 Kia ora Koutou. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to you all. Welcome to New Frontiers Digital. This session is organised by Edmund Hillary Fellowship as part of the New Frontiers series of online events. It's a modification of our normal three-day conference that we run in New Zealand. We run these events to showcase leading thinking from the EHF fellows and our aim is to provide accessible and inspiring ideas that can support action. But before we start, let's go through a little bit of housekeeping. You'll see on the screen in front of you. Please mute your mics and any technical issues. Can you direct message Paula, who's our lovely co-host this morning, and post questions for Randy in the chat. Randy wants us to be a sort of interactive kind of session, but because there are so many of you, can you please put them in the chat and then I'll ask those questions on your behalf. And we'll be recording the session. It's already started and it will be available on our website afterwards. And we're also going to now just put out a poll. We just want to see who's in the room, whether you're investors or entrepreneurs. So Paula's just going to activate that now. And then we'll give you a couple of minutes to actually answer the questions. Nice. Okay. Looks like most people have answered the poll. So we're showing at about 72% are investors in the room and we've got 28% entrepreneurs. So that's good to help Randy out. So just a reminder, you can post your questions in the chat. So today's session. Insights from the investment landscape and times of uncertainty. So we're going to zoom out and do sort of a broad global view from experience VC investor Randy Commissar. He's an incoming EHF fellow. Randy lives in California and he's a partner of Kleiner Perkins. He's a technology attorney in case some of you didn't know. He's a virtual executive and he's an author of four books. My favorite being the straight talk for startups of what she wrote after his first visit to New Zealand, actually, when you met a lot of founders and investors and he saw that there was a need for this kind of book. Randy's times also includes not for profit work. The Oryx woman's leadership board is what he spends his time in. Randy has worked through several financial recessions. So we're going to learn from his insights and what we can expect from the global economy over the sort of coming months, maybe the next few years and including what opportunities he is seeing that could potentially be out there. So Randy. You are everybody. What are the meta patterns that you're seeing in the US and globally. Well, I want to first start by saying that what we're going to talk about economics and investment and opportunities today. That is certainly not the crux of this catastrophe, unlike the three recessions I wanted to talk about from the past that we can learn from the reality is that today's catastrophe is far more serious. The public health global challenge and the financial markets have effectively become entangled in that, but that's not the first and foremost issue that we should all be thinking about every day. So I just want to make sure we keep that in perspective that today's talk is going to be about investing and money and opportunities, but that's not why we're here and that's not really the primary issue that we should all be thinking about every day. So that's the first thing. So I can think I want to talk about as a fact that I've actually in sheltering in place. I have actually stopped watching a lot of the news. I'm not keeping up to date with all of the policy issues globally or even in the United States. I'm finding it to be overwhelming and I'm finding it to be disorienting and so to protect myself and to give an objective view I've actually be treated a lot from that so many of you out there are probably going to know more about the details of what's going on day to day than I am. And so I'm not going to be going into that in this discussion. I want to put this, what I really want to do is I want to put this economic challenge in perspective and then talk about the sorts of things we should be thinking about as we emerge from it. Because we will ultimately emerge and when we do there'll be new opportunities and we should be thinking about those today in what we do and how we act in this emergency. So let me start with a meta issue of what's going on in the US, particularly in the tech investing area. It's pretty much paused. So if you take a look at what's going on in Silicon Valley, by and large meetings are ended other than meetings that with companies and ventures that may have started before the crisis. You're not seeing checks being written other than in completing rounds discussions and due diligence that may have occurred earlier. And you're seeing sort of this shock that we always see whenever we see these economic contagions come through the system. And so that's going to make it very, very difficult for the entrepreneurs who are having to live through this crisis to come out the other side. So it's really important to start with what's really going on today today there's very few checks being written by investors into new ventures. If you take a look at what's happened traditionally in Silicon Valley as a bellwether of what we might expect going forward. That pause normally lasts for a significant period of time, six months or more. As the investors begin to sort through their portfolios, figure out how to invest defensively to protect their best companies, then begin to look for distressed valuations not distressed companies. This is something really important to understand about venture capital they don't look for distressed companies. They look for distressed valuations. And ultimately, they begin to start to see new opportunities and that process takes a while to go through. Some of that has to do with economic conditions part of that has to do with human nature. I once after the 2000 bubble. They did a really interesting set of interviews with traders from Wall Street and and the old traders and young traders. The young traders would never seen a recession before and ultimately just followed it off a cliff. And the old traders who basically said the key to their success was pause. Not trying to go up with a new plan, not trying to figure out what's going to happen next, but sitting and waiting for information and facts before deciding how to move forward. And I think you'll see that that's a natural tendency amongst investors. So, today, right now, the spigot is off. And for investor for entrepreneurs looking for new investments. It's a pretty challenging to sobering environment. And I do think that that's the environment that new ventures are going to live with. Certainly United States and probably globally for the better part of the rest of this year. And that's important to understand both as an investor and as a an entrepreneur. I think the other thing that I see going on, particularly from the US standpoint. And what makes this particular economic crisis so different than the ones we've done, we've actually experienced in the past is that this is not a financially caused economic crisis. The economic crisis was 1987. It was the biggest one day dropped in the stock market United States. It was Black Monday in October. It's created a mythology about October's ever since. If you wonder why investors are always so nervous in October, it was because of that date in 1987 Black Friday. And what happened in that environment was that the global economy had actually been deregulating and privatizing through most of the 70s and 80s. And with that became came some very lax regulation and very, I would say suspect practices amongst big companies, the LBO is the large leverage buyouts, etc. The financial markets collapsed in one day when confidence was lost. And it was very interesting because something happened in that event that I think we see happening and all of the other recessions, including this particular challenge, and that is up to the time of the crash. There is largely a downturn in optimism. So I don't know how it's felt in New Zealand. I was just there a month or so ago, didn't feel particularly different. But in the US, I would say there has been a lot of concern over the last couple of years that we're way out ahead of the market. And the amount of capital that has been driving those valuations and the number of company formations was so large that it overwhelmed people's common sense. And, but I think there was generally an attitude in the United States leading up to this where people felt like a shoe was about to drop. I actually have been asked that question numerous times, both by the press and in conferences, and I did not see on the horizon, anything in the economic environment that would change it. But I thought it would be an exigency. I thought it would be something like a crisis in Korea or crisis in Iran. Little did I know that it would be a pandemic that would cause it. And effectively, what we saw was an attitude, an emotional attitude amongst investors where they were prepared to pull back, and they were prepared for a very substantial haircut on valuations. So it's not a complete shock when these things happen. The particular straw that breaks the camel's back is usually a surprise. Back to what happened in 87 and I want to follow on with a couple of these other recessions and differentiate this one because this one is very different. And I think the results and how we come out of it would be very different. In 1987 it was a liquidity crisis when when when dollars were pulled out of the market for lack of confidence. In the US it was resolved by adding liquidity into the market the Fed acted quickly they put a lot of money into the marketplace, and probably within two years two years, think about that time frame within two years we suddenly had a market was growing rapidly again. There was a period of time there between 87 and 91 when the mantra for venture capital was it was better to put your money in Microsoft, which was a public company at the time that it was to invest in in startups that the returns to scale were large and the risk of sub scale businesses was very small. There were no big new platform changes. So it created a mentality going forward that was relatively risk adverse in New Zealand in 87. New Zealand actually had much worse than the United States from an economic standpoint. They did not pump liquidity into the market. They tried to live through it in a conservative way, kind of bucking up under the weight of the pressure and pulling together and suffering together. And that created problems in New Zealand that last way beyond 91. So, when you're in a liquidity crisis, the solution for liquidity crisis is liquidity. And in the US, that is the answer probably that we see in 2009 we see it in 1987. We also see it in 2000. So what happens in 2000, which is a slightly different recession, that's the bubble burst for the dot com. The exuberance of the new platforms had brought a lot of capital in and largely margin accounts and debt. So what happened was that was highly leveraged. There was a big bet on the future on the internet on e-commerce on a variety of things that obviously have proven to be quite true, but we're early in the market. And when those things disappointed in the public markets with companies that weren't profitable, the money pulled out quickly in a retreat of confidence, much like 87. And the result there, of course, was a real downturn in tech stocks and venture investing. But in the US, it didn't hit the real economy of goods and services. The only way it actually impacted the real economy of goods and services was because what you saw was moms and pops in 401K plans and small investors would leverage themselves to take advantage of the boom, suddenly saw themselves crushed. And that ramification was relatively small in the marketplace of real goods and services, but the financial impact for investors was large. Coming out of that took about four years, five years, before we were investing fully again and robustly again, before we had new platforms like social networking and mobile to invest in. And I want to talk about platforms in a second, how important they are to thinking about how you come out of these things. And that was once again a financial recession. It was not caused by particular problems in the real economy when real economy is goods and services is what people do every day on Main Street. There was not a problem in real economy, causing 87 or 2000. And clearly that was there was no problem in the real economy in 2008. 2008 2009 was very much a liquidity crisis. It was a it was caused by a lack of regulation oversight of the banking community, and the derivative verification of risk so that nobody even understood what risks they were taking. And when that crash happened. That was a liquidity crisis like we've never seen probably since the depression. And so the response globally both in particularly in Europe and the United States but globally to pump money in was a way for us to come out of that relatively quickly actually I mean probably by 2010 2011. We saw investments coming back to to levels that actually surpassed 2006 2007. So those three recessions which were the probably the biggest recessions of my lifetime so far. Those recessions were largely caused by problems in the financial markets. Now look at where we are today. There was no problem in the financial markets I would argue that valuations were high but there was sufficient capital support those. There was no liquidity crisis. In fact, we had the the excess liquidity was leading to the issues that we saw in something like the valuations that that I thought were trouble. What we have today is a problem in the real economy. And that problem is the result of policies that I think we're made very much for the right reasons. And we are navigating those policies today and trying to protect the public health. So this particular recession is very different than the other three, because it is not caused by problems in the financial sector. And I think what this means frankly, is that we will see a more rapid recovery. Now that doesn't mean all sectors recover more rapidly but if you look at what this particular crisis looks like, it looks more like World War One, or World War Two, then it looks like 1987 or 2000 or 2008. There were modifications for stock values and for portfolios and for pensioners and for the trickle down of pain through the economy to the essential workers that we have today. That pain is similar. The cause is so radically different, but I think we can see a result that's probably going to be different. And what we saw following World War One and World War Two was a very V shaped sort of recovery. The fact is we plummeted very quickly, but we also came out of it relatively quickly because the demand for goods and services was actually being stifled by economic policy, not by the desires of the consumers and not by the ability of banks and lenders to monetize that demand. In this particular case, depending upon how long it goes and depending upon how effective we are at being able to move dollars deep down into the economy to keep people working, or to make sure that people at least are being able to get by without having to file for subsidies, start to foreclose on homes, etc. If we can keep that alive long enough, and we can come out of this relatively rapidly, my general feeling is we will probably see a faster recovery than we saw in 2008, we'll probably see a faster recovery than we saw in 1987. And that's because the particular problems and challenges in this economy today are caused by policymakers for good purpose and for good reason and hopefully to good ends. Yeah, that's kind of the basic summary of what I think we're seeing today and what's going on the US and Michelle, what else, what should we talk about. Yeah, so another thing that we've got here is that a lot of these season PE firms have recently closed their funds. So are there LPs, what's the expectations of them are they expecting them to go out and spend that money or sit on it and hold by and large what will happen is there's an expectation that they'll sit on hold. So the, the feeling is that in the US, I don't, many of you are on this caller from the US. In baseball, there's this notion that you can, you can strike out to one of two ways. One is that you swing and miss three times. The other is that the ball is thrown over the plate and you don't swing, but it's a strike and there's three strikes in private equity, you can never be called out on strikes. So the issue is not taking bad swings. And because of the large latency and the lack of transparency in our business, the venture capital business and private equity business. Because of that, you're able to get away with a lot of inactivity for a long periods of time, without ever having to actually show investment results to limited partners. It's usually 10 years out. So the time horizon is very different. They would rather have you sit and wait for the right pitch, then, then, then strike out by swinging at the wrong pitch. Okay, so now we're going sort of more towards founders. What if how founders sort of expected to handle this if the borders are closed and they're really a global company and they are reliant on having that revenue come from exporting. So what what I what I think is going to happen here is I think that the economy will start to come back as we begin to open up pieces of it over the next nine to 12 months. And I think the first piece to come back is this is the global supply chain. So I do think that if you're in the global supply chain of goods and services of food services, for instance, agriculture, fisheries, dairy. I think if you're in that business. I think it's more likely than not that your products will end up being one of some of the first products that enter back into the global economy, and the bat sector will be one of the more rapidly recovering sectors. I think the next sector that will recover after that is everything. So I think what we're seeing in this particular crisis is that the as we're sort of locking down and as the physical locations of retail. And services are no longer available to us. We're getting much more comfortable and moving more and more dollars to the economy. I don't think that is going to be that we're that we're going to wipe out the retail and physical economy. But I do think we're going to do is we're going to make a significant move in acceleration of everything. For instance, we're having this conference right now rather than doing it in person. It is very likely that for the next year, that's what we'll be doing. Even if we remove the lockdown orders, even if we open up air traffic, it's very likely that until we have a vaccine proven through at least one season, most people won't try. And so this can form a communication and an information is one that is probably going to replace an awful lot of what we used to go to conferences about. Let's not say conferences disappear. It's just to say that the balance is going to shift. So everything I think is the next thing. Then I think Main Street opens up again. Probably sometime in the fall, we'll probably see that restaurants, small service businesses, etc. The ones that can survive the ones that can spring employees back the ones that are able to get bank loans. They will in fact start to come back. It won't be very robust, but they will start to have a business again. So I think that would be the third phase. I think the fourth phase and this is really important for New Zealand. I think the fourth phase is much more dubious. I think travel and tourism is going to be off for quite a while. And I think that that's going to be off, as I said, until there's a proven and when I say proven, I don't mean proven in the lab. I mean proven actually in the population vaccine that makes people feel comfortable that we're not going to see the different sorts of numbers that are necessary to support tourism in these various different global destinations. So I think that if you're in that market, that's going to be a very tricky place to stay alive for the next nine to 12 months. Another theme here is about coaching young founders who have never been through a recession before and are so used to getting their money in and then sort of spending it because they think they're going to get that next round in. How's that sort of industry going to sort of bloom and how should investors that are sort of dealing with this sort of work through the sort of the mental part of it as well for young founders. This is a really emotional time. I mean, you know, if investors think that the business of investing in early stage startups is about king making. I think you'll learn into these circumstances that it's really more like hospice work. And the reality is, frankly, I've been doing this room and bus for 35 years. And, and I will tell you that it is more like hospice work in king making, even at its best, because most ventures fail. So understanding how to coach talent and entrepreneurs through that process is very important. The, the, the first thing that I've done with every single one of my CEOs is I've sat down and challenged them to figure out how to take burn rate out in an increased runway, no matter whether they had a years worth of runway or weeks worth of runway. It is very, it's much easier to do that with companies who see themselves at the precipice of running out of money and within the next six months. It's actually much harder with companies who actually may be sitting on enough capital to get through the next year or so, even though their business is fundamentally changed. And so getting them to act is hard. Similarly, if they're young and haven't or inexperienced that haven't been through one of these recessions before I try to instill in my, my entrepreneurs, this notion that no good crisis should should go unused. And in this case, there's an opportunity to step out of the, the zeitgeist of the previous moment, which was scale at all costs, dam the business to actually forgetting scaling and building a business. And if you can make it and you've got the psychological cover of the investment community and the economy to do that. So one of my companies for instance, immediately laid off 20% of their people which was incredibly sad and very difficult, particularly since you're laying them off on your over zoom, which is a terrible way to lay off your people and instill morale and loyalty. But they end up actually hiring a bunch of people and expanding their office in Canada they expanded and their business is going quite well. They did this because they always knew that they were capital efficient building their business in Silicon Valley. They have a small core here, but fundamentally scaling the business here was way too costly and so they took the opportunity to build the capital capital efficient business they wanted to build ultimately and they took the opportunity to do it today. It did increase the runway, which is fabulous, but more importantly it built the right company economics and structure for the future. I have other companies who are sitting around looking week to week at their numbers from see advertising numbers to see whether or not advertising revenues hold up and how many people they may have to lay off. One of the really important lessons to teach a entrepreneur hasn't been through this before is if you cut cut deep, you only get one chance to cut before you lose the trust and confidence of your people. Do it you mainly do it smartly do it empathetically but do it hard and deep. It's much better 90 days from now to be hiring people that is to be going through a second layoff. Your people are unlikely to trust you after going through the second layer. So you go as deep as you can, you cut as deep as you can this is a very hard thing to do. And this is good to my third point which is, it's almost impossible to do if you think about this as an incremental I keep telling my entrepreneurs to come back to me and tell me that let's clear the slate right now. Right, tell me what business you want to have a year from now. Don't tell me what business we have and how to get through this. The business we have has a bunch of barnacles on it. It's a business that we built over time through a very solving and answering a variety of economic and in business problems. And frankly, we, if we could do it from scratch pristinely we probably wouldn't build a business we have today. So tell me what business you want to build. And now let's let's level set as to what we need to do that the skill sets the people, the organization, the assets, whatever we need to do that. So those are the three things that I impressed upon each of my entrepreneurs through this process. And, and, and frankly, a lot of it is just being just being there for them. I'm on the phone all the time people I have entrepreneurs they'll just call me for 15 minutes, just have somebody to talk to just to tell me how shitty they feel letting people just to tell me how hard it is for them to have to decide to cut out a core part of the business that they've been investing in for the last year, even though it is not currently contributing to the bottom line. These are very difficult things and I used to always think that was my job to have an answer. Like any good counselor, my job is to listen. And frankly, in a lot most most instances they know the answer. They just need somebody to hear. Nice. You mentioned platforms before and the importance of them. Can you explain that a little bit more. Yes. And each one of the recoveries from the financial from the financial market meltdowns. What we've seen is a significant new platform that changes the economic environment, both for investors and for entrepreneurs. So, platforms tend to be stair step. If you take a look at the economic growth coming out of innovation, by large, while it may look like a nice, a nice trend line. The reality is it is stair step built around platforms. And each time there's a new platform, there's huge winners and losers in the equation, for instance, you could argue today what we're going to see is a continuing trend of big retail falling apart and e-commerce and online retail increasing. Those platforms that get built on things like the internet or mobile or personal computing going back into the 90s. Those are very, very important platforms because they raise the bar for innovation. They create a new sets of potential opportunity for innovators to be able to take on and be disruptors. And in the process, they're able to use that platform to create new value. Now what happens is these platforms, as you sort of age them out, you'll see that the amount of innovation and added value on the platform diminishes. Because the platform is not changing, it's a crowded space. There are big players like the Googles of the world or the Apples of the world or the Amazons of the world that occupy big spaces in those platforms and crowd out, much like Microsoft did in the early 90s, crowd out, venture investors and venture entrepreneurs. And so until there's a next platform, you don't tend to see a substantial increase in new investing and disruptive companies. And right now, I think if we look around, it's hard to find what that platform is. We haven't seen a disruptive platform introduced, I think, really since mobile. And though we've had many different, we've sort of begun to harvest the innovation opportunities on the mobile platform. But right now we're looking at AI. Is AI really a platform? I would argue it isn't a platform. I'd argue it's pretty incremental as much as we like to be, you know, awed by it. I think that's going to be the platform that takes us to the next level. But I do think we are in an information and data society. And the harnessing of that data, ownership and harnessing of that data, which is to me a political issue as much as an economic issue, becomes the vehicle for the next level of innovation growth. Do you think that will also include traditional media? Will that get crashed? Well, so it depends what you mean by, so right now, today in the US, Netflix is more highly valued than Disney. That's an amazing thing. Part of it is because Disney is so diversified. Clearly, its theme parks aren't going to do well. Its merchandises aren't going to do well. Its streaming is nascent compared to Netflix. Its library is valuable, but by and large, it's not valuable if it can't get into the audience's viewing. And so you are seeing today traditional media suffer in this proposition. I think ultimately, though, that's a moment in time. I think that movie theaters may in fact, by and large, become boutique experiences and streaming may continue to overwhelm them. But content has always came. And so prior to going into this event, Netflix was actually in trouble. And the issue was could they continue to invest and could they deliver the content that would hold their audience as more and more streaming services like Disney's entered the marketplace. This changed the equation for the moment because the answer is it doesn't matter right now. It's just how can you get in front of them in their home and Netflix is doing that better than anybody else. I do think it switches back to a large extent to content again at the other side. But I don't think movie theaters are ever going to come back in the way that they were. I've been talking to friends about what happens next. We'll probably go into this a little bit before the end here, but I don't know what happens next. But I know how to think about it. And every single one of these events that I've talked to you about. What's happened is it has hastened the decline of industries that were declining before the event, and it has hastened the acceleration of growth of those industries that were on the ascent before the event. And so if you want to think about the opportunities right now, the first thing to do is think about what was happening just before this event, which industries were most challenged, and which industries were dying a relatively slow death or finding themselves uncompetitive, in which industries were on the ascent. It is very likely that we've done is we've just taken those curves and we've widened those curves. And so when you look at the framework I think you need to have when you look at the opportunities going forward is to think about those trends as a start And another theme here is about after lockdown the types of economies because will it have a reversing effect on globalization. Well that sort of increased focus on more local business. And then should people scale up or should they stay local with their services. This is a real conundrum in my mind. I believe, and part of it is a bias, a political bias, I believe that globalization is the future. And my general sense is that as we look at these weakened supply chains, the way to answer to solve them is not to create walls around every country and try to recreate the, you know, ventilator companies and mass companies that doesn't pay that doesn't work. I think what we what we need to do now is have a better sense of the intimacy of connections that we have and the amount of dependencies that we've created in the global economy. And we've got to figure out a way to shore that up. And so the global global economy problem is is two fold it's not just a supply chain issue. It's also a business model issue of just in time. There's no warehouses where this stuff sits. And we could have we could have mitigated this problem, for instance, and governments have done this traditionally by creating warehouses of mask and ventilators, you know, in the US we created warehouses of cheese when we're trying to keep the dairy business alive and the in the 90s. And it was kind of a joke about cheese being going in and out of these warehouses and getting old and moldy and not finding a way in the hands of poor people need cheese, but they were essentially a way of taking cheese out of the market putting it in and storing it. I do think that I think globalization is not going to disappear. I think, I think we're seeing in my mind in the US is a is a is a great example of this, not that it's a great thing but there are they are a very prominent example of this. I think we're seeing a pushback against globalization as sort of the last throws of nationalism. I think what we're seeing is a generation as an older generation particular in the US that's who is largely supportive of the of the Republicans and the Trump policies on nationalism. I when I think you see those. I think this is their last gas. And I think that ultimately when we get through this process, whether it's in four years or whether it's in one year or whether it's in 10 years. It's globalization that ultimately will bring prosperity and health and safety to the planet. But to your point, what do I expect in in four months. I expect the supply chains are going to become very important. I expect that the first part of the recovery will be supplied those businesses in the supply chain. I do think that there will be strategic parts of supply chain that we're going to see recreated in those countries that can afford to do it. I'd be surprised if the US doesn't invest more in health care devices and PPP PPP PPE if if that's after after feeling the pain of this and by the way it's not a new concept. The US under Obama under Bush under Clinton that all done that work, the Trump administration had basically emptied those warehouses and shut down that program. So I think we're going to see a realization. If it's not by the current generation it's going to be by the next generation that globalization is really the only way to answer this is it's it's our dependencies on each other, that are going to be important, not our independence of each other. Nice. We've got someone here wanting you to reconcile. How can you say that we're going to have a rapid V shape recovery, but at the same time travel and tourism, which is the largest global industry in the world. How and which is going to be slow to recover. So how do these two work hand in hand. Well, I traveling tourism decline and the slow pace at which it comes back are going to hurt economies like New Zealand that are more dependent on it's going to not hurt. It's not going to, it's not going to matter as much in the US, for instance, or in China, for instance. And I do think that those economies that are more dependent on tourism and travel are going to have a slower recovery, at least in those marketplaces and as you point out those marketplaces are very considerable in in those areas so I. So my my reconciliation is that I do think that the fundamental drivers of global GDP growth are going to come back relatively quickly. I don't I do worry about Main Street and I do worry about it in the context of global travel. Any more questions out there people. How about what are the opportunities then out there or let you talk about what's the pathway that people should be how should they go about looking for opportunities and spotting opportunities. As I said the first thing to think about is to go back and look at if you're if you're an entrepreneur look at your core business and decide whether or not you have the staying power to be able to see your way back to the strategy that you entered your business on, or whether you're going to need to do a significant pivot in order to get through. You have to think about right sizing the company and the opportunity and the resources into that to take advantage of the, the, the hole in the marketplace, so that when you come out you come out stronger. And as I alluded to, it's very important thing about the company you want to build not the company that you built the incrementally saving yourself for the future or saving your current business for the future, maybe the right answer. But it very well may not be the right answer and now you have the chance to ask that question. I also think if you take a look at those trend lines it's going to be pretty clear that for instance areas for let's just take a look at higher education. My guess is that in higher education, we're going to see with the number of students now studying at home successfully that we're going to see a rapid increase in online education on a global basis. We're going to see a much more sense and higher education to do that they use those resources efficiently to do that, and we're going to see a decline for instance in what I've called second, second tier colleges universities that have very little to recommend themselves to students were just looking for credentials, or even more importantly for education. You know that's an example, for instance, I mean the healthcare side. The opportunities we're going to see come out of this are going to be are going to be significant. And but but to be a healthcare investor, you don't do that like you foray into the field without understanding the science and what's going on broadly is very haphazard you really need to understand trends technology research development what's going on more broadly. I do think we're going to see good biotech and healthcare investors do quite well, coming out of this, looking at new opportunities in those spaces. The issue that I probably keeps me up at night most is what we're seeing now is to me the heroism of what I call the essential workers. If we look around today, the idea that you know something wealthy person in San Francisco, who has a leaky faucet right now has no clue how to fix a plumbers really valuable. The nurse who sits next to you taking your pulse and holding your hand warmly is invaluable. And these are people who have been overlooked in this process of economic boom in the capital markets capital capital driven capital markets. For certainly since 2008, I think when we saw the response of 2008, which ultimately led to, I think the election of Donald Trump, when we saw that happen. That's all indication of the frustration that we're seeing in the strife, stratification of the economics of the US marketplace. I think that that carries forward into Europe pretty well. I think even in New Zealand, you see that sort of issue. My concern is, how do we resolve that. This is enough, just as this is an opportunity for businesses to create the business they want. This is an opportunity for for market economies, societies create societies that they want. And, and the, the good news is, while we've talked about these economic recessions in 87 2000 2008. If you take a look at crisis recessions like this one, which is World War one, World War two in in the US, the Vietnam War. And out of each one of those came a series of popular truly populist egalitarian policies that appreciated respected and valued the people doing the work, not just the people with the capital pay for. So, coming out of the depression in the United States, of course, we had, we had the, we had Roosevelt's new deal coming out of World War two we had the GI plan with people when we got lots of credit from coming back from the war buying houses going to universities, getting education coming out of Vietnam War, we had the great society where we created Medicare, for instance, and Medicaid in the United States. So, I'm hoping that much like in each one of those crisis there was a realisation of the important societal importance of the people who are doing the hard work taking the risks for everybody else and valuing them, at least in terms of the of the broader social welfare system that will have something similar come out of this this is an opportunity in my mind that we shouldn't, we shouldn't ignore. So what if a startup has an opportunity in this difficult environment, and founders are apprehensive to capitalize on it. What should they do like and then and then how would the investors react to it to help them as well. Well, the thing that investors have to get clear on is that investors only have. There's only one thing an investor can ultimately do other than influence and that is fire. I always say that the two biggest risks I ever take or when the day I invest in the day that I remove a CEO. This is a huge issue to take an entrepreneur out of a out of an early startup, even if it's struggling. And many times, it's what you need to do to accomplish the results but more often than not, it creates problems that even if it's the right answer, kill the company. So influencing and and is probably the most important lever that an investor has with an entrepreneur. And that's built upon the trust that has been created in the good times. I always think about the good time portions of the relationship is putting money in the bank for me to take out later for them to be able to trust me to know that I'm concerned about their success and the company success more than my own. That I put the success of the company be ahead of my bottom line, and that the way that I succeed is for them to succeed. And for that to create the relationship, the basis, the foundation, by which, when I have to give them hard news, like now that I have the, I have the ability to give it to them, and they have the willingness to listen. I do think that particularly in the New Zealand market, there's a, there's a wrinkle that is in my mind and an issue. And that is that investors often pay themselves out of the capital proceeds of the company. And frankly, that is something that we don't do in the United States that we, there were attempts to do that by various different parties in the 90s during the heyday, and they were soundly rejected and there was sufficient capital to come in without those terms to make it work. I think in a day like today, if you want to create that bond with your entrepreneur, the first thing you do is just stop paying yourself. You do not take money out of that company company, the company capital is it is, it is gold, and it is a lifeblood of those entrepreneurs in the opportunity set. And if you want to create a spree to pour the core with the, with your entrepreneurs, I think the thing you've got to do day one, stop taking money out of the company. And can you talk about what funded ventures with healthy core businesses should expect in terms of additional rounds from, you know, capitalized existing investors. So what I'm seeing right now in the States is I'm seeing some financing is getting done on downloads. So the entrepreneurs need to understand that the sooner they capitulate on value, the faster they can get new money into the company. And the normal, the normal challenge in a, in these sorts of realignments of the marketplace is the realignment of expectations and entrepreneurs keep feeling like well by last round was X. So my next round has to be X plus something because I've made progress. There's no denying it. I'm doing well. My company is doing well. At that point of view, could could have ultimately make you bankrupt. If you're not capable of reconciling with what the realities of the marketplace are today. So as I said, technology investors are going to first come through and invest defensively in protecting the parts of their portfolio, which are, which they feel have the greatest opportunity for success, coming out of this crisis. And they will walk away from some and walking away is a is as difficult for an investor to do as for an entrepreneur to fire somebody, but it will happen. The next, the next wave, though, will be looking good investors are going to be looking for opportunities to invest in distressed valuations, good companies, good leadership that are going to be coming out of this with good businesses, but who have valuations that make them particularly attractive. And you want to be in that list. If you need capital to feel comfortable, continue to invest in your growth. The challenge as an entrepreneur is how much of a trade off you're going to make off of short term growth versus long term company strategy. And I think you've got to understand that you've got that the short term growth in a marketplace like this is just blowing into the wind. It's not something that you should be emphasizing. You've got to be thinking about what happens next. My biggest, my biggest regret ever occurred in 2009. When, when a company came to me that I'd always want to invest in. I love the market. I love the product. I love the talent. And they came to me with a number. And I looked at the number and, and I felt like given the circumstances, I could not. I couldn't invest at that valuation. What I should have done as an investor is I should have very nicely said to them. Here's the terms that I will invest on. Here are the protections I need the ratchet I need on valuation if we're wrong about our assumptions today, given where we are. And I would have won that deal. They've credit me for giving them their business model that ultimately took them public billions of dollars late. So I would have won that deal and I walked away from it and I walked away from it because as an investor, I was afraid to offend them by giving them terms that would have valued them appropriately and to offend their sense of progress against their existing valuations. So you want to make sure those communications are very clear. And as an entrepreneur, you've got to be open very quickly to new valuation structures and new terms in deals to make sure that your current, your new investors or current investors will back you. So last question, Randy, it's going quite quickly thoughts on post COVID China and India and the opportunities for better market access for international capital and technology. Well, I mean, China's a powerhouse is no stopping. I mean, China will continue to be very important. I don't I do think that the that the trade war between the US and China is more is not about trade. It's really about power. And ultimately these these countries will continue to trade at very high levels, regardless. There's no bringing back with the Chinese do the United States. So I think the Chinese economy continues to boom, coming out of this. There may be some some some blowback for a while. For instance, if it is determined that it that this virus came out of the mishandling of of genetic virus testing at one of their labs and that's a big deal. And that will create a lot of mistrust. But I don't think there's any going back from the importance of China. India is more complicated. It's always been more complicated. Largely because it's the biggest democracy in the world is the most heterogeneous population in the world, given the size. That is a gigantic challenge. And, and so economically it's never moved with one direction. Politically it's never spoken with one voice. And ethnically I don't think it's ever been fully integrated inclusive. And so it's in that marketplace. I think that the I expect that the market will come back to look a lot like what looks today without the ridiculous valuations around some of the early winners in some of those transitional markets. There are valuations there that I followed, for instance, in the e-commerce space, which really don't make much sense in those marketplaces. So I think there will see those things become rationalized. But I don't but I but I think that the Indian economy, given its size and scale will continue on the path that was on before the virus. Thank you, Randy. Time is up. Thank you everybody for attending and also sorry we couldn't get to all of your questions. There are a lot of still fabulous questions actually sitting in there, which I would have loved to have asked. Randy, it's been a pleasure. And Paul is just going to pop up our last screen for you all. And so the recording will be on our website afterwards so you can actually go and have a look. We have got applications open still for cohort eight and they'll be open until the beginning of June. So thank you very much everybody and enjoy the rest of your morning day or evening. All right. Thank you everybody.