6 ms·

The more we learn about this guy the more I can’t wait for him to ride the wave into obscurity and irrelevance except for in the immortal pages of case studies

The more we learn about this guy the more I can’t wait for him to ride the wave into obscurity and irrelevance except for in the immortal pages of case studies of what not to do.

mister_hn 7y ago
Immortal page of "how to ride an unicorn to death"
- et2o 7y ago
  Well, he still made it out as a billionaire.
  - jgalt212 7y ago
    did he? He's very levered against his stock.
    - sudhirj 7y ago
      Even worth the buildings owned and the cash payments for the word ‘we’?
      - CrazyStat 7y ago
        He gave back the trademark payment iirc. He got a few hundred million for stock he sold, and borrowed a few hundred million more against stock he still owned. We don't know the exact numbers though. He also gave away $100m+.
      - thedufer 7y ago
        He was paid for 'we' in stock, not cash, and he ended up paying it back after their first IPO filing caused an uproar.
  - sudhirj 7y ago
    At least it was private money that hopefully learnt their lesson. Think of it as karmic wealth redistribution. Unless the private money turned out to be pension funds in which case oh shit.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      Most likely it was pension funds or municipalities. It’s not the VCs own money
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        Most of it was the Saudi royal family’s money, they were the biggest investors in the Vision Fund.
        api 7y ago
        Not sure I'd rip off Mohammed Bonesaw, but I guess he didn't do so directly. The vision fund is the truly amazing case of serial capital destruction. Of course it brings to mind something I heard from a PI years ago: if something doesn't make sense as a business, maybe it makes sense in some other way. Could this be somehow about moving money around? No clue, just wild speculation because it all looks so irrational.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  He looks set to walk away with $700m regardless. He deserves a chapter of his own in How To Sucker A VC.
  - pxue 7y ago
    Not unless he gets sued. And I hope he does
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      He borrowed money against his WW shares. There are rumours a margin call may be due.
      - pmart123 7y ago
        At this point, he should really be looking to add a property in Florida before it is too late.
        onetimemanytime 7y ago
        how does that work? I know from OJ that FL law protects the home, but will you have a $50 Million home with all the expenses but that cannot sell? Maybe he can borrow against it... But I doubt he'll get sued. Unless he fudged the numbers it isn't his fault that supposedly sophisticated suckers gave him money.
        pmart123 7y ago
        I think it would be hard to prove anything outside out of gross incompetence. If he buys a Florida home and uses it as his primary residence, he would be able to keep the house even during bankruptcy. So he could buy the $40M, declare bankruptcy on the margin loan, and then sell the house eventually as far as I understand it.
- gigatexal 7y ago
  Or the immortal page for the definition of megalomania
75dvtwin 7y ago
Agreed. I also use this opportunity to learn how these con artists present themselves. So watching interviews with them to learn their verbal and physical expressions (and people around them). This is one particular interview I find useful in the above context. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/14/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-ashton-kutcher-and-wework-ceo-adam-neumann.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/14/watch-cnbcs-full-inter... Between this and another con artist (Elizabeth Holms, Therano's founder), there a representative sample developing.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  Generally speaking, people know how to spot a con artist intuitively. The difficulty is figuring out who is part of the con, and who is a mark. Sometimes one person is both, or changes from partner to mark overnight.
- pmart123 7y ago
  When you are more charismatic than the actor sitting next to you... I love Ashton's response to why he isn't invested in WeWork though.
- johnsimer 7y ago
  What mannerisms are indicative that he's a con artist? Just seems like a good public speaker to me I'm not sure how by just solely looking at people's mannerisms/behavior without evaluating what they are saying, I'd be able to detect con artistry
- neopallium 7y ago
  I wonder if a database of past videos of these people (after the truth is known) and machine learning would be able to make a bullshit/con detector? Maybe the same could be done with old PR news from companies that fail to deliver (pump and dump). Would ML be able to detect if the person truly believes what they are pushing?
m12k 7y ago
Don't get your hopes up - if history is any indication, 20 years from now he'll become president by campaigning on how savvy a businessman he is (maybe with a bit of racism and rambling dementia thrown in to spice things up).
curyous 7y ago
What not to do? He made $700m, who doesn't want to do that?

The more we learn about this guy the more I can’t wait for him to ride the wave into obscurity and irrelevance except for in the immortal pages of case studies of what not to do.

mister_hn 7y ago

Immortal page of "how to ride an unicorn to death"

et2o 7y ago
Well, he still made it out as a billionaire.
- jgalt212 7y ago
  did he? He's very levered against his stock.
  - sudhirj 7y ago
    Even worth the buildings owned and the cash payments for the word ‘we’?
    - CrazyStat 7y ago
      He gave back the trademark payment iirc. He got a few hundred million for stock he sold, and borrowed a few hundred million more against stock he still owned. We don't know the exact numbers though. He also gave away $100m+.
    - thedufer 7y ago
      He was paid for 'we' in stock, not cash, and he ended up paying it back after their first IPO filing caused an uproar.
- sudhirj 7y ago
  At least it was private money that hopefully learnt their lesson. Think of it as karmic wealth redistribution. Unless the private money turned out to be pension funds in which case oh shit.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Most likely it was pension funds or municipalities. It’s not the VCs own money
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Most of it was the Saudi royal family’s money, they were the biggest investors in the Vision Fund.
      - api 7y ago
        Not sure I'd rip off Mohammed Bonesaw, but I guess he didn't do so directly. The vision fund is the truly amazing case of serial capital destruction. Of course it brings to mind something I heard from a PI years ago: if something doesn't make sense as a business, maybe it makes sense in some other way. Could this be somehow about moving money around? No clue, just wild speculation because it all looks so irrational.
goatinaboat 7y ago
He looks set to walk away with $700m regardless. He deserves a chapter of his own in How To Sucker A VC.
- pxue 7y ago
  Not unless he gets sued. And I hope he does
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    He borrowed money against his WW shares. There are rumours a margin call may be due.
    - pmart123 7y ago
      At this point, he should really be looking to add a property in Florida before it is too late.
      - onetimemanytime 7y ago
        how does that work? I know from OJ that FL law protects the home, but will you have a $50 Million home with all the expenses but that cannot sell? Maybe he can borrow against it... But I doubt he'll get sued. Unless he fudged the numbers it isn't his fault that supposedly sophisticated suckers gave him money.
        pmart123 7y ago
        I think it would be hard to prove anything outside out of gross incompetence. If he buys a Florida home and uses it as his primary residence, he would be able to keep the house even during bankruptcy. So he could buy the $40M, declare bankruptcy on the margin loan, and then sell the house eventually as far as I understand it.
gigatexal 7y ago
Or the immortal page for the definition of megalomania

75dvtwin 7y ago

Agreed. I also use this opportunity to learn how these con artists present themselves. So watching interviews with them to learn their verbal and physical expressions (and people around them). This is one particular interview I find useful in the above context. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/14/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-ashton-kutcher-and-wework-ceo-adam-neumann.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/14/watch-cnbcs-full-inter... Between this and another con artist (Elizabeth Holms, Therano's founder), there a representative sample developing.

jeffdavis 7y ago
Generally speaking, people know how to spot a con artist intuitively. The difficulty is figuring out who is part of the con, and who is a mark. Sometimes one person is both, or changes from partner to mark overnight.
pmart123 7y ago
When you are more charismatic than the actor sitting next to you... I love Ashton's response to why he isn't invested in WeWork though.
johnsimer 7y ago
What mannerisms are indicative that he's a con artist? Just seems like a good public speaker to me I'm not sure how by just solely looking at people's mannerisms/behavior without evaluating what they are saying, I'd be able to detect con artistry
neopallium 7y ago
I wonder if a database of past videos of these people (after the truth is known) and machine learning would be able to make a bullshit/con detector? Maybe the same could be done with old PR news from companies that fail to deliver (pump and dump). Would ML be able to detect if the person truly believes what they are pushing?

m12k 7y ago

Don't get your hopes up - if history is any indication, 20 years from now he'll become president by campaigning on how savvy a businessman he is (maybe with a bit of racism and rambling dementia thrown in to spice things up).

curyous 7y ago

What not to do? He made $700m, who doesn't want to do that?