Sure, it's a great question. I appreciate that. I'd say in terms of what I do now, just his way of background. My company is called 10 two Capital Partners, so I try to work with what I call, smart capital, and then compelling private market opportunities, whether it's a fund or an actual company, so if you think about that, well, this guy was probably on the investment banking path, but I actually started a little unorthodox, in private wealth with Merrill Lynch years ago in New York City, so I started back in 1994 worked mostly with corporate insiders, some privately held companies, and then alternative investments, so that's kind of how I started it, did that for about 12.5 years, and then I had more of an interest on the institutional side. So I had an opportunity, to go from a very large company, which was Merrill Lynch, and work with a privately held company called Wilshire Consulting, which most people have heard of, they are one of the tops in the world for institutional investment consulting. So there I was able to work with very large plan sponsors, endowment foundations, corporations instead of working with a family, that was worth, say, $20 million. Now you're working with a multibillion-dollar concern, large investment committees, and whatnot, so that just fueled my creativity more kind of the academic rigor. And then from there, having moved back to Pittsburgh, where I'm originally from, I thought, You know what, I have all these great contacts and different interests in these different verticals, with technology now on the way, you can do things. Why don't I just try to formulate my own business? That's kind of how ten 2 capitals got started. So I didn't go the traditional analyst route at Goldman. I kind of went around it, but I continue to focus on the verticals that I like, and it's been fun so far is challenging, but it's fun. So that's kind of the route. How I got where I am now?

Sure, well, within my role, ten two capital partners is more of an investment bank than it is, say, a merchant bank or an actual VC, but, when I initially started out, I was looking for anything that I thought was compelling. But now I've narrowed the focus to areas that I think I'm going to continue to grow very well. But also, I have a real interest in, so that includes MedTech, Biotech, Robotics, AI, Machine learning and also Nanotech, in digital health. I think by doing that, a lot of those areas are actually converging, which makes it more exciting, but number two, I'm not going to spend time on real estate. I'm not going to spend time on something that's not older industry, but just, because you can't do everything to everybody right, you got to have a focus, so, in terms of founding teams and opportunities, again, I tried to work with early to late stage companies that are still private, obviously. Venture companies or Venture funds that are within those respective domains, or even like a lower middle market company. So you want people that are well versed in those respective industries, ideally, if they've also worked together for a period of time, they're not just a great suite of executives have come together for the first time. Do they have a competitive advantage? What is that? Can you capitalize on it? These are the things that make sense. It's highly competitive, but the more, especially if it's a brand new fund or new company, and for the people that I listen to this if you go on my LinkedIn page, I've actually wrote, it's, a couple of articles, years back on first time funds and kind of the dislocation between general partners and limited partners that may give you some additional insights, kind of on what to look for and how to collaborate the right way. U Yeah, that helps. Yeah, the cool thing about a merchant bank in general is, it's going to be their own capital typically, right? So they're going to maybe bring other investors, that could be another merchant bank, family office, VC fund and kind of co-invest if you will, but they're going to focus on their capital, whereas the VC fund, you're going to have limited partners typically, that come in, could be a large pension fund. It could be a sovereign wealth fund to family office. High net worth, individual, etc, where they're going to pledge their capital into a blind pool, all right. And of course, the VC will have a thesis on what they're supposed to tap into. But there's also a different economics right where you have usually, an annual maintenance fee plus the carry meaning what they would participate in, whereas a merchant bank is kind of almost more synonymous coming in with their own capital. So from the company that's receiving the capital, they may look at that as more advantageous from an economic perspective, but there's tremendous VCs that are out there that, because of the returns they have and the laser focused that they have and how well known they are at their pedigree, they can command those high economics of, 2%, 20 or even higher, so that's kind of the difference so far. Venture capital funds, I think most of them too are moving later stage. To tell you the truth, I mean, so I'm just focused strictly on seed or precede, so this is going to be the initial institutional capital, which is typically at that level, friends and family, right? So they have a real connection or expertise within those areas of focus. Not only could they provide the initial capital for said company, but they could also, add tremendous value. Then there's ones that participate farther down the road. Series A,B,C,D etc. not only the company is going to have more traction, but they may also already be generating revenue, they're expanding. People that have an appetite for that, are not going to invest in the pre-seed because they want more traction and vice versa. So, yeah, it runs the gamut, really? But again, my focus is really on the early stage to kind of middle stage. So that seed to like maybe Series D, in terms of funds in companies. And then if there's something that's already well established, which would be more of a private equity play, I would look at that as well, in those respective verticals that I mentioned earlier.

Sure. I always think less is more. I've seen some that run the game, that are 100 pages. No, no one's going to look at that, I mean, unless you want to, but, I think, having a very powerful beginning on, this is the real total available market. This is the problem, here is the solution. Here's why, we're different, right? Is this going to be an incremental improvement which almost anybody can kind of do over time? Or is this really disruptive, kind of a real game changer? Obviously, projections are good, but especially at earlier stage projections, people look at that, with a bit of skepticism because they never pan out exactly the way you think. So, yeah, you want to see, do you have a real solution to a real problem? Is that a very large, multibillion dollar addressable market? Are the projections somewhat realistic, and then at that level, it really comes down to the team. What areas of expertise they have? Have they already been through this cycle, right? Have they taken money and actually had an exit and has it been successful? So the more you see that there's a group that's very cohesive. It has done very well. I think that allows the investors to feel much more comfortable like, Hey, this is a repeatable process. These guys do know what they're doing and it could definitely add value. So those are the things I think within the deck itself. And also, are there any other competitors? Even though it might be disruptive, who's in the marketplace now, where can you take advantage of that, and things of that nature. I think those are the most important ones, there are other ones as well, but, at that level, you're typically investing in the people 100%. If they're not good, it's not going to work.