zlacker

There’s a famous NFL quote from a former general manager of the Arizona Cardinals that goes, “If Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3 (40-yard dash) we'd probably diagnose it as an eating disorder.”

I'll argue in this day and age, that any founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is, will almost always get another shot. If SBF or Elizabeth Holmes weren't physically in prison, I bet they'd be able to get investment for whatever their next idea is.

>>sharkw+(OP)
This comparison makes no sense. Hannibal Lecter would be helping the team by being able to run fast.

Neumann and Holmes and SBF lost their benefactors money.

>>lotsof+v
The point of comparison in the analogy is "founder/C-level person who has "created" billions in value, no matter how much of a paper tiger it is."

The claim is that investors are interested in executives who they perceive to have created billions in value, and that's analogous to how NFL teams are interested in people who run fast.

>>tshadd+q1
Investors are not interested in executives that “create” billions, they are interested in investors that create billions.

NFL teams are interested in players that can actually run fast, not players that can say they do, but are found to be lying and it turns out they cannot run fast causing the team to lose.

>>lotsof+L2
> Investors are not interested in executives that “create” billions, they are interested in investors that create billions.

Investors are interested in people they can use to make money. The latter are easier to use, but the former will suffice. It just depends on when you sell.

>>sharkw+(OP)
Would you say the same thing for Enron execs? For Bernie Madoff?

I think the business of running a scam or a fraudulent company is quite different to an actual business.

>>SahAss+S7
20 years ago? No for either.

Now? Yes for Kenneth Lay (assuming he was still alive and/or not hiding on a desert island under a new identity if I put on my tin foil hat)... Madoff, probably not.

>>SahAss+S7
Look at the comment two levels above about Adam Neumann.

>>hilux+3c
Adam Neumann is not a good example. While he has proven good at raising money he has not been proven at running a business or even finding successful ones. My comment was exactly about that difference.

>>sharkw+Aa
Why a yes for Kenneth Lay? Do you think the experience of running a scam is transferable to a real business? Or do you not consider enron a scam? Or do you think the line between scams and businesses is so blurred that the skill doing them is the same?

>>SahAss+Ld
I completely agree with your assessment of Adam Neumann.

AND ... post the WeWork debacle, Neumann has once again succeeded in raising a massive investment.

>>sharkw+Aa
I would say yes for madoff . Lots of people made a ton of money of him for decades , and losses were not as bad as originally thought.

There is bound to be a few people who have a soft spot and will give him money again .