33
Peter Thiel
Founders Fund
PETER THIEL IS AN entrepreneur, venture capital investor, and political activist. He cofounded PayPal and, famously, was Facebook’s first outside investor. He is unquestionably the most controversial figure in Silicon Valley today owing to his outspoken views and outsized personality. His politics are a mix of libertarian and conservative ideas. He is the president of Clarium Capital and a managing partner of Founders Fund. He is also the coauthor of the book Zero to One. Thiel also helped launch and served as chair of Palantir Technologies, an analytical software company. Thiel was born in Germany but moved with his family to the United States as a child. Part of his childhood was also spent living in Africa. He received a BA in philosophy from Stanford University and a law degree from Stanford Law School.
1. “Great companies do three things. First, they create value. Second, they are lasting or permanent in a meaningful way. Finally, they capture at least some of the value they create.”
More important than being the first mover is the last mover. You have to be durable.
The most critical thing for every startup is to be doing one thing uniquely well, better than anybody else in the world.
All businesses must create a moat to be sustainably profitable. Unfortunately, sometimes a business that creates new value is not able to capture any of that value in a sustainable way, and the only beneficiary of the business is the customer. One of the best explanations of this value-capture point comes from Charlie Munger’s fantastic “Worldly Wisdom” essay:
There are all kinds of wonderful new inventions that give you nothing as owners except the opportunity to spend a lot more money in a business that’s still going to be lousy. The money still won’t come to you. All of the advantages from great improvements are going to flow through to the customers.
2. “Maybe we focus so much on going from 1 to n because that’s easier to do. There’s little doubt that going from 0 to 1 is qualitatively different, and almost always harder, than copying something n times.”
And even trying to achieve vertical, 0-to-1 progress presents the challenge of exceptionalism; any founder or inventor doing something new must wonder, “Am I sane? Or am I crazy?”
Doing something that has never been done before is genuinely hard enough that many people consciously or subconsciously would rather chase the tailpipes of others than genuinely innovate “from 0 to 1.” Failing conventionally, rather than succeeding unconventionally, is unfortunately the path chosen by many people. Progressing from 1 to n will not generate a new business with a grand slam outcome.
3. “We see the power of compounding when companies grow virally. Successful businesses tend to have an exponential arc to them.”
Maybe they grow at 50 percent a year, and it compounds for a number of years. It could be more or less dramatic than that. But that model—some substantial period of exponential growth—is the core of any successful tech company. And during that exponential period, valuations tend to go up exponentially.
It is nonlinear phenomena, the ones that drive the grand-slam financial outcomes, that a venture capitalist needs to be successful. Straying too far from a nonlinear phenomenon like Moore’s law can be harmful to a venture capitalist’s financial health. Moore’s law is not the only phenomenon with an exponential arc, but it is an important one. Sam Altman has explained an important reason why people tend to not understand the power of a nonlinear phenomenon: “The hard part of standing on an exponential curve is: when you look backward, it looks flat, and when you look forward, it looks vertical.” Few things in life are exponential, so it is relatively easy not to see or understand the impact of something nonlinear when it happens.
4. “If you’re going to start a business, you might as well try to start one where, if it works, it will be really successful, rather than one where you’re competing like crazy with thousands of people who are doing something just like you all the time.”
The prime territory for finding mispriced convex outcomes with the potential to produce a grand slam is not where thousands of other people are looking. The second point Theil is making here is that if you are going to swing the bat, you may as well have the potential for a very significant positive outcome. These two points are simple but often overlooked.
5. “Consider a two-by-two matrix. On one axis, you have good, high-trust people, and then you have low-trust people. On the other axis, you have low alignment structure with poorly set rules, and then a high alignment structure where the rules are well set. Good, high-trust people with low alignment structure is basically anarchy. The closest to this that succeeded is Google from 2000 to maybe 2007. Talented people could work on all sorts of different projects and generally operate without a whole lot of constraints. Sometimes the opposite combination—low-trust people and lots of rules—can work, too. This is basically totalitarianism. Foxconn might be a representative example. Lots of people work there. People are sort of slaves. The company even installs suicide nets to catch workers when they jump off the buildings. But it’s a very productive place, and it sort of works.”
The low-trust, low-alignment model is a dog-eat-dog sort of world, argues Thiel. It is best to avoid this combination. Thiel believes that the ideal combination is high-trust people with a structure that provides a high degree of alignment since those people are rowing in the same direction, and not by accident. Equity incentives, properly structured, are an important way to create alignment in startups. Table 33.1 provides an illustration of Thiel’s two-by-two matrix.
Table 33.1
  Low Trust High Trust
Low alignment, poorly set rules Worst investments (e.g., investing in an investment bank) Example: Google from 2000 to about 2007
High alignment, well-set rules Example: Foxconn Ideal startup or company
6. “Angel investors may have no clue how to do valuations. Convertible notes allow you to postpone the valuation question for series A investors to tackle. Other benefits include mathematically eliminating the possibility of having a down round. This can be a problem where angels systematically overvalue companies.”
If you must have a down round, it’s probably best that it be a really catastrophic one. That way, a lot of the mad people will be completely wiped out and thus won’t show up to create more problems, while you start the hard task of rebuilding. You should never have a down round. If you found a company and every round you raise is an up round, you’ll make at least some money. But if you have a single down round, you probably won’t.
Thiel is saying that there are many angels investing today who can mess up a capitalization table via a poorly priced valuation. A down round happens when a business raises capital at a lower valuation than that of the previous round. In a down round, some investors will often get a larger number of shares based on antidilution provisions in the contracts used in the previous round. This dilution can lower the incentive of employees and founders to stay with the business.
7. “A robust company culture is one in which people have something in common that distinguishes them quite sharply from the rest of the world. If everybody likes ice cream, that probably doesn’t matter … you also need to strike the right balance between athletes (competitive people) and nerds (creators) no matter what.”
Thiel is describing some of the core elements of a winning business culture, such as a unique shared mission and the right mix of passionate people. Great leaders know how to create the right mix of these inputs, which can vary from team to team. They can spot the right mix of people via pattern recognition and good judgment. There is no reason why a diverse team cannot have a unique but shared mission.
8. “VCs rely on very discreet networks of people that they’ve become affiliated with. That is, they have access to a unique network of entrepreneurs; the network is the core value proposition.”
Personal networks of all kinds matter more than ever as the world becomes more and more digital. Your personal network of individuals and organizations can grow in power and value in just the same way. More than ever, success begets success. This happens because connections create what Nassim Taleb calls optionality. Taleb has said, “Optionality can be found everywhere if you know how to look.” Living in a city, going to parties, taking classes, acquiring entrepreneurial skills, having cash in your bank account, and avoiding debt are all examples of activities that increase optionality. Working purposefully to develop your network can pay big dividends.
9. “The founders or one or two key senior people at any multimillion-dollar company should probably spend between 25 percent and 33 percent of their time identifying and attracting talent.”
The people who do this well have superior pattern recognition skills, which, as I have said previously, is an important element of good judgment. A top venture capitalist said to me once, “When I see the right team, I feel like I have seen the pattern before. The people and chemistry will not be exactly the same as other successful teams, but there is nevertheless a pattern. The pattern will not be just the same and yet will still seem familiar.” The right team will be diverse and its members will have skills and other attributes that complement each other. Levels of trust will be high, and the culture will be tolerant of people who learn via experimentation. Attributes like a strong work ethic and sound judgment are essential.
10. “Hubris is an issue at every one of these Silicon Valley companies that are successful.”
It can be hard to know a lot about one area, and even more so about many areas, yet still be modest enough to admit that you do not know everything. The venture capitalist and author Morgan Housel absolutely nailed it when he wrote, “There’s a strong correlation between knowledge and humility.” Charlie Munger has said that he seeks “intellectual humility” and has pointed out that “acknowledging what you don’t know is the dawning of wisdom.” The Internet bubble in particular was a period of time during which many otherwise smart people made boneheaded mistakes owing to hubris. As Warren Buffett has said,
The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities ¾ that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future ¾ will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.
11. “I’ve always tried to be contrarian, to go against the crowd, to identify opportunities in places where people are not looking.”
You cannot do better than average by being average. If you cannot be courageously contrarian, you cannot possibly beat the market average as an investor. It is the existence of a gap between expected value and market price that should drive investment decision-making. If your views reflect the consensus of the crowd, you are unlikely to outperform a market since a market by definition reflects the consensus view. However, bucking the crowd’s viewpoint is not easy in practice since the investor is fighting social proof. In many cases, following the crowd makes sense. Sticking with the warmth of the crowd is a natural instinct for most people.
12. “Bad VCs tend to think that all companies are created equal, and some just fail, spin wheels, or grow. In reality, you get a power-law distribution.”
Thiel believes that you can’t play “small ball” (i.e., win with just singles and doubles) in venture capital and succeed financially. He advocates a swing-for-the-fences approach that seeks grand-slam outcomes.