Investing in the Future of Brain Health

Because you don't have to create a dollar of revenues to make money in biotech. The science just needs to advance. JPMorgan Healthcare is like the, the famous conference in the healthcare world, and the big deal they announced this year was a $16 billion acquisition by Johnson Johnson of a psychosis drug. People that go there every year said it's the first time they remember anything neuro-related being the big deal. The market value of these psychiatric or neurodegeneration drugs or other treatments are just astronomical, like Elon Musk's Neuralink, right? That's a highly invasive implant device deep inside your brain.

Do you think that's science fiction, or is that really a path?

Oh, it's a path. To me, it's just inevitable. I don't know this for a fact because it's secret, but our government's on it.

Today on The Deal Table, we're joined.

By Eric Bennett, founder of Brain Capital Partners and the Brain Superfund, an investment firm focused on breakthrough innovations in brain health, mental wellness, and neurotechnology.

Eric's past spans decades of investment leadership, from co-founding Talison Wealth Management to managing $10 billion as chief investment officer. His passion for brain health took root as founding executive director of UT Dallas's Brain Performance Institute, where he helped secure over $100 million in funding and reached more than 50,000 people with evidence-based programs.

Enjoy. Lane, whenever you're ready, we can, we can get off to the races.

All right. I've only got about 15 pages of notes as I started looking into brain health. And mental health and Eric's impressive background. So hopefully some of it will come back to me.

So one thing I was saying before we started is like, I think Lane is more interested in the brain side of it. I'm more interested in like the money side of it, the building the business side. And I think that's just, you know, our biases.

One, Lane's our age.

Well, you know, I'm glad you said it because it's our age. You know, I was about to say.

I'm interested in the money side of it and I'm intrigued with that. I guess being 66 and my wife a few years older, not supposed to name ages when it comes to my wives and daughters, you know, that part is really compelling. But, you know, when we talk about Eric, and Eric, welcome to the deal table.

Thank you.

Welcome to the pig room. You're no stranger to the pig room, so it doesn't overwhelm you.

Yeah.

As it might others, but it is a unique and special place to shoot for a campus of all people. One of a kind. Bull Parkland here. And to the issue of my interest in brain and your interest in the finance and investment side, I will say that, you know, what's really impressive about you is, is, is you have started, grown, scaled a number of businesses. You were, as I understand, one of the first guys in the Tollison single-family office, that you were a co-founder of the wealth management side of that. And you grew that from 3 people, which I guess that was you and Mr. Tollison and one other person, to 150 people. That's a staggering amount of growth, and it's completely different business from where it started to where it ended. You left Tollison and went to the Brain Performance Institute, 4 years as executive director. You raised $105 million in funding. You grew that to 35 people. You got a new facility. You got 50,000 people involved in your evidence-based programs. So starting, growing, scaling businesses is where we live at the deal table. Entrepreneurs like you, congratulations on that path. And now you have migrated out. You went back to Tolleson and now you have started your own business, which is focused on brain health. And you have a brain super fund where you're making investments and you have Brain Capital Partners. Can you tell us a little bit about your current iteration, what you're doing with those two entities?

Yeah, so, uh, when going to the Center for Brain Health— this is back in 2013— I was there for 4 years, and I didn't know anything about biotech or really how the healthcare system worked. But the Brain Performance Institute is part of the Center for Brain Health and is part of the University of Texas system. So you know, 9 universities, 7 hospitals. So I got to see the whole ecosystem of kind of basic research, you know, in Petri dishes, lab mice, humans, how things got commercialized, how things got delivered. And I left there just completely fascinated with the whole healthcare world and really inspired about what could happen over the next 20, 10 or 20 years. Stuff that the public wasn't hearing about, but I got to see because it was still in research mode and some of the really compelling innovations going on by some of these just brilliant scientists.. And so when I left there and went back to Tollison, I was very bullish about just biotech in general, but felt it was too early for the brain. And we can get into that later, but brain— the brain's a unique topic when it comes to the biotech world and healthcare. And I'll explain that I think now is a good timing for the brain, but 8 years ago I felt like it was too early. So we invested just in broad biotech.. And what I noticed after COVID was that there seemed to be a shift in the mindset about the brain. So big biotech firms that would say, we don't do the brain, it's too risky, we're going to focus on oncology, heart, you know, immunology, rare diseases, things we know we can make money on, the science works. They're now really starting about 2 years ago are leaning in to investing in the brain and are hiring neuroscientists. These are like the big shops, big venture shops, big biotech shops that companies that if you guys invest in the biotech space, you would have heard of before. So they were leaning in. And then now big pharma, the JPMorgan Healthcare is like the famous conference in the healthcare world. And they usually try to announce one big deal. And the big deal they announced this year was a $16 billion acquisition by Johnson Johnson of a psychosis drug. And it was— they— people that go there every year says the first time they remember anything neuro-related being the big deal. So that my interest in biotech, investing in biotech the past 8 years personally and for, for Thales and clients. And I've always wanted to develop a brain theme. And I felt like based on the changes that happened over the past 3 years, that the timing is right for it to be a good investment. I didn't want to be in research mode. I want to be that, hey, I can deliver top quartile returns for people that invest with me and me.

Uh, if I do it well. So Brain Capital Partners, Brain Superfund, what's.

The relationship between those two? It's just that, so Brain Capital Partners is just my holding company. And so, uh, I have a bigger vision that, uh, you know, I want to— I'm a capitalist at heart, but I also want to do good. And so Brain Capital Partners long term is going to be more than just a venture capital fund. It's going to— I'm going to help people think about if I have grant money, how do I give? And I want to do something for Parkinson's, who's the best places to give money to? So there's a sort of a nonprofit arm that I'm going to launch later. But my— the first thing I'm going to launch is the Brain Superfund, which is a venture capital fund that's going to be investing in companies. And its primary objective is to make returns. But along the way, it's going to do good because if you're reaching people with these companies that have access to something to help with Parkinson's or depression that they didn't have before, then you're helping people. So it's going— and I can explain why, but it's going to be a combination of a fund of funds and direct deals. And I can explain why the fund of funds, that model makes sense. But that's what I'm doing. And I literally just a month or two into it. Wow. So congratulations. I left Tollison about a month ago so I could focus on this. So I'm just kind of at ground zero getting it started. And the interesting thing is, is I have a lot of investment opportunities, but I haven't started raising money yet. So, uh, I've been personally investing, but I want to add some zeros onto those.

Yeah, for— through the fund. So there's so many under the umbrella of mental health, neurological health, there's so many trails.

Yeah.

And for VC, um, you know, I'm wondering about the scope. Um, are you— do you have a.

Particular focus, um, uh, within brain health? Um, it's, it's I have themes, but intentionally it's broad. And I think it's important because I think there's two things. One, the opportunity set is broad. And then two, diversification is really important. You know, I've managed money for wealthy people my whole career. So being a risk manager is really important. And that might sound silly in venture, but I think through diversification and sizing things right and getting access to the best talent is the way to de-risk. Some of these investments. And as you know, like in venture, you know, you want 2 out of 10 to work and the other 8 may not work so well. But if the 2 work really well, you make— that's where you make your returns. So that— so I'm— I see the opportunity set as being very broad. And so, you know, you talk about things like neurodegeneration. So the big 10,000-pound gorilla in the brain space is Alzheimer's. Right, so there's been some nice advancements there, but you have other brain degeneration like Parkinson's, which tons of money have gone into that and not a lot's happened, but we're hopeful things do. Then you have mental health, right? So the stigma is not as strong as it was before. So more people are talking about mental health. That's a big, big problem. And until recently, we haven't had really any major drug developments since Prozac in the late '80s. That's a long time without any really new drug that moves the needle on the mental health side. But you look at things like longevity as well. You know, we're getting older. You know, when the government set up Medicare in the '60s, the average life expectancy for a male was 67. And oh my God, a year left. But now 67 would be very young to die. So, but our brains weren't designed to last that long biologically. So we're going to see more more cases of that. So people thinking about lifestyle factors, right? There's a lot of scientific evidence that your lifestyle affects your mental health and your brain actual biology. Um, you've probably heard of the term digital health, you know, so like mental health and neurodegeneration are the two biggest areas of digital health. So just getting help on an app. Um, and you have things like stroke and traumatic brain injury, you know, so if you have a traumatic brain injury, and 6 months later you're not doing very well still, sleep's poor, can't focus very well. A lot of, a lot of, you see a lot of kids that can't go back to school that were, you know, honor students before. There's not a lot of options out there, but the— there's growing options. They're just starting to get commercialized. So I've thrown out a lot of different things, but I'm intentionally being very broad on the brain But I'm gonna focus mostly on the kind of the above the neck problems. So your brain controls your whole body. So I'm gonna be less inclined to invest in things that help with paralysis or the motor neurons, but more things that would affect neurodegeneration, psychiatric health, longevity, health and wellness, injuries. A lot of people with strokes suffer long-term even though they survive the stroke.

So you spoke about being a capitalist at heart. And, and I'll be honest, when it comes to healthcare, health science, medicine, and the, the economics of it, I'm naive. But anecdotally, it does seem more money is being invested into, say, you know, like cancer. No, no, I was going to say like sexual enhancement or, or like, you know, vanity, vanity, vanity, medicine and whatnot. Weight loss.

Yeah.

So for something like brain science and Alzheimer's, it makes sense that that would need a lot of investment. But, you know, since we live in this culture of, you know, instant gratification and that's a faraway problem, how do you navigate that? Or is it— do you see this as like, hey, this is a, you.

Know, a blue ocean type of opportunity? Yeah, the costs are so high to the health care system and it affects so many people. The, the market value of these psychiatric or neurodegeneration drugs or other treatments are just astronomical because there's not that much out there. I mean, there's stuff out there. I mean, there's been a nasal spray for Alzheimer's for over 20 years. It just hasn't— it doesn't do a whole lot. Keep it simple from a science perspective. It doesn't move the needle for most people. But the, you know, they call it— it's a big thing in venture, you know, the TAM, the tangible addressable market. It's just huge. And the biopharma companies The biotech funds know that, but they needed to have something that was actually could get approved by the FDA eventually. And now there's more hope around that because the sciences has advanced so much. So they approved 2 years ago an Alzheimer's drug that doesn't really do a whole lot, but it's better than nothing. And it's, it's created more investment in the space because it's like it helps. But perhaps if we do more, it can help more. So it's— the FDA approved it to encourage more investment in the space. And Baylor Health Care here administers the drug on a non-trial basis to people. And it's— it helps. We won't get into the mechanics of the details much on Alzheimer's, but it's— it's given hope for Alzheimer's that wasn't.

There even 5 years ago. So being that you're in single family for so long, And now you're pivoting to Brain. Well, I think you said you were interested in Brain for all this whole time, like when you were in single family. Like, was that a— were you out there rehabbing houses or were you managing.

A fund or what did that operation look like for the single family office? Yes. Oh, we set up a complete family office for the Tollison family.

Is that what you're— I Again, I was going through my bias because I came from the single-family real estate world. Oh, so when I see single-family, that's where my brain went. And now it's like, well, I'm an idiot.

Single-family office. Yeah, because I just say, yeah, I've had people ask me that before. Like, this makes way worse. Tollison is called a multifamily office now. And I read people say, oh, you develop apartments?

No, we don't. Well, we are on the campus of Old Parkland.

All right. No, it's not real estate focused. So what was the focus of that family office? It was to manage money for the Tollefson family. Did y'all focus on any verticals at all, or— It was diversified portfolio. So equities, you know, hedge funds, bonds, private. Were y'all in healthcare at all? Very little. Okay. So there was not anything that went on in the single family office or even the multifamily office the first 15 years that would have really led to this. What happened is that one of our clients, when we became a multifamily office, not, not apartment, but, you know, serving multiple families, gave a large gift to create the Center for Brain Health. And I joined the board and that.

Was back in 2002. Do you think that was like— was.

That the catalyst for you to get into that world? Yeah, that was— I'd always been interested in it. I think everybody has a family member that was affected somehow by something brain-related. I think there's like zero degrees of separation from you know, Alzheimer's or depression or anxiety or, you know, stroke. I mean, it's just— I've certainly had, you know, family history with all— with a lot of those things. But that's not really what motivated me, was just the intellectual curiosity of what was going on there and how amazing it was that, oh wow, this is— this is amazing.

Well, you had mentioned, and I think this might have been before we recorded, but your affinity for veterans and— and better mental health. And I was wondering when that study came out about the NFL and, you know, is it CTE? Is it? Yeah. How, how, how much that impacts what you're doing now or is it completely separate?

You know, it did. So that came out, that was big when I was at the Center for Brain Health. So that's '13 through '17 is when all the stuff came out about the NFL. Concussions got real big talking point. And, you know, they did create better protocols. So you know, and not, not to shake it off and get back in the game. And the military had the same, uh, view, you know, until— I don't know if you know Pete Carelli in the Army, but he was in charge of combat operations for the Army in Iraq, and he was the first general to say you don't shake it off and come back in. You gotta— there's some— you have an injury, we have to deal with it. And from a blast, and it was a traumatic brain injury. And so, um, Yeah. So the vets really inspired me because.

We work with so many vets. And where's— again, back to the capitalism aspect of it. So the Brain Center Health— I'm sorry.

If I brutalize the name of it.

Center for Brain Health. That's a— is that a nonprofit?

Is that a government institution? Yeah, it's part of the University of Texas system. Okay. Part of University of Texas at Dallas. And the Brain Performance Institute is what I was hired to create was when the science is done. So they do the research on the science with control groups and publish papers and all that stuff, and it's really important. But if we help 30 military vets with post-traumatic stress in our research, how do we bring that out to help 3,000 or 30,000? That was the purpose of the Brain Performance Institute, was to commercialize in a not-for-profit way. How do you help kids in low-income school perform better in school by using cognitive skills and learning? So that was what really prompted me to go over there is because with my business background and scaling was like, hey, you research, it's not set up for scaling, it's just set up to see if something works or not. And then— but the scientists don't know what to do with it when they're done with the research. And so how can we bring it out to more people? And I couldn't sleep very well at night knowing that there was great research going on there that could help military vets. But there's no mechanism to get it out to them. So, and, and, uh, we don't want to make military vets pay for it. That wasn't the only thing we did, but it's like, so let's raise capital, let's raise, uh, philanthropic money for that. So the, the government won't pay for stuff like that because I've— we've had people say, well, shouldn't the government pay for that? And we're like, they should, but they don't, right? But there's— luckily, you know, Dallas is so philanthropic and there's so many military vets that live here. It's never easy to raise money for philanthropic things, but it was— that's a pretty big heartstring to pull because, uh, we helped a lot of people and.

The impacts kind of speak for themselves. So when you're raising capital for, for, uh, for this venture now, or when you're about to raise capital, do you go to those same people and be like, hey, last time when we raised capital, we did it because we cared. Now we care, but we also like money?

Well, it's going to be totally separate from, you know, there's going to be some people at the Center for Brain Health that are going to be on my scientific advisory committee, which most biotech and healthcare funds will have like scientists and doctors that are their advisors to help them underwrite the science and make sure that you're not investing in something that's BS, right? You want to make sure that it's— they call it evidence-based, that it's gone through the scientific rigor and no shortcuts. So there will be some of the scientists, including the head of the Center for Brain Health, will be on my scientific advisory board. This is totally separate.. And so I might go to the same— I'm going to go to people I think might have an interest in the space, right? They're either biotech investors or they're interested in the brain. But I think that there will be some of the people that we raise money from, from the Center for Brain Health, that will be investors in this fund. Knock on wood. But that's not the strategy. It's not to go to the same people.

It's much broader than that. And one more before I let Lane jump back in. Because earlier you said you weren't necessarily— you're not necessarily research-focused now, you want to be application-focused. So for your, your new venture, is it mainly identifying products in, in, in sources that are already out in the market and then acquiring them and then.

Bringing them to a larger market? They're going to be emerging. They're going to be companies that have already gone through the scientific rigor and After you do the science, you have to acquire the rights to the science. They call it IP from the universities or whoever developed the science. So these are companies that have already acquired the rights, have a CEO in place, but just need to get things moving. There's either more research to do or there's FDA approval. So these are companies that have already gone through the scientific rigor but are.

Taking it to the next step. So you're bringing almost that business component to, hey, we're the eggheads that actually do the beakers and then do all the stuff. Yeah. And you're the business, you're the suit.

That comes in to like take it up. Yeah. And they, they'll always are. So there'll be companies and funds that focus in the space. A lot of them will have a real, you know, heavy science and medical background because that's what, you know, who got the research there. But they'll usually bring in CEOs and CFOs that are more business-oriented, that understand the space but know how to take the science and get it out to market. And it can be a long process, it can be a short process. So I, I invested in one company and we had an exit in one year, but that was really lucky and it was AI-related. So AI is real hot, but most of the time these are, you know, 3, 5, 7, sometimes 10-year endeavors. But at any point you can get acquired, so you don't have to like go through the— get FDA approved and go public before you have an exit. There's a lot of these companies that are real promising. They're going to get acquired by small and mid-sized companies, sometimes big pharma. And, you know, big pharma has a patent problem in that their— a lot of their drugs are going to go generic. It's just that if you follow the world at all, it's just a known fact that the number of billion-dollar drugs that are going generic in the next 5 years are huge. So Big Pharma has a big incentive to invest in new drugs that they can keep on patent for their, you know, over a decade. So that's another exit point for these companies. And the thing I was looking for before I wanted to start a venture fund that do is to see companies actually doing that, not talking about doing it, because for the Brain Superfund, which is going to be a venture capital fund, I need to have multiple sources of exits to get returns for my limited partners and myself. And I didn't see that 3 years ago. That ecosystem just wasn't there. And I saw a secular shift starting about 3 years ago in that, in that M&A ecosystem.

Is this one of those where you.

Buy 10, hope to exit 1? That's, that's true in venture. You know, I'd like to be more optimistic than that, you know, but I think it's, it's probably buy 10 and 2 or 3 work out and, and some don't. But again, I'm a definitely— it sounds funny that I'm going into venture because I'm I'm a risk-sensitive guy, so I'm going to try to de-risk this as much as possible by being diversified and investing in companies that I feel like have less risk of failure. And it's interesting in the brain space because there's less— the capital coming in is still not as big as like— it's tiny compared to cancer and heart. You can get like seed Series A rounds of companies that already have revenues. That's not normal in venture. So that, that So the valuation point is that you can come in at more attractive valuations, or if you have a promising cancer drug, I mean, it's going to get bid up by 12 biotech shops every round, you know, and that's fine. But I'd rather be in kind of like the, the areas where there's not as much competition, right? It's— but the competition, I think, is going to get stronger. But it is really interesting to see some of these companies that to me don't look like seed Series A because they're further along, but because it's brain-related, it is because that ecosystem is just starting to emerge.

I want to drill down on that a little bit, but I want to circle back to sort of one of my pet peeves. And you touched on it with some of the language you used, which was scientifically rigorous, scientifically vetted, evidence-based. There is a universe of over-the-counter products.

For.

Brain health and everything else., that have no scientific backing that support them. I was watching television last night and there was a commercial for Prevagen. Prevagen is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission for false and deceptive advertising. The FDA has issued warnings over their product. Their product claims to help memory. They're very very well-done commercials that would be convincing that if you take Prevagen, you're going to improve your memory. Absolutely no scientific evidence to support that, yet they sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product. And, you know, you go down the list of, I mean, Ginkgo biloba, you know, is an over-the-counter, you know, supposed to be memory-enhancing. Absolutely no scientific evidence to support that. So I don't know if there's a question in there somewhere. I just find it problematic that there's billions of dollars being spent by consumers taking things with the belief that there's some scientific evidence that it's going to.

Help them with absolutely no support for that. Yeah. And supplements don't have to get approved by the FDA.

Right.

And so that's, that's the main reason. So they don't have to go through the cost. The cost is huge. Exactly. And I will tell you, a lot of the supplement companies do are well-intended. And they do some research, but they don't, they don't have to spend the money that like a typical, like a drug, that a pill you would take that would be considered a drug or an injection. Supplements are exempt from, from the FDA approval process. And that's the reason that you don't see a lot of science. And then it becomes— they become marketing companies. Yes. And I will say that there are You know, you'll see some of the best doctors in the world say these are some good supplements that work for me. There's no science that backs it, but, but from what I've seen, it works well on my patients. So I wouldn't just say these things don't work, right? But they don't go through the scientific rigor. And the, the term that scientists use is evidence-based, meaning they go through the scientific rigor. Most of them are not evidence-based, and it's just they don't have to spend the money. So why? And if you're making that much money in in, um, just getting testimonials. And I'm not trying to knock these, these companies because I think there's some supplements that either work or, you know, the placebo effect is— we could have a whole talk on that, right? The placebo effect. If you think something's going to work, there's strong scientific evidence that biologically it changes your brain just because you think it might change your brain, right? So these supplements might improve people's memories. It's just they haven't gone through the the scientific rigor of control groups and saying, okay, does this— if we isolate this supplement alone, does it improve cognitive performance? I don't know the details of this company. I've heard of it, of course, is a pretty well-known name, but I've not studied their, their website to see what kind of research they publish. But yeah, there's— I call it pop science, you know, where people talk about things, whether it's Instagram or social media or advertising. That hasn't gone through the scientific rigor, and I'm not going to invest in things like that. So even if I have a— let's just say there's a supplement that I personally just love, which there isn't one actually. Let's just say there was. All right. Let's just say that I found this, this one, and my energy level is higher, sleep better, my cognitive performance is better, but there's no science to back it. I'm not going to invest in it.

Because it's part of— that's a deal breaker for me. Right. And to that point, the cost for to go through FDA approval process, which is multiple stages, and the time, uh, that it takes to get through that process is significant.

Yeah.

Um, personally, I've invested in a number of young companies over the years. My batting average is probably 1 out of 10. Having said that, the one that worked paid for the 9, right, that didn't. Um, and, um, my personal, um, outcomes may not bear any resemblance to what you'll achieve. But what I found was that it's easy to fall in love with an early-stage company that's promising a solution to a very large problem. But the cost to get there— some of them just were never able to raise the capital to fund getting through, and they weren't able to attract an upstream pharma that would, that would buy them. So it's interesting to hear that in the brain space, because there's less activity.

There, that you're able to buy at better valuations. Yeah, today I'm seeing that it might change fast because I think that as more people are moving in the space, so like for example neurotech. So a lot of these are like devices or that you either wear or implant. That's one of the hottest markets in healthcare right now. Right. So it's getting a lot of funding. If anything, it's a bit too hot. So that area It's very popular right now. And an example would be like Elon Musk's Neuralink, right? So that's a highly invasive implant, the device deep inside your brain. Or other neurotech that you're not— it's like light therapy or ultrasound therapy or a hat you wear to help, a headband to help you sleep better, or a ring or something like that. There's other types, but that's, that's become, if anything, hot. There's actually a guy that just for a full-time job. He just follows the neurotech market and gets paid well for people just to.

Get access to his data. Well, anything that Musk is involved in is going to attract— yeah, yeah. And he has articulated a vision for Neuralink, and it is that you ultimately— you will be able to upload and download intelligence, merging artificial intelligence and human intelligence. So in essence, your, your brain will be uploaded into the cloud you'll be able to access intelligence and basically import that into your brain. It's very futuristic, and it's both really.

Intriguing and really scary. Yeah, I think it's— I analogize it to like pacemakers for your heart. You know, someone told you you need a pacemaker today, you'd probably say, I really don't want one, but I'll do it. You know, you wouldn't say that's crazy. Um, but I guarantee the first time someone, when they introduced pacemakers, I think it was back in the '60s. I'm not 100% sure when, but say around the '60s. But like these brain implants, people might think sound crazy, but I think down the road it's going to be pretty normal. I think when we— the Center for Brain Health, we got a good chunk of funding from DARPA, you know, which is the government's big innovation hub. But it's— if you've not heard much about, it's a whole separate discussion. But they For example, they, they created the internet back in the '60s. So they did all kinds of stuff. And so they gave us money for, for brain work, but they made us have a sociologist on our study because they said, if what you're doing actually works, you need a sociologist in there to help. How are you going to pitch it to people so they actually do it? Kind of like these implantables, right? Right. So chip in your head sounds far-fetched, but I think in time, in the future, it's not going to be far-fetched because if it helps you, with your mental health or helps you with dementia.

You'Re going to do it. I would say on that topic, the current usage of AI and how people are just overly— are— I could see a very quick future where people are like overly dependent on AI, where their cognitive skills of just being able to function without AI— I mean, you look at it like Maps and like GPS and like Google Maps. Like driving from here to like my parents' house, been able to drive my parents' house my entire life. But now I immediately put in Google Maps just because I need it to tell me where to go. And I might still be able to get there, but I don't know if I trust that. So now I can see a future where in the very soon we're going to be overly dependent on AI. And then we get to a point to the Neuralink where it's like, man, do I really want to spend time to read this book? Or do I just want to push.

This button and then have it uploaded in my brain? Yeah, I think there— I think there's good and bad too. I think it's mostly good though. I think I went to a conference 2 years ago that was a neuro conference on AI, and it was mostly around the fear part, you know, what could go wrong. And I have a different view. I'm like, what can go right? Right. And it's major. And I think that— and I'm no AI expert, so, you know, OpenAI would not hire me to work there unless they wanted a CFO or someone like that. But I think the brain could benefit from AI maybe more than anything else in society, because one of the problems with the brain is in developing things to help the brain is understanding how the brain works. And with all the data we're getting and AI overlay on that, we're going to be able to understand over time how mechanisms in the brain, what creates, what perhaps is creating this anxiety, where and how can we attack it better. Um, and so, uh, the, the example I gave you of the, of the 1-year exit I, I had, it was a, it was an AI drug development company. It used AI to help develop drugs, traditional drugs. And Johnson Johnson bought it because they were going to be a customer, and they said, you know, we just want own it instead of being a customer. And it's small. It was a small deal, but they just saw a lot of potential in it. So I think AI is going to be remarkable for the brain, but it's going to change our world. I mean, I was— so you guys, since you do a lot of deals, you're familiar with pitch decks, right? So everyone— this, this company wrote an overlay to OpenAI to review pitch decks. And it was— I was just thinking, oh my God, these poor kids coming out of school, we're not going to need them anymore. Because what would take a day to review the pitch deck, prepare a summary of it, run the numbers, build the spreadsheet— you know, I don't know if kids do spreadsheets anymore, but Excel models, it can all be done in seconds now. And what I saw, it came up. It was remarkable. I mean, just ChatGPT for the free version to me is remarkable. I saw the advanced version and what they're using to review companies and, uh, the time savings and the speed. But then it means that, okay, these kids coming out of school— like, I was a kid coming out of school and I spent my days building decks, you know, you know, in spreadsheets and preparing analysis. That's all going to be done with software. And so they have to pivot and To me, it's— to me, it's not AI or humans separate. It's them cohabitating together to do something more powerful, because the AI is not going to replace fully a human. I mean, there's some AI people that would argue with me on that. They call it generalized artificial intelligence. Don't see that happening anytime soon. But like, there's this— we just don't understand enough about the brain to write.

The full algorithm to replace our brains yet. I think you're 100% right. I mean, you look at— I think I saw a headline a couple weeks ago about China where they're mandating all their children are having to learn how to use AI, and, and that's how they're combating— because it used to be, you know, all their children have to be really good at math or the sciences, the STEM, but now it's, hey, we're pivoting to AI. AI, 100% right. The people— I think it's silly when people are extremely scared of AI. It's gonna take all the jobs. It's like It might, but that's why you have to learn the prompts. You have to learn how to use it. You have to learn how to be the maestro and, you know, and use.

The tool because that's all it is, is a tool.

Yeah.

For— it makes mistakes. I asked, I asked them, I was just curious, like, how many Masters did Jack Nicklaus win? You know, watching the Masters this weekend and I got the number right, but got the years wrong. So you can't just— that's a pretty basic fact. I could have Googled it and got a better answer. Um, so it's, it's, it's remarkable, but.

You can't just 100% rely on it for the research of the brain. Are, are you or your, your— the people that you're looking at or associate with, how are they using AI for.

The research aspect, or if they are at all? Oh, they're using it a lot because it's really— AI is just a fancy word for, you know, software, right, and algorithms, right? So, um, It's just more advanced. And, you know, so like, for example, there's a Stanford scientist that she used to work at Stanford. She went to go work for a venture firm and now she's investing in the brain. And I'm going to— I've already backed 4 of her deals. I'm going to do future ones. And, and, you know, technology is a big part of what her expertise is. Stanford has just a remarkable system in AI, as you know, that that's where a lot of the technology people came from. And so she understands the AI technology side and she understands the neuroscience. There's not a lot of people that have such deep expertise in both areas. So she's trying to find companies that merge those two. And she has a competitive advantage because she, she really can talk the talk on both sides. You know, normally you have a rock star neuroscientist or a rock star AI person. The worlds are kind of blending together. But, you know, she's going to have a competitive advantage looking at deals because she can underwrite the companies better. There's going to be a lot of BS out there, right? So AI is so hot right now. It's like you got these companies, you know, like Nvidia, what, $2.7 trillion? I don't know what it's worth. Is it worth $2.7 trillion? I don't know. But all they're doing is selling chips for, for AI. And, you know, our local energy company's stock way up because if you, if you have, if you're using AI, you need more electricity, uses up a lot of power. So there's just all kinds of things going on with AI that's exciting. But I think that it's a major part of it, and it's really around using AI to understand the brain better so you can develop better drugs. Because if you understand it better, you can develop things to target. You have to know what to target. And then two, on the technology side, this neurotech side I mentioned, a lot, almost all of it's going to have.

Some AI part to it. Yeah, I think that's the current joke right now is like regardless of what your company or startup does, just put.ai at the end of it and then instead of raising $100,000, raise $100 million.

Just because it says AI. Yeah, I remember in 1999 you just.

Put.Com next to your name and it does— I mean, it does feel very.

Very similar to 2000s. Yeah. And we might go through a period like that where You know, in 2000, the world was not quite ready for what was being promised with the internet, but ultimately happened in, in, in a lot better, right? So then, you know, Pets.com in 2000 is famous for going under, but maybe Pets.com 10 years later would have done wonderful. Um, uh, so, uh, but I think the hype is there, but I think it's for, for good reasons. But I'd be— you got to be careful about AI and overhyping things because people— you're right, people can slap AI next to anything, and all of a.

Sudden it gets people's attention, right? You talked about AI in the context of helping you to do research around the brain. I want to circle back to the sort of brain-machine interface, the BMIs, and Neuralink. Neuralink, by the way, uh, valuation in 2024 on its last round was $5 billion. So the power of Elon Musk— I'm sure that's part of it, right? Is it Musk is, is the lead there? But Um, the— in 20 years ago, 2005, I read a book by Ray Kurzweil. I don't know if you're familiar with Kurzweil's work, uh, The Singularity is Near: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. So the premise is that this merger of artificial intelligence and human intelligence would allow us to basically have our brain in the cloud, and that science would allow us to reproduce organs and basically solve all of our physical limitations. But if it didn't, then our brains in the cloud and presumably could be downloaded into another brain. He said that— Kurzweil said that by 2030, we'll be linking our neocortex to the cloud. And that's the same thing that Musk has said in the last year. And I guess my question is, do you think that's science fiction or is.

That really a path? Oh, it's a path, but it's the timing. Yeah, and I don't know about specifics on the cloud, but it, to me, it's just inevitable. But it's a matter of time. Wow. And I don't know if he's— if he— if, if Ray meant 2030, I would say no.

If he met 2039, I'd probably agree with him.

And he wrote it in 2005. Yeah, yeah. So Bill Gates' famous quote, you know, people way overestimate the amount of change in one year, but way underestimated over a decade, right? I think that's very true. And, and in health sciences in general. Yeah. So I think so with AI, some of this stuff, are we way overestimating it? No. But the speed, probably yes. Right.

It takes a long time.

But this merging of human and artificial— yeah. Yeah. Augmented, augmented human. And I don't know this for a.

Fact because it's secret, but our government's on it. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. I was born in 1958, so I grew up in the '60s and '70s. So I'm particularly intrigued with the huge drive towards the psychedelic renaissance, the use of psilocybin, magic mushrooms, MDMA, ecstasy, LSD, and ketamine, which are now becoming part of the mainstream. They're in clinical trials. Regulatory changes are being made. There's investor interest there. You know, the drivers of the mental health crisis, the scientific validation— you've got institutions like Johns Hopkins and NYU that are validating the use of these tools. So these things were considered hippie drugs, right? And now they are being used to treat depression and PTSD, anxiety. Is that an area that you— yeah.

Part of your investment? Yeah. And that's another one that 5 years ago wasn't ready. Yeah. But the growing amount of evidence that it can have in a clinical setting, not recreational, with not high dosages, guided by a therapist, can have transformative results for people in research studies. And military vets are some of the exact biggest beneficiaries. So, you know, there's not— there's a former Navy SEAL that started a company called Terramind that is— is— they have clinics in the United States for it. But the, the, the more impactful psychedelics are not, from a science perspective, aren't approved by the FDA yet. So you can go, you do it, get it in the United States. But what scientists are saying is you can get a better outcome to things that are like legal. And they'll, they'll set up clinics like in Central or America or Mexico, like going to a Ritz-Carlton or something like that. But it's not like shady you know, going to a veterinarian office, it's real. But, uh, so basically the psychedelics are very real, and this is from talking to scientists that are in the space. This is not like people recreational use.

I mean, that, that's— it's got to really excite the people that were using it recreationally, though, right, to see it come back into the mainstream. I suspect there will be— I mean, we have not, uh, legalized marijuana at the federal level, so I, I can't.

Imagine the path for LSD and ecstasy to be legalized. Yeah, it— as the science evolves, it will be, but it won't be like.

I can go get it at— we won't have a dispensary on the corner like they do in Colorado where my daughter lives, where you can go down.

The corner to a dispensary. I'm not saying they won't. I think Colorado has some forms of psychedelics that are legal, but I don't.

Know where you can buy. There are— Oregon and Colorado have legalized.

Sort of microdosing of psychedelics. Um, yeah, so I don't know what the distribution system looks like with that, but I was at an event where the governor of Colorado was talking about it, and, uh, you know, they— that's what they decided to do. So, um, uh, yeah, I think the psychedelics are, are big, real transformative. It's still in the earlier stages because it is one of those social things where, like, that there's a stigma of like— I, I joke with people that if you remember Timothy Leary. Yes, I do. Uh, Ryan, do you remember Timothy Leary? No, he doesn't. He, he led the LSD movement back in the hippie movement, uh, but he was a scientist at Harvard doing research. I always joked that, that, you know.

Timothy Leary maybe was right, just 60 years too early.

Drop out and drop in. Yeah, but that became a recreational thing that, you know, probably fried a lot of people's brains. Um, but, uh, you know, like I said, in a clinical setting with, with the right dosages, um, you know, guided through the right protocols, has shown transformative effects for people. Uh, from talking to the scientists that are in the space, I've not heard anyone, scientists, say that they're outwardly against it. I, I've heard the most negative people have just said there's more work to be done, right? But it's, it's in his head in the right direction. And PTSD I mean, I have a good friend who got robbed at an ATM machine 20 years ago, and she's still suffering from PTSD because she had a gun pointed at her head. Yeah. You know, so it's not just— I mean, military vets go through a lot.

But it's processing trauma is pretty hard for our brain. So for the science that you're investing in, is it— do you look at it from anything brain-related, or are you.

Pharmaceutical track, or the technology track, or anything? Yeah, anything. Brain-related. I think, you know, pharmaceuticals isn't the only focus that, you know, that's been the— but it's intentionally broad because I think that the thing I'm most excited about are some of the devices in the neurotech. So whether it's the implantable, they call those invasive, but there's some non-invasive, and then there's minimally invasive. So there's things that go between the skin and the skull, so you don't have to cut into your skull. There's this thing called transcranial magnetic stimulation that it's a magnet that they put beside your head and it used to help just, we used it at the Center for Brain Health to help calm military vets to come in and get cognitive processing therapy 'cause they had to relive their memories and they didn't want to. And we said, if we could relax you for a little while and get the therapy, 'cause the therapy works pretty well, they didn't— you have to relive your bad moments, right? What's creating the root cause of your stress? And the trans— the, this transcranial magnetic stimulation, they call it TMS for short, calmed people's brains for about an hour to go in and get the therapy. Today, it's— they're seeing long-term benefits from multiple sessions of getting the transcranial magnetic stimulation. And there's a company in Houston that. And it's a— but it's a pain though. You got to go to a lot of sessions and you got to sit there. And it's not— it didn't hurt. You don't really feel anything except a vibration against your head. It does— it's not painful at all. There's really— there's minimal side effects. But he's got— he's got something, a device that will go between your skull and your skin that has little tiny magnets on it. So you— it'll release— it'll provide the therapy when you need it to have longer-term benefits. And that's really neat. But you still have to implant something, and that still has some more science to do. So the trend— the TMS research is there, but his device isn't. It's investable, but it's not— it's still years away from being FDA approved. But there's things like ultrasound therapy, light therapy. There's lots of things that can have a pretty dramatic effect on your brain that don't involve traditional drugs. And drugs are great if they work, but I think there's other things that affect the brain that are really, really exciting that don't involve drugs.

But I'm going to invest in both. So earlier you were talking about when Johnson Johnson acquired the company you were working with, the 1-year exit, you said it was a small deal. You know, I'm looking at like the top 10 pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, $58 billion, and 10 is GSK for $38 billion. When you say small, what does small mean to you? Because small to me could be a.

Dollar, but small to you could be like a trillion dollars. Oh no, this deal is like a $200 billion deal. It was $200 billion— million. Million. Yeah. So, but the, the acquisition I mentioned that was announced at JPMorgan was a $16 billion deal. Right. So the Johnson Johnson, you know, buys drugs because they want to make, you know, billions of dollars in sales and revenues. This smaller thing was just because they like the technology and for them to buy it was cheaper than them having to either be a customer long term.

Or develop, try to fix, build the same thing on their own. So the reason I wanted to ask that is, is just to contextually, where are we on the scale of acquisitions, mergers? Because, you know, Lane is the lower middle market for his customers, client base. For what you're working on to this new venture, like what, what, where are you playing?

Are you $100 million acquisitions, $1 billion, $200 billion? Like where are you at with that? You know, really, it really, it just depends, right? So I'm going to invest in most of it is going to be, you know, seed through, say, Series C is— and that's not— it's not because I want to invest there. It's just, just where the opportunities are today. So call it venture to growth equity. So it just, most of them are gonna be, you know, sub-billion type things. But it's gonna range so much, but I'm not gonna invest in a company hoping every company that someday Eli Lilly is gonna pay $5 billion for it. I don't need that to happen. You know, if I invest something in a— so there's a competitor to Neuralink that I invested in that's valued at $150 million. And Neuralink, the word on the street was there was a secondary for $8 billion. You said $5 billion was probably the last round, but someone bought it for $8 billion in the secondary market. So this company, what I've been told is that it's basically in the same place as Neuralink. But it's selling for— it doesn't have Elon Musk. Yeah, it has gone for $150 million valuation. So that's probably closer to what the devices are worth today, right? But let's say it, it's worth $500 million in, in 5 years. That's a great X outcome for me and my, and my investors. So, but if someone comes along and buys it for $5 billion, I'd love it too, right? So, but I don't need, uh, big pharma is more that ecosystem in the buy. So I think it's going to be more, uh, biotech funds that will— could be exits or strategics. So there's going to be— there's a lot of different angles for that, for the exit, because you don't have to create a dollar of revenues to make money in biotech. The science just needs to advance. So as it becomes de-risked and closer to FDA approval, people are willing to— it's worth more money. So this company that I'm doing that I said I mentioned got a valuation of $150 million. It's in one human, okay? So it's too early to say if this is ready for prime time. But, uh, you know, 5 years from now when they've done more work and it's really— and it's working, it's going to be worth way more than $150 million. It might be worth $8 billion, like what Neuralink is trading at. Um, and who knows, maybe Elon can pull off selling.

Neuralink for $20 billion to someone who You know, he— so on these, when you're evaluating these, these deals and because you have such a vast family office and dealmaking career, one thing that I've— I don't have the experience that you gentlemen have when it comes to dealmaking. But what I have heard is, is half the battle is, is that the right founder? Is it a good idea? And do you believe in the founder? I can imagine when you're dealing with these scientists, that their charisma level is like a negative something, you know, versus like a typical founder, which is like, ooh, the sex appeal. Let me, let me give him all the money. So what are the differences in evaluating deals from, you know, your typical, you.

Know, VC world versus the medical brainwaves, the brain science category? Yeah. So most of them are going to have like what I call professional CEOs, someone that talks the talk in the investment world that's going to take the company to the next level. You will find some scientists that do have the skills and the personalities to, you know, this, for example, this company that does the transcranial magnetic stimulation. If you were to meet the guy, the scientist that created it, you wouldn't think he was a scientist. He looks like he talks and acts like a business guy, but at his core, he's a neuroscientist geek. But yeah, most of the time I'm going to invest in companies that I'm not going to take it straight from a scientist in a lab at a university to a company. It has to have gone through a process of a company formation and a level of sophistication. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'm not— I don't want to take that risk of moving, of putting things— that's really kind of like almost like incubator money or pre-seed or angel investing. You probably heard those terms thrown around before, and that's real important. But I don't want to be like a pre-seed investor.

I don't want to take that risk. Well, I just heard earlier when you're talking about going to these universities and these— I would just— and again, it's just my— whatever I'm envisioning of what I'm seeing is, you know, students or doctoral— doctoral— I can't even say the word, you know, PhD candidates that are.

Working on their— in their labs. In that kind of incubator setting? Someone— yeah, it has already gone to the next level. So I might see something like that, but normally I'm not— I'm not planning on investing in— it just depends on where they're at, you know. So there's a really fabulous scientist that has a great idea and he's been trying to do it on his own and just gotten nowhere. And I think it's one of the most promising things I've seen. And but he's a scientist and he's— he hasn't hired the right, you know, CEO yet to kind of get the company to the next level. And but I'm not going to invest in it even though I love what he's doing, because he doesn't have that— the leadership, the strategy, the, you know, good CFO, good CEO, good science, but yeah, the business structure. And these aren't going to be large organizations. They might be 3 to 7 people.

But I don't want to invest in that one. It's one person.— that's a scientist. We talked, uh, about mental health and, and, and particularly PTSD. In my reading, I understand that we have a mental health crisis with American males. I read recently the number one cause of death for American men below the age of 50 is suicide. And the COVID pandemic and sort of the social isolation and the cell phones with the texting and the lack of sort of human interaction is creating and fostering an environment in which we have a crisis. Is, uh, are you— do you see that? Are you seeing that through the lens of an investor?

Are you seeing, uh, businesses focused on— yeah, it's, it's one of the biggest societal problems I think we have today, uh, is mental health. Um, it's, um, become— COVID has accelerated the awareness. And, um, I don't know if you guys remember when, you know, the one or two Olympics ago when Simone Biles said that she couldn't perform because she wasn't meant she just was too anxious. Yes, basically, right? Having— I assume she's having some panic attacks or something. I don't know exactly what was going on, but for her to like withdraw from the Olympics because of a mental health, um, issue probably did more in my mind advance the mental health cause than anything. And so the reducing the stigma— there's a great organization here locally called the Meadows Mental Health Institute, which is a policy and regulatory not-for-profit. They, they've spent a lot of time helping just reducing the stigma part, you know. And so that's one is seeking help, right? And military vets are famous for this. Like, I don't want to— they're not.

Going to go somewhere to get help.

With PTSD, a weakness, right? Yeah. Admit you have a problem. Yeah. Right. But we always couched it for military vets as we're going to help your brain perform better. They like that. It's not just men, it's women, children. We have a mental health crisis. I think that social media has made it harder for our brains to manage and probably created more mental health problems. But yes, suicide, anxiety, depression, addiction, that's— we haven't talked about that yet. Like a lot of mental health problems addiction is their treatment, you know, alcohol or drugs is the treatment, right? Medicating. Yeah. And, you know, I was talking to, you know, several former— especially like a lot of the Marines, like, hey, you know, one fentanyl pill helps with my pain.

10 really make me feel great all day.

Yeah.

And then like just a drop where.

Like just a little bit of dust kills most people. Like fentanyl? There's, there's bad. There's— okay. Yeah, clearly I don't know what they are. There's, there's type— those are all types.

Of opioids inside of it. So OxyContin is another one. So all that sort of comes together in the current state of our existence. I read a book recently called How to Break Up with Your Cell Phone, and I have my cell phone now telling me how much time I'm spending on it. And I'll tell you, it's scary at the end of the day to get a message that says you've looked looked at your phone for 5 hours and 43 minutes or whatever. And I don't have social media or games on my phone, so I'm not sure what I'm spending that amount of time looking at. But, but the science says that our attention spans— for those of us that are engaged in social media and looking at our phones, it is shortening our attention spans, and we're now unable to read and comprehend things because everything is in these tiny little bits of information. So it's changing the way we think and the way we interact with people.

Which has got to feed into the mental health crisis. Yeah, I think, uh, there's a great book called, uh, What the Internet's Doing to Our Brain. Literally, that's what the name of the book, and it was written like 8 years ago, right? So it's— it was just as social media was really emerging. And, you know, there's this concept called brain plasticity. So, you know, before, uh, say the late '90s, it was standard, standard thought in the science world that our brains, by the time we reached adulthood, were fixed. And it's been proven since then that our brains are changing in real time up until the day we die. And they call it brain plasticity. It's the neural connections between your neurons and just all the changes. And so as our brains learn how to use social media and devices, it's, it's a new thing for it, right? And it's not wired to have that much information so readily available. I think there's good and bad to it though. I think there's bad because there's addiction things, and, uh, you know, it's, it's, it's easy to bully someone. That I think for kids that's a big problem because, you know, uh, you know, when there was bullying going on when I was growing up, it was in the playground. At school, right? Now it's, you know, you can bully someone pretty easily on social media and I didn't have to face them, right? So, um, but I think that, um, uh, used properly though, I think there's, there's more benefits to all this device because having access to information done right means if we have the information, we're spending less time getting the information and more time thinking about and processing the information. So they call it critical thinking skills, and that's what separates us from a dog, is that we have a bigger prefrontal cortex. That's where our critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, managing emotions, all those things are done in our brain. So the more— the less we're using gathering rote information that can be gathered on the internet, and the more we're processing it, you can turn a negative into a positive because you can use your brain for things that it's more well-equipped to use and rewire your brain in that, that part of your brain. There's a lot of scientific evidence that the more you use certain parts of your brain, the stronger it becomes. You want this part of your brain up here in front to be the strongest, and but you want to use it. And there's a lot of science out there that suggests our, our brains are so efficient that it was set up to circumvent that part of our brain in the interest of speed. You've heard of like cognitive biases? Yes. Uh, the reason we have cognitive biases is because, uh, um, like a scientist would call a brain a prediction machine. It's trying to predict a thought based.

On past experiences and at the expense of quality for speed.

And our— we're genetically— we're designed to save ourselves. Yeah, yeah, we're still in that flight or fight. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. So, uh, you know, the amygdala is where the, you know, the fear and.

Greed, which are the two big parts of investing, right? Sabertooth tiger's bearing down on you. You don't want to lapse into thought.

On whether it's a threat or not. You want to react immediately. Well, think about how much changed since 1900. Life expectancies, medicine, how much the world has changed since 1990. That's nothing in terms of time and evolution. So how long is it going to take our brain to catch up to that? I don't know the answer to that, or there's probably a good scientist that could tell us. But, you know, we just weren't— our brains biologically weren't designed to process some of the things that we process now. But I think— I actually, you know, think there's more good from the technology.

Than bad, but there's certainly a lot of bad that comes with it. I'm going to label you an optimist because you have said you see more good in AI than bad and more good in technology than bad.

So I'm going to label you a an optimist.

Yeah, I'm an optimist, but I hope not a naive one. Right, right. So let's be honest though, I mean, what's the other side of it? I mean, both those things— a lot of technology, a lot of AI— it's apocalypse. So there's no really 'I told you so' if he is a pessimist, you.

Know, because if you watch The Terminator, Skynet's going to take over everything. So what's funny, because you say that, and my first answer to I look at anything as no. Like I meet someone, it's like, till you prove to me otherwise, I don't like something. It's just— it's not a negative thing. It's just like I— Healthy skepticism. Yes.

Yeah. Well, I go into something with a skeptic's view, but— That's a much nicer way than the way I put it.

Yeah.

I always say everybody you meet is full of— Yeah. All right. Until they prove otherwise. No, I still believe they are, but I just— It can't prove so. But I treat everybody the same. I'm always nice, but It goes back to the whole, man, I'm going to change your life. Cool. I really hope that's true, but I'm.

Not going to hold my breath. That's how I feel about pretty much everything. Well, that healthy skepticism is certainly something that'll serve you well as you make portfolio decisions on how to allocate capital. That optimism will drive your desire to look at more opportunities and see the opportunity in them. I can't imagine from an investment standpoint something more challenging than Brain Health Technology Venture Capital Investing. That's, uh, I'll be really interested to cheerlead you and watch your performance with the, with that fund. And, and I think in the notes I saw in some of your comments, you're marrying the desire to produce attractive returns with the desire to fuel societal change. Yeah. Um, and, and I love that. I, I love marrying money to something that produces a return that makes your.

Investors happy and at the same time has a, a huge benefit to society. And, and to your point about this being hard, if I hadn't worked at the Center for Brain Health for 4 years and developed and stayed in that ecosystem and then invested in biotech the past 8 years, I would never be doing this. But I feel like, um, that with my experience the past 15 years in the space and the people I know, and I just feel like it's in the timing from— mentioned all the examples of, you know, more investors in the space and the science advancing. And I guess I think I'm well positioned to do well, but it is still a risky space. I mean, all venture is. Yeah, but I'm, I'm what we call it, a healthy skeptic about it. You know, I'm not skeptical about the science. To me, it's more about the timing. That's why the investment side is real.

Important because you, you don't want to be too early. Yeah, I ran a much smaller wealth management firm than you did with Hollison, but I remember what it was like in the current market environment where the stock market is gyrating enormously and there's tremendous uncertainty, the stress of holding hands.

And I suspect you don't miss sitting in that seat right now. Yeah, it was kind of nice when.

The tariffs came out that I wasn't.

All hands on deck and have 100 calls to make, talking to clients, right? You know, people. Yeah, I still have to worry about it for my portfolio and just, you know, it has broad implications. But and certainly the market, the markets don't like surprises when we're going to talk about all that. But it was a big process, a.

Big surprise to process that the markets are still trying to figure out. Yeah, I tried to explain to clients, you know, sometimes you get bad news and the market would go up, you get good news, the market would go down, the market price, you know, market changes the price based on new information. And we have new information, seems like every hour now, and very dynamic change in the scene. But you ran a very large wealth management firm and you were managing 150 people. And what I learned was no matter how many people I had between myself and my clients as my firm grew, when the stuff hit the fan, the calls were coming to me, right? And I suspect they were coming to you as well. Yeah, must be nice to now be in a seat where you are looking at investments, but you don't have capital, you don't have partners to explain the impact of what's happening in the political environment on the value of investments. I don't— I can't see any direct.

Connection between tariffs and what's happening right now and VC investing in— no, but Doge does, because they're just the blanket cuts have affected the FDA, at least short-term, maybe, you know, and, uh, uh, you know, RFK is, you know, head of health, um, uh, brings some uncertainty. Um, so there are things, just broad healthcare, that are being affected by, uh, the— some of the president's action.

And I don't— I won't say it's negative, it just creates more uncertainty. Maybe that uncertainty will create better pricing and opportunities for you. Maybe it'll scare capital. If you believe what you read and hear in the news, investors right now are taking a wait-and-see approach because there's so much change.

They're not sure what the path is right now. So maybe that'll create more opportunities. Yeah, that's the, you know, I don't want to keep quoting people, but, you know, Warren Buffett, you sell when others are greedy and buy when others are fearful, you know, and times like this. So like we at Tollison, we lean into the market in the end of March of 2020 when things were falling apart and the markets were down 35%. I said, yeah, this is not good. I don't think it's 35% bad. So perhaps we should lean in a little. We weren't making like a bet, like let's move all your bonds into stocks, but let's, let's start leaning in. And normally, odds are that's a better strategy long term for investing is in.

Times like this to be a buyer, right? I use the rebalancing concept for portfolios, which is so counterintuitive to the typical investor, which is you sell the winners and rebalance to the losers. And wait, I'm going to get out of stocks while they're going up, and I'm going to put that money into something that's underperforming. Ultimately, it's demonstrated that it adds to long-term returns by shaving off when things are going really well and investing when things are out of favor.

But very, very difficult to get investors to accept that concept. Oh yeah, it's the fear and greed mechanisms for investing are some of the biggest causes of underperformers. Do you know Fidelity Investments did a study one time on their best investors over a 10-year period?

And guess who the— what the profile.

Of the best investor was? Female long-term holder. What? Dead. Well, dead, sure. There were accounts that kids forgot about, and they just— they didn't— they didn't try to time the market, and they.

Just held on, and they were the best performers. Yeah, I think Schwab did a similar study where they looked at the returns of clients invested in mutual funds, and they looked at the return of the funds, uh, and then they looked at their returns and found that they dramatically underperformed. From the funds because of their timing decisions. They were selling when they should have been buying and buying when they should have been selling. So even though they were invested in good funds, they didn't hold them long enough through cycles. Yeah, the market timing is— But I have seen where female investment clubs outperform by a statistically significant amount male investment clubs, something like 200 basis points a year, which as you know, as a professional, is a tremendous amount. And the answer was turnover. They don't trade the portfolios as much. Men have— they're just wired to activity and they think they can outsmart. And the women are sort of like, eh. So interesting. But as the Chinese proverb says, may.

We live in interesting times. Yeah, we certainly do now. As we get close to the end here, what are your goals? Because this is a new venture for you. So what is your goals and then.

How would you determine or how do you define success? Yeah. So my goals really for the next year to get the money raised and the funds start to invest. So I'm just starting the process of raising money now. And so hope to have a first close this summer and a final close, you know, later this year, early next year. It's pretty typical to go through a year-long process, but I've got good deal flow, so I've got things to invest in. So, but the fact I just started this a month ago, I just literally am setting up my legal entities and literally just finished a pitch deck 2 days ago. So I'm just getting things started. But so my goal is to get the money raised. I've got really good deal flow. I've got the organization set up. I'm going to hire a few people when I have the first close and just start generating some management fees.. And then a successful outcome to me is to be a top quartile venture manager, you know, you know, 3x on your money, you know, 20% plus IRRs. That's my goal, right? You got to have a goal. And so I want to be measured from the Brain Superfund's perspective is— and by the way, I've asked so many people, should I use that name? Does it sound cool? And they're like, oh no, it kind of— people remember. I like that. I like it. So I'm going to stick with it. But I also want to— I get a lot of satisfaction out of seeing people succeed, like helping people succeed. So to help these companies succeed just would be very gratifying for me, just from a, hey, if they've got a problem, if this other Neuralink competitor can do to, you know, 100,000 people what it's doing to one person in a research lab, that's going to for me, it's going to be more impactful than the returns I get off of it. But, but it's going to make money along the way. So I want to make impact. But, you know, uh, the, the— by default, if you're in healthcare, you're making an impact if you're, if you're moving the needle on these companies, right? So if you're helping improve quality of lives or saving lives. So, but I do want to be.

A, you know, top quartile, you know, biotech venture manager when, when the dust settles. Based on your past experience, I think you'll be successful.

I hope so.

I hope you're right. I wish you great success. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for having me with the Brain Superfund.

Thank you for joining us on the deal table today. Yeah, you guys asked great questions. It was wonderful. And thank you for your service.

I'm— people like you are the reason.

I even got started in this.

Yeah, it was my honor.

Thanks, Eric. All right, thanks, guys.

Hope you enjoyed it as well.

No, it was great.