3 ms·

I agree, it sounds like once he realized his actions were blowing up in his face his behavior got ugly. That is certainly an indication of immaturity. It's ast

I agree, it sounds like once he realized his actions were blowing up in his face his behavior got ugly. That is certainly an indication of immaturity. It's astounding to me that you view threatening to destroy someone's career as simply an "indication of immaturity"... immaturity implies impulsiveness, an act taken in the heat of the moment without a full understanding of the consequences. The purported emails, texts, and linked-in messages demonstrate a pattern of persistent, premeditated behaviour that goes well beyond simple "immaturity". Ultimately, Caldbeck's behavior was immature, inappropriate, and disgusting, but it was likely not illegal At minimum we have clear allegations of harassment. You seem to be willing to dismiss those allegations out-of-hand, but neither of us is in a position to determine if those acts went to the level of breaking the law. That will be up to a jury to decide. Would you really argue that someone in Teo's position should jeopardize his firm just to send a strong message about some accusations? And head off a media circus? Absolutely! You cannot possibly believe that the way this has been handled has been even remotely optimal. If Teo knew about this (and let's face it, he probably did), he should've gotten waaaaay out in front of it. At this point, he looks either 1) complicit, or 2) incompetent.

grandalf 9y ago
> At this point, he looks either 1) complicit, or 2) incompetent. Well, he obviously had to trust Caldbeck's word a great deal to want to do business with him in the first place, so maybe Caldbeck lied. Would you consider Caldbeck's spouse similarly responsible? Keep in mind that these new accusations hadn't been made yet so perhaps Teo thought the problem had been dealt with and risk minimized. This is the key point, it's about risk minimization. Teo has nothing to gain by this blowing up and everything to gain by surfacing it early, distancing himself, and being the good guy. SO to claim that you think he's complicit indicates that you think he was loyal to Caldbeck like a hypothetical fraternity brother, and not rational like an experienced investor. If there is one person to whom Caldbeck's conduct would have been most alarming (aside from his spouse) it would have been Teo, so I think your assumption of his complicity unlikely to be true. Similarly, the idea that he handled it incompetently also does not hold up to scrutiny. His firm just blew up, and he clearly didn't want that to happen. My read on it is that he's attempted to act selflessly to preserve the value of the firm for the LPs and founders, and not tried to capitalize on it for his own gain. It sounds likely that Caldbeck may be guilty of having harassed some founders, and if so I hope he receives appropriate legal consequences in addition to the inevitable reputation loss. But we should give Teo the benefit of the doubt since I think his actions indicate that he's not trying to act opportunistically.

grandalf 9y ago

> At this point, he looks either 1) complicit, or 2) incompetent. Well, he obviously had to trust Caldbeck's word a great deal to want to do business with him in the first place, so maybe Caldbeck lied. Would you consider Caldbeck's spouse similarly responsible? Keep in mind that these new accusations hadn't been made yet so perhaps Teo thought the problem had been dealt with and risk minimized. This is the key point, it's about risk minimization. Teo has nothing to gain by this blowing up and everything to gain by surfacing it early, distancing himself, and being the good guy. SO to claim that you think he's complicit indicates that you think he was loyal to Caldbeck like a hypothetical fraternity brother, and not rational like an experienced investor. If there is one person to whom Caldbeck's conduct would have been most alarming (aside from his spouse) it would have been Teo, so I think your assumption of his complicity unlikely to be true. Similarly, the idea that he handled it incompetently also does not hold up to scrutiny. His firm just blew up, and he clearly didn't want that to happen. My read on it is that he's attempted to act selflessly to preserve the value of the firm for the LPs and founders, and not tried to capitalize on it for his own gain. It sounds likely that Caldbeck may be guilty of having harassed some founders, and if so I hope he receives appropriate legal consequences in addition to the inevitable reputation loss. But we should give Teo the benefit of the doubt since I think his actions indicate that he's not trying to act opportunistically.