> The seriousness of the problem can be better understood by communicating with other involved parties including the bank, the government, investors, and client

> The seriousness of the problem can be better understood by communicating with other involved parties including the bank, the government, investors, and clients. Doing that would just give everyone else the info they need to start a run on the bank. Then they get their money out and you are left holding the bag and everyone is mad at you for not warning them. If you know a bank is busted, and you tell other major investors, what do you think they would do? It only takes one person to freak out and the plan is ruined, and then you have your CEOs coming to you asking why the heck a board member who knew their bank was failing didn't help them get their money out. We know that is true because when the CEO of the bank told major investors about the problem, they started a run on the bank. Do you think they would have reacted differently to the bad news if Peter Thiel had told them about it rather than the CEO of the bank?