Like me, Joe has found that the character and motivations of the founders of a business are more decisive than the business itself (technology, product, market, business model, etc.), mostly because businesses and markets change quickly, while the leaders don’t change quickly. The leaders have to have the right character and motivations to be able to navigate the inevitable pivots without giving up or getting stuck in the past. For this reason, Joe agrees that angels make investment decisions largely on an emotional or personal basis.By listening to Joe, you’ll gain insight into what DOES move the funding needle when dealing with individual angel investors.
Rob Kramarz – Hi, everybody. This is Robert Steven Kramarz of Intelliversity, and this is your Vision Master podcast and blog. Today, I’m particularly thrilled. I’ve had some great guests lately, but I’m particularly thrilled to be interviewing Joe Milam. Am I pronouncing that correctly?
Joe Milam: Yes, sir.
Rob Kramarz – Joe was the founder of actually two organizations, AngelSpan and The Legacy Funds. We’ll talk about both. He is a longtime angel investor himself and venture capital investor. Actually, private equity if I understand?
Joe Milam: Yeah, money manager.
Rob Kramarz – Money management.
Joe Milam: I was a money manager for 20 years, yeah.
Rob Kramarz – Joe has particularly keen insights as to what you Vision Masters can do to optimize your chances and accelerate the pace of you getting funded, whether it’s a seed round, or a series A round, or even later. I can’t think of a greater expert on this subject than Joe. By the way, we both live in Austin, Texas. We just met this last week, and we found we live within five miles of each other, right?
Joe Milam: Yeah, probably. That’s probably pretty close.
Rob Kramarz – I’m starting a poker game if you want to join. We needed one or two more players, so you can join. You’ll probably take us all for everything we got.
Joe Milam: No. I played for years with a group out in Northern California, where I moved from. It was called Venture Poker. A lot of fun guys from the venture world.
Rob Kramarz – I don’t know if it applies. In poker, it applies. If you can’t figure out who the sucker is, it’s you. Yeah.
Joe Milam: Oh, yeah.
Rob Kramarz – That applies to venture to invest as well. Look, tell our audience of Vision Master founders, with a few investors mixed in, and tell them about what your AngelSpan does.
Joe Milam: Yeah, okay. By the way, The Legacy Funds is a division of AngelSpan, so it’s a separate website and what have you, but it’s a wholly-owned subsidiary. It is an LLC structure. It’s a confusing message, but it is all one. They’re both components to a larger solution we’re pursuing, and that is to bring public market investment process rigor to the private venture funding process. Think of how, for 20 years, I managed money in the public markets, did our own securities research. Had tools and data dashboards to manage risk, manage portfolios, and monitor our existing holdings. What we built is a way to replicate the very toolkits and the investment disciplines that I practiced in the public markets.
Rob Kramarz – Now, who did you work for that gave you all this experience? Just so our listeners know why I think you’re credible.
Joe Milam: Well, in college, I could’ve run a hedge fund. I just had the game in the public markets. I won’t belabor that point, but I did spend five years right out of college on what’s called the sales side with EF Hutton and found that’s more of a sales business than a financially rigorous profession. And so, I got lucky to make it my way to what’s called the buy-side or the fee-based money management with a group out of Menlo Park there, and I joined in 1990. My predecessor, and boss at the time, was a long-time money manager. In fact, at the time of his death was the longest registered investment advisor in the Bay area. But most importantly, was a boutique firm.
He was from old money. Clients were old money, very prestigious names. The bank in Liechtenstein came calling. They bought his firm in the late eighties, 1988, and I joined that combined firm in 1990. At the time of my employment, when I first joined him, it was called BIL, Trainer Wortham, which was associated with the bank in Liechtenstein. Then Trainer Wortham was a larger investment firm they actually bought in New York and rolled us all into one. It was a private firm. High net worth, boutique money management. Global reach through our affiliation and other sister companies with the bank in Liechtenstein.
Rob Kramarz – As I understand it, to cut to the chase here, many of your clients were venture capitalists and well-known Silicon Valley investors.
Joe Milam: We very much had that because of who my boss was. We had both a combination of old money, which is what his background was. And so, we had DuPont’s clients and other folks like that that was in his social circles, or he went to school with or was in the Bohemian Grove with, or all these things.
Rob Kramarz – So, you got to bring Wall Street discipline/risk management discipline to the investments that your angel and VC investors were making. In the process, began to see what they were doing wrong and what they were doing right. As I understand, it resolved to help angel and VC investors do a better job of investing.
Joe Milam: Yeah. I very much had a window into our client’s activities, both angel and venture investing, but our clients were asking me to help with their angel investing activities. Find the deals, what have you. When I took over the firm in ’93. I got very active, yes, in some angel groups and worked with some folks. Yes, saw firsthand the process of angel investing from a front-row seat, both with my own money and with my client’s money. Most importantly, saw how far removed the typical and conventional funding path was for funding startups versus how we did our own research to manage money in the public markets.
Rob Kramarz – Here’s one of the things that attracted me to you. The following question, how you answer it. What do you think motivates angel investors? Let’s start with angels, these high-net-worth individuals, and families. To put money into one company and not into another? Okay.
Joe Milam: Yeah. I mean, the simple answer is emotion, right? The emotion could be a myriad of emotions. It might be the classic, what a lot of people know about as FOMO, Fear Of Missing Out, i.e., missing out on something that other people perceive to be something interesting. It might be as simple as, “Well, gosh. Everybody’s doing it, and that’s an audience I want to hang out with socially.” It could be to buy access to certain stratus of a social landscape. It could be any myriad of things, but it’s emotion-driven. It’s not critical thinking, rational thought, rational objective, or due diligence. It is some component of the limbic brain, where our emotional behavior resides and influences our decision-making.
Rob Kramarz – That emotional behavior is largely social. What is socially popular, or give us bragging rights, or maybe avoid missing out. That kind of thing.
Joe Milam: Well, there’s another component I saw a lot in the Bay Area, and then also when I got involved in an angel group up in Sacramento, where there was a big Intel plant. There was a lot of folks in the Sacramento angel group that was from Intel, but that model was a very similar model in other angel groups. Is that, the male ego is a nasty thing with money and the Sudden Wealth Syndrome is a real psychological journey. There’s a five-step journey that folks go through. What I saw in the nineties when the angel activities started exploding, was: a lot of folks who saw their own net worth explode because they happened to be at Cisco, or Intel, or some other company, and all of a sudden, their net worth exploded because of their non-qualified options.
They were able to afford the big house, and the boat, and the cabin in Tahoe, but they knew intuitively that their net worth that was on display and all these cool tools they could now afford… Really, they had nothing to do with actually creating. They were just in the right place at the right time. And so, another emotion I saw repeated time and time and time again is a need for certain angels to basically gamble with some of this excess capital to actually be the source of wealth creation, not just get lucky. They wanted to disprove or diffuse the accurate perception that their lifestyle was largely based on luck, not based on their own experience.
Rob Kramarz – That’s very interesting.
Joe Milam: … to create wealth.
Rob Kramarz – That’s very interesting, Joe. Wow.
Joe Milam: Yeah. I saw that repeat time and again. And so, the thing that drives angel investing activities and startups is emotion. It just depends on their personal life journey as to which emotion, but I can guarantee you it’s emotion.
Rob Kramarz – All right? Let’s translate that. As you know, our audience is Vision Masters, which is distinct from a visionary. As you know, the visionary sees the future. The vision master makes the future that he or she sees. Founders are either vision master or vision master wannabes, right? One of the things that a Vision Master has to learn how to do to be a true master is raised capital, right? That’s seed rounds, pre-seed, Series A, and so on. You’re always raising capital. Knowing that your investors are being driven emotionally and not rationally, what does that teach our Vision Master viewers and listeners about how do they approach those investors and how do they close the deal?
Joe Milam: Well, unfortunately, entrepreneurs/Vision Masters that are trying to manifest some new, innovative future to truncate and lessen their own frustration for pitching angels, they have to also somewhat become psychologists and set aside their own urgency for funding. Their own natural inclination to try and spin a compelling financial yarn on how much money they’re going to make these investors they’re pitching. They actually have to try and read the room. In a best-case, they’re pitching somebody one at a time. If you’re in a room full of angels, it’s really hard. That’s why the angel group funding demo, presentation process is just so ineffective because you’ve got so many crosscurrents of agendas/emotional agendas in the room. When it’s one on one, you really do need to spend the time trying to understand that investor, and then characterize them in a construct that’s almost… I’ve done some presentations on this. I’m happy to share a link to a recorded presentation on the psychology of wealth.
How to read somebody and understand where they are in their Maslowian pyramid of motivations. Okay? That’s a lens that can be very effective in understanding what emotion is likely driving them, and that you need to appeal to as an entrepreneur in presenting your opportunity. It has to appeal to what’s driving them within their Maslowian impairment of the hierarchy of motivations and needs. It could be, again, a sense of community, which is the mid-level Maslowian motivation. It could be ego gratification, which is right above that. Self-actualization is that mythical, benevolent angel. That’s doing it not for money or not for ego gratification, but to be part of something more serious. They’re trying to manifest their own legacy and leave something behind that’s valuable from a values-based standpoint as opposed to just something else to brag about at the country club, which is predominantly what motivates most angel investors. But, it could be both parts of a community to buy their way into their newfound riches. They move to their new town. They want to join the angel group and find their new tribe, right?
Rob Kramarz – Absolutely. When I joined Tech Coast Angels 10 years ago, 12 years ago, I wanted to be part of the tribe.
Joe Milam: You want to be part of the tribe, and so you join an angel group. You’re meeting other people that are roughly in the same financial status as you, and probably businessmen, typically, in their fifties and sixties. And so, it’s not hard to find a tribe by going to the angel group.
Rob Kramarz – I was 60 at the time. When I joined, I just wanted to invest with the other guys. The ones I respected the most. The officers, the founders. I’d just go along with them, because I wanted to be part of their group. It had nothing to do with the validity of the investment.
Joe Milam: Exactly.
Rob Kramarz – At least not at first.
Joe Milam: Not at first, and then you learned some hard lessons.
Rob Kramarz – Right, I learned some hard lessons.
Joe Milam: Expensive lessons. Then you started thinking critically about the process itself. That’s a very common learning curve. Angel groups themselves are notorious for having really high turnover about every 18 months because that’s a cycle where people invest in maybe one, two, or three deals largely based on emotional reasons. Maybe to join a community, maybe to try and swing for the fence and have something to brag about at the country club. But ultimately, they get frustrated after about 18 months, and they either drift off or they put their activities and investing activities on pause. They may come back to the group but oftentimes don’t. That’s just a common cycle.
Rob Kramarz – Yeah. Most of the angels that our Vision Masters are approaching are not members of Tech Coast Angels or major, but they’re individuals who are now getting involved
Joe Milam: Wait, they think for themselves?
Rob Kramarz – Yeah
Joe Milam: Oh, my goodness. Do they think for themselves? I like them already.
Rob Kramarz – They try to, they try to.
Joe Milam: I like them already.
Rob Kramarz – They’re still interested in emotional reasons. They still want bragging rights. They want legacy. They want to make a difference. They don’t want to miss out.
Joe Milam: That’s a really important point for your Vision Master entrepreneurs that are listening in. Is that: regardless, there’s still predominantly a qualitative or subjective motivator for why they’re going to ultimately write the check, so you have to find that and appeal to that as an entrepreneur.
Rob Kramarz – Really, that’s the core of your advice. Right there.
Joe Milam: Yeah. Part of the science behind that, just to put a finer point to it, is actually Nobel Prize winning work on the psychology of decision making called Prospect Theory. At its core, Prospect Theory says, “People’s decision making, including investment decision… The prospects for loss has two times as big an impact on their decision making as the prospects for gain.” It’s a two X multiplier from a motivational standpoint. You don’t know what the prospects of loss is. Is it loss of ego? Is it loss of social status? It’s not loss of money.
Rob Kramarz – Nope.
Joe Milam: That’s highly unlikely. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be investing it in startups.
Rob Kramarz – Exactly.
Joe Milam: Right. The probability of them not losing money is really low, and the probability of them losing money is very high. These are reasonably smart people, at a minimum, and so they know that intellectually. They may not want to admit it emotionally, but they do know it intellectually. And so, the prospects for loss have to be something qualitative, not quantitative, as a focal point. But equally as important, as some of the coaching I’ve given entrepreneurs: at worst, they don’t want to look stupid. Meaning, you don’t want to surprise them. You don’t want to pander to their worst instincts. They don’t want to look stupid. Let’s use a real-world example because this has profound ramifications and it’s a wonderful lesson. Many of your listeners are probably familiar with the Theranos soap opera.
Rob Kramarz – Absolutely.
Joe Milam: Elizabeth Holmes. Well, what about Betsy DeVos? Who in the trial, Elizabeth Holmes’ trial, it came out that she had an internal advisor that convinced her she had to hurry up and write a hundred million dollar check. Otherwise, you’re going to miss out.
Rob Kramarz – Wow.
Joe Milam: They didn’t ask for audited financials. They had no transparency or corporate governance requirements.
Rob Kramarz – Wow.
Joe Milam: Rupert Murdoch wrote a 125 million dollar check without asking for those things. What they lost was credibility. That’s called “headline risk”. The wealthier the family, the more headline risk is the fear of loss. Is the fear of loss of the family brand because of headline risk, and boy, howdy, that’s going to linger for a long time? That’s something else when you think in terms of who you’re pitching. The entrepreneur very much wants to de-risk the transaction. Yes, de-risk it financially to the degree you can, and there are ways to do that, but secondarily, de-risk their perception of being embarrassed.
Rob Kramarz – What role does the investor’s feeling that they can trust the entrepreneur, the Vision Master, play in the decision-making process? Given that it’s always emotional anyway, what part does trust play?
Joe Milam: As evidenced by this last example, the Theranos example, I think trust is a variable thing. I think the smaller the money, i.e., the net worth of the investor, I think the earliest of the stages trust is critical. Oddly enough. I think the larger the round, the later the round, the larger the dollars they are considering investing, and trust becomes less relevant. Trust in the underlying entrepreneur becomes less relevant than trust in the other people that might be on the term sheet that there might be in that investing round. Their optics or their social signals as they look laterally is more relevant than the underlying entrepreneur itself. That’s my guess.
Rob Kramarz – Well, that’s very interesting. Very interesting.
Joe Milam: That’s just a perception. I haven’t done any scientific work on it, but I’ve studied this. Observed, I should say. “Study” is too strong. Observed investor behavior for a very long time. I would probably assign that at a high probability of being the one standard deviation of the bell curve of their likely motivation.
Rob Kramarz – Well, there’s also the factor of evaluation. The evaluation that the investor will demand or expect. Either a cap on a SAFE note or a convertible debt, which I know, we’ll get back to, you don’t favor. Or, the actual evaluation of the equity purchase is impacted by the degree that which the investor trusts the Vision Master to deliver. If there’s a much higher likelihood of delivery of an exit, then the evaluation should be higher. All other things are equal.
Joe Milam: I certainly can’t argue with the logic, but when we’re talking about the limbic brain influencing so many factors of the decision making, that’s a critical thinking and rational thought. But, I think the point we’re making here early on is: that there’s a great deal of irrational thought, or limbic brain, or limbic motivated choices that influence the decision.
Rob Kramarz – Well, the trust is not a rational process, at least at this stage. It’s an emotional process.
Joe Milam: Yeah. It’s certainly a goal, without a doubt. Evaluation is a calculation, which is more of the critical thinking side of the brain. You don’t want it to come across as stupid, right? But, there are always exceptions. The degree in which the limbic brain is influencing it, the evaluation falls by the wayside. Look at the stupid seed round deals that get funded in Silicon Valley at bubble periods.
Rob Kramarz – Yeah.
Joe Milam: Right? Again, you’ve got to always look at the contextualized environment.
Rob Kramarz – Let’s suppose the investor doesn’t trust that the founder is living in reality, they’re fantasizing.
Joe Milam: Would they even take the first meeting then?
Rob Kramarz – I mean, after the first meeting, they’ve met the founder, and they realize this founder has is head in the clouds.
Joe Milam: Yeah.
Rob Kramarz – That’s a trust factor?
Joe Milam: Yeah, sure.
Rob Kramarz – The investor won’t write a check, right?
Joe Milam: Of course. No, of course not. No, of course not. No, of course not. If this has no grounding in reality, then whether it’s an evaluation or the other claims the entrepreneur might be making, right? The classic, “We’re going to go get 20% of this market that’s growing at a large rate. This 100 billion dollar market, we’re going to get 20% of it.” Well, you’ve just discredited yourself so instantly.
Rob Kramarz – That’s what I mean by trust.
Joe Milam: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Rob Kramarz – Maybe trust is not a positive thing, it’s a negative thing, so you can’t create distrust.
Joe Milam: Yeah.
Rob Kramarz – Do things that make you untrustworthy.
Joe Milam: Exactly. Trust is very difficult to get, to earn, and it’s very mercurial to retain. And so yes, you’ve got to minimize your chances of losing whatever trust you might have gained. You got to work hard at it.
Rob Kramarz – Okay. I wanted to just return to that one little issue we touched on a moment ago. What is your opinion of the use of SAFEs and convertible debt in the seed round level? One to two, three million. In that range, what advice would you give Vision Masters?
Joe Milam: Well, my advice is that they’re very bad instruments. Don’t use them. The reason they’re popular if you understand their history of them: it was literally YCombinator trying to accelerate the velocity of investing, and they required a SAFE note on the companies that were coming through their system, but it didn’t mean it was an optimal term sheet from an entrepreneur’s perspective. It also was evidenced that the participants or the folks involved in making that decision and accepting that as investors, as a SAFE note being a rational term sheet for early investing, are unfamiliar with some of the tax incentives that are not available to investors in SAFE notes. That early-stage investing process. I mean, it’s an absence of knowledge. It’s also a fear of evaluation, in my opinion. Most folks don’t know how to value a startup. It’s not that difficult if you actually do your homework. It’s evidence of a lack of sophistication, experience, or knowledge, in my opinion, from an investor’s perspective, and entrepreneurs have just been told they got to use SAFE notes from a relatively uninformed investment populace.
Rob Kramarz – In your view, convertible notes are better than SAFEs, and equity is better than convertible notes in the seed round.
Joe Milam: Well, the optimal term sheet to take advantage of these tax laws I’ve touched on, they’re called qualified small business stock. By the way, for your listeners. QSBS, under sections 1244 and 1202. Those are only available to equity investors that invest in an equity instrument on the term sheet. An equity instrument is either common or preferred. A preferred note is an equity instrument in the eyes of the cap table, the capping stack, and the IRS. You can structure a convertible preferred that looks just like a SAFE note. It’s unpriced. It’s got a 20% discount on the next priced round, and it has an interest rate associated with it. Preferred stocks themselves have an interest rate. You can have a SAFE-like preferred stock and still capture the QSBS benefits.
Rob Kramarz – Very interesting. Well, that’s something that we can talk further about because that’s the same advice that I give, so we’re very much on the same page there. When it comes to evaluation if you do want to use equity with evaluation, what can the Vision Masters do in your estimation to improve evaluation at the seed-round level?
Joe Milam: Yeah. Let’s start from a framework, because most investors — in startups at the seed round, and beyond, frankly — are uncomfortable with evaluation. Folks that have been around a while understand there is a de facto starting point for evaluation if an entrepreneur is given some rational thought to how much they want to raise in their seed round or their A round. They actually said, “We need two million dollars to accomplish these milestones before we go raise the next round.” They define the amount they’re raising not by what the market will bear, but what they need to build the business over the next 18 months to 36 months. Or 24 months, whatever. That amount you’re raising, let’s use two million as an example. Then the rule of thumb is, the starting point is: you’re selling 20% equity in the business. Two million dollars is: the post-money evaluation would be 10. Eight million would be the pre.
Rob Kramarz – Exactly.
Joe Milam: That is a recognized construct, and you can say that’s your evaluation. Now, you can influence whether you sell less, i.e., you have a higher evaluation if you’ve got more revenue, or you’ve got some degree of tangible evidence that this has enough momentum, or if you’re dead in the water or you’re struggling. You’re still doing R&D work or whatever else. Maybe it’s hardware-focused, or biotech or something, right? Then you can maybe sell more. Maybe it’s an eight million post and a six million pre, so you sold 25%. You give a better deal because you have less tangible evidence of momentum. Or if you have tangible evidence, you’re selling less of a percentage, and you thus have a higher evaluation.
But 20% is a recognized construct as a starting point to, again, begin the negotiation. If an entrepreneur starts from that, then the investor, they’re always going to try and haggle. They think that’s their job, regardless if it’s a rational thought or not. They think they’re doing their job. That gives the power to the entrepreneur/the Vision Master to say, “Well, why do you think that’s true?” Because I believe, as industry practices and standards have shown, that selling 20% when you’ve got a stage funding strategy is a logical evaluation framework, so you put the burden on a relatively uninformed investor to try and defend their silly haggling tactic.
Rob Kramarz – Like you say, it’s considered a standard. Because no investor, maybe it’s just emotional, wants to be a little teeny part of a big venture. Coming in at 10% for two million just feels like you have no control over the future of this company, but 20%, you may have some influence on the board or as an advisor. Angel investors take it seriously.
Joe Milam: First and foremost, I wouldn’t want to be the only person investing/taking the whole two million dollar raise in a seed-stage company.
Rob Kramarz – Of course.
Joe Milam: That’s the total raise, not one person’s amount. Irrespective of that 20%, you’re going to be in minority shareholder at that stage. Period. If that two million dollars is comprised of 8, 10, or 12 different investors that put in different chunks. Any thoughtful round should include the largest investor from that round on the board. That’s also one of these best practices and standardized best practices. The entrepreneur puts the largest investor from each round on the board. They have a board seat.
Rob Kramarz – Do you advise the use of an LLC or a special purpose vehicle for the investors to consolidate and pool their funds, and then invest as a unit on the cap table?
Joe Milam: I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. Again, if you’ve got a bunch of people and that’s what you want to do for convenience purposes out of your angel group, then do it. Nothing wrong with that.
Rob Kramarz – All right. Great.
Joe Milam: I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. I think that’s just an instrument of convenience.
Rob Kramarz – Well, in the interest of time, what’s one more piece of golden wisdom that you would like to offer our esteemed and optimistic Vision Masters out there trying to make a difference in the world, and make some money at the same time?
Joe Milam: Well, at the meta-level, it really is important. I know it sounds trite, or cliche, or what have you, but it is critically important because the journey of entrepreneurship is the hero’s journey. The Joseph Campbell-esque hero’s journey, and it’s guaranteed to be hard. It’s supposed to be. You’re going to have your metal tested, so you’ve got to have a reason you’re stepping off onto that hero’s journey. You have to have a sense of purpose more than, “I think I can make a few bucks,” or, “Hey, it’s cool to be an entrepreneur. Let’s go throw an app together from a couple of college dorm roommates and call ourselves entrepreneurs.”
There is a lot of that out there, but needing a sense of purpose — a North Star, if you will — is critical. It is critical, because of that hero’s journey and how you’re going to be tested. The testing process is almost a spiritual, or cosmic, or whatever you want to call it, a measure of the validity of what you’re doing. The fact that you can withstand it and stick to it is almost an implied test of the relevancy and credibility of what you’re trying to solve for, right? Easy come easy go is another way to think of that. If it’s hard, by God, it’s going to have to be worth it.
Rob Kramarz – Well said, Joe. In the interest of time, do you want our Vision Masters to reach out to you and contact you? I know you’re primarily concerned with consulting two investors at this point.
Joe Milam: Well, our business model at AngelSpan is… We do provide a service for start-ups, so I want to be very clear and transparent in that.
Rob Kramarz – Okay, good.
Joe Milam: So yes, I’m happy to help. I help a lot of entrepreneurs. I give away all the knowledge anybody wants. What our business model is, is trying to solve some of the key things that entrepreneurs don’t know how to do well. That is really important to garner trust as quickly as possible, so you can accelerate the funding process as quickly as possible. That is a service we offer up. It’s broadly defined/called “investor relations”, but effectively, we help entrepreneurs communicate properly.
Rob Kramarz – All right. How do they reach you? How do they communicate with you?
Joe Milam: Drop me a note on LinkedIn, reach out. If you want to kick my tires first, I’ve posted a lot of stuff on LinkedIn, so you can do your own homework. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Rob Kramarz – Joe@angelspan.com?
Joe Milam: Yes. Joe Milam at AngelSpan and The Legacy Funds. On LinkedIn, as I said, I’ve left a very clear intellectual trail on what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, how we’re doing it, and the research behind it. If you want to do your own homework first, you can start there. But otherwise, just reach out and I’ll send it to you.
Rob Kramarz – Awesome, Joe. Well, looking forward to seeing you over at HEB, or wherever you hang out here, because we’re so close. It’s more of a local club. People know that we love music here.
Joe Milam: Well, have you stumbled onto Via 313 Pizza?
Rob Kramarz – I have not.
Joe Milam: Oh, it’s right there at the Y. You’ve got to go there.
Rob Kramarz – I should have said, the food here in Austin is just incredible.
Joe Milam: That’s probably the best pizza in town.
Rob Kramarz – Okay. What was the name of the place?
Joe Milam: Via 313.
Rob Kramarz – Via 313. All right.
Joe Milam: Oh, it’s really something.
Rob Kramarz – Via 313. All right. Thank you so much, Joe. This is Robert Steven Kramarz of Intelliversity signing off for your Vision Master podcast because that’s the way it will be. See you next time, Joe.
Joe Milam: Thank you. Thanks for your time.
Rob Kramarz – Thanks.