Matt Nelson  0:00  
Today's show, we'll be talking about the issues that founders of med tech companies face when starting their businesses, from the regulatory affairs to the money, raising issues and mistakes to avoid in between. I'm joined by Karen deep, Singh badwell, who is a UK based consultant that helps med tech founders get their operations from concept to market. I came across Karen deep through his show, aptly titled the med tech podcast, and we recently connected for a conversation. While he has a wide ranging background of expertise and interests including club car racing and martial arts, his preference is working directly with founders of newer med tech companies, and I think that crosses over very well at the audience here with that brief intro, enjoy the show.

Matt Nelson  0:46  
All right. Welcome back to the show. Everyone. Today, we're going to learn a lot about med tech startups, the issues that go through, and just we'll see where the conversation meanders. It was really great meeting you recently, I believe, through LinkedIn, I've been a longtime listener of your show and others that you listen to as well, so just kind of connected that way, you know, so that I don't go on forever. I want to, I want to see if is there anything in that intro you would like people to know about your background and just what you do effectively.

Karandeep Singh Badwal  1:21  
Another thing I do outside of the medtech podcast is I create a lot of content on LinkedIn because I've noticed from my audience that quality and regulatory can sometimes be confusing for those who are not necessarily involved in these kind of roles. You know, people hear things like C box, ISO, 13485, QMs, and if you were to go online, it probably leave you more confused than where you basically started. So what I aim to do my content is I try to get that very complex topic of regulatory into small, one to two minute clips or small pulse, just to help people understand what regulatory is. Because regulatory is an important piece. Even if you don't get regulatory approval, you can't legally sell. You can put millions, you can input billions into your product. But if you cannot get regulatory you simply cannot sell onto the market. And another misconception that people often have with regulatory is they think it stifles innovation, but the reality of regulatory, it simply exists for our safety and efficacy. The last thing we want to happen is you create this wonderful medical device, and it's actually then going out and causing harm rather than benefits on the market.

Matt Nelson  2:17  
Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, it's actually the from, from my perspective, it becomes a bit of a it's almost an advantage, in a way, in this industry, for the startups who know how to manage through the regulatory because it creates a moat around around other startups. I mean, the reality is, if this was super easy, you know the old adage of everybody would be doing it. And so having someone who's very adept at navigating through the affairs, like yourself and helping the startups, I mean, frankly, that's just a that's just a superpower to get your company off the ground in the first place. So, you know, maybe, maybe reframing it, like you said, of almost an advantage to approach it properly. Then just this thing you have to sort of deal with. Yeah,

Karandeep Singh Badwal  3:02  
definitely. So again, with regulatory is something that should be planned from the start. A lot of mistakes that companies make is they go out to build their product, they get the innovation in place, and then try to bolt in regulatory at the end. And usually trying to do things in retrospective is not the most efficient way to do things. But if you have regulatory in mind at the star. You can build your product around that, and that really is the fastest way to get your product on the market, is to bring regulatory in at the start, rather than try to do it at the

Matt Nelson  3:28  
end. Absolutely makes a lot of sense, you know. So, just shifting gears here for a minute in your experience, what kind of people are starting med tech companies today, from what you're seeing, and how do you think that's maybe different from, you know, just the regular tech SaaS market.

Karandeep Singh Badwal  3:45  
So what's quite happening now is I'm seeing a lot of sort of university and college spin offs. You know, it could be somebody who's like a PhD student, or somebody was majoring in a certain subject, and there seems to be a lot of spin offs from there. But what I'm finding right now, actually, in the med tech market, in comparison to something like electronics or apps, the founders are usually people later on in life. So again, it's kind of they may be worked in the industry for 10 to 15 years. They've spotted a problem. It could be a physician, maybe, who's worked in a certain industry. That could be cardiology or neuromodulation. You know, they've seen the pain in terms of where things actually are. So what I find, in comparison with the med tech market, in comparison to other types of markets, is the founders tend to be a little bit older. It tends to be more of your experienced person who really knows that market quite well. I spotted a problem, and they decided one day, you know, hey, I want to get up and do something about it. Whereas I find, in other forms of technology, the founders tend to be a lot younger. Are you sometimes coming out of university? Sometimes they, you know, typical, like the San Francisco startup, it'd be like, you know, four teenagers in a room, and they come up with this great technology on an app, and they release it. We don't really see that in med tech, because I think the industry is quite complex, and typically, the kind of roles in medtech, I you feel like a physician, you probably would have to spend many, many years in university, and then you go out into the field. Then get your training, and by the time you're mature and you understand that industry, you're probably a lot later in life, in comparison to something like a tech startup. So my view with the founders in this industry is they tend to be a lot older in comparison to other industries.

Matt Nelson  5:12  
Yeah, I would, I would totally agree with that. And you know, from our standpoint, what that creates the kind of work that I do, is that it means there's a whole different set of financial, you know, calculus they have to do around that they have a lot more to lose. You know, they're not living in their friend's basement anymore. They've actually got an established life, you know, a lot on the line, so to speak. But it also gives them potentially, a better network to to tap for funding and maybe a little bit more patience in the in the ability to to let the thing play out. Because, as we'll continue to talk about, you know, this isn't a starting med tech companies. It's a long game. It doesn't usually happen overnight, particularly with all the the affair, the regulatory affairs and whatnot that you have to deal with. You know, how do you, I mean, based on that, how do you how do you think capital is moving in the early stages of med tech? And again, how would you contrast that with other industries?

Karandeep Singh Badwal  6:11  
So what I find with the capital in medtech, it tends to be more sort of bootstrapped grants, prizes, innovators, rather than your typical VC funds. So what I find with a lot of these startups, they sort of bootstrap there. Maybe there's some sort of grants in that place, and that's typically in terms of how the capital is moving. So you tend to see a lot more private investors in the medtech, maybe comparison to other types of industries, I think the second piece, of course, is medtech takes a long time. You know, something like an app or a software can be released once it's mature, it can go great onto the market. Med tech is different. You've got the regulatory piece, you're going to have various different clinical trials and all these laws and regulations that you need to go into. And then, of course, we have the topic of reimbursement and applying for that. These things can take many, many different years, building technical files, clinical evidence. So what I find is, with your typical investor, they feel as though this is going to take quite a long time, and that cause comes to risks. So the longer time you are designing and developing, the more chance that things can particularly go wrong. So what I find, in comparison to other markets, is the capital tends to be more on the private side, because there's a lot less traction first. However, on the flip side of it, if they do get things right, the lucrative benefits are on the other end. So my view here with medtech is, you know, initially it does take a much longer time in comparison to other markets. But if a company does get mature and does get their funding right, typically, it can be a great investment. The only issue is, if somebody was to invest in a company like this, they will have to wait many, many years to really get that return.

Matt Nelson  7:37  
Sure, yeah. And when, when you're dealing with some of these med tech startup you know, the founders, are you finding that that they often have that misconception of how much they need to raise? In other words, when we've seen, you know, in some of the, some of the angel groups that have been involved in, and in other situations, oftentimes we're having to compel much larger raises at certain milestones than maybe the founder was initially thinking. Is that? Is that common for you too? Or what do you find? Very much

Karandeep Singh Badwal  8:10  
so. And I'm going to sound very biased when I say this is when they don't realize how much it costs to actually get your regulatory right. I mean, the cost of doing a clinical trial can easily nudge into the millions. You know, it can happen quite easily. And usually the typical saying that I've heard in med tech is, whatever you think your budget is triple it, and even then, you probably still be quite far off. So they really need to understand how much thing cost. And I think the real cost is going to be in the human capital. Is not necessarily the fees and things that you're going to be paying for these kind of assessments. It's much human capital that you need. How much full time staff are you going to need, how many specialist contractors or consultants are you going to need on board what can potentially go wrong? Because if anyone's ever been in business before, not everything is smooth sailing. Things can go wrong. Laws can change. Expectations can happen, and a lot of things can happen within a company. So my view here is that companies grossly underestimate the cost of which they think is going to take. So my view here, if anyone's listening, is, even if you are very conservative, what you think your budget is triple it, and you still will be probably far off in terms of what it actually cost in reality.

Matt Nelson  9:11  
Yeah, that is, that is good. I'm glad to hear that affirmation, and it gets good advice, because, frankly, from an investor standpoint, if the ask is too low, to some extent, it's almost not taken seriously, like not there's it's almost when you see that there's a misunderstanding of what it's really going to take to the next milestone, that can be just as bad as asking for too much, that you're afraid to raise, that you're afraid you won't be able to raise. In your view, what would you say sort of the funding roadmap should be then, you know, how would you how would you approach that, or advise approaching

Karandeep Singh Badwal  9:48  
that? So my advice here, when it comes to funding is, of course, start to look to see what's on your doorstep. You know, a lot of companies, when they go for funding, they look for like med tech specific grants, but just have a look at general. Business grants in your city. Are there any movements happening? Is there any particular grants towards technology? Is there any particular grants in employing people in your certain city? See what the governments are doing in the country you're in as well. There's a lot of grant funding out there that companies are missing out on and they don't see. But for me, again, the ideal sort of funding roadmap, of course, will be sort of look at the stage you're in and start working around that. So if you're something in, like the pre seed stage, you should be looking at thinking, okay, great. What risk classification does our device come into? What are their competitors like? Have that health economics at the start? So before you even proceed and pull tons of money into the company, is this product viable? Now, one mistake that I see companies make is they go to the market of which their product is going to get the fastest approval in which is great, but is there a market for you? Or should you perhaps target a market which is probably going to take longer to get the approval, but there's more people living with the type of condition or the kind of disease, basically that you're trying to treat. So don't always go for where the fastest market access is, but go where your product is going to be the most impactful, and then build as you go along. And then once you get to your seed stage, I think that's really where you want to start prototyping. That's where you realize what your risk classification is, which market you want to go into, and at that point, that's where you need to decide. But my sort of advice here, particularly on the regulatory side of things, is start building a quality management system very early on in the company. It doesn't have to be certified. It doesn't have to be qsmr or ISO, 13485, but just having controlled document and record workflows helps build that traceability. Because the mistake that companies make is they get the prototype, which they say is version one, and they get to version five, but they don't really know the steps that they took to get from version one to version five. And then again, with these kind of companies, people are sort of coming and going. They don't really know, okay, why did we add this feature on? Oh, you know, they don't understand why these parts might be there. So you need to build that full story from the start. And then sort of once you got to your series A it's at that point where you really know, start considering things like your regulatory submission and your clearance. So at the seed stage is all about building that foundation. Things are much easier if you build them in the foundation of the company, rather than trying to bring them in retrospectively. Because if you have a system in place that grows with you, that's the best way of growing the company, rather than trying to add these things on later.

Matt Nelson  12:15  
And is that is that part of what you do for some clients is actually build those processes.

Karandeep Singh Badwal  12:21  
Yeah, effectively. So what I often do with clients to start off with is I start off with a regulatory strategy. They often say, and what's happening now, typically or currently, we want to go to the US, 510, k, because we can get a submission in a few months time. I'm like, great. Have you looked at the US market? Have you looked into reimbursement? So just because you get a regulatory approval doesn't necessarily mean that your products automatically start flying off the shelves and selling itself, because selling is another thing. So what I often do with companies is build that strategy with them to try and work out, you know, where is the product can be most impactful. And then sort of even just build what I call like a regulatory light or a QMS light process. And then as they get more and more towards series A we sort of ramp that up. So the idea being is that regulatory inequality sort of builds in, rather than trying to bring it in later on.

Matt Nelson  13:05  
Excellent. So, you know, kind of back, backing up a step. Have you seen some deals that where maybe the equity was just a little over promised, or, I don't know, maybe poorly structured? What have you seen, maybe? And let's maybe see if you've got a horror story. Around this, and then also maybe an example of a very good story.

Karandeep Singh Badwal  13:26  
So one of the stories, somebody told me an investor was cheap cash can be the most expensive equity, and it was quite interesting when the person flew that way. So the injection of cash doesn't automatically mean that the company is going to know what they're doing. So what happens is companies sometimes over give the funds without really having any clear deliverables. So what I really think, if someone's going to be investing in the company with equity as well is you need to have clear deliverables. What are you looking for? Do you want them to be on the market within X amount of time? Is it that every few months you want to see how they're progressing with certain things, there needs to be deliverables. And I think that's what companies are making the mistake of as well. And another issue I have is companies that I see of, again, if you give somebody too much cash, they don't really know how to allocate it, in some cases, so they may think, Oh, great, you know, we got an extra 10 million. So we're going to get a fancy office, and we're going to get all these sort of big screens in there. And so what I find with companies is, if you're just going to give them money, they need to know what to do with it. And it's the classic case of, if you ever hear of somebody winning the lottery, it's the first time they've ever had millions and millions, and they just end up squandering it within a couple of years and back to where they were. So there needs to be a strong plan in place. And I think the funds should be allocated by milestone basis, you know. So you release a certain amount, the reason of the milestone, then you keep releasing it, rather than sort of giving cash to it straight away as well. Another one, of course, is not getting your intellectual property in place. The last thing you want to do is put tons of equity into a company yet the idea is not protected. So IP needs to be there very, very early on to make sure that that is earned. Are basically protected as well. So I think that's really is, is having a strong strategy in mind, allocation of where the funds are going, how they're going to be used, and having deliverables in place is the best way of doing it. And that's basically where that sound bite that was mentioning earlier is that cheap cash can be the most expensive equity. Absolutely.

Matt Nelson  15:18  
Yeah, that's, that's excellent advice for sure, you know? I guess so. Let's, let's say you get past that part. Maybe your structure is not ideal, but it's working well, you know? I guess now we come to we got to make some sales. We actually have to sell some things and and I'm sure we've both seen different founders that they're getting the regulatory clearance, but they're not. They're just not making the sales. Why is this still happening? In your view?

Karandeep Singh Badwal  15:42  
Again, it does pain me again. So I'm also a judge for MedTech Innovator and mass challenge. And the last thing I want to see sitting on the table and somebody says, hey, currently we have regulatory approval, but we've had no sales for three years. And I'm like, my god, you've gone through like, one of the most painful processes in medtech, and then you've got no sales. And again, it's a great achievement to get regulatory approval. But I think it really stems down to one thing. There's there's a difference between something that is vital and needed and something that is just a nice to have. That is a key difference here. So there might be something that's nice to have and improve certain processes, but it's not exactly essential. So the real key here thing is no economic buyer defined. What's the mistake med tech companies are doing? They're going out and they're speaking to the physicians who are going to be using these devices. And the physician goes, Hey, this is great. You know, this will be a game changer if it came in the industry. But the physicians are not the one buying. It's the hospitals, it's the insurance companies, it's the healthcare providers. They are the customer. So again, you need to identify who is the economic buyer. Another one, of course, is the return on investment. You know, if there's a hospital out there and your device is $300 and then the equivalent on the industry is $100 then hospitals basically hold in a minute. Why do we want to pay 200 bucks more for each and every device for something that maybe only saves a certain amount of seconds? So that's another one as well. Another one, of course, is the reimbursement pathway. So of course, if you're going to be selling into the US, and again, US is based on health insurance, you need to be looking at the reimbursement codes of which you have, and seeing if it's economically viable for you to sell that medical device under those reimbursement codes. So it really is a mix of not looking into who the Empire is, not understanding who is the person that's going to be buying the products off you, and also not looking properly in terms of the reimbursement pathway. And of course, another one is reimbursement. Again, just like regulatory can take a long time, it can take a few years. The last thing you want is to get your regulatory approval and then you're sitting for another few years just to get that reimbursement anyway.

Matt Nelson  17:38  
Yeah, absolutely. I mean it. It's kind of you. I think you maybe mentioned this earlier when we were talking just the the balance bed tech companies have to find between sort of building the right thing versus building the right business model. Maybe I've heard that on one of your podcasts before, but it just speaks to that of you know, making sure that you're building something people actually need and are going to clamor for, and you have the right buyers for it, you can have a really efficient business. They're not selling anything. It doesn't matter, you know, angel investing in med tech. It sounds exciting. I've been involved in it a little bit, you know, on the other end, but from your view, you know, how realistic is it for founders to get all the funding they need through the angel investing pathway? What have you seen there?

Karandeep Singh Badwal  18:28  
So, of course, there are benefits with Angel investors in comparison to working something like a VC fund. Typically, I find with an angel investor, there'll be a bit more focused. You know, their money's not as spread out as something we like a VC fund, where a VC fund can be within hundreds of companies, angel investor, maybe just within 10s of companies. What I find is, typically there is a longer hold, and the exits are a little bit more difficult when you have angel investing, depending on how much money is invested in the company as well. So typically there is quite a longer process as well, and also with the due diligence, I find typically with Angel investors, compared to something like VC, the due diligence process tends to take a little bit more longer as well. That's another way. The upside, of course, is it depends on who the angel investor is. I mean, if you have an angel investor who's a subject matter expert, and you feel who is known in your industry, great, because you can also leverage the name of that angel investor. And of course, that angel investor has the right connections, they potentially put you in the right place with the right people that you need to speak to. So that is the benefits of angel investing. But typically, what I find with companies is they should look at multiple avenues of funding. They shouldn't just stick to one. So they may have an angel investor on one side and they have grant funding on the other. It could also potentially go public on the market and have them sell some of their shares. But my view here is, the best companies out there have often have a blend of investment strategy rather than just sticking to one. Yeah,

Matt Nelson  19:49  
I, I agree, and it's, it mean, it's it is possible. But to your point, it can take a little longer. You need to just think about it from from the investor side. You know, some. Of these groups may have expertise in the field. They may have just one or two people in the actual angel group that has expertise, and the rest are experts in another field. And so they're trying to, you know, and they're putting in Personal Capital. This is very, very personal to them. So the the process might take a little longer, a little more careful diligence. Whereas a fund, or maybe, you know, a large company that's got an incubator program, they might be doing it a little bit more on volume. And so while they're still going to do the due diligence to the best of the ability, it's going to move quicker. They're going to have more investments in that fund, do it on a numbers basis, and the angel groups are going to do fewer and be much more careful. So it's not that it's not a good pathway. Just know what you're going down. So you save yourself time, because time is of the essence when we're raising money here and these companies need to get to a no as fast as possible. Think about it that way, versus getting to a yes, just I got to get to a no as fast as possible so I can move on. Now, you've probably worked with founders who they get to the end of the finish line on that, say, the fight, 510, K, they think that's it. But what, you know, what should they be preparing for next?

Karandeep Singh Badwal  21:16  
So regulatory is not just a one time exercise, and that's it. You're done. You know, well done for getting your regulatory approval. But now you've got to keep this going. You've got things like post market surveillance. Your product potentially may go wrong onto the market, and then you may have recalls. So a quality management system is something that's living you know, you're constantly going to have things like customer complaints, customer feedback. You can have copies. You can have corrective actions as well. The thing is, with the regulations, new things are always coming out. There's always new white papers, guidance documents, coming out that you have to keep on top of. So regulatory is an ongoing process. Again. Another part of regulatory is if you make any what's known as substantial changes to your device, then that's almost like a partial submission, effectively, in terms of where you're going to be working with that as well. Now also, with the regulatory approval, you're now selling into hospital systems, so straight away, that, in itself, is going to have a problem if you're dealing in the physical device space as well. Outside of software, you're going to have things like distribution. You're going to have things like importing. There's going to be all these different labeling requirements in terms of where you are as well. And depending on how complex your device is, you may have to physically go in and install this device. You may have to give onboarding certain types of training for people how to use it as well. And then, of course, you're going to have the reimbursement side. So we talked about the regulatory approval, but then now you also need to go down the reimbursement pathway that in a time can take time as well, working out what code it is as well, and then generating all that post market surveillance and bringing it back. So regulatory approval is just one thing, but once you've got your regulatory approval, that's kind of where the game begins, and you really need the processes in place. And the mistake some companies bring is they bring in all these expert consultants. They get the regulatory approval and say, Ah, we don't need these consultants anymore. You guys go in your own way, and they don't manage it properly, and then a year later, they do for an audit, and then they try to bring the consultants back in, and then I say to a company, well, I cannot make up a year's worth of records in the space of a week. It's just not something that's possible. Yes,

Matt Nelson  23:09  
yeah, I guess in that way, and and, you know, certainly it's, it's your business. So it may sound biased, but, but from my perspective, to keeping someone who's an expert like yourself, on on retainer, is really more of an investment than an expense in the way that you just described it. Because if we, if they get out of sync too far and now have to go back and recreate the wheel, that's probably more expensive. Have you seen that, or am I far off? Or what? What's, what's your experience there,

Karandeep Singh Badwal  23:41  
it does happen. So what happens with companies is they have a great sort of quality management system in place. They get the regulatory approval, they neglect it for about a year, and then a couple of weeks before they audit, they try to bring somebody back in, and the whole system's just become a complete mess. People have left the company. It's not been running as they're supposed to, and sometimes it's actually more expensive to try and rebuild that thing than if they just sort of maintained it. So yes, by all means, once you've got your regulatory approval, you can back off a little bit, be effectively enter what's known as maintenance mode. You can't pause quality and regulatory but you can enter a maintenance mode for it, and I think that's where companies are doing it, and they just think, Oh, great. You know, this guy can come in, we'll just pass the audit and then not worry about it again for the year. But what companies don't realize is, you know, quality is a living process. It's happening every single day. It's not something that's just a one time exercise. And then, of course, the other mistake that companies are making is you are susceptible to unannounced audits at any given time. If the FDA does not think that you are doing what you're saying you're doing, they can knock at your door at any given time and they come and do an audit on you. And if we're in the EU as well, if you have, if you're in the EU, MDR, and you have a sort of notified body audit once every five years, they have to come and do an unannounced audit on you. That means they can knock on your facilities at any given time and say, Hey guys, we're here to do an audit. You can't stop them, because immediately we're getting. Audit fail, and the same thing with an FDA inspection as well. So when companies always say to me, you know when should be ready for an audit? I answer every single day, you should be ready for an audit at any given time,

Matt Nelson  25:10  
yeah, and it's very disruptive if you're not, and the time, the time spent is to get ready is just your own. Is very expensive. Just thinking about your business model, are you able to work with companies the same in the EU as you are us, or what's, how does that work for you?

Karandeep Singh Badwal  25:26  
Yeah, definitely so. And I think what's happened with the EU, MDR, and arguably, in some cases, it's become a little bit more strict in comparison to the US. So I do work with US companies as well. And again, we live in this remote world. So again, if there's an expert, so we're sitting in Japan or another one sitting in California, and exactly what you and me are doing, Matt, right now, we're in two different continents where we can still get on a screen and talk to each other. So yeah, I don't think geography is much of an issue these days. But of course, the only caveat to that as well is, you know, if you're basically a European based company and you want to sell into the US, of course you need a US agent. Likewise, if you're a US based company and you want to sell to the EU, you're going to need an EU authorized rep. My sort of opinion is, you know, you should at least have one person boots on the ground of whichever country you're trying to sell into. So if there's an issue, they understand the language, they understand the culture and how to go about things,

Matt Nelson  26:13  
yeah, and, well, I guess with that, with that said, is there, are there times when you find maybe it's, it's better to use a pathway through the EU than to start through the US. And you know, is that, I guess I'm kind of teeing you up for this question, but I would assume you have a little bit more experience on the EU to take through that pathway.

Karandeep Singh Badwal  26:32  
So it goes back to what I was saying earlier. So if a company often says to me, you know, we have this product, you know, do we go us and do we go EU? It's always about, where are you going to make the most impact? You know? What are you trying to treat and let's work out where that market actually is. The second one, of course, is, let's look at the reimbursement pathway. Let's look at where it's going to be made most sense for you to sell this product, you know. Is it going to be the US? Is it going to be the EU? Now, again, the downside of something like a 510 k is, if you go down the 510 k pathway, then yes, strictly speaking, it will be much quicker than an EU MDR submission or an FDA de novo. However, you are substantially equivalent to something that's already out on the market. So what's your unique selling point? Your intended use, and what you're trying to treat is based off an existing device. So what you've basically created is almost, in the sense, is a me too device, which means you don't really have any novelty. And that's really where sort of the de novo pathway in the FDA really stands out, is you can have something completely novel, and you'll be the first of it. So faster isn't always better. So because that's the downside of the 510 k program, is there's already something like that already on the

Matt Nelson  27:34  
market. Yeah, very good, very good understanding, right? Of course, you know, I just know some of these things on the periphery as an investor, and it's just fascinating to talk to someone on the front lines, like you helping helping companies get up and up and running. You know, I guess I just on a personal note, when you're not, when you're not helping startups or working on strategy, what are you doing outside of work? So

Karandeep Singh Badwal  27:55  
one thing I love doing is hiking. So, you know, I live about just an hour away from the Peak District in the UK, and I live about three hours from the Lake District as well. And one thing with the UK, we have some of the best countryside in the world. So if anybody loves hiking, and they love going out into the country and that sort of thing. So I love hiking as well. I did kickboxing for many years when I was younger, and I got into mixed martial arts at around about 10 years ago. So I love doing mixed martial arts, so I think it's a great exercise. It's wonderful because it trains every single part of your body. You know, it's a really good, great body workout. And another thing I love doing is an I'm an addict when it comes to the sauna. So, you know, I love just going in the evening, sitting in the Steam Room with a sauna. And there's some people crazy when I do this. I love going from the sauna and jumping into an ice bath and back in the sauna again. And it just sort of helps you sort of relax, and that sort of thing. I also do clay pigeon shooting here in the UK as well, so on a few shotguns. And I love going shooting on a weekend. It's quite common here in the countryside in the UK. And another hobby of mine is cars. So I'm quite regularly at car shows. I love going to the track and racing cars, so quite varied as well. And then in the evenings, I love to read as well.

Matt Nelson  28:57  
Yeah, very with that. That's excellent. What a well rounded set of, set of hobbies. That's great. Your man, after my own heart, though, with the sauna, you know, I'm, I'm here in Minnesota, and that is a, that is a, you know, Scandinavian favorite, of course. And so we love to get in the sauna and then jump in the lake. It's kind of crazy, but it's, it's really refreshing. We love it. Well, I guess, as we're just wrapping up here, you know, maybe just leave us with how people could contact you, how maybe you could help. And maybe one piece of advice that you'd want to leave listeners with, sure.

Karandeep Singh Badwal  29:33  
So if anybody wants to connect with me on LinkedIn and Matt, I'll give you my email as well. So if anyone has any questions, feel free to get in touch. But the one piece of advice is, I remember a teacher saying this to me, so actually went to Roman Catholic school, and it was actually the priest who said, what shade of green are you waiting for? And that's really something that struck a chord with me. And he gave this analogy of somebody sitting at the lights and the lights go green, and that person doesn't move. If the lights are green and you can move. Go ahead and make that move. What shade of green are you waiting

Matt Nelson  30:02  
for? That is excellent. That sounds like a sounds like a sticky note that I need to put on my PC. Frankly, that is get the perfectionist moving. Basically, that's excellent. Well, this has been fantastic. Aaron deep, I really enjoyed talking with you. I learned a lot myself. Elba listeners did as well. And we'll have a we'll have show notes listed that you can find contact information. Reach out to me, reach out to Karen deep with any questions you have. And again, thanks for listening. This has been the med tech wealth advisor. And remember, financial freedom takes more than money, so find your purpose. Make a plan to live your life well, take care of each other out there,

Speaker 1  30:49  
investment advisory services offered through savvy advisors. Inc, other entities and or marketing names, products or services mentioned here are independent of savvy advisors. Inc.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai