Top
Best
New

Posted by iamnothere 15 hours ago

Analyzing data from Silicon Valley ventures and founders prosecuted for fraud(pubsonline.informs.org)
190 points | 90 commentspage 2
doodlebugging 12 hours ago|
"Facading" is a term that just uses more letters to call someone a liar or thief.

There's no need to beat around any bushes.

When your business culture rewards lying or theft then you have a real ethical problem that signals the need for strong regulatory reform and severe criminal penalties. These sanctions should be retroactively applied for all those who assumed they would be able to dance away scot-free. Asset confiscation, prison time, large financial fines should be distributed to all those liars and thieves, especially the ones who constructed the systems that used algorithmic adjustments to help destroy society or create surveillance operations that could be used against ordinary citizens in violation of privacy.

jdw64 13 hours ago||
The more you force unrealistic expectations of exponential growth, the more founders engage in 'façading.' This feels a lot like multi-level marketing and a game of hot potato—keeping the early investors' returns safe by bringing in new capital.

The paper's concept of 'deep façading' follows the same pattern. When a product fails to generate sustainable value or revenue in the market, founders create fake metrics to protect the book returns of early investors and attract the next round of funding. Instead of being driven by real customer value, the company's valuation is inflated by the next investor's money—creating a multi-level pyramid.

The successful hot potato is WeWork, handed off to SoftBank and public market retail investors. The failed one is Theranos.

woadwarrior01 12 hours ago||
FWIW, I left a VC backed startup where I was an equal co-founder because my co-founder was committing securities fraud (blatant lying about customers and traction in investor update emails, amongst other things).

I presented all the evidence to the investors when I was leaving, and I was told that they'd rather let the startup die a natural death than suffer the "reputational harm" that'd come from going after the charlatan. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

mikelgan 12 hours ago||
I'm thrilled someone has attempted to quantify the lies, fraud and deception that has been the norm here in Silicon Valley for decades. I've worked at startups, have friends who are entrepreneurs, everyone in my family has worked at startups, and there's no question that lying and deception are normal and expected here.
AndrewKemendo 12 hours ago||
If this was applied to all of commercial organizations equivalently, the entirety of our society would probably grind to a halt
RetroTechie 7 hours ago|
Absolutely not. Silicon Valley powers its own unique type of reality distortion field.
AndrewKemendo 7 hours ago||
Have you ever bought a car near a military base?

How about getting a check cashed or a payday loan?

Furniture financing is almost 100% a scam

Pharma pricing?

27183 12 hours ago||
Isn't venture capital just playing along too, though? They also benefit from all the myth making and hype storms, even if they are technically getting defrauded while funding it.

They could actually audit the companies they invest in, and go after the frauds. The Nikola example is a great one--if anyone had looked carefully behind the marketing the fraud should have been obvious. But by and large they don't, really. Seems to be a tacit endorsement of the behavior.

iamnothere 11 hours ago|
ZIRP made it unprofitable to chase down fraud; money was too cheap and attention too scarce. We’ve been in a tightening cycle for a while now, but many still held out hope for another drop in interest rates. Now that rates are going crazy, I suspect we’ll see a shift to much tighter vetting and ongoing monitoring.
UltraSane 13 hours ago||
façading has made Elon Musk very rich.
nlpnerd 12 hours ago||
Fine line between articulating a vision well or marketing vs just lying.
api 12 hours ago|
I wonder how this compares to other fields. Whenever you have a market like this, there's a giant incentive for fraud, and the more people cheat the stronger the incentive gets to the point that you lose if you don't cheat.

That being said -- for my own co. I did not fudge numbers at all. In fact I understated them sometimes. We raised less money than our competitors, which probably hurt us, but we also got very high quality investors that are not a giant pain to work with and are not idiots. Those investors in turn introduced me to others and to our current CEO (hired to replace myself, was my idea in part) and they're all high quality.

I'll take it. Working with shitty people sucks, and my guess is the people you get when you bullshit are themselves bullshitters and assholes.

I could have bullshitted like mad and raised stupid money during the COVID era fund raising bubble. I'd be left with shitty people though, and a waterfall you'd never clear, so you'd never see an exit unless you went insanely vertical.

The last part is a nuance a lot of people don't get: raise too much and/or on too high of a valuation and you will never clear the waterfall unless you get an 0.000001% super-unicorn outlier growth curve. Every $1M in valuation means you have to go into more and more rarefied air to see a good exit. At that point you're basically gambling. Gambling is a tax on people who can't do math.

More comments...