Remix.run Logo
game_the0ry 17 hours ago

I struggle to understand the psychology of how founders who are clearly incompetent charlatans get second+ chances -- they couldn't do fraud successfully but investors have a faith they could do business successfully. But they still get funding (like adam neumann of wework fame) and full on "narrative tongue baths" by the business media community (like this wsj article on trevor milton).

Why? I struggle to understand the incentives + motivations here.

jjk166 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Hey this guy fooled a lot of people last time and the people who got in and out early made a killing. This time I'm going to get in early."

"He's got the hustle to do what it takes to succeed and is unencumbered by a moral compass. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet."

"Pssh that's nothing compared to the fraud I committed to get here. Fake it till you make it baby!"

"It takes balls to defraud powerful people and then do it again. I respect the machismo."

Take your pick.

lo_zamoyski 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"I respect the machismo."

I believe the word he was looking for is "chutzpah", and no, it isn't a virtue, and no, it cannot be respected.

Trash.

cjbgkagh 5 hours ago | parent [-]

“gall” has the more negative connotations.

taneq 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

Unmitigated gall, even.

alex_c 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The past failure is in the abstract, and in the past. And anyway, they were unfairly maligned. There is an inside version of the story that they will be happy to tell you, which was clearly not their fault.

But that is neither here nor there. What is important is the now, and in the now you are in the presence of someone who is Good At Making Money. And you too, by joining forces, will be Making Lots Of Money with this charismatic person, who can clearly achieve great things and will be clearly avoiding any past missteps that may have caused their downfall right before reaching greatness (but weren’t their fault anyway).

Think of the future, not the past!

vishalontheline 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Airplane shaped blimp, here we go! =)

jongjong 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This guy is a crook. Every adjective you could use to describe this guy goes against my core values.

busyant 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I suspect the person you replied to was being subtly sarcastic. edit: but honestly, I'm not sure.

alex_c 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I thought I was laying on the sarcasm pretty thick. But I guess it’s harder and harder to tell these days!

sgc 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I took as beyond sarcasm, just a simple explanation of how they manage to keep going written in the first person. From my perspective it is incredible anybody could misunderstand.

stavros 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That's how I took it too, and didn't realize someone might read it otherwise, but I can see how it could be misunderstood if someone isn't paying as much attention.

quantified 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is no tone of voice in writing. This is part of the problem with written social media. Some writers will say "only an idiot would believe what I wrote", showing themselves to be adversarial in their communications. I don't think that's you in this case.

lo_zamoyski 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It was very thick, IMO.

jongjong 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's hard for me to tell because I've seen this multiple times in my career (in tech). People wasting investors' money getting funding over and over while those actually building stuff get suppressed.

I swear there are some people who control a lot of money who are just having fun ruining people's lives for laughs.

There are people who spend years working for some company, betting their career on it but it turns out the whole thing was some kind of inside joke.

My view is that some companies are basically somebody's toy and the employees are part of the entertainment like a personal reality TV show for some rich person so they can play-act as a hotshot entrepreneur.

Probably it serves as some kind of inflation control mechanism. If you have a lot of money and want to spend it without driving inflation, you have to find things with extreme diminishing returns and you have to invest in people who value such things.

busyant 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for the reply.

The only thing I can add (regarding the motivations of people willing to invest with a fraudster) is that many people invest with the belief that they'll make money because they are just part of the scam and they assume there's a greater fool somewhere down the line.

But that's probably obvious.

cindyllm 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

ahf8Aithaex7Nai 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The reason for this is the same as why real estate is so expensive and the price of gold is so high. There is far too much capital accumulation among the ultra-wealthy, who don’t know what to do with all that money. The expertise of someone like this founder lies simply in recognizing that this is the case and that it can be monetized.

exogeny 17 hours ago | parent [-]

There was a great Money Stuff blurb about that w/r/t Adam Neumann. I can't find it to quote it directly, but the gist was that if you disabuse yourself of the notion that Neumann was playing a game of entrepreneurship and good-faith empire building, and instead conclude that the game he was playing was shameless capital extraction, every step and action he took suddenly makes sense.

The truly amazing thing, especially the second time around, are the supposedly sophisticated investors who fall for it. "Oh, he's learned his lesson -- he won't do it again!".

nradov 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some of those sophisticated investors are also engaged in shameless capital extraction. Their investment thesis is based on the "Greater Fool Theory": they're gambling that they can dump the inflated assets on another bag holder before it blows up.

game_the0ry 16 hours ago | parent [-]

But they might end being the bag holder themselves. And is the reputational risk worth it? I would say - no.

igor47 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Reputational risk is dead. All publicity is good publicity, the alternative is obscurity aka being a loser

game_the0ry 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> ...if you disabuse yourself of the notion that Neumann was playing a game of entrepreneurship and good-faith empire building, and instead conclude that the game he was playing was shameless capital extraction, every step and action he took suddenly makes sense.

Sort of. I get the capital extraction part, but you also need to be a good steward of capital and make a profitable business out of it. He failed badly at the later part, and his reputation is an obstacle for the former.

Not saying you are wrong, but if I am a "capital allocator" at a16z, he would be no-go.

helpful-guy 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ironically Neumann's latest startup is funded by a16z.

anonymous_user9 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IMO you're being unfair; he talked his way into getting paid half a billion dollars for wework, and he's now a billionaire. That's a massive success at capital extraction.

game_the0ry 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This is too cynical for even a turbo cynic like me.

Basically, you’re saying he mislead investors and got a bunch of money, so those investors see themselves being ripped off as a valuable skill, so they invest in him again. Wut?

I say again — why would investors trust him if his only track record is losing investor money?

anonymous_user9 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I misinterpreted you; I was arguing that he's already succeeded completely, so it doesn't matter if anyone gives him more money.

But, IMO the reason they're still giving him more money is that they're stupid and greedy. They know WeWork was a disaster, but it was a huge disaster. That shows them he's good at running a con, and they want to get in on the next one.

Class solidarity doesn't hurt either. Being a billionaire makes him an actual person in the eyes of other rich people.

EDIT: Also, it's funny you used a16z as an example:

> Not saying you are wrong, but if I am a "capital allocator" at a16z, he would be no-go.

because Andreesen Horowitz are the ones investing in his new WeWork 2.0 startup Flow.

eli_gottlieb 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I say again — why would investors trust him if his only track record is losing investor money?

Because they look at a serial fraudster and see themselves in him.

anitil 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I remember listening to a podcast (possibly complex systems?) that said the best way to find what kinds of frauds are out there is by looking at what known fraudsters are up to.

[0] It might have been this one, but I can't find it in the transcript https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/fraud-as-infr...

gaoshan 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Charisma and connections are pretty much all it takes. Really only connections are needed but since these people are coming back from being exposed they need charisma to assuage the concerns of their connections.

rsp1984 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's distribution. Guy's got a brand name now. People and investors recognize his name. It's a lot easier to find an absolute quantity N of investor money for a fraudulent but well-known name than it is for an unknown upstart.

The fraud might have a low close rate but the top of the funnel is huge. The unknown upstart can't even get meetings.

game_the0ry 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

His “brand” is “torching investor money.”

Still don’t get it.

actionfromafar 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

He might credibly have access to federal bailout, too. That's worth something.

madeofpalk 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I recently invested a small amount of money in an early stage company where I had to declare I was either a 'high net worth individual' or a 'sophisticated investor'. The mutually exclusive clause seemed important to me.

enoint 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the US, we have this class called “accredited investor”

philipwhiuk 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe you become both by not investing in such a company.

BobbyTables2 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And the beauty is that one also becomes not both by investing in such a company!

vjvjvjvjghv 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of the investors are also bullshitters so they like bullshitting founders. I see a similar thing in companies. People wonder why people who don’t produce much but are politically savvy are moving up. The answer that most leadership is the same so they recognize each other.

socalgal2 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This come up in a subthread last week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47305450

My guess is that they're good talkers. They make it sounds like they learned their lesson or were framed but regardless if you hire them they'll make you rich!

xbryanx 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, here we all are clicking the link and engaging in a discussion on the loathsome creep. Attention, attention.

kelnos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My assumption is that the people he's working with today also would like to do some fraud, and are hoping he'll be better at it this time.

And/or they're part of the Trump rich people's club. They all tend to stick together and help each other.

khat 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To understand why you must understand the tax code. You can write off any investment losses. You can also recover losses if its from fraud. Though usually not fully. But you give 1 million for investment, boom its a fraud, and you get $800,000 back as opposed to keeping a million and paying $400,000 on it in taxes. It's a win-win situation. There is no penalty in betting on fraudsters. Whether this guy's schemes are deliberately for that is debatable. But on the flip side, putting downsides to investing on possible fraudsters considerably hinders any new genuine start up ideas from gaining investors.

klaff 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How do you get $800k back? Where does that come from?

dede2026 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What?

Why would you get $800k back? Also why would owe $400k in taxes for "keeping a million"? Nothing you've said makes any sense.

We're mid tax season but I really hope you hired a CPA.

strangattractor 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does anybody know his investors? I'd like an intro:)

moralestapia 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can guarantee you that Elizabeth Holmes will get a big bunch of funding for a new startup as soon as she's out of jail.

Even with SBF I'm 50/50 on that.

randallsquared 3 hours ago | parent [-]

A lot of companies are currently doing what (if you squint) Holmes was claiming Theranos would be able to do a decade ago. I agree with you that this is enough for her to claim, plausibly to some, that she was basically on the right track.

SBF, similarly, happened to have FTX invest in Anthropic early, and while we don't know how that's gonna play out now that they're at odds with the DoW, the value of Anthropic has already increased enough that it would have made whole all the money he was wasting/embezzling, so there's going to be a path for people to claim that he's directionally worth investing more money in, if he's out anytime soon.

dzonga 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

some of the 'investors' use such as investments as tax-write offs

tootie 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> SyberJet’s own history shows the challenges. Over the past 40 years, an eclectic mix of financiers from Dubai to Taiwan invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing the plane maker’s lightweight business jets. But in all that time just four planes made it into the hands of customers.

Putting two and two together it seems to me that this business is a front for money laundering or something.

jongjong 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These fraudsters who get second chances have got blackmail. Trust me, all the people we see in the media are sharks. They only help each other if they feel a threat or have something to gain.

freediddy 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Look how many people couldn't care about Epstein and the fact he was a convicted sex offender. Bill Gates didn't care and he was literally the richest person in the world at one point.

The rich VCs and billionaires and aspirational billionaires only care about doing what they want to do and don't care what the peons like us think or care about.

elzbardico 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Having a great exit is the golden dream for VCs.

But having founders that raise lots of money also have a value in itself even if the business fails in the long run.

game_the0ry 16 hours ago | parent [-]

But you also have to build a business with the money you raise, or else you kill your reputation along the way.

elzbardico 16 hours ago | parent [-]

As the founder, yes. For the VCs there's not a lot of consequences by having hyped things like Theranos or WeWork.

game_the0ry 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I guess I would make a terrible VC, bc my money and reputation would matter to me.

zzzeek 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

not speaking for upwards failures in general, but for the extraordinary cases of convicted frauds being pardoned, the incentives are:

1. his $1.8M donation to Trump shows other felons and fraudsters that paying Trump will pay back in dividends (Trump profits)

2. By pardoning thousands of frauds, con artists and outright violent nazis (Jan 6), Trump builds himself an army of loyalists who owe him their lives

3. By putting pardoned frauds, con artists and violent nazis in charge of government functions, Trump replaces the entire US government with one that will do his personal bidding

textbook autocrat stuff

TrackerFF 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are charismatic. They know how to work people.

If you've ever worked with narcissists and sociopaths, you'll soon enough discover that they will do anything to get what they want. And they are professionals at playing people.

They know what to say, how to present themselves, how to make their story, and what strings to pull on the people they try to convince.

Some investors are also willing to suspend their disbelief - thinking that if they are the first to ditch to bag, there's money to be made...as long as they're not the ones holding the bag.

watwut 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because those investors have exactly same moral and ethical framework. The fraud is just another legitimate way to make money to them. It is the same thing with Epstein or meetoo ... they were actually fine with all that and whoever complains is just pesky idiot.

This article is not praising trevor milton tho.

jongjong 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I just can't comprehend the mental process or discussion that happened which led to this guy getting a pardon.

It's just hard to imagine that anybody would give a f about this fraudster. Only explanation is he must know some dirt on someone.

It's clear now. Modern society runs on blackmail. There's a blackmail hierarchy all the way to the top.

I bet there are many people out there just making a living from just knowing dirt about people.

bryan0 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that complicated. From the article:

> Milton and his wife had also donated at least $3.2 million to Trump’s 2024 election and to political groups and people in Trump’s orbit, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

cheema33 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I just can't comprehend the mental process or discussion that happened which led to this guy getting a pardon.

Trump when pardoning Trevor Milton said that he didn't know the guy, but heard that he said nice things about him.

And Milton made a $1m donation.

17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
vjvjvjvjghv 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Trump seems to have a weak spot for fraudsters. Milken, Conrad Black, Keith, Blagojevich and many more. Not sure why though.