about your company, whether it's your core IP, whatever that may be. But there are other aspects to building out a company that you may not have any knowledge of. And you're willing to hear what the options are, and then try to make really good decisions. I appreciate you saying that, because it gets more powerful coming from you. But look, if VCs are good at one thing, early-stage investors are really good at building companies. If I'm meeting a first-time entrepreneur, it's their first time building a company. We've done 52 investments. We've spun companies out of academic medical centers. We have built dozens of companies, and we've seen the good, bad, and the ugly. So we can actually be really helpful in identifying talent, budgeting for how and when you bring people on board, what milestones you should be thinking about hitting, and anticipating risk, right? Like, when it works, it can work really well. But it does have to be a bi-directional, kind of open communication. Yeah, and it's not that you always agree. I'm sure that that will often happen. But it's about learning from each other. All right, more questions are coming in faster than we're answering them. What is a red flag that will immediately turn you off from investing in a startup? Do you see red flags? I think incomplete disclosure or withholding of information. We've diligence companies where we're on meeting 10, and suddenly we hear about an SAE that happened in their first-in-human study. I'm like, we talked about this first-in-human study three times. Yes. That's a goodbye forever. Yeah. And I mean, like any relationship, honesty has to be the starting point. So look, bad things happen. We do our best to go into first-in-human work with the safest possible version of a device. And yet, again, back to we're treating very sick patients. And sometimes it's compassionate use. And sometimes you run into adverse events. And we're all smart people who've been there before. So even those kind of worst-case scenarios, it's better to be open from the get-go about what the device has been through or the therapeutic has been through and what the next stage of development is and how you've course-corrected. Yeah, that honesty builds trust. Yes. And I think that that's a really important component in that relationship. OK, questions are getting bumped up. Thank you. What are some metrics that are important to investors that startups often fail to highlight? Metrics. That's interesting. Yeah. A good startup is tooting their own horn really loudly, uncomfortably loudly sometimes. I mean, I guess it's not a hard metric. But we do look for capital efficiency. We look for, again, because we all know we're going to have to get a certain amount of work done in a certain time frame in order for the startup to be a viable acquisition target. So teams that are capital efficient, that are moving their innovation through the requisite steps efficiently without being too risky about it is important. I don't know if we have other hard metrics. It's really kind of more of an art than a science. Yeah, I would agree with that. How do VCs differentiate themselves? I mean, I think a lot of it is subject matter expertise. So some VCs are really good at specific therapeutic areas. Some are really excellent at, let's say, launching companies commercially. Some may be specifically focused on a type of technology. I'm thinking of one fund that focuses on neuromodulation. That's their dedicated sort of sweet spot. And look, if that's what you're going to do, you're going to know that space inside and out. So they've become the go-to investor for any neuromod technologies. And then I think it's the people, right? I mean, I hate to keep coming back to the people. But the more I do this, it's another refrain I have is, the longer I do this, the more I use my psych degree, which is undergrad, psych, pre-med. When I think of investors who I'd love to bring in to my companies at the next stage of financing, I'm thinking of people who've been in the space for a long time, who've had a track record of success, who are smart, constructive contributors on boards. That's who you want, right? So I think that's how VCs can differentiate themselves. You need the track record of success. You need the track record of exiting companies. You also have to be tolerable on a board. Yeah, that's a really good point. Both of those things need to happen. This question got bumped up five times. And it's a really concrete question. So what is the smallest check size that you're willing to make, that you're willing to write? Oh, that's probably a good question. I mean, there's no smallest. Our typical initial check size is $2 to $3 million. But we would write checks smaller than that. And you did. You just gave an example earlier where you worked with a company. And that was early in Broadview's history. So that was when Broadview was just starting. But some other VCs you speak with will have a harder minimum. We don't. Yeah, I think this is a question I'm going to guess that this question comes up. Because sometimes you meet VCs. I remember meeting a VC. And he just said he's too small for me. He's like, I won't wake up for a check size smaller than $20 million. And I was like, OK. Well, let me unpack that in a non. So it doesn't sound as pejorative as it maybe did at the time. So the amount of diligence we do is the same, whether we're writing a $500,000 check or a $5 million check. I mean, and that's how we've set up our organization. Our internal hurdle of what it takes to get to yes is exactly the same. Because we know, again, it's not the first check. It's over the life of the company. We still know we will need to deploy a much larger amount of financing and spend a ton of time with that team. So we'll still do the same amount of work up front. And that's where, for a lot of VCs, there's a hard minimum. People are just bumping up questions. And I'm having a hard time following them. But I'm going to ask this one. Are you willing to share your biggest failure of an investment or investment failure and what you learned from that? You don't have to name names. No, of course not. Biggest failure, that's a great question. So first of all, look, anyone working in this space knows that some portion of our investments will fail. The failures that VCs are very comfortable accepting are data-driven failures. You could take a company all the way through phase 3 or pivotal, and it'll read out a negative trial. And that's life, right? That's science. That happens. And in those cases, everyone parts on good terms. And those relationships are often maintained. And everyone moves on as adults. The failures that hurt are the ones where the board didn't see eye to eye. You couldn't get out of your own way. You couldn't get the company funded because, who knows, there was a disagreement on valuation. Those hurt because you could have done better, right? Those are the ones we perseverate on. Yeah. It wasn't necessarily a failure of the technology. It was the setting and environment. It was people not being able to just deal with each other, deal with making hard choices, and do the right thing. Yeah, and the choices are hard. We have one minute left. And there are more questions coming in. So I'm going to first say that you're around. So people should feel free to approach you and ask you some of these questions. This one just got bumped up, so this will be our last question. Is it tougher to become a tech VC starting in academics? And I think this is actually a question a lot of people have, which is why I'm going to end on this one. Meaning a later transition in your career. Yeah, a career transition. That's how I interpret it, at least. Yeah. I think it may be a bit harder because venture is a uniquely, actually, like residency, it's an apprenticeship model. Yes. The only way to learn venture specifically. So I got an MBA, and I majored in finance and strategy. And I knew nothing about venture when I graduated with my MBA because it's such a specific skill set. And it's the mechanisms by which we invest, the company building component of it, board management, all of that, you don't learn that in school. So you kind of have to learn it from the ground up whenever you enter venture. And I have a lot, unfortunately, a lot of, you've probably seen this as well, a lot of friends who are in medicine and who are practicing, and they're 15 to 20 years into it, and interested in maybe not practicing. Right. So I worry about that trend, but when I speak with them, I sort of say, look, you're going to feel like you take a step back initially because you have to start learning everything from the kind of associate level, entry level up. And for some, that's exciting. And for some, it's daunting. But what it universally takes is time. It's time. Right. And we talked a little bit about this last night. Yeah. And you have to put in the time to get to that eventual place. Right. Speaking of time, our time is up. I am so delighted that you've joined us at HRX. And thank you for spending some time with us here this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. This was fun. Thank you so much.

Jennifer Silva

Dr. Maria Berkman

tech VC

med tech

medical innovations

venture capital

digital technologies

AI technologies