Hacker News Reader

Comment by hkmurakami | Hacker News Reader

Bill Nguyen seems like a relatively young guy who would seem to have more punches left in him in the form of starting more companies. But given these allegations, are investors actually going to back him in the future?

Maybe this is just who I am, but if I were a VC, I'd have serious reservations about investing in a man who has demonstrated serious character issues and is known to create a dysfunctional corporate culture. In fact, I would never invest in anyone who bullies or torments their team members no matter how much of a track record he has. I wonder if thinking like this automatically disqualifies me from ever acting in such a capacity.

View on HN

Maybe I've just gotten a bit cynical from being around the valley so long, but expecting VCs to have a moral conscience that would stop them from doing wrong is probably a bit deluded based on what we have seen in the past. I actually felt like Nguyen sounded like most VCs I've heard about with his talking down to others, trying to intimidate them, etc. When I think of Silicon Valley VCs I'm a lot more likely to think of stuff like http://betabeat.com/2011/11/charlie-odonnell-women-in-tech-d... than of someone passing on an investment for moral reasons.

Not just bullying employees, but the suit outlines Nguyen going to great lengths stalking and plotting against Witherspoon's children, in ways that left a massive paper and witness trail and are quite verifiable if true.

If you also examine his track record, he seems to start companies, make big exits, and then those companies tank / die. I imagined that would raise some red flags.

But apparently not, at least with Color's investors.

Well "investors" probably don't care much about what happens after a part of their portfolio gets a "big exit" since that's the end goal. :(

Well, they certainly didn't get a "good exit" from Color, which was an unmitigated catastrophe.

Anyone who calls their son's teacher every day to inquire about their co-founder's child's behavior despite needing to kick their own son in the stomach to punish him needs a reality check. Reading this thing is horrific.

Provided that it is true

Absolutely. I realize that this is all speculation at this point, and a question I have relating to the legitimacy of things like this occurring is how - if it's true - it was kept under wraps. Time and time again we hear these workplace horror stories, but where are the whistleblowers? Is it not safe for them to go to the police? Do they not think their claims matter? Were there mumblings of these occurrences that went unnoticed?

It's bothersome that there doesn't seem to be a place where people can go to speak up and not feel like they're suddenly a risk to future employers, but at the same time not cause the company a burden should the claims be unwarranted.

Don't you think you are jumping to conclusions by making all these accusations about the man without knowing his skiing skills?

Startups may be famous for not punishing failure, but I think this is such an exceptional case that I don't see the same rules applying here. I would not trust someone who squandered this much wealth, and certainly would not trust them if any of these allegations are even remotely true.

I think there are two failures here: (1) business failure, and (2) moral failure. Sometimes (1) is just out of our control, but (2) is fully within our control.

To me, moral failure is a bigger red flag in giving me signals about the individual.

Capital is amoral.

But leaders shouldn't be amoral.

Agreed. This applies to the CEO and the Board, where relevant. LPs and public investors can vote with their feet, but people actually with their hands on the controls need to act responsibly.

Yes, but capitalists don't like trusting amoral people with their money.

How do you know?

Besides, it's capital, not capitalists, that is amoral. Some capitalists may not participate in certain ways the same way a religion might have dietary restrictions or taboos, but capital itself doesn't care.

I'm pretty sure if he does have another go at a startup, it will be using his own money without any meaningful board or oversight.

Megalomaniacs don't deal well with situations where someone else can pull the rug out from under them.

Aren't you assuming that investors and VCs are interested in ethics and morality? May be some are, but I'd guess many are more interested in ROI. Whoever gives them the max return gets their money, no?

And it turns out he has yet to do that

> ... given these allegations, are investors actually going to back him in the future?

Given these allegations, is he going to be able to find anyone willing to work for/with him in the future?

That may be a more challenging thing. Lots of people do stupid things, sometimes even illegal things, but does not have nearly the impact on their ability to 'funded' as one might guess. For every investor who will say "No" there is another who will say "I don't care what he did or does if I get a 10x return on my investment!" Kind of sad but also true.

That said, in the Bay area at least where the valley is pretty "small" in terms of reputation there are people who have worn out their welcome and moved on. Not because they can't get funded but because they can't put together a team any more of people willing to work with them. I know a couple who have "done a geography" [1] and have started elsewhere. I feel really for the people who bought into the company and went to work there only to have this happen.

[1] A friend of mine who counseled people used the term 'do a geography' which was when a person moved to a completely new place to escape the 'bad things' that were going on where they were. Sometimes that helps, sometimes not.

So, would that mean you wouldn't invest in a supposedly Steve Jobs' new startup if he was still alive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com