Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#31

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

BoorishBears wrote: post #8
mnw21cam wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Riordan is trying to start a company that improves email security. Partly, he says, that’s because blowing the whistle on Rothenberg dinged his career prospects. After once telling a job interviewer he was a whistleblower, he didn’t get a call back. Still, he says, the cost was worth it. “I knew that to some extent I would be damaging my career,” he says. “I was just so sure that it was the right…

Doesn't really explain how he knows the mention of being a whistleblower is the reason he wasn't called back.

Of course not, companies let the hiring process be opaque for a reason. Common sense would tell us that blowing the whistle is not going to endear you to future employers.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#32

Post by BoorishBears »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #31
BoorishBears wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't really explain how he knows the mention of being a whistleblower is the reason he wasn't called back.

Of course not, companies let the hiring process be opaque for a reason. Common sense would tell us that blowing the whistle is not going to endear you to future employers.

Really? Common sense tells me some types of companies will see it as a negative (what if he does it to us!), and others will see is as neutral (we asked why he left his last job, he answered, not the worst reason, not the best), and some will see it as a positive (someone willing to step up and put their neck on the line for what's right).

Do I think there are a lot of companies in the first category? Yes (I also think there are a lot in the other two though).

Do I think it's remotely reasonable to automatically assume every place that doesn't call you back after you mention being a whistleblower isn't calling back because you mentioned that? Not at all.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#33

Post by winter_blue »

coldcode wrote: post #12
tremon wrote: post #3

So, where's the blowback? I feel like half of the story is missing...

Did you talk to the government? Won't answer that question. You're fired. Of course the SEC is mostly a toothless worm so while he did the right thing, I doubt much will ever happen to the company or its founder.

The SEC is mostly a toothless worm? Really? Can you back that up with some examples of the SEC giving a free pass to companies that defraud investors?

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#34

Post by endorphone »

dmschulman wrote: post #22

Interesting timing, I had just finished reading this Backchannel article regarding Rothenberg Ventures from September: https://backchannel.com/mike-rothenbergs-vc-firm-was-young-s... Just an excerpt, an example of what I'd imagine some of the unwise personal projects regard: "Most troublesome are questions about how Rothenberg managed investors’ money. Specifically, in 2015 he founded a virtual reality production com…

I'm taking a beating in another comment (it's one of those ridiculous discussions where everyone can demonstrate how righteous they are), but I listened to the podcast and the argument was that the management company (e.g. not the actual funds) used management fees to pay for their own investments.

Ala the frat bros owned A. A had funds B, C, and D. Investers are LPs of B, C and D. Management fees flowed from B, C and D to A, where it was used for nonsensical stuff.

There's nothing at all illegal about that. If a fund has a 10% of holdings management fee, the fund has zero obligation or "fiduciary duty" to the charged fund holders in how they use that money. They can use it on a mountain of blow, or a room of strippers. Or they can invest in dubious investments. Whatever. If investors don't like the returns relative to the management fees, they redeem.

This whole story is very offputting. The individual is talking about various completely uncriminal emails that he read in podcasts, itself arguably criminal and with profound civil liability. And that's the hero of the story? Eh.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#35

Post by nickpsecurity »

pmorici wrote: post #13
humanrebar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also says he was allegedly fired when the SEC cooperation was discovered.

Is getting fired from a fraudulent company really a net negative?

Even being associated with one is. Then, being a whistleblower is a major risk to HR since most will assume the person might publish just anything as opposed to worst stuff. He already claims to have been rejected for a job being a whistleblower but rejections happen for a lot of reasons.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#36

Post by manigandham »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #31
BoorishBears wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't really explain how he knows the mention of being a whistleblower is the reason he wasn't called back.

Of course not, companies let the hiring process be opaque for a reason. Common sense would tell us that blowing the whistle is not going to endear you to future employers.

As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide. What exactly is he going to expose if everything is legit? Better to have honest employees than those would do otherwise without question.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#37

Post by jartelt »

endorphone wrote: post #34
dmschulman wrote: post #22

Interesting timing, I had just finished reading this Backchannel article regarding Rothenberg Ventures from September: https://backchannel.com/mike-rothenbergs-vc-firm-was-young-s... Just an excerpt, an example of what I'd imagine some of the unwise personal projects regard: "Most troublesome are questions about how Rothenberg managed investors’ money. Specifically, in 2015 he founded a virtual reality production com…

I'm taking a beating in another comment (it's one of those ridiculous discussions where everyone can demonstrate how righteous they are), but I listened to the podcast and the argument was that the management company (e.g. not the actual funds) used management fees to pay for their own investments. Ala the frat bros owned A. A had funds B, C, and D. Investers are LPs of B, C and D. Management fees flowed from B, C an…

Well, if the management company didn't use any of the fees to pay employees, credit card companies, other vendors, etc. and instead used the fees to buy a "mountain of blow", I think that qualifies as an issue.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#38

Post by aphextron »

I have to say this isn't surprising from my personal experience with Rothenberg. I attended their "Founders Field Day" event last year and it was the most surreal, over the top, "Silicon Valley" thing I have ever witnessed. They must not be in too hot of water though, as they're holding another puppy petting/VR party in the city this Friday.

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#39

Post by kazinator »

If I found out that someone I know (friend, family member, ...) were being deceived by the company, I'd pass the info on to that person (not the government).

Otherwise, none of my business.

Of course, unless I'm in a position where I'm legally required, like an officer of the company, or accountant or whatever. As someone just doing in-house development or IT work or whatever, no way.

The litmus test for whistling is: is it my business to know this information? And if so, do I face penalties or a jail time if I don't report it?

That guy shouldn't even have been reading those e-mails, which were not for his eyes. Of course someone might not want to hire him; he sticks his nose where it doesn't belong.

Suppose the company hadn't done anything wrong? Will he reveal in future interviews, "I was an almost-whistleblower at my former employer; working a simple web developer, I got into private executive memos that weren't CC'd to me and luckily found no evidence of wrongdoing".

Re: An employee who exposed Rothenberg Ventures to the SEC

#40

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

manigandham wrote: post #36
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, companies let the hiring process be opaque for a reason. Common sense would tell us that blowing the whistle is not going to endear you to future employers.

As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide. What exactly is he going to expose if everything is legit? Better to have honest employees than those would do otherwise without question.

>As an employer, whistleblowers are not something to fear unless you have something to hide.

We don't let that logic slide when it comes to individual privacy and I'm not sure we should for corporate privacy. Even a company completely on the up and up may have privacy concerns that deter them from hiring someone like this.

Post reply on HN