In this episode, our guest is Travis Sessions, the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Biomerics, a leading mid-market interventional device contract manufacturer. He’s also a Managing Partner of Med Venture Holdings, a unique medtech growth equity investor. With over 20 years of business management experience, Travis has successfully built and grown multiple medical device technology companies during his career. He got his start professionally at Dow Chemical and has held management positions at Microsoft and Parker Hannifin Corporation. Travis has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and a Master’s in Business Administration from the University of Michigan.

Scott Nelson: All right, Travis, welcome to Medsider. Appreciate you coming on.

Travis Sessions: My pleasure Thank you. 

Scott Nelson: Yeah. Really looking forward to the conversation, because as I mentioned in the intro, you dabble in two really interesting areas, running pretty large contract manufacture in Biomerics but also investing in a lot of early-stage medtech products through your private equity company, Med Venture Holdings. So, hoping we have the opportunity to go deep on or at least go into both of those kinds of two areas for the people listening. I think they'll be able to glean some really interesting insights.

So, with that said, let's maybe start out the conversation with talking a little bit more about medtech trends that you're seeing from both of those perspectives. Is leading a successful contract manufacturer, but also having some really nice wins when it comes to Med Venture Holdings. So, we're recording this in Q2 of 2020. So, what's your general take on medtech in terms of growth and where companies maybe are taking advantage of growth opportunities or maybe where they're not?

Travis Sessions: First of all, it's still a very attractive market. Medtech is one of the areas in the economy that has grown consistently for the last ten years and is still outperforming in general the larger economy. I started Biomerics 10 years ago and when I started the company med device was about a $400 billion industry and contract manufacturing within that marketplace was about 30 billion of it. Well, advanced forward 10 years the market's now about a $500 billion dollar market and contract manufacturing is exceeding about 120 billion.

So, it has grown much faster than the larger market as a med device, companies have outsourced what they would consider in the past for manufacturing technologies. I think it says a lot about how the industry has changed, where the large device companies are much more focused on the clinical outcomes, on the sales process, on the regulatory side of it. Other aspects of the business just don't require the same level of attention as it used to. So, contract manufacturing is an area where they can leverage the larger supply chain to do that type of work so they can focus on the areas that are really driving more value for them.

Scott Nelson: So, when it comes to that growth and that continued growth that you envision, I mean, are there a few underlying things that you believe are the impetus for that?

Travis Sessions: You know, the way I look at it is if the market's growing more than double-digit, there is something driving that that's outside of normal conditions. There's a lot of hot spots right where there is double-digit growth occurring and in most cases, they're driven by the big killers in life like heart disease, diabetes, the big trends that need to be solved. What we try to do, both on the Biomerics, Med Venture, is to identify those and get involved where the pie is growing to become large. 

There's nothing new about the strategy. There are a few big trends out there. One of the more recent ones that have been interesting is the trend to go to single-use endoscopes in that very large market. It's about a $30 billion market and it's being driven primarily for availability, for infection control, for patient to patient. So, that's an example of where we identify that there's a big growth opportunity and then let's take our technologies and go after that.

We've had a strategy to focus on select markets where we think those trends are happening and our target markets are interventional GI. It's interventional radiology, structural heart and electrophysiology, neurovascular markets, and then the general vascular access market. Those are markets that are driven by IP. They're driven by clinical need and as a mid-sized contract manufacturer, it's an area where we can provide real value to our customer base.

Scott Nelson: Yeah, I mean, it's refreshing to hear you say that you're still very bullish on medtech because sometimes it's easy to get lost in the challenging environment that even most startup medtech companies face in raising money and the sheer amount of capital that you typically have to throw at a startup to get it even remotely close to the finish line, etc. So, it's cool to hear that. You've been in the game a while now on almost on both sides of the table, so to speak, or at least two different sides of the table. To hear that you're still very positive in terms of historical net tech growth, but also looking at China, looking at the future and you still envision a lot of upside to medtech. So that's cool to hear. 

So, on that and that end, let's talk a little bit more about Biomerics and really more about contract manufacturing, because like you said, you started Biomerics about 10 years ago and have seen really phenomenal growth rates. Then maybe after we talk a little bit about contract manufacturing, we can kind of get into your experiences Med Venture Holdings and you're seeing things through the lens of a medtech startup. But when it comes to contract manufacturing, are there a couple of things that really set a good quality CM or contract manufacturer apart from the larger OEM players?

Travis Sessions: Well, for sure, the market is segmented. I like to think of it this way. There are contract manufacturers that are specialized in one area of technology, and these are usually the mom and pop smaller shops that have either unique technology that differentiates them or a development process that's unique. You then have the very large players that are really about contract manufacturing for scale, a lot of hospital supplies that may be overseas manufacturing with the low-cost country. Then there's this middle section that I like to identify as the interventional space. 

This is where you are making products that are differentiated, that are complex and require a full service of both capabilities of manufacturing technologies to be able to get a product effectively launched and then scaled. That's where Biomerics is focused is we want to be the leading mid-market contract manufacturer in this interventional space. To be there, there are a few must-haves. The first one is quality. We talked about medtech, and it's not for the faint of heart.

There is a big regulatory aspect to that. If you don't embrace it and don't do it right, frankly, you just can't play in the marketplace. You shouldn't be there. So, that's a big one. The next area is the scale of manufacturing. You need to have enough skill to be able to take on what the typical med device manufacturer needs. That's going to involve a number of different technologies. If you look at the marketplace in general, there tends to be a series of plastic technologies, extrusion molding the materials.

There tends to be a segment of metal-based technologies that are needed hypo tube wire, laser processing, coating, those type of things. Our strategy has been to look at that marketplace, identify the key aspects of the technology needed to be valuable to our customers, and make sure we get that all under one roof while still being able to be nimble and reactive to meet their needs. It's not easy, but it is clear what the market wants, and we try to focus in on delivering that for our customers. 

Scott Nelson: So is this do you think this is a fair summary that like if I'm am at a big brand or a big OEM, like a Medtronic or a Boston Scientific, one of the large multinational strategics, and I'm looking for to identify an OEM, to work with, specialty stands out. Do they have the specialty, the domain expertise?

You mentioned interventional as an example. Do they have that type of expertise? Do they have the ability to demonstrate a commitment to quality? Because to your point, Travis, that can't be ignored, that sort of entry into the game. Third, do they have the internal technology to create the products that you really, truly need and maybe, number three, number one are one and the same. But is that a fair summary?

Travis Sessions: Yeah, I think that's on everybody's checklist that they also need to have enough skill to take on the risk of what the project requires. These large companies have their approved vendor list to take a look at that. They're always trying to consolidate it. At the same time, they want innovation, and they want real capability and it's that combination that you just listed that is the checklist. If you do that right there, the pie is growing so quickly that there's more business than a lot of us could even handle as we look at the growth in the marketplace.

Scott Nelson: When it comes to scale, we talked a little bit about this before I hit the record button on this conversation. But you have facilities in Utah, Texas, New York correct? Am I missing another location?

Travis Sessions: We also have Indiana, Costa Rica, and then we have two locations in the twin city areas.

Scott Nelson: Okay. Okay, So, you're across the US. How important do you think that is moving forward for medtech, this concept of regionalization in manufacturing? I know you're manufacturing just in the US, but do you think that is a trend that medtech we'll see moving forward where if you're commercializing in Europe, you need to manufacture in Europe. If you're commercializing in the US, you need to manufacture in the US, etc.

Travis Sessions: The trend is definitely coming back in that direction. We've seen it across the board. I think a lot of that's just driven by politics and in some of the things that are going on in the world. What we've identified is that where devices are designed, and products are managed and engineered you need to be there, and you need to be there to be able to provide the level of service that's needed. So, as we've looked at where do we go geographically we've wanted to make sure we're in those hot spots where the med device is strong. 

The Boston areas, Minnesota, Salt Lake, Northern California, Southern California. By being in those design centers, then you can determine where is the best place to manufacture. So, we determined it was time to go to Costa Rica for scale of lower-cost manufacturing. That's just part of that larger strategy. Effectively, what happens and what we expect will continue to happen is we're in those geographies where we can engineer, but then when needed, we can follow source to a lower-cost country with our customers as they want, as the products scale and mature.

Scott Nelson: Got it. Do you envision and you mentioned Costa Rica as an area of low-cost manufacturing, and that's certainly been I mean, I think that ecosystem, it's been nice to see that that built up, you know, over the past, gosh, now five to ten years? I know historically most medtech companies have tended to avoid manufacturing in Asia, really anywhere in Asia, Shenzhen, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia area. Do you see that changing? Do you see that maybe opening a bit? I know because of the current economic climates, a lot of companies, especially consumer electronic companies are pulling out of Shenzhen and other areas of Asia. But do you see that activity picking up for more mainstream medtech?

Travis Sessions: The thing that's driving it is those economies are becoming meaningful economies where health care is needed. Our strategies with going to Asia has not been to follow low-cost manufacturing, but to get access to new markets. So, yes, there is an absolute need for production in those areas to serve products for those geographies. That's, I think the right way to look at it will always be a need to have better, lower-cost manufacturing. But the markets that we've elected to play, and that's not the number one driver. It really is around innovation and IP quality and security. When you take the combination of those needs, you find that that manufacturing a long way away for low cost is just not the priority of that customer. So, we think we've targeted the right markets with what our strengths are, and we do see the next step for Biomerics is to become a more international company and have strategies to do that, of course.

Scott Nelson: So, I love that because I think most people when they think about manufacturing in Asia at a cost comes to mind. That would be the primary driver to follow that path. But what you're saying is don't. It shouldn't be. Really you should be thinking about if you're considering manufacturing in Asia, it should really be about market access and maybe some other things, as you said, IP, etc. and not really the opportunity to manufacture in a low-cost way.

Travis Sessions: Yeah, I agree completely. You know, the customers that we're following to those geographies. They're picking us to go there with them because of the trust and the quality and the other things they need and by the way, let's go do this right in that geography as well. So, we think it's just a much less risky way to grow and it makes better sense for the customer as well as for Biomerics.

Scott Nelson: It makes sense. Anything before we transition and discuss Med Venture Holdings in a little bit more detail because I think that's a super interesting play. I'm curious to learn a little bit more about the history there. Is there anything else that you think that's worthy of chatting it out when it comes to contract manufacture? I just want to really make sure that the audience that listens to these podcasts, these discussions, they're pure-play medtech folks and I want to make sure that they glean enough about contract manufacturing to walk away to maybe make a little bit more informed decision or have a little bit more knowledge. So, do you think there's anything else that you want to kind of cover when it comes to contract manufacturing and things to look out for before we move on?

Travis Sessions: I think we already covered the general things of quality and supply and manufacturing. I think the piece that is also critical is that a good contract manufacturer still retains design development services. Meaning they have the ability to engineer new products within their core competency and you see it all the time. You know, a company gets consolidated, they grow and the secret sauce that made them grow in the first place sometimes can be lost. I see that happen where a contract manufacturer maybe gets to focused in on just production and they lose track of the innovation and the growth and what drives a number of these markets. So, that right balance is a tough one to get but if you can keep the technology and the cutting edge balanced with real manufacturing, you got something magical.

Scott Nelson: That's a really good point. I guess it made me think of one other follow-up question. With Biomerics, how involved are you with the regulatory aspect when it comes to manufacturing these devices? Because as you know, that's so crucial for a product to become commercially ready. So, do you guys take a pretty active role in that, or is that managed sort of separately outside of Biomerics? What are your general thoughts on that topic?

Travis Sessions: Well, first, let's cover regulatory at a high level. This is a regulated market, and I always tell everybody to embrace it for all the right reasons and you'll get the benefit of it. What does that mean for a really good contract manufacturer? It means 10% of your employee base is involved in quality and regulatory activities. It's that big of a part of the company. As we look at acquisitions and look at other companies, that's the magical number.

If I see that the quality and regulatory team is 10 percent of the company then I know they're doing it right. If it's less than that, there's a risk there that is not being mitigated correctly. If it's more than that, then maybe they're not as efficient as they should be. It's just a general rule. When it comes to the regulatory side of clinical interaction, it really depends on the company. Generally speaking, our customers want to manage that piece, but they'll want us to be involved usually up through animal trials. 

A lot of times we're actually preparing regulatory submissions on behalf of our customers. But it's important that they have that clinical side of the regulatory within their company, that they're good at it and that there's a good interaction. A few years ago actually developed a regulatory agreement that goes with all of our supply agreements. What the agreement does is it identifies all the regulatory requirements and then clearly calls out what our responsibility is and what their responsibility is to ensure that it gets covered effectively. That's a good way to manage it and we have a whole department that focuses on those items.

Scott Nelson: Got it. That's good to know, and it's interesting that you call that the 10% number that if another contract manufacturer is in at least allocating 10% of their employees to quality and reg, that's a red flag to you. So good insight to pull from. So, with that said, Travis, should we transition to Med Venture holdings. Are you okay with that?

Travis Sessions: Yeah. It sounds great.

Scott Nelson: So, this is upper interesting. It's one of the things that I've since we maybe first met, gosh, four or five years ago that I was really intrigued with is this aspect of your business. So maybe first tell us a little bit more about what Med Venture Holdings is and give us maybe a little bit of the history and then we'll kind of transition into what you've seen and what you've experienced in working in partnership with some of these OEMs through your relationship with Med Ventures.

Travis Sessions: Yeah, it's interesting. You mentioned early in the conversation about VC money is run from the medtech space because of the amount of money and time and risk that's involved, that, frankly, there's just a better investment opportunity for general VC funds. I kept seeing a number of great ideas that were just underfunded or couldn't get access to the capital to move forward. As a contract manufacturer, we're going to see a lot of new ideas as just part of the business.

First of all, I thought it was important that a contract manufacturer not be involved in potentially competing with its customer base. So, I never wanted to have Biomerics being an investor in, you know, its customers for that potential conflict. But clearly, there was a need. So, we formed Med Venture Holdings as an independent entity, private equity that could evaluate these opportunities and help incubate companies to get across that line. So, inside of an adventure, we have IP attorneys, we have regulatory experts, we have accountants, and those types of services that the de-risk the projects. 

For example, I see a lot of startups that they get focused in on getting a quality system and getting capital equipment and there's a whole number of things that at the end of the day actually don't provide any value in getting the technology to the end game but are requirements. So, Med Venture had a model where we would provide all of that, incubate companies and we've done other investments that are already operating entities. But by bringing that expertise, the cost of getting a product down or across the goal line was lowered and also the speed.

I'll tell you the speed is more important than the price, especially in this market. So, Med Venture looks at I'd say 20 to 30 opportunities for everyone that we invest in. We go through a process of a number of screens to identify the clinical needs, the intellectual property, the technical risk to look at the market dynamics and look at the team that's going to be executing the program and then put together the right capital structure to enable the success of the idea. We've done over 20 investments so far. We've had a number of successful exits and it's really been an interesting model to understand those marketplaces and the best way to go about developing medtech products.

Scott Nelson: Yeah, I if you don't mind, I'd love to unpack a few things that you mentioned with respect to Med Venture and really what you saw that sort of served as the impetus for even putting the building blocks together here. Then maybe we can talk a little bit more about some things that you learned some wins, maybe some losses, etc., things that you would do differently. But when it comes to Med Venture, I love the idea that what you noticed is like a lot of good ideas, but the capital needed to get those ideas to the next milestone was just unneeded. You could service, within the construct a Biomerics you could service those needs without excess capital. So, I'd love your ability to see, to read between the lines in terms of what at most medtech startups struggle with trying to go from initial idea to prototype to the various stages of manufacturing.,

But when it comes to Med Venture, if you can share I mean, is there an average check size versus equity stake you typically hold in a startup, and then I presume most of the time you're building these companies for an eventual exit. But are some of these companies you envision holding on to for quite some time? I threw a lot at you there Travis but maybe speak to some of those more some of those questions that I just raised.

Travis Sessions: Yeah, it's a lot there. Let me start with the market at a large level. There is venture capital for game-changing interventional products. These are PMAs, new heart valves, new ways to treat items, and that markets well-funded and well managed. There is also a pretty good angel community of experts that want to invest in and help in health care. But there's this big gap between the angels and PMA type products. Venture capital really isn't looking at 510(k) type approaches.

For those familiar, that's a minor improvement or a device that's going to make something better, but it's not necessarily new to the market. We saw that that that's where we could provide real value in covering between angel investment and around C, D, where all the work's been done and now it's just time to scale a business and it's that risky valley where real value can be created. So, that's what we targeted primarily. With that said Med Ventures private equity we don't have a fund. We don't follow a VC model, which gives us kind of ultimate flexibility to take a look at an idea or take a look at an existing company and come up the right capital structure to achieve the business goal. So, I always tell people we don't have a pre-set approach other than we're going to look at the real problem, the real capital needed, and then the structure to ensure not the upside opportunity, but to manage the downside risk.

If you structure a company correctly, it can weather the unknowns. That's usually what gets people. It's not that it wasn't a good idea. There's something that happens in the process that was unknown, and you got to count on it. If you are nimble and have the right structure that can deal with that, you'll end up with the right product at the end of the day. So, that's been our approach. The contract manufacturing relationship with Biomerics is also, I think, a way to de-risk and speed things up that also can be helpful to companies. But I always tell everybody that each company stands on its own two feet with its idea, with its team and with its market goals and great teams and great leaders then go through the process to deliver a great product.

Scott Nelson: That's lots of good stuff there. But one of the things that really stands out here the comment you made about risk and it's interesting that you say that. I think that the piece, it was this week on I think it was by Morgan, he's at a venture fund. Morgan Housel, I believe, and he wrote a piece on the three kinds of risk. I just pulled up a quote from that piece. He said, once you go through something like that, which was a life-changing like life or death experience for him personally. He said he realized that the talin consequences, that the low probability, high impact events are all that matter.

So, it's interesting that you say that about a lot of your companies. It's not just the upside opportunity that you're looking at, it's how to manage the downside. There are downside risks, right? Those low probability, but like high impact, the chance of the company completely failing. It's how you manage those which probably arguably are the most important risks. So, cool that you mentioned that.

Travis Sessions: It's rare that people ever identify the real risk in business. We all have our perceptions, and we see the world as we see it. The better you can see real risk, the better you'll succeed because it's like if the winds at your back and everything's going great, everybody can succeed in that. The real challenge is seeing where are those pitfalls and then addressing them so that they are just eliminated. It may take a little longer, but you'll still get there.

Scott Nelson: When it comes to one, I guess one other follow-up question when it comes to some of the more detailed questions around Med Venture Holdings and who you typically work with, are you finding yourself working with a lot of physician inventors or where do a lot of 20 to 30 deals that you evaluate on an annual basis? Who's coming to you typically with those ideas and those various opportunities that you're vetting?

Travis Sessions: So, there are typically two kinds of groups. One is physicians, and that's they've got a problem, they have identified it and now they want to go get a solution to that problem. I've found that it's actually pretty rare. Most doctors are trained to get around problems and the many times they don't even notice that the problem exists because they've been trained so well to manage those. But there are the rare few doctors that not only identify the problem but then want to go fix it.

We love those types of positions. They are true entrepreneurs and that's probably half of the projects that we see. The other half is usually industry experts that have a certain level of expertise and know that there's a market opportunity or have identified a clinical need that can be solved. We see probably 20 pitches a month with different levels of concept. We screen them all within that same type of approach but, you know it when you see it, as I always tell people. When you see it, you jump on it but there is a process for it.

Scott Nelson: Got it. How often are you working in conjunction with larger OEMs? Because I mean, we both know that any more at a multi-national strategic that it's you when you think R&D, it's mostly big D little R. But are you ever partnering with some of those bigger strategics and incubating some of these ideas and pushing them forward in some sort of relationship like that?

Travis Sessions: Less and less and the reason why you hinted at it earlier, the big guys bought by the small guys. The reason that's occurring is because of the regulatory environment and the business structure that's been set up. The challenge of breaking into a new market to commercialize is becoming more and more difficult. So, the most common exit is to be acquired. Also because of those dynamics, the ability for the large players to decide when to acquire has been enhanced dramatically. There are still probably more buyers than sellers in this market, but they can be very patient, and they get to choose when they want to have those transactions. 

We've found that they're not as interested in early development when the projects are risky. They would rather pay more later once that risk has been taken out. So, the type of interactions is changing where they want to see the regulatory approval done. They would like to see all the clinical work done and they would really love to see even some level of commercial activity and success happening. Then they're more than happy to, of course, pay for those types of products. It's not everywhere, but that's generally across the board what's happened over the last five or six years.

Scott Nelson: The last thing that you mentioned Travis it makes sense. I mean, I think most people close to space understand that large strategics are looking to de-risk the acquisition as much as possible. But how big is that third element, commercial traction? Are you seeing that become even more important in today's M&A environment where it's not just the reg checkbox that needs to be checked or the clinical data that ladders up to the right strategy? In order to be acquired, there's a high likelihood that you may need to see some commercial or showcase some commercial traction as well.

Travis Sessions: Yeah, I always tell people the thing that matters the most is the clinical result. If you create a product that works clinically, eventually that value rises to the top. The second biggest thing, of course, is the commercial viability of the opportunity. There's a lot that goes into that pricing, reimbursement channel. You really have to think through all of those in advance. Typically, how deals are valued is they'll be a model that's generated by the acquirer that realizes his channel power, and if he were to acquire this and move it into their organization, what kind of scale could occur? 

So, that's what they're looking for. Is there enough commercial information to show that I can look at what you've done with it? Now, if I took it where it would go. That would be the common model for improvements on products. Now, if you have a new solution to a really important problem, then, of course, that's a real business to be built.

Scott Nelson: Some of your comments reminded me of an interview I did, a discussion I had of Paul Buckman. I recently published it maybe six months ago, but I actually recorded it back in, gosh, I think 2017 or something like that. But he mentioned, and I'm not sure if you're familiar with him, but he's a serial medtech entrepreneur, was early FoxHollow, was that early Scimed, etc., etc. A couple of things that he mentioned when it comes to M&A in today's medtech climate, is that his advice would be don't look for the three, four, five hundred million dollar acquisition. Get your startup to the next milestone where it's easier to digest, from an acquirer standpoint with the goal of it being semi non-dilutive, semi-low risk.

Then the other thing, too, which I'd like to get your comments on, is that he mentioned you really need to make sure, to your point, Travis, that commercial viability is there, including how someone is going to get paid for using the device. So, the coverage and reimbursement landscape, which oftentimes is overlooked, unfortunately. So, can you maybe speak to the latter?  When you're vetting a deal with Med Venture holdings, how deep do you go when it comes to coverage or reimbursement? In other words, if there's no CPT code, will you even do with the deal?

Travis Sessions: So, first of all, you're exactly right. It's the area where most of the deals are the least evaluated. Everyone has a great idea. Everybody knows a clinical need, but it's really hard to get into reimbursement and hospitals and in the sales process itself. We always have a process where we try to identify what is that one statement that describes, in an elevator why this is going to go to work. If the financial piece of it isn't included in there, then you just got this big blind spot. So, we do look at all. We don't require a code, but we do want to look at reimbursement. We do look at gross margin. That's the other area where is the gross margin is not additive to acquire it's a no-go from day one. So, making sure that there's the right level of a gross margin in the bill with the reimbursement is just critical. 

Scott Nelson: It makes a ton of sense. I know we're getting close to the allotted time that we had for this discussion. So, unless there's anything you want to maybe speak to with respect to Med Venture Holdings, I'd like to get to those last three rapid-fire questions. But before we do that, is there anything that stands out, whether it's key things that you want to make sure that you get across based on your experiences with Med Venture Holdings over the last several years or anything else that you want to mention there?

Travis Sessions: No, it's a great, fun market to be in where you're putting capital to work that creates value for patients. We love to look at new ideas and have people succeed. So, I look forward to all these new opportunities.

Scott Nelson: Very cool. So, with that said, Travis, let's get to the last three rapid-fire questions. The first one being, and the rapid-fire, sort of in the way I ask them, feel free to expound upon your answer. But the first one being, is there a business book that comes to mind that's been pretty impactful in your professional career?

Travis Sessions: Yes, I don't know if I would call it a business book or not. But I don't know if you've read Marcus Aurelius "Personal Journal".

Scott Nelson: I've heard of it, but not read it.

Travis Sessions: I would say half of the book is about business and how business should occur Our moral reasons for business and that's probably had the biggest impact on my approach to businesses is his journal.

Scott Nelson: Do you ascribe to the stoic philosophy or maybe certain aspects of it?

Travis Sessions: For sure. Yeah. We could talk for an hour on this one but there is definitely some truth there.

Scott Nelson: Yeah. Do you know who Ryan Holiday is, that author? He's a younger guy but has written a fair number of pieces where stoic philosophy has been a foundational aspect to his work.

Travis Sessions: I have. I don't know if you follow a lot of the business minds that are out there, but it's pretty common across people from Gates to Buffett to a lot of them to have that approach to the business. 

Scott Nelson: Yeah, I mean, Ryan Holiday is the one that stands out to me just because I remember reading his first book that he ever published called, "Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator," which was actually if you're a marketer, it's a really interesting read. The title is certainly a clickbaity title, but it's a really good book. But it's been interesting to watch his evolution because I think his other three or four books since then have been very much rooted in that in stoic philosophy. So, I think his last book being "The Obstacle is the Way," I think if I remember right. I did not realize that about you, that you think highly of the stoic. So, on that note, is there a business leader or mentor in your life that has been super impactful or someone that really comes to mind?

Travis Sessions: There's quite a few. I think one of the greatest things in business is partnerships and partnerships exist because they produce the best outcome for both. That's how I see mentors and how it impacted me. I've got, I actually called them my mentors. I've got actually a whole group of mentors that I call quite often. It's been probably the most rewarding part of the business is those partnerships. You go through a number of years through business with people and you really get a sense of what that means and why it works and why there's an obligation to mentor other people as well. It truly is beneficial, and I don't want to give out particular names here on this, but I'm very grateful for them.

Scott Nelson: Without going into too much detail, are there one or two specific qualities that you look for in those in those mentorships or those partnership relationships that you have?

Travis Sessions: The first and most important is trust and loyalty. It's not necessarily honesty, but a real mentor is going to be honest with you because there's that trust that's been built, and getting real feedback from someone you trust is the fastest way to grow, to learn. So, that's probably the one common theme across the great mentors that I have. Then I really look up to how they approach life. They all have their unique talents, of course, that is different but that's the common thread.

Scott Nelson: Got it. It's good.  I love that. I love the fact that honesty is high on the list, but it's not the highest list. Trust and loyalty are what stand out. That's cool. So, last rapid-fire question, Travis, is if you had the opportunity to rewind the clock and go back in time, is there something that you tell your 30-year-old self?

Travis Sessions: Great question. I've thought about this a lot and I always wondered. My career I worked for public companies and I got my MBA and I always had the aspiration of starting my own company and I always wondered when. When was the right time to start? I started my company when I was 37 and I think I don't regret it all because there are so many things that were built up to then be successful.

But I wish I would have done it a little sooner. I always tell people that you misunderstand risk if you put a lot of security in your employer. It's a bad understanding. Why are you valuable and why do they employ you? Because you're valuable. The day you're not valuable guess what? You're not going to be employed. So, don't forget that the value you have is you, not the company that you work for. Once you see it right and you realize, okay, I can go do this and I see a lot of people want the security. I got to the point where I just realized, you know what, today I'm quitting. I quit without having the next thing lined up because I knew that I was ready for it. I really respect people that see that and then take the action when they're ready for it. I always wondered if I would have been ready earlier, but that's what comes to mind with the question.

Scott Nelson: So, start earlier. Yeah, that's good. I mean, I'd like to think that I listen to a fair amount of interviews with other entrepreneurs, read a fair amount of that books and that certainly seems to be a trend that comes up with the other folks, too, that have started their companies as they just wish they would have pulled the pull the trigger or pull the proverbial trigger a little bit earlier in their careers. But nonetheless, it's been fun to see your success with not only Biomerics but, Med Venture Holdings and what you've been able to do there. So, certainly wish you all the best in the future and I love the fact that you're still very bullish on medtech. That's cool to hear. It's always good to hear that kind of positive spin in the midst of some challenges.

So, Travis, I'll have you hold on the line. But before I hang up, before we end the call here is the best place to learn a little bit more about Biomerics, just the website Biomerics which I'll link to in the show notes here, but it's B-I-O-M-E-R-I-C-S, biomerics.com and then Med Venture Holdings is just, that's the URL medventureholdings.com. Are those probably the two best places to learn a little bit more about your contract manufacture as well as the private equity early-stage medtech company that you have.