Peter Thiel: Banks Failed Because Run By Uncool Republicans

|

PeterThiel2.pngFacebook investor Peter Thiel, whose hedge fund recently blew up, has a theory about why half of Wall Street no longer exists. As he explained to Forbes:

Why did the most Republican banks suffer mortal wounds while the least Republican survived? "I have three explanations," Peter told me. "I'm not sure which one is right, but I am sure at least one of them is."

1. A hostile federal bureaucracy. Despite a Republican in the White House, the bureaucrats who staffed the regulatory agencies, the Treasury and the Fed remain unfriendly to the GOP. Consciously or not, they proved unforgiving toward Bear, Lehman and Merrill but sympathetic toward Morgan and Goldman.

2. An inability to accept reality. At the most Republican institutions, the principals believed in free markets--only too devoutly. Even Milton Friedman would never have argued that markets work perfectly all the time, only that they work a lot better than government intervention. But at Bear, Lehman and Merrill, folks became convinced that the markets possessed almost magical properties. When trouble started, they literally couldn't believe it.

3. Uncoolness. All the investment banks recruited at the same elite universities, and political correctness at such schools is profound. (If you want proof, just look at the last election cycle. The faculty at Harvard contributed to Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of 93 to seven.) At Yale and Berkeley and Wharton--at all the elite schools--the Democratic Party is cool; the Republican Party, decidedly not. The least Republican investment banks were therefore able to snap up the best talent, leaving the most Republican firms to pick through the leftovers. "In big financial institutions," Peter said, "it could be that a Republican profile now correlates with technocratic incompetence."

See Also: Peter Thiel's Hedge Fund Blows Up



< Prev. Story
Next Story >

11 Comments

clickbot said:
Wow, this is some pretty fluffy stuff. Hopefully you folks took it out of context or something :)
I found it interesting up until the part in the article where he says he didn't invest on the idea. It kind of makes me think it was something he maybe kind of noticed, but then, ex-post facto he made it fit into a logical narrative.

Thus it's interesting in a Freakonomics kinda way, but not really something you'd believe in or take to the bank.
Karl said:
the banks failed because the jokers at the top really didn't realize how much they did not know. Because you carry a "title" doesn't give you immunity from being a complete idiot.
Here's what really happened: The young traders at these investment firms are 100x smarter than the CEO's and the other brass staff that has been at the helm of these Wall Street firms for ages. As a result of being dinosaurs these traders made fortunes while pulling the wool over the eyes of their bosses.

How many CEO's in Silicon Valley are 65 years old?
Look no further than the VC's with the best track records. They are young and have recent operational experience. VC's over the age of 50 should hang it up and go to work at a Boston Consulting Group.
Josh said:
He sounds like a buffoon...hedge fund or no hedge fund.
what an idiot said:
wow. who the hell is this guy and why is he important?

he sounds like an absolute idiot to me. uhhh, our economy failed because they're "uncool"?

I certainly wouldn't take any investment advice from this guy. And actually, probably a wise investment to short anything this guy goes long on.

btw, Facebook is not a good investment - they will be irrelevant in 5 years...
I actually think those are all pretty good points. I don't think (and it's not what Thiel is saying) that banks A, B, C failed because ran by Republicans and banks X, Y, Z are still around because ran by Democrats, but if there IS a correlation between number of Dem/GOP contributors at a firm and its survival, it's fun to look for explanations, and that's what he's doing, and I think he's about right.
Thomas Crown said:
Greed casued the failure not political affiliation.

If anything he sounds like a bitter man who made poor investments...
Drew said:
Bear and Lehman were first and foremost bond houses. With Republicans largely running the show since 1981, it's no surprise they had to tilt R. (Although I thought Fuld was a big Demo but WTFDIK). Merrill was centered on the middle of America or at least on the WSJ-reading parts of it. Being R was good for wealth mgmt. business. They had businesses that could only grow by leveraging their balance sheets. Which they did. Without success. Not much to do with being Republicans.
E. Bruce Quinn said:
1 and 3 pure, unadulterated BS. Hopefully he meant for it to be BS, but methinks not. However, the denial inferred in #2 does sound like a Republican "value." Lehman tanked? There is a war in Iraq? Oh, well, make me another martini would you Pooh. Platform tennis at 2!
hedley said:
test
john begood said:
Is it politically correct to say 'gay'?

Join the discussion