Authors@Wharton Speaker Series presents Peter Thiel

good afternoon everyone welcome to the fall kickoff of authors at Wharton I'm Adam Grant I am absolutely delighted and honored to introduce Peter teal today there are many many things that I could

say about him and they would keep us here all afternoon so I want to cover a few highlights he started his career probably most famously co-founding PayPal where he was the CEO leading and

building that company and taking it public he was the first outside investor in Facebook which we'll get a chance to hear about in a bit he's invested in many other extraordinarily successful

startups from SpaceX to LinkedIn he co-founded palent the killer app company that uses human machine collaboration to hunt terrorists he co-produced the movie

Thank You for Smoking he's also been heavily involved in the founders FR fund breakthrough philanthropy conferences seasteading for autonomous Ocean Communities the teal Fellowship giving

$1,000 to 20 under 20 every year to quit college and start a venture instead I think probably many of them us know him best for Silicon Valley the HBO sitcom

which we'll also speak about and personally I would say Peter teal is one of the world's greatest Tech innovators investors and intellectual provocators if you ask him about his

intellectual investing philosophy he'll tell you that he's long on substance and short on status I want to let you know that after he speaks we'll be taking questions via

Twitter if you want to use the hash Warton authors I'll be drawing question questions from there and then we'll have a limited book signing afterward for a subset of people who are able to stay behind but we do have a hard stop a few

minutes afterward so without further Ado tremendous pleasure and honor to welcome Peter teal to Wharton authors Peter it's all

yours Adam thank you thank you very much for that uh that great intro uh in um in writing the book zero to1 and teaching about entrepreneurship it's it's always a quite challenging subject to to

talk about there and I think there's sort of two standard modes people do one is where you go into great detail on your own experiences and I sort of tell all sorts of War stories about about

building PayPal and how we linked email and payments and um that worked in one particular time and place in 1999 but it's not actually all that helpful if you do it today in

2014 and then I think the other type of business book that gets written is what I sort of describe as the pseudo scientific book where you have a formula and you follow these five steps and

you'll build a great company and um and I think that also I'm also quite skeptical of that approach because I think that uh I think that um every moment in business every moment the

history of Technology happens only once that you know the next uh Bill Gates will not build an operating system the next Larry Page won't build a search engine the next Mark Zuckerberg won't

build a social network if you're trying to copy these people people you're not uh you're not in some sense learning from them and um and and so all you know the and and and the question is always

how do we get these great zero to one moments science starts with a number two with repeatable experiments but there are no repeatable experiments in business um and and so the starting

point for 0o to one is really thinking about this problem of uniqueness of how do how how one conceives of these these great breakthrough uh tech companies and I try to get at this question through

VAR uh sort of contrarian thought-provoking questions I pose the the business question I always like to ask is tell what great company is nobody building the more intellectual version

of it that I like to ask is uh you know uh tell me something that's true that uh almost nobody agrees with you on and if we just take that question it turns out to be a really tough question as an

interview question um and I think there are two different reasons the tough question the first one is that we've been we've been taught over and over again again um that everything that's

true is conventional it's understood by lots and lots of people and so we're not used to coming up with new truths that people have not thought of before and this sounds like something that's really

hard to do but it's also a really uncomfortable question to answer because um you know the correct answer is one the interviewer presumably will disagree with you know if the interviewer says oh

yeah I already thought of that or yeah I agree with that totally um your answer probably was not a really good answer to it and um and so there's always something I think very uncomfortable

about um these these truly original approaches and uh and I I like to suggest that uh we live in a world in which courage is in Far shorter Supply than genius and this is one of the

reasons why uh this is such a hard question to tackle um in in the zero to1 book I give a whole series of answers to this question uh I uh go through a

number of things that I believe to be true that most people do not agree with me on and I'm going to share uh three or four of those uh with you uh with you

tonight um let me start with uh the the first one which is probably the the big biggest thematic idea that runs through um my book my investing philosophy

advice I give all entrepreneurs most people believe that capitalism and competition are synonyms I believe they're antonyms um I believe

that um a capitalist is someone who accumulates capital in a world of perfect competition all the profits get competed away and so if you have a uh

you know if you want to compete like crazy for scraps you should open a restaurant and um and you know it's rest the restaurant industry is super

competitive and it's extremely UNC capitalistic nobody ever makes any money in the restaurant industry um and sort of at the other end of the spectrum you have sort of these singular sorts of

companies and I use Google as sort of the go-to example um where uh it's very capitalistic you have enormous profit margins um every year and there's been

no real competition in search since 2002 uh um when when Google definitively distanced itself from from Microsoft and from Yahoo and so one of the things I um

I encourage people to really rethink is this question of uh competition competition I think is problematic uh you know those the the chapter I have in the book is all happy companies there's

this line from anina the opening um line of anac tll sto anaca where it says you know all happy families are alike all unhappy families are unhappy in their own special way and I think the opposite

is true of business I think all happy companies are different because they're doing something unique and different that that makes them special um all unhappy companies are alike because they fail to escape the essential sameness

that is competition and so you want to be in a you don't want to be the fourth online pet food company or the 10th thin film so panel company or something like that you want to be doing something

something very unique so I I I want to sort of always encourage people to to Really rethink this question of Monopoly or competition and I think that uh when

you're starting a Founder entrepreneur someone who starting a business um the goal you should always have is to create a business that will be a monopoly because those are those are the truly

the truly valuable companies um in our world now I think this question of competition and Monopoly is um you know it's it's it's partially it's not just sort of intellectual

failure there some of bias towards that we we don't understand this I think it's also that we're very heavily socialized to compete all the time and we're taught that the things that are valuable are things we compete for and I think it's

you know I think it's just the way people sort of get taught from K through 16 or whatever that uh that the more ferocious the competition the more

valuable it must be um and um and what competition does is it does make you better at some narrow set of things if you're like on a High School athletic team you get better at swimming because

you're competing against the people right around you but it always comes at this price of losing sight of what may be more important or or more valuable um

you know there was a there was a Henry Kissinger line where um the battles in Academia are so ferocious because the stakes are so small and this was not

just talking about the insanity of his fellow professors at Harvard um where you know you should say well like why why would the battles be really ferocious if the stakes are so small it seems like a formula you know you have a

ferocious battle if the stakes are big not if they're small um and so it's on one level it sounds like a formula for insanity but on another level it just describes the inner logic of the

situation if if the stakes are small if it's really hard to differentiate yourself from the people around you then the competition becomes more and more and more intense and so you end up with

all these Dynamics where people have to fight super hard for uh for for these uh for these Stakes that are really small and I think I think it's um really

important to try to think upfront early on um on on how to avoid avoid this as much as possible when one when one sets out in a career in a business and something that you're you're doing in

life uh differentiate and uh and you know there's there's no safety in crowds when you have large crowds of people you end up competing with them in all these ways I um and I've been a somewhat of a

Critic of uh some of the things going on in the in our educational system and people of to say well you went to Stanford you went to Stanford law school and uh and I I do think that um you know

I I would probably still go back and do it again if I had to do it over but I would ask much harder questions because everything was super tracked I mean my my eighth grade yearbook uh in junior high school one of my friends said well

I'm certain you'll enter Stanford's a sophomore in four or five years and sure enough that happened and then I went to law school went to you know top law firm in New York and you ended up with this

really bizarre Dynamic where from the outside everybody was trying to get in on the inside everybody was trying to get out after I left the law firm after seven months and three days one one of the people down the hall told me you

know it's really reassuring to see that it's possible to escape from Alcatraz which um which was actually no you just had to go out the front door and not come back but um but it it was it was

psychologically incredibly hard for people to do because the identity was so wrapped up in in um in what they had what they had done and uh and I think

this is the sort of thing I I I invite all of us to to rethink a little bit um as we as we progress I sort of had this rolling quarter life crisis in my 20s and I think that uh if I had if I had to

give my younger self advice it would be think much harder why are you doing this where do you want to go with this and um and don't always take education or

credentialing as a substitute for uh thinking really hard about about your future now um let me coming back coming back to this Monopoly question you know

um when you start um if you sort of think about the history of Entrepreneurship and Innovation over the last 200 20050 years um people have

really succeeded when two things have been true when you start a business where you create something of value to the world and you capture some fraction of the value you create so you you

create xll in value and you get y% of X um so pretty straightforward math formula but I think I think one of the things that people always get wrong um

is that X and Y are these totally independent variables and um and so X can be very big and Y can be 0% a lot of the time and I I think it is um and I

think one of the things that's uh both unusual about software and why you know sort of Silicon Valley is so incredibly dyn Dynamic right now and so successful is because in a lot of these software

businesses people are actually able to capture some decent fraction of the value of what they create there are many other Innovations where this was not the case you know the airline industry in

the US over a hundred years has basically uh made almost no money it's been you know it's good for society that we have airplanes but um but the you know the and you you have about 180

billion a year in domestic ticket sales on airlines 50 billion a year in search um advertising on Google so you'd say you know if you measure it that way say the airline industry is still more important than search on Google you know

we we'd rather do without Google than without airplanes Pro probably you know if you had to sort of pick between one or the other but um Google as a company is worth six times as much as all the

airplane companies combined and I think this again reflects this Monopoly versus competition Dynamic and and I think it is sort of the strange reality that um

an awful lot of scientists and inventors um always have this fantasy that of course they're going to get rewarded massively for their inventions but the somewhat disturbing history is that this

has often not been the case you know in the first Industrial Revolution in Britain where you had the textile factories in the 18th and 19th century got started um it was a lot of

innovation a lot of uh improvements but even in 1850 1860 100 years into the industrial revolution the great Fortunes in Britain were were still all the landed

aristocracy um the people who started the textile factories the the owners of them made very little money because all the profits were competed away they had

failed to be differentiated enough um and uh and so I think this is always um something to to Think Through really hard and there is something about

software that is so powerful today um because it is this um it is it is really this exceptional industry in which the people who create things of value are able to capture some fraction of what

they create now a second um second somewhat contrarian answer to my my question you know people will always when you hear this question tell me something that's

true that very few people agree with you on um people will int will sort of intuitively say well well there aren you know we've already figured everything out there are no answers to this that uh

everything's already understood and I I want to suggest that there are actually many answers left to this question and I I sort of suggest this uh three-part

division into conventional truths which everybody understands so it's like 1 plus 1 equals 2 the earth goes around the Sun these things are true they're not terribly valuable they don't give you any Edge uh because they're already

understood by everybody else in the world uh there are Mysteries which are things that are impossible to figure out but then I think in between conventions and Mysteries there are what I call

Secrets things that are hard but possible to figure figure out and if you work at them you can figure them out and it is my thesis that there are many

secrets to be discovered that if we work at them we can do them in in many many different areas um now there are certainly areas where everything has been discovered so you know if you were

like in the 18th century and you looked at a map uh you could say well I don't really know what's at this part of the map and you could become an Explorer and you could find out and um and that's not

the case anymore more today since we've mapped the whole surface of the planet there are no secrets left in geography or if you were in the 19th century and said well I want to become a chemist and discover some new elements that probably

would not be a good idea in the 21st century so chemist you know periodic table of elements the map of the world these are sort of complete there are no secrets left there but most subjects are

not like geography or chemistry most subjects are um are still much more on the frontier and they're ones where can uh we can come up with uh with many

types of answers and I I think that um I I do think that one of the things that's that often is very um is sort of this in intuition that's very true in many of

these companies is that people think that there is something they can figure out if you think you can figure it out you'll work really hard at it so PayPal I thought there was some really

interesting stuff we could figure out around digital currency um and and changing the nature of money we actually didn't quite succeed in doing it we didn't succeed in replacing the US

dollar with a new world currency which was our our our crazy goal in 2000 but um but that sort of deep substantive thinking about cryptocurrency helped Inspire us to uh come up with an

architecture for the system that turned out to make for a really good payment system in all these all these other ways and so I think there are sort of a lot of these secrets left what one of the

reasons that people are skeptical of Secrets or of their ability to find them is they sort of around they think you know the World is Flat There's 7 billion other people on this planet and so it's

always either someone else will have figured it out already or it's impossibly hard and so I'm not going to be the one to figure this out and um and obviously the sort of the the Paradox is

that when everybody believes that to be true then nobody is looking and then if you become the one person who looks um you have a much better chance than you might think and I think I think we are in this we are in this sort of strange

world where people are very uh very much believe in globalization they very much believe in the flatness of the world and so strangely people are not trying very hard and looking for uh for all these

secrets all these great new businesses that could be started last uh third last contrarian answer on this um and and I I I I sort of always draw this Drew this out in the

class and in the in the book is trying to contrast different modes of progress in the 21st century and I think um I draw this very strong contrast between

globalization and Technology uh um I describe globalization as copying things that work it's horizontal growth it's going from one to n and you can sort of think of it as going along an

x-axis um and I describe technology as vertical progress going from zero to one doing new things intensive rather than extensive growth and uh and sort of you

draw it on a on a y axis and just by putting globalization on an X AIS and Technology on a y AIS you sort of underscore the idea how these two things are are really fundamentally different

and I think we always use them synonymously but I think they are really different and uh and we should think of these as very different um ways uh ways for for Progress to happen and if we

sort of think about the history of the last few centuries there have been periods of technology and periods of globalization and periods of one or the

other um and so for example 1815 to 19 14 the entire the 19th century was basically a period when you had tremendous globalization and tremendous

technological innovation they were sort of both going at Full Throttle 1914 World War I starts globalization goes massively in Reverse

you know much less trade you know um you know part of the world becomes communist it effectively secedes from the rest of humanity and um but technology still

keeps progressing on many many different fronts and then um and then 1971 Kissinger goes to China and I I would argue since 1971 globalization has come

back um in a very powerful way and we've had um technological progress in the world of computers somewhat less outside of outside the software

area and so we've been in an era of massive globalization and what I believe to be actually somewhat more modest progress in the area of of Technology been progress in bits but not so much

progress in in atoms and um and this is some this is reflected in some ways in the way we talk about the world in the 50s or 60s you would have talked about the world as

being divided between the first world and the third world the first world was the technologically accelerating part of the world the third world was this part of the world that was just permanently

screwed up and stuck was this really bad place today we would talk about the developed and developing worlds and we would say that the developing world is

that part of the world that is copying the developed world and the sort of dichotomy of develop and developing is this Convergence Theory of globalization the entire world is going to globalize

it's going to become more the same as um as China and all these other countries copy and catch up and I I think what China is doing makes perfect sense it's very straightforward you have to just

look at what's worked and copy it you have to avoid copying the things that didn't work it's fairly straightforward uh 20-year uh sort of plan that China has but um but this developed developing

dichotomy is while it's a prog globalization dichotomy is also implicitly an anti-technology dichotomy because it's saying it's telling us that the

developed world the US Western Europe Japan is the part of the world that's developed that's done that's finished where nothing new is going to be done that we're living in an essentially

static or stagnant Society um where the younger generation's expectations should be less than their parents and I think this is something we should be resisting really strenuously

as a society and so um and so I'll end with my contrarian counter question which is that I think we should all once again Ask how do we go about developing the

developed world thank you very much thank you Peter so I guess the place to start is with your famous interview question uh for years you've been asking people what is the most important truth

that most people disagree with you on and I'd like to pose it in two ways one is what's the best answer to that you've ever heard from a job candidate and then two if folks in the audience want to give their answers to that question on

Twitter uh we may read a few of them and get Peter to weigh in on how much he likes your answers um I I I'm I'm actually actually uncomfortable even asking the question

that often anymore because people are so bad at answering it um and even though even though people can read on the internet that I ask the question all the time they sort of can prep for it but

they're still really bad at it um I I think a sort of one category of pretty good like at least a minus type answers

are ones where you at least acknowledge that it's not original or something like that um and so uh so one um you know one answer was that uh

that you know um that in techn that was a pretty good answer was that in Venture Capital investing um you know people always think of themselves as being

contrarian as um as being um buying things when they're cheap and when the value is low and uh and he thought that often the cheapest companies were the ones that looked the most expensive so

you wanted to be a contrarian bullish where everyone was really crazy about something and he wanted to be even crazier in up bitting all the other people and that this had actually often

worked that was like a metal level cut on this which which is that which from my experience actually was surprisingly accurate good so let's take that then to the world of of Facebook so we have a

number of people wanting to know how you know who's going to be a good Monopoly and how you choose your bets well you um one of the if if you um

if you're a startup so the key thing to have a monopoly is to have a large share of a market and and I would say that that one of the big um one of the big uh

conventional beliefs that I very much disagree with is that you always want to go after really big markets because um and the problem is when you start a company you're starting small and so to

dominate a market um quickly you should go after a small market and capture that whole Market first so I would say that Facebook for example had a very auspicious start started started with

10,000 people at Harvard you know a market that's so small that you know any sort of business school analysis would say it's not even a business it's too small a market but uh you got from zero

to 60% market share in 10 days so that was a that was a good start Paypal started by going after um uh eBay power sellers which was again a relatively

discreet small Market in 99 2000 there were like maybe 20,000 people uh we got to about 30% market share in two three months um the opposite extreme of this uh was I

think all the sort of clean tech companies in 2005 to 2008 when you saw their pitch decks in Silicon Valley um the the opening slide always said you

know we're in the energy market and this is a market that's measured in hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars and so when you have a market that's that big that's almost immediately a red flag

that it's a bad company because if you're a minnow in a vast ocean you just have competition everywhere you you you're one of only 10 thin film solar panel companies and if you beat the

other um nine then you have to uh compete against the other 90 solar panel companies that are using different Technologies and then you have to compete against wind and and natural gas and then you have to compete against the

Chinese manufacturers and on and on so if you're in a trillion dollar market you might as well just open a restaurant that's also a trillion dollar business so what else did you see in

Mark and in Facebook early on that led you to invest well it was it was it was definitely um you know it it was fundamentally a good company they um they only needed money to buy more

computers because they already had were they had already scaled to 20 colleges there was so much demand and they just needed the capital to buy more computers so that's that's generally always a good sign when when that's one of the most important things a company needs uh just

to sort of can barely keep up with demand I think um I think there's often a uh investor bias where investors like

to invest in things that they eles tend to use and so I think Facebook was very undervalued for the first two years when it was a college only site because most invest most college students are not

actually investors and so um and so it was there was something about the intensity of the usage that was was very badly missed so I think Facebook was undervalued 04 05 06 and then they sort

of opened um the site up in late 06 and uh and then you had a huge ound in ' 07 LED by Microsoft and then I think it sort of got more more fully valued so we think about the next Facebook schomo

Clapper wants to know what areas are right for a new monop monopolistic order and if you fast forward a couple decades what valuable company is no one building that they should be well if I if

obviously I this is a question for you guys to answer for all of you to answer here um if if I um it's it's let me I I I think you can never answer these questions

thematically so what I'm always very skeptical of is when people say there's this trend um we're very excited about things in this space or this area because um when you have a space or a

sector that somehow is poorly defined because that means you have lots of people doing it so um so I I think I'm I'm sort of allergic to almost all the buzzword I think big data cloud computing these are all sort of

borderline fraudulent buzzwords they're sort of used in all these horrible ways not sure what they really mean um you know uh SAS software too much Healthcare

It Mobile internet uh education software so these are all these are the kinds of things that are really bad answers and and and um the um the good answers are

ones that are uh that are sort of that are often so unique that they can't easily be described you know like you know we're investors in Airbnb which I think is you know perhaps the next

hundred billion dollar plus consumer internet company if I had to sort of if I had to pick one coming out out of Silicon Valley today and um and it's again and but then if you say what exactly is it they've sort of they've

tried to Define themselves as being part of the sharing economy which is just sort of like it's not clear that's quite the right category but it it's just this sort of one-of-a-kind very different company somehow created this new

inventory around people's houses and the tourism industry but um but it doesn't really fit into any conventional categories at all those are the ones I think we're missing so when you rattled off those Buzz words you just killed

about 19 companies in the audience well it's better better better now than later so I I I have you shouldn't go into Renaissance painting either you know all sorts of all sorts of careers you shouldn't go

into so there are two directions you should become a pirate you shouldn't try to you know discover new places on the map so hopefully hopefully not too many people stopped from doing that uh so in the book you're uh you're critical about

another one of those popular conventional tracks which is Consulting tell us why you hate Consultants hate hate hate is a is always a little bit too too strong

too strong a word but it's it is um it's a um I I think that it's probably peaked as a career path in the US I think uh I think Mckenzie was

probably at its peak in the 198 mid mid 80s in the US the global Peak at Mckenzie was I would say around 2,000 there was sort of a huge Global Prestige and it took about 15 years for people in

the rest of the world to figure out they weren't really doing that much anymore um and I think you know I think I think there were you know I think there were sort of all these really badly managed

companies in the 60s and 70s and so there was something Consultants could do to improve that um at this point I think um it sort of it sort of is is much less

the case um the the part that I'm skeptical of it as a you know it's it's sort I sort of think a lot of people end up going into things where you know

always depends why you are becoming a consultant let me let me give a more granular answer it it would be good to become a consultant if that's actually what you wanted to do if you really

enjoy Consulting and working on these different projects but if it's if if it's more like well it it'll expose me to these different companies and then I can work at one of these companies three

four years down the line um where it's sort of this option diagram where it's it's it's it's actually you go to business school because you don't know what to do do then after business school you become a consultant because you

don't know what to do and then it just generates the sort of branching tree diagram structure of options um and I find and the problem with I think we do too much of that as a society where we

get line items on our resume that give us this branching tree diagram structure and what what you have to tell me is well okay so you go to McKenzie three years from now there will be 10

different really cool options for you can you tell me what they are and oh no that you can't possibly do that and um and I think the the the reality is that the options end up being things like

working in midlevel management at a Fortune 500 company and if that's really what you want to do then you should do it right now so you just took the whole business

model of Consulting apart which is good uh not not not totally but I think it's a good message for our audience to hear you have you have some biases of

your own I I gu maybe uh so the other direction I want to take this is a few people have tweeted in to ask if you ever give career advice um and I know you'll be holding office hours tomorrow all day

for that but um when you think about undergrads MBA students um and when you yourself were at that stage what would you tell sort of a a 20 or 25y old Peter

teal well I alluded to a little bit of in my talk that um you know you want to I think you always want to focus on substance over over status um it's always it's always really hard to give

advice because you have to actually spend a lot of time with somebody you can't I I don't think you can do this in five minutes or 10 minutes um the the sort of question that I always like to

ask as a as a starting question is you know how much you know what's what how much money do you have to make and um and basically the higher the number the

narrower the set of choices you have and that's I I think that's sort of a fairly fairly straightforward um tradeoff that you you have and so uh so I think that there are

you know a very large number of options people have um if you're not that fixated on it if you need to have a very large uh uh salary you have to become a

consultant no choice all right so let's shift gears a little bit and talk about anti-aging technology a few people have asked about your investments in that and um in

particular Joshua Lee wants to know if you think you're going to die I don't I I I don't think it's terribly constructive to think

about that too much um you know people people always uh people always say that uh you should live every day as though it's going to be your last and I I always think you should live every day as though it's going to go on forever

and that's sort of the that's the mindset I I I like to have because um I think that uh you want to be starting uh you know great new projects you want to be um you want to be treating the people

around you like you're going to be working with them for for a long time and so I always like to have the uh the mindset that you're uh you you live every day as though it's going to go on forever so let's talk about then

Reinventing the way that we live uh clar Lee has asked about seing and uh is curious about what we should be thinking about when building autonomous communities at se and why you've gone

that rep well we this is a like this is like one of these tiny tiny side projects that uh has gotten blown way out of proportion over the years um um and um and I think one of the things I

did underestimate with the the SE setting project uh was how much interest it would generate and and so there is because there is the sense that the map

is full that uh there is no physical Frontier left outer space is probably a little bit too far away and so and so there is sort of this idea that uh it

would be really cool to experiment with different kinds of governments different kinds of ways of organizing society and that's um that's that's that's something we can't quite do and it would be cool if we could do it I I don't think the SE

setting C is going to happen anytime soon but uh but it always generates uh enormous amounts of interest because um because people do have the sense that it it would be cool to try doing some

different things and if it did happen would you be in line to join John G N ran there or would you want to just observe from a distance I uh I might observe from a

distance to start see how the experiment goes um so there are a lot of people watching s Valley on HBO and uh there are rumors at least going around that one of the

characters may or may not have been based on you have you seen the show what's your reaction to it uh yeah I've seen I've seen this show it's always very flattering uh the um you know I

would never drive as small a car as the actor has in the uh has in the show and um and it's always uh very danger you know if you start copying it too much that would be dangerous so I think the

people are Foundation would be very upset if uh we organize a toga party like that on the show all right so uh Paras sha wants to know when were you wrong and why and uh there

are some specific questions about bad Investments that you might have learned from but I think this can go broader if you choose well there are there are certainly many mistakes that been made

over the years I if I if I had to the the single biggest mistake I would say that I made in the last decade was uh was not doing the series B

round at Facebook so uh you know I was I was in on the series a um and uh and it it really goes this was very interesting illustration of how the uh this the

Dynamics of some of these companies evolv so the the series a r was done summer of 04 post money was 5.7 million

series B was um April 2005 pre money was 85 million post was 98 so it was about you know 12 to

15x uh the value of the of the round from um 12x on a per share basis about 17x overall um from from what the

company was worth only 8 nine months earlier and um and so on the inside all of us thought this is an insanely High valuation Zuckerberg asked me well would

you like to do it really know I already own a lot this this valuation seems insanely high but um but I think we all were miscalibration how high the value was you know it was still Facebook still

had only eight or nine people in uh spring of 05 working at the company you went into the same office every day it was covered with the same horrible graffiti art someone had put on the

office and so psychologically every day that you came into work you didn't think that things had really changed there were these abstract graphs that were trending in a uh Happy northeasterly

Direction but um but people didn't really understand that and so so I think there there are these uh subtle Dynamics where there are points when the leverage really changes there are points when the

value really changes and people tend to underestimate it a great deal um there's also a negative version of this so you have a company where nothing's changed in a year and it's possible the value's

gone way down because um it's like you run out of time or it's like this decaying option where you're going to build something and you couldn't quite get it to work um and so from the inside

we often underestimate how much uh how much these things are changing and and and I think this was why I think the contrarian bullish answer was actually a pretty good answer to my to my question

question because in technology it's often when things are really working we um we're still um not bullish enough of course corrected for this on the series

C round in Facebook in 06 where I did then invest again um and uh and so I think that very often when you have tremendous momentum it's underestimated there's always you know there's always

all this sort of resentment jealousy that comes into play in these things where uh people will say you know um you know Zuckerberg's already made too much money this whole thing's going to blow

up it can't go much further um and there sort of are ways in which that kind of thinking I think is uh ends up being being uh quite pervasive and it's one of

the reasons um people intuitions about how well these things can work are often often somewhat limited has that changed your investing at all looking back on that experience yeah no that's well we I

change it the next year so that's that's uh no it's um and so yes so I think the I did the back testing on this uh every single time there was a steep up led by

a smart investor it was all it always worked out it was always cheap and the steeper the U the cheaper the deal so I'm going to try to tie a few questions together here uh there are a

few people who want to know what your life is like like what's the last thing you do before bed and the first thing before you wake up uh there are also some people who want to know who's the most interesting entrepreneur that you

hang out with and possibly related do you get to hang out with Elon Musk well let's see that it's it's it's it's sort there's no there's probably not um I'm always I always

worry that I'm I'm actually very bad at setting any good example on these things I think I'm sort of somewhat disorganized things are not you know incredibly super structured in different

ways uh I managed to focus on getting you know a few important things uh done and then there's probably all these other ways I'm you know fairly disorganized I end up having lots of meetings with different people in the

course of the day so it's always these interesting conversations with with many many different people um Elon is Elon is probably the uh um one of the most

impressive entrepreneurs in in the US today there's something very charismatic about Tesla and SpaceX um because you know we have this sense of a society there's been a little bit too heav

overweighted software not enough on everything else and so there's something very powerful about getting uh these companies to work um in a in a non-software context but uh yeah you

know he's he's quite busy if you're CEO of two companies and if you have five kids and so on and so on uh it adds up so I guess there's a sort of a follow on from that um there are a lot of

people who are sort of interested in your observation that that software is actually where we've made a lot of progress but that it's caused stagnation in other areas and that you're hoping to

see more serious radical Innovation or vertical Innovation and growth in other domains what do you think it's going to take to get some of that to start

happening it's um know we we keep on the on the Venture fund side we keep uh probably about two-thirds of our work is still in in the core software space so that's that that I think that is still

the default of of of what's going to uh continue to work um I think in a lot of the other areas I end up being very focused on the business model you often

have these brilliant scientists and uh they are incredibly bad picking business partners you know the people they and um and so the uh the intuition is around um

and so the the the kinds of things that that have worked really well are ones where you have um somehow the engineering or science part is really uh well integrated into the business

intuitions really make sense you know and so uh so I don't know it's sort of I don't want to pick on professors too much but you know it's sort of like if you have a professor running a company um that's often a bad sign because they'll have all these theories about

how things are supposed to work and their idea their ideas are so valuable the ideas will carry the day and um and then uh the actual translation of um you know well if you build it will people

come how do you distribute it how do you Market it um those questions are given way too short of sh so I can't I can't resist uh what would you say if I told you there was a paper published in 2007

by Jang and Murphy who showed that companies run by B School professors outperform the market hypothetically well I I I I believe I um

I I don't I don't question the paper exists um I don't um and then you know it's it's it's it's um it's always a

little bit you know there's so so many different variables in these things um it there's always a question what counts as the market so um and um so let's say hypothetically again a match set of

control companies in the same industry don't don't know if you can control them well enough given given my uh my view that these things are never quite controllable never quite repeatable but

uh but I think that uh you know I I think most companies don't do very well and this is sort of the this is sort of the the the the crazy thing you know

most most companies don't end up being monopolies um one of the one of the chapters in my book I I go through the sort of power law like distribution where um one of the very odd patterns in

a venture fund is that uh you you you might think it's like you have a portfolio of different companies you're invested in but it turns out that the single best investment is often uh worth

as much as everything else put together and the second best one maybe is worth as much as 3 through n and and on and on and so you have this unbelievably uneven uh distribution of results where there

are you know a few spectacularly successful companies a lot of others much less clear so if you were if you were the H hundredth person at Google you did way better than if you were the

CEO founder of most venture-backed startups in Silicon Valley and um and this is again is very counterintuitive because we always we always like to think of it as like these you know we're in this position and well CEO is better

than being you know the VP of Business Development that's better than being you know the assistant uh customer service person um but uh but because um the um

the uh outcomes vary so much more by company than within company company um it actually may be far more important to get into the right company than um than even What specifically you're doing in

it so there are a lot of questions about first mover advantage on that and how you know on the one hand if you're supposed to build a monopoly you should be sort of first right in a domain where nobody else is active on the other hand you know we think of Facebook and Google

and others who weren't the first to social networks or to search um how do you think about whether you should be first or later well um it's you want you want to

be so the the the buzzword I give is you you want to have the last mover Advantage you want to be the last so if you want the chess analogy if you move first it's your white white uh it's equivalent to a one-third of a pawn

advantage to to to go first um last is you know you sort of win win the game and it's like the the Kappa Blanca World chess champion line to you know to begin you must you must begin by studying the

end game and so it's always worth asking how do these things play out over time when uh when uh at PayPal in March of 2001 we've been business for 27 months

we did this complicated discounted cash flow analysis on on the business and uh it's somewhat of a fictional exercise but it but it but it but but it did directionally show something I think was

very true which was that three qus of the value of the company came from cash flows in years 2011 and Beyond uh and so and so most of the value in these

companies is really far in the future and therefore um you know people and people are always way too focused on the near term because that's the growth that's the stuff you can measure the

durability is somehow harder to measure but qualitatively far more important and so I do think these questions about why will you be the last mover um you know why will you have a sustainable

Advantage are um are the the key questions to ask um certainly um in many of the software businesses the people who do something really well first also

end up being last because you know they they grow quickly enough that nobody nobody can can copy them um I I would say that you know it's and this is again where the categories

become a little tricky I would say you could say Google and Facebook were not the first search engines or first social networking companies respectively but maybe um they you know Google was the

first with a page rank algorithm that really automated search and that sort of that was maybe a a breakthrough that was very fundamental to search uh and

Facebook was the first social network that really got um real identity to work uh one of my uh one of my uh good friends Reed Hoffman who started LinkedIn in ' 03 in the '90s had started

a company in 1997 he started a company called social net so he already had social networking in the name of the company 1997 seven years before Facebook

comes along and U and their theory was that it was all about uh these um um these social relations on the internet and they were all going to be these complicated different things and maybe

you were were a cat and I was a dog and we'd have these avatars and how would we all get along and um and that turned out not to be what people that people wanted real identity not fake

identity one of the questions that that's come up here we have a lot of people in the audience who are interested in building companies and there's a choice at some point you have to make about do I want to be an entrepreneur do I want to be a venture

capitalist do I want to do both and uh Matt CM wants to know what's the biggest difference you see between a successful venture capitalist and a successful entrepreneur

um well the I I I I think there there uh I'm not sure there's a big big difference per se I think I think the the the things the thing that's very different about the the two kinds of

things the uh a great entrepreneur you you have to sort of have one fantastic idea and then execute against it over um over a really long period of

time uh and it can it often is enough to have just that one U one massive breakthrough um you know as a venture capitalist you have to in some sense

constantly find new answers this question you have to constantly find new new companies uh to invest in and so um it's uh you never you never quite uh get

to this point where where it's automatic it's and but it's always it's somewhat more intellectual so you're always thinking a little bit more which is what I like um it's less operational you have less control uh and uh and and and there

is an aspect where where that's that's really critical um and uh I I think the combination is is something one should always try to resist so um you know

Venture capitalists trying to act as pseudo Founders or partially managing their companies that never works you know it's when we write the check and

give it to people um you know we have to assume that we're not going to be able to influence them in any way whatsoever do we fully trust them with the money uh and if we think to ourselves no we don't really trust them but we'll be able to

manage it uh after we give them the money that's always a bad sign that's a great segue to Emily's question what do you look for in an entrepreneur when you're

investing um it's uh well we we we we we certainly um we look for people um you know it's say it's great business

strategy great technology great people and it's typically a great team um I I often like asking you know and one of the ways in which business I think is very different different from from

schooling in a you know in a college context it's always you against everybody it's you know it's pure competition in a in a business context um you typically can't start one of

these businesses all by yourself it's it's like a team of people and the Dynamics of how well those people work together are incredibly important uh and so I often like asking these prehistory

questions tell me how did you meet how long have you been working on this when did you first come up with this idea so a bad answer is something like we we met a week ago at a networking function and

we both wanted wanted to start companies and we decided to become entrepreneurs and do this and that's sort of like you know we met at the slot machines in Las Vegas and we got married you you might

hit the jackpot it's it's probably a bad idea um and then I think the the uh the good answer is something like you know we've been friends for four or five years we've been talking about doing

this we've thinking about all these different things I'm the business person the the person's the technical person there's sort of this complimentarity um that's that's the kind of answer that's that's really good

what about on the other side so if you're looking to join an early stage startup or a high Growth Company what should you be looking for well I I you know this is always

sort of the the subjective part but I I'd say um do you like the people you know that's that's uh do you think you can become good friends with these

people um and I I think that's that's such a critical part to getting these things to work um you want these you know there's always this is always sort

of my rolling quarter life crisis uh you know one of the law firms I interviewed with in in in New York um one of the partners told me um it was it was you know a place where everybody hated

everybody else but they all made lots of money and this was it was sort of an illustration of how incredibly professional they were they didn't really like any of their other partners but it was still it all worked worked

and I think that uh we need things that are more than just professional that that more than just work and that's so I think that's always something to to think about really hard so Alex Verdone

wants to know if you were in the whon MBA program right now what would you do upon graduation and you can't work for you um I can't I can't I can't I can't um I can

I can never uh I can never give like super precise answers to to to every on this um you you should um you should be careful I haven't looked at the studies

on this at Wharton there were these studies done at Harvard Business School over the years where they found that um you had sort of uh you had these very extroverted people who weren't quite

sure what they wanted to do after graduation they all of came come together for two years at business school and um and you have this sort of bad wisdom of crowds Dynamic where they

look at what everyone else is doing they listen to what everyone else is doing and they found that whatever the largest number of people did was always a bad idea uh so it was like it was like the surfing analogy is like you know if

you're trying to catch a wave you have to catch you have to start paddling before the waves there like once the waves already there you'll never catch the wave it's passed and you should never try to catch the last wave and so

in 1989 all these people were trying to work for Mike Milan it was a year or two before he went to jail and the whole junk bond thing blew up in 99 2000 people wanted to work in um Silicon

Valley for uh startups theyd never wanted to do that before this was just before everything went wrong 05 07 it was all real estate all sort of uh

private Equity um and so um so I think it's yeah I I would say um if if everybody's

doing try try not to do the thing that the largest number of people are doing so that brings us to education uh there are people who are interested in

your take on what you would teach if you were leading a business school class and also how you would fix K through 12 education you know I'm not sure I can fix every single problem in the world it

was like like um I I I I would say um one one of the things I think that's very tricky about education is that it's uh it's always

used as this super abstract word and um and this is a problem with like a lot of the education startups it's like we're involved in education but what what what is education actually and I I think that

um I I argued that we have an education bubble where people are spending too much money on it in all these different ways but um but one of the things that's characterized all these bubbles in recent years whether it was a.com bubble

or the housing bubble or the education bubble is that they involve way too much abstraction and people don't clearly talk about what is really going on and so sort of a non-bubble way of talking

about education would decompose education ask is it is education is it a investment decision where you're putting in a certain amount of money you're learning a skill and then you'll get a

really good job out of it is education a consumption decision where it's a four-year party um and maybe it's good as a consumption decision maybe it's good as investment decision it's probably you can start getting the

decision wrong if you sort of blend these together in the wrong way so if you say well it's not really a great four-year party if I wanted a four-year party i' do something totally different it's not really a good investment

decision but sort of a sort of a combination of both then you sort of a bad investment plus bad consumption decision doesn't quite add up so you want to really think through which is it investment decision is it a consumption

decision is it an insurance product where you're buying it to avoid falling through the big cracks in our society or is it um or is it a tournament where um you know it's it's really important that

you get into the the best schools because if you have a diploma from a bad school it's really a Dun hat in Disguise or something like that um and so um and

so I I think that I think the the basic uh challenge with education the US is that most people not the people in this room because I think people in this room sort of won the tournament by by getting

in here but most people think of Education as an insurance product but they're really being sold a tournament and um and if you think about insurance

and tournaments are incredibly different kinds of financial products to be to be involved in and that's I think I think that sort of goes to the fundamental dishonesty in the system well I guess then that that leads

me to another question that that a lot of people are wondering about which is do you think that an MBA is useful for a career in business

um no I think look I think it's it is uh it's I think that's too abstract a way to this is way too abstract a way to frame it so it's it's always a question

what is it that you're studying what is it what is it you actually want to do uh I think it's I I would encourage people to think to to have some default plan of

what you're going to do you know and I know I think the the conventional thing you're always told is you should sort of just explore all these different things the risk with exploring all these

different things is that you end up defaulting after two years to what everyone else does which is often I think one of the worst things you can

you can do and so um so have a default plan this is what the default plan is this is how um the classes I'm taking fit into this default plan you know a

bad plan is still I think always uh much better than no plan at all so when we connect us to your background there are several questions about you know you did Standford twice but you also were a chess master you

studied philosophy which of these experiences were most most formative in shaping the way that you look at the world today you know it's again I I'm going to come back you can't run this experiment expent twice so it's hard to

hard to hard to say exactly I think um I think that uh there was there was there was a there was a way in which uh going to Stanford was good because the links to Silicon Valley and the way in which a

lot of my friends got involved in Silicon Valley and that turned out to be a good place to be over the last few decades um I think I think that um but

it's it's very hard it's very hard to run the run the experiment T well if we take this then back to the industry conversation there are questions about what industry you think

won't exist in 20 years there's always the uh there's always the there probably are industries that

are going to going to change a fair bit um C certainly one that's uh I don't really like I'm not sure any of them will will really go away but I I

I do think the media industry remains under way more pressure than people people realize and um and so this is like not a very interesting answer because people sort of understand it but

that's that's one that I think uh we need to uh we need to think that that um people still seem to not have really thought through um how how the business

models their need to change I think that um I don't know I think most Industries will will sort of still exist they'll probably be in a somewh different form I think Finance is going to get changed a

lot in the next few decades uh it probably is going to get regulated a lot more but I think maybe there also will be some new opportunities so i' say Finance is one where uh it may change

more than than people think even though it's still going to be very important we have a number of questions also about uh who your role models are and who inspires you is there anything

or anyone that stands out you know I think I think the role model question is always a very tricky one for me to answer given given uh given my focus on trying to do something new different

that's not been not been done before so there are there certainly elements of things people have done that are very inspiring so you know some of the people started all these these these you know these great companies um but I on on

some level I I actually really do think everything you know happens just once so that connects to one of the more interesting parts of the book among many where you think that Malcolm Gladwell is

at least half wrong when he talks about luck en chance and its role in in our success can you talk to us a little bit about that well it's it's it's well there's always there's always one one of

the most important questions in uh business or life is is how much of it is a matter of luck or or not you can't run the experiment twice it's it's it's uh it's very hard to know I think uh I

think we live in a society in which people tend to say that it's it's very dominated by by luck um and I found that to be sort of a bad um bad perspective

to have when i' when i' when I've used it so when when I'm investing in different startups and if I say to myself I can't figure out what's going on here I'm just buying a lottery ticket

uh maybe it'll work maybe it won't um that sort of way of thinking about it um normally correlates with making really bad Investments right so if you treat people or Investments as lottery tickets

you've already psyched yourself into losing money and uh and so what I what I tend to think really goes on is that uh that it's it's not a lottery ticket um or when you think it's a lottery ticket

or when you think it's random um you really are just being lazy you're not thinking hard enough about what's going on you paid more attention you could actually figure things out so I think

it's always a good um frame for us to have that uh the future is something that we're going to try to control we're going to try to master chance and we're not going to be swept uh Away by The

Winds of Fortune uh another another question that's coming up a lot is H to talk a little bit about your leadership style and when when you are running the show or managing people what you do

differently from most others well it's a it's um I'm I'm I'm very again I'm there's always the anti no competition ever you don't want to

you want to sort of avoid competition in all all forms on the business level as well as internally um and I I think most conf people always think that conflicts

happen when people want different things and I think conflicts normally happen when people want the same things and so if you're sort of a sociopathic boss who

wants to just mistreat your employees the formula for doing it is to tell two people to do the exact same thing and you will automatically generate a

conflict out of nothing at all and uh and so I think there's always this incredible need to try to go the other way to make sure that people's roles are not redundant that they're they're well

differentiated and this is an extremely uh tricky Challenge in a small company or a startup where there's a lot of fluidity the roles tend to tend to change a lot but the uh the conflicts at

PayPal or any of the other business I've been involved with always centered on um on poorly differentiated roles where there was a lot of overlap um at at

PayPal David saaks was the uh head of the product team had this line which was that the product was a single seamless hole which was somewhat true but was also this formula for never-ending

conflict because it meant that the product team got to dictate things to everybody in the rest of the organization because every everybody else somehow touched product and so there was overlap and conflict with

product almost everywhere and so when you said that the product was a single seamless hole that was in a on another level was a formula whereby the the product team uh was at war with

everybody inside the company do you have a formula or a process that at least when you're coaching entrepreneurs or giving them advice for how they should think about which of their ideas to

pursue um there's there's always there's always um there's a pattern recognition where if people have a number of different ideas this again the anti another permutation on the anti-luck

thing if if I if I see a presentation that says you know we have this great idea and we're going to make money in one of these five ways A or B or C or D or E we're not not really sure which is

going to work we're going to sort of experiment with them try to figure it out um that's always sort of alarming and not very uh very inspiring it's it's

always much better if people say we're just going to make money doing a because it suggests you've actually thought it through you think it's going to actually work whereas when you list a through e that sounds like it's a super set you

have more more things going on but the reality is that you often haven't really thought through them very carefully and so I think um I think whenever people

come up with like lists of options lists of choices like this um that's often um it's often again a version of being lazy not thinking really hard about what actually might

work one of the most entertaining parts of the book I thought was when you commented on what you discovered about tech CEOs who wear suits did you talk to us about that well this was a this was

again it's there's I'll preface it by saying that there are no hard and fast sartorial rules that are Timeless and eternal and always true in all places and so on but I think in the clean tech

bubble in Silicon Valley there was this very striking contrast to the engineers running uh Web 2.0 companies generally wore t-shirts the clean tech Executives

tended to wear uh wear suits and um and it sort of made them look like they were bad at sales and worse at Tech and so I think that's that's uh and that's and so

there's nothing I think there's nothing wrong with someone who's a salesperson running a company sometimes that's really critical but um a sales sales is always disguised it's always hidden you

know um and so we never you know we don't investment bankers are people who sell companies or politicians are people who sell themselves but you know someone who's a transparent salesperson where

you can see that they're a salesperson is just really bad it's like so the stereotypical salesperson is a used car dealer and you never want to look like you're a

salesperson are there other mistakes that you see entrepreneurs making that you wish you could just say sort of blanket rule no more of this and how much of that is due to Shark

Tank um I don't know the sort of they all well there all sorts of different all sorts of different uh I I don't I always am hesitant to give these absolute

categorical kinds of rules it's um it's probably uh yeah there all there all sorts there all sorts of things that uh

that you see over and over again but it's it's I think it's often um I would say the single one I'll just come back to is the um defining markets that are too

big um being too comfortable with competition I I dislike you know another term that I go after in my book is this idea of disruption where uh you want to be a disruptor you want to disrupt some

industry and I think it's another one of these sort of buzzword that's really really overrated you know the disruptive kid in elementary school gets sent to the principal's office uh disruptive

people look for trouble and they usually find it you know Napster was a company that set out to disrupt the music industry they were on the cover of Time Magazine one year next year that got

shut down by the government and uh and sort of the name of the company was was was problematic you you nap some music

you nap a kid you know um it's uh um and so you don't want to Define yourself as yes maybe there is a big sclerotic

industry that uh is kind of screwed up but you don't want to Define yourself as as as a destructive force you want to Define yourself as doing something constructive so one interesting question

here this is definitely not an experiment you can repeat but would Peter teal the investor invest in Peter teal the founder if we went back to pre PayPal these are these are really unfair

questions um welcome I would um I obvious obviously I'd like to think

that I I would um I think that um I think there's always there's always a tendency to forget this always there always like the history always gets so

fictionalized you forget how you know how how hard it was you know we had we sort of started PayPal and um the first financing round was February of 99 where

we raised half a million in sort of Angel money in our seed round and by March of 201 13 months later we raised 100 million in a sort of series C round

and um and getting the 100 million was probably about as hard or maybe a little easier than getting the first half million and so yeah you had all sorts of

really crazy encounters with people you know Chinese restaurant it's all random you're just lottery ticket I have no idea what I'm going to do I'm just going to look at the fortune cookie and see whether I'll give you the money fortune

cookie was good person still didn't give me the money but and so you have you had sort of all sorts of all sorts of experiences like this and so I think I think one of the things that that always

happens um is that uh you tend to forget quite how how tough it was to get started how hard it was to have access

in one way or another and um and uh and and this is and this is sort of um and and and and so and so you know I'd like to say the answer is yes I would worry

that uh that um you know I might not even I might not I might not even get the the email might not even get through the filter or something like that so I guess one uh one closing

question then before we wrap things up for tonight um I think there are a lot of people in the room who are inspired by your vision for making technology useful to the world and I'm just curious as as you think about people charting

their careers and their paths it's it's often hard to predict how the future is going to play out um where would you recommend investing for people who really want to do work that not only makes them financially successful but

also improves the world in some way um well I I always um I'm I'm always a little bit skeptical of social entrepreneurship although I'm very much

in favor of mission oriented companies so let me distinguish the two social um entrepreneurship um is always ambiguous because it's unclear um what the word

social means and social Comm mean on the one hand that it's good for society or it can mean that it's good as seen by Society um and in the second meaning um

you often end up with something that many many different people are doing so a lot of education related startups you know we think education should be improved all these different ways to fix

it um have this social entrepreneurship component where um their scene is good you immediately get this Fe oh that's a good company that's a good thing to do but then it's something too many

different people are doing whereas um a mission oriented company is one where if you didn't work on this problem nobody would and I think that's always a good test when Elon started SpaceX um part of

the pitch was you know we're going to go to we're going to go to uh Mars uh we're going to work on the Rockets going to Mars uh and this was very inspiring to a certain group of Rocket scientists who

got involved early on in the company and um and the question you know it wouldn't somehow somehow SpaceX wouldn't quite fit into our standard definition of social entrepreneurship even though Elon would say well it's really important for

us to become an interplanetary species and this is actually good for society but it's probably not seen as good by society and so we always want to do things where um you know if your company

wasn't working on it the problem wouldn't get solved if you weren't working on it it wouldn't get solved and I think always always go for that sort of counterfactual meaning and you you don't

want to ever be in a place where you're just um one 100 cogs in the machine and um and uh and if it's not you there are another hundred people to replace you

the next day uh you want to be in a place where you're doing something that uh can't easily be replicated can't easily be replaced either on individual level or the level of a of a company or

or any other project you're involved in so the the last question that's uh rolling in is a question about what you would recommend people read if they want to enrich themselves and I'm going to take that one and say please read Z to

one um I think in in all seriousness it's a totally brilliant book I don't think anyone should be allowed to start a company or invest in a company without reading it first um folks in the audience I know you will probably disagree with some of the things that

Peter writes um but you should be challenged to think about them and I think it's a book that can fundamentally transform the way we think about entrepreneurship as well as the way we organize our daily activities and we are tremendously grateful for you writing it

and also being here to share your insights with us thank you Peter awesome thank you so much thank you very much