3 ms·
> Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly. > if he’d acted responsibly > if The "if" is the point. SoftBank had the ability to elim
by mpalmer 7y ago
> Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly.
> if he’d acted responsibly
> if
The "if" is the point. SoftBank had the ability to eliminate the risk of this "if", and didn't.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoSo what you’re saying is: if someone doesn’t prevent you from doing something, they should shoulder more of the blame than you do for actually doing the thing?
- tempsy 7y agoTake an extreme example. If a VC decided to invest $1b in a lemonade stand run by a 7 year old and the whole thing falls apart, then yes I would blame the VC for not conducting proper due diligence and enabling someone who neither had the right business for $1b or was the right leader to execute on that business in the first place.
- mpalmer 7y agoIt's a matter of perspective. Your general example sounds like it's from the perspective of WeWork's CEO, who is obviously responsible for his decisions. But what about the perspective of SoftBank's shareholders? If they're unhappy about this, they ought to be unhappy with the dealmakers at SoftBank for creating a situation where SoftBank is exposed to volatility of this kind.
- tomjakubowski 7y agoThere's a difference between not preventing behavior and enabling it, with gobs and gobs of cash.