TIP786: Zero to One by Peter Thiel

26:45The dice continues to be rolled, but the board never changes. So there's no way of winning by, say, inventing a property that's even better than what the other players have. But the world we live in is dynamic, So it is possible to create new and better things. Creative monopolies like many of the big tech players we all know of today, they give customers more choices by adding these entirely new categories that unlock this new abundance for all of us to benefit from. I've been interested in digital advertising over the years, especially Google and Facebook or Meta. And what's interesting to me is that they didn't necessarily compete with radios and billboards by putting up billboards themselves and launching their own radio stations, they created an entirely new category, and therefore, they expanded the overall market.

27:34This makes their existence good for society as a whole, as they expanded the proverbial pie for everybody. In 2005, the total amount spent on advertising in the US was around$140 billion. In 2025, just 20 years later, around$450 billion was spent on digital advertising alone. So their overall market for advertising grew massively because of these better ways for businesses to advertise their products and services. While Google, Meta, and Amazon have raked in billions of advertising dollars, they've also empowered hundreds of thousands of small businesses in helping them grow their own companies.

28:13Furthermore, they helped consumers discover products that fit their own unique needs that they otherwise might not have discovered before. It's a win-win for everyone all around. Just a few weeks ago, I saw an ad for a personalized Christmas ornament I ended up buying for my girlfriend. Immediately when I saw the ad, I knew that I just had to have it. She loves personalized gifts, so it was just perfect. I was able to add both of our names to it. And as a value investor, I was also happy it was only$16 to purchase, and I would have never found that ornament if it weren't for Meta. What also makes these monopolies good for society is that just because a company has a monopoly today does not mean that that's going to continue indefinitely.

28:56These companies have a strong incentive to innovate and invest in creating new technologies to make their existing products better or create entirely new products. I just saw today that Waymo, which is owned by Alphabet, is launching a new autonomous vehicle with five-person seating. This business was funded thanks to the monopoly profits of Google Search. These monopolies can keep innovating because profits enabled them to make these long-term plans and finance ambitious research projects that firms in competitive industries just can't even dream of. In the book, I thought it was interesting that Thiel got into society's obsession with competition and how society grooms people to conformity.

29:37The typical playbook for smart, ambitious individuals in the US might look something like go to a prestigious university, earn top scores, go off to law school, or get your MBA, get into investment banking, or become a lawyer and move up the ranks. In every step, you are in competition with the person to your left and to your right. Inside these firms, people become obsessed with their competitors for career advancement, and then the firms themselves become obsessed with their competitors in the marketplace. He writes, amid all the drama, people lose sight of what matters and focus on their rivals instead.

30:14It reminds me of how when I look at most automakers today, the vast majority of them seem to produce practically the same vehicles. Of course, there are differences at different price levels, but a lot of cars more or less just look exactly the same. In Thiel's view, competition can make people hallucinate opportunities where none exist. He points to the example of the online pet store market in the late 90s. You had Pets.com versus several others, each obsessed with defeating their rivals, precisely because there were no substantive differences to focus on. Who could price Chewy Dog toys most aggressively?

30:52Who could create the best Super Bowl ad? These companies totally lost sight of the wider question of whether the online pet supply market was the right space to be in. Winning is better than losing, but everybody loses when the war isn't one worth fighting. Thiel argues that if you're not able to beat a rival, it may be better to merge. He started Confinity in 1998 with Max Lepchen and released the PayPal product in late 99. 2009. Elon Musk's company, X.com, was right on their heels, with their product mirroring Confinity's feature for feature. The two companies were headquartered in Palo Alto, just four blocks apart.

31:32They were in an all-out war trying to reach the biggest scale, and many people at these companies were logging 100-hour workweeks. By February 2000, both Musk and Teal were deeply concerned about how inflated the tech bubble was, and they knew that a bursting of the bubble would ruin them both before they could even finish the fight. So they decided to join forces through a 50-50 merger, which enabled them to successfully ride out the dot-com crash and build a successful company. Teal then digs in deeper and shares more about how a company can become a monopoly. Escaping competition will give you a monopoly, but even a monopoly is only a great business if it can endure in the future.

32:15If we jump back to 2012, let's compare the value of New York Times to Twitter. The New York Times employed a few thousand people, delivered a service to millions of people, and generated more than$100 million in profit. But when Twitter went public in 2013, it was valued at$24 billion, which was 12 times the value of the New York Times. You might assume that Twitter was perhaps even more profitable than the times, given the huge valuation disparity, but the reality was that Twitter was actually losing money, which might make many investors think that the market has lost its mind. But valuing businesses isn't just about profits that a company is generating today, it's all about the future of cash flows discounted to the present.

32:59The market was essentially pricing in that Twitter was going to one day capture substantial monopoly profits. It's also why in 2014, LinkedIn was valued at$24 billion, and yet they only generated $21 million in profit, valuing the company at a P.E. of over 1 ,000. Because of this reality of how companies are valued, many people who run early-stage tech companies will chase growth at all costs. But it's important to remember that the value of a business isn't just in the profits it will generate in the future, but also the durability of those profits. If you just focus on near-term growth above all else, you miss the most important question you should be asking.

33:40Will this business be around a decade from now? This is a difficult question to answer because it requires you to really think critically about the qualitative characteristics of the business. Thiel explains that every monopoly is unique, but they usually share some combination of the following characteristics. Proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale, and branding. Proprietary technology is the most substantive advantage a company can have because it makes your product difficult or impossible to replicate. For example, Google's search algorithms return better results than all other search engines, have extremely short page load times, and highly accurate query autocompletion.

34:22It would be very difficult for anyone to do to Google what Google did to all other search engine companies in the early 2000s. The rule of thumb that Teal shares is that a proprietary technology must be at least 10 times better than its closest substitute in some important dimension to lead to a real monopolistic advantage. Anything less than an order of magnitude better will probably be perceived as a marginal improvement and will be hard to sell, especially in an overcrowded market. And the clearest way to make a 10x improvement is to invent something completely new, or you can radically improve an existing solution.

35:00Once you're 10 times better, you escape competition. PayPal, for instance, made buying and selling on eBay at least 10 times better. Instead of mailing a check that would take 7 to 10 days to arrive, PayPal let buyers pay as soon as an auction ended. Sellers received the proceeds right away, and unlike with a check, they knew the funds were good. Amazon is another excellent example. In the early days, they were a bookseller, and one of their most visible improvements was their vast selection. They offered more than 10 times as many books as any other bookseller. When it launched in 1995, they could claim to be the earth's largest bookstore.

35:38And they could do this because they didn't need to physically store any inventory. It simply requested the title from its supplier whenever a customer made an order. Thiel then writes,

36:02Much of Apple's 10x improvement was through a superior integrated design. Before the launch of the iPad in 2005, tablets were painful to use or even unusable in many people's eyes. With the iPad, a tablet was all of a sudden very intuitive and useful. The second characteristic of monopolies is network effects. Our audience is going to be very familiar with this one. Network effects make a product more useful as more people use it. Thiel illustrates the classic example of Facebook and social networks. Third, we have economies of scale. Monopoly business gets stronger as it gets bigger, as the fixed costs can be spread out over an ever greater customer base.

36:43This is part of the beauty of the magnificent seven players as they're all technology companies that see a lot of their incremental revenue dropping straight to the bottom line. Google's marginal cost for a search query is very close to zero, and their marginal revenue is much higher. Or take Microsoft selling a subscription of Office 365. The cost of delivering that product is practically zero, but the incremental revenue can flow straight through as profit. it. Many other types of businesses gain only limited advantages as they grow to a large scale. Service businesses, for example, are especially difficult to make monopolies.

37:21If you own a yoga studio, you'll only be able to serve a certain number of customers. Of course, you can hire more instructors and expand in new locations, but your margins will still remain largely the same. To put it another way, a very successful yoga studio might serve a few hundred customers throughout the week. But a very successful team of software developers have the opportunity to serve millions of people across any number of countries. Tia looks to invest in startups that have the potential to scale exponentially, especially from its initial design. Lastly, we have branding. By definition, a company has a monopoly on its own brand.

37:58So creating a strong brand is a powerful way to claim a monopoly. One of today's strongest brand names is Apple. Apple attracted billions of users to their attractive products in carefully chosen materials and design. And despite competitors essentially copying much of what they've already done, people will still pay up to use Apple. However, no technology company can be built on branding alone. It also requires some of the advantages outlined above. So brand, scale, network effects, and technology in some combination define a monopoly, but to get them to work, the market needs to be selected carefully.

38:34Thiel's learned that monopolies need to start with a relatively small market, and the reason is simple. Smaller markets are easier to dominate than larger markets. When PayPal partnered with eBay to offer payments for buyers and sellers, eBay had a few thousand power sellers that did most of the volume. So PayPal targeted this select target group, and within just a few months, they were already serving one-fourth of them. Had they focused more on mobile payments, while mobile phones were in the hands of millions of people, it would have been much more difficult to scale up and dominate that market given how small their team was.

39:08The perfect target market for a startup is a small subset of people concentrated together and served by few or no competitors. Any big market is a bad choice, and a big market already served by competitors is even worse. And this is why it's always a red flag to teal if an entrepreneur talks about getting a 1 % market share in a$100 billion market. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors.

40:00Instead of chasing spreadsheets and screenshots, Vanta gives you continuous automation across more than 35 security and privacy frameworks. Companies like Ramp and Ryder spend 82 % less time on audits with Vanta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth. If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly the type of platform I'd want in place. Get started at Vanta.com slash billionaires. That's Vanta.com slash billionaires. Billion-dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors, private credit.

40:44Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes thanks to the Fundrise Income Fund, which has more than$600 million invested and a 7.97 % distribution rate. With traditional savings yields falling, it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion-dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash WSB to invest in the Fundrise Income Fund in just minutes. The fund's total return in 2025 was 8 % and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Current distribution rate as of 1231-2025.

41:26Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income funds prospectus at fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement. When I started my own side business, it suddenly felt like I had to become 10 different people overnight wearing many different hats. Starting something from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelming and lonely. That's why having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10 % of all e-commerce in the US, from brands just getting started to household names.

42:09It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics, so you're not juggling a bunch of different platforms. You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates, and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions and even enhance your product photography. Plus, if you ever get stuck, they've got award-winning 24-7 customer support. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing Sign up for your$1 per month trial today at shopify.com slash WSB. Go to shopify.com slash WSB.

42:51That's shopify.com slash WSB. All right, back to the show. Once a niche market is dominated, then one should gradually expand into related and slightly broader markets. Jeff Bezos used this playbook to a T. Bezos' founding vision was to dominate all of online retail, but he very deliberately started with books. And even in books, Amazon appealed to a niche customer base. Amazon was a quite attractive option to purchase books for anyone who was located far from a bookstore or was looking for unusual books that just weren't held in stores. Then they gradually added new categories and dominated new segments.

43:33This idea actually reminds me a lot of portfolio construction. When you try to analyze every stock in the market, you end up mastering none of them. But when you focus deeply on a small number of businesses you truly understand, you can give yourself a real edge. Bezos applied that same discipline to e-commerce. Win one small battle decisively before moving on to the next. The last point I'd add on this is the amount of discipline it takes to focus small initially and dominate that small market. You can imagine that Bezos, he could have gone out, raised a ton of money, and just started selling everything.

44:09But he had that discipline and understanding that he wanted to be the best at one thing for a small subset of customers. And once he did that, he could then expand and gradually capture that significant market opportunity. One concept we've discussed quite a bit on the show as it relates to stock investing is the concept of luck versus skill. I know people that believe that having massive success in either business or stock investing is mainly a factor of luck. Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Outliers, he declared that success results from a series of lucky breaks and arbitrary advantages. Warren Buffett famously considers himself a winner of the Ovarian lottery and Jeff Bezos attributes Amazon's success to an incredible planetary alignment and jokes that it was half luck, half good timing, and the rest brains.

44:56But when you look at serial entrepreneurs with multiple big wins like Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Steve Jobs, they've created multiple billion-dollar companies. So it's sort of hard to argue that success is just a factor of luck. It's impossible to settle this debate objectively because creating Amazon isn't a science experiment. We only get to see this play out one time. And unfortunately, we don't get to see the 1 ,000 other parallel universes. Statistics just doesn't work with the sample size of one. But I'd suspect that most who listen to this show don't believe that life is just a matter of chance.

45:34I, of course, believe that we do have an ability to shape our own future. There's also the idea that one must create their own luck. A trillion-dollar company just does not happen by accident. But it also doesn't happen without countless circumstances that are outside the founder's control. An entrepreneur might be able to stack up win after win because they have that momentum, and this inherently gives them an advantage relative to other people. Thiel even pulls a quote from the Bible here. Matthew 25, 29 states, for whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

46:12This is part of the reason why the Pareto principle or the 80-20 rule exists. In 1906, Vilfredo Pareto discovered that 80 % of the land in Italy was owned by just 20 % of the people, and 20 % of the pea pods in his garden produced 80 % of the peas. This phenomenon tends to show up everywhere in the natural and social world. The biggest cities dwarf all of the small towns put together, and monopoly businesses capture more value than millions of undifferentiated competitors. As a venture capitalist, Teal understands this power law dynamic as well as anybody. Many people view the world through a normal distribution.

46:49In the venture world, this would mean that bad companies fail, average companies stay flat, and good companies double or triple in value. The reality is that the majority fail, and a few big winners deliver all of the results. In Teal's Founders Fund in this 2005 funding round, Facebook returned more than all the others combined, and Palantir was on a similar trajectory. This reality could lead many VC investors to just select a ton of different companies to invest in, hoping that just one of them will become the next Facebook. But Thiel actually looks at it differently. He'll only invest in companies that actually have the potential to return the value of the entire fund, which eliminates the vast majority of opportunities.

47:31Although the power law is important for the specialized minds in venture capital, I think it's actually an important concept for all of us to take away because all of us are investors in our own way. Because creating a lot of value in the business world is just difficult, most people probably shouldn't be starting their own business. It reminds me of the Steve Jobs quote, the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who do, and how Jensen Wong stated that if he could start over, he would not have started NVIDIA because it was just such a painful experience.

48:04Schools teach us to be well-rounded and know a little bit about a lot of subjects, but the power law rewards those who specialize and are in the top 1 % of the top 1%. In the business world, dabblers never win. Traditional dogma will tell you that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it well. Teal believes the opposite. It of course does matter what you do, and you should focus relentlessly on something you're good at doing. Before that, you must think hard about whether it will be valuable in the future. Thiel titled Chapter 9, Foundations. And I found this chapter to be particularly interesting and could relate with several of the points he made here.

48:43He's highlighted the importance of the foundation so often to his friends that they coined the term Thiel's Law. He explains that a startup messed up at its foundation cannot be fixed. So there's a few key things that a company must get right in the very beginning. The founding fathers of the United States seemed to appreciate this reality as they were quite thoughtful about the founding of a new country and the opportunity to start something new that could be great. They spent a few months pondering important questions like how much power should the central government have and how should representation in Congress be divided.

49:19Whatever your views on the compromises they've reached, they've been hard to change ever since. For example, today, California has the same representation in the Senate as Alaska, even though it has 50 times as many people. Thiel believes that companies are like countries in this way. Bad decisions made early on, like choosing the wrong partner or hiring the wrong people, are very hard to correct after those decisions are made. The first and most crucial decision for a founder is who you start the company with. Choosing a co-founder is like getting married. And founder conflict is just as ugly as divorce.

49:55If the founders end up developing irreconcilable differences, then it's the company that suffers. Because of this reality, Teal wants to deeply understand the founding teams, their technical abilities, how their skills complement each other, and how well they work together. I've worked at a couple of different smaller companies in my career. And the first one I worked at out of college, they had two founders that worked very well together. The CEO was younger, more entrepreneurial, and just loved making a sale. The co-founder he brought on board was older, more experienced, and he just enjoyed getting deep into the weeds on projects.

50:29And he really helped balance out the CEO's desire to constantly start new things before he's finished starting his other five projects. But in order to go from zero to one, it takes more than just the founders. It takes a team. And that team must be aligned with the company's long-term vision. Teal talks a little bit about misalignment in any company, and to anticipate the likely sources of misalignment in a company, it's useful to distinguish between three concepts. First is ownership, who legally owns the company's equity. The second is possession, who actually runs the company on a day-to-day basis.

51:03And third is control, who formally governs the company's affairs. A typical startup allocates ownership among founders, employees, and investors. The managers and employees who operate the company enjoy possession. And a board of directors, usually comprising founders and investors, exercises control. But as you add more people into the equation, the opportunity for misalignment can grow. Thiel highlights the DMV as an example of misalignment at its most extreme. For those not based in the US, the DMV stands for the Department of Motor Vehicles. And I think most of us here in the US have at least had one poor experience there.

51:40Broadly speaking, the DMV is known for its long wait times, unmotivated or indifferent service, and what feels like a situation that's just hopeless to try and improve. The DMV is what you get when bureaucracy grows so large that no one has a real incentive to improve the outcomes. Big corporations do better than the DMV, but they're still prone to misalignment. If you look at a large company like General Motors, for example, the CEO will own some of the company's stock, but only a trivial portion of the total. Therefore, he's incentivized to publish quarterly results that are good enough for him to keep his high salary in corporate jet.

52:16Thiel believes that as a general rule, everyone involved in the company should be hired full-time. Of course, this doesn't always work as you need to hire outside lawyers or accountants, but anyone who doesn't own stock options or draw of regular salary is fundamentally misaligned. They can tend to be biased for claiming value in the near term and not be helpful in creating long-term value. To this point, Teal ties in the saying from Ken Casey, you're either on the bus or off the bus. Teal is also quite interested in how the founders compensate themselves. Interestingly, one of the clearest patterns he's noticed from investing in hundreds of startups is the less the CEO gets paid, the better the company does.

52:57He believes that there's no reason for the CEO of an early-stage venture-backed startup to receive more than$150 ,000 per year in salary. This is because high pay incentivizes the CEO to defend the status quo along with their salary and not work with everyone else to bring problems to the surface and fix them aggressively. On the contrary, a CEO with a low salary and high equity stake will focus on increasing the value of the company as a whole. Low CEO pay also sets the standard for everybody else. If the CEO is clearly all-in in making the company successful, then they're more likely to get buy-in from everybody else around them.

53:35I wanted to close out today's episode by discussing a company that potentially had its own zero-to-one moment and currently might be a bit misunderstood or underappreciated by the market, and that company is Uber. I currently do not own a position in Uber, but my co-host Stig Brodersen recently initiated a position and pitched it here on the show. And my colleagues, Sean O'Malley and Daniel Malka, they added it to their intrinsic value portfolio just last year. I should also mention that Bill Ackman's firm, Pershing Square, they've built up a nearly$3 billion position in Uber. In Ackman's 2024 annual letter, he wrote, the Pershing Square fund acquired a position in early 2025 as the decline in Uber's share price at the end of 2024, provided an opportunity to acquire Uber at an extremely attractive valuation.

54:25This was made possible due to concerns regarding a perceived long-term threat from autonomous vehicles. We believe these concerns are misplaced." Ackman expects Uber to compound earnings at 30 % plus over the next several years, thanks to their robust growth in gross bookings and their high level of operating leverage. Uber started out as a dream for Garrett Camp, Uber's co-founder. After selling his first company, StumbleUpon, to eBay for$75 million in 2008, his frustration with the taxi industry led him to wonder whether a ride-hailing service could be delivered through mobile phones. This was just one year after the launch of the iPhone, so Camp was very early to the game on this idea.

55:07He lived in San Francisco, and as crazy as it sounds, San Francisco deliberately kept the number of taxi permits capped at 1 ,500. So this guaranteed that there would be more demand for taxis than there was supply. And you had slow wait times, good compensation for drivers. The overall service was just terrible. Camp posed the idea to author, investor, and podcaster Tim Ferriss while having drinks at a bar. And Ferriss thought it was just a wonderful idea. And the creation of Uber was just a classic zero to one moment because it didn't just improve taxis. It created an entirely new way to get from point A to point B through their massive driver network.

55:48In hindsight, taxis were an obvious industry ripe for disruption. It tends to just not be the best experience. And as a value investor, I prefer not to see my bill tick up in front of me mile after mile. With Uber, most people all around the world can summon a car with a touch of a button, have transparent pricing and live tracking from the start. And Uber also unlocked the value of millions of personal vehicles that were sitting idle. If we apply Teal's framework to Uber, Uber actually didn't compete in an existing market at first. It made the old market just obsolete by inventing something entirely new.

56:25So the other day I was on a call with a member from our mastermind community, and he's a member who just loves to talk stocks. For his portfolio, he was actually most excited about both Uber and Lyft. He mentioned to me that he viewed Uber as the next trillion dollar company, which of course is a comment that always piques my interest. As of the time of recording, Uber's market cap is below 200 billion. That would imply a 5X increase in the value of the company from today's prices. Uber's riding the secular growth trend of both ride hailing and delivery. And after pondering it, after several episodes and discussions, I can't help but think that there's just quite an opportunity ahead for this company.

57:07Gen Z grew up with the world at their fingertips. The answer to any question was a Google search away. They could contact any of their friends with the touch of a button. Any item could be delivered to their doorstep within two days. And now with Uber, they can get a meal delivered right to them or call up a ride on a moment's notice. Uber is well-positioned to continue to usher in the era of convenience as their dense network both minimizes prices and creates best-in-class latency with average wait times of just four minutes, creating a strong value proposition for customers. So our community member who lives in a major US city here, he also mentioned how much of a no-brainer it is to use Uber in the metro area.

57:49So when you consider the cost of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, gas, parking, depreciation, Uber makes it significantly cheaper to use transportation. And with their Uber One program, their most frequent users earn credits on rides, get priority access to top-rated drivers, get access to$0 delivery fees, and other exclusive promotions. And I just can't help but wonder whether Uber is Wall Street's next tech darling just hiding in plain sight. Given that Uber was unprofitable for so long, I personally just developed this bias against seriously looking into the company. Plus, there's the market's worries around autonomous vehicles and how will that impact their 8 million drivers globally who provide these services.

58:33So the question then becomes, how does the dynamic change with the rise of autonomous vehicles? Will there be a few AV providers that chip away at the fragmented supply of vehicles that Uber's tapping into? Or will there be several providers that will then be reliant on Uber to provide the liquidity and demand to keep these vehicles moving as much as possible. The good news for Uber is they have a 15-year head start and they've built a network that customers are just accustomed to using. Uber is one of those companies where the name itself is a verb. I Ubered home after the game last night. I think it makes sense that instead of consumers having, say, four different ride-hailing apps, they have one, maybe two.

59:17That aggregates the supply and makes the experience as seamless and convenient as possible. Uber has already announced partnerships with several AV companies, which positions them as the global demand aggregator for the autonomous era. But behind the AV overhang the company is facing, the business is also seeing a significant inflection of profitability. So when you just look at the free cash flow, for example, Uber lost nearly $5 billion in 2019. And after inflecting in 2022, you've seen free cash flow skyrocket to over$8 billion today. So it's sort of ironic how Uber, it got a ton of flack for years for being unprofitable, handing out discounted rides at the expense of shareholders.

1:00:01And then today, they've built out a dominant network that continues to provide new types of offerings, such as route sharing for more cost-conscious customers and Uber Direct, which allows customers to get same-day delivery from businesses. And as I was listening to a talk the CEO was giving, he mentioned something about two-wheeler and three-wheeler offerings. I was like, okay, what is this? I guess it's some of their more popular offerings in India, which allows customers to order a motorcycle taxi or a three-wheeler vehicle. So they're getting quite creative in ways to tap into this app and this network they've built.

1:00:36Anyways, there's just so much to talk about with regards to Uber. If you're pretty interested in Uber like I am, be sure to stay tuned for my episode coming out in a couple of weeks, where I'll be sharing the story of Uber and how exactly their zero to one moment played out. I'd love to get feedback on the Uber investment thesis. I think it's an incredibly interesting company to look at. So feel free to shoot me a note on LinkedIn or X if you can find me. Pretty easy. Just search for my name, Clay Fink. So with that, I think we'll close out the episode there. Thanks a lot for tuning in, and I hope to see you again next time.

1:01:10Thanks for listening to TIP. Follow We Study Billionaires on your favorite podcast app and visit theinvestorspodcast.com for show notes and educational resources. This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not provide financial, investment, tax or legal advice. The content is impersonal and does not consider your objectives, financial situation or needs. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principle and past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Listeners should do their own research and consult a qualified professional before making any financial decisions.

1:01:41Nothing on this show is a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or other financial product. Hosts, guests, and the Investors Podcast Network may hold positions in securities discussed and may change those positions at any time without notice. References to any third-party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and the Investors Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them. Copyright by the Investors Podcast Network. All rights reserved.

1:02:08Thank you.