Off Topic, but a Lesson for Investors, Life and Politicans
Last night, Peter Thiel, born in Germany, received the Axel Springer Award in Berlin. Since then, the german media and social networks have been full of criticism. Wire reports describe Thiel as libertarian and right-wing conservative, while commentators use much harsher terms: anti-democratic, Trump supporter, far-right. Palantir fares little better.
On a long car ride recently, I listened to a podcast series on Palantir by Germany's public broadcaster, more than five hours in total. Even the opening was surprisingly candid. Palantir co-founder and CEO Alex Karp, who lived in Frankfurt for several years, comes from a left-wing background. As a student, he protested against racism, and a yearbook photo shows him wearing a keffiyeh. He wanted to earn his doctorate under the late Jürgen Habermas, an icon of the German left, who rejected his draft. The image of an anti-democratic neoliberal with right-wing views, which clings to Karp in Germany, hardly fits this biography.
On the occasion of the award, Thiel gave an extensive interview that also paints a more nuanced picture. He sees the AfD (Germany's far-right party, currently gaining ground) as a reflection of the failure of the political center. He considers debates about Ukraine, China and Israel legitimate, but says the AfD is wrong on all three. Nor does he come across as an unconditional Trump supporter. Trump's 2016 victory, he says, was a reaction to a failing establishment, but the current administration is staffed with loyal yet not very smart people. His infamous 2009 statement that freedom and democracy are incompatible was, in his words, written hastily and corrected two weeks later. What he meant was a critique of libertarians who relied too heavily on elections. The quote appears in almost every report, the correction hardly ever. Critics counter that he has repeated the thesis many times since. Either way, one should know both sides before passing judgment.
Most remarkable is his view of Europe. Thiel wants Europe to be a reliable ally of the United States and sharply rejects any moral equivalence between the US and China. That makes his diagnosis all the harsher: In AI, Europe is worse off today than France once was with the Minitel, a national online service that was overrun by the internet. Germany, he argues, suffers not only from a fear of failure but also from a fear of success, and does not dare to scale companies aggressively. His numbers: Among the 50 richest Americans, 12 are Gen X or younger, 9 of them self-made. In Germany, the figure is 20, and all of them inherited their wealth. I find this criticism largely accurate.
You don't have to agree with everything Thiel and Karp stand for, and there are good reasons to debate the use of Palantir software by security agencies. But the prevailing caricature does not survive serious scrutiny. So why such one-sided coverage? Psychology offers well-researched explanations. And the very same mechanisms cost investors money every single day.
Motivated Reasoning: We see what we want to see
Those who already consider Thiel dangerous read every quote as proof and overlook every qualification. Investors read the quarterly report of their favorite stock the same way: as confirmation, even when margins are shrinking.
Identity Protection: The thesis becomes the self
Those who define themselves politically through their rejection of Thiel would have to give up a piece of themselves with every nuanced view. The committed value investor clings to the value trap for the same reason. At some point, you are no longer defending a thesis, but yourself.
Cognitive Dissonance: Dismiss the information rather than change your mind
Thiel's explanation of his quote is then written off as "pure tactics," his criticism of the AfD as "a distraction." For investors, the profit warning becomes a "one-off slip."
Reactance: Agreeing means losing
Those who find Thiel's criticism of Europe justified would have to concede a point to their bogeyman. And those who have argued with skeptics about their stock for months are reluctant to sell precisely when the skeptics turn out to be right.
What investors can learn from this
Thiel himself offers a fitting image: The moral opposite of "good" is "evil," the functional opposite is "bad." A Ferrari is "evil" because of its fuel consumption, a Trabant is simply "bad." Society's real problem, he argues, is not evil but incompetence. For investors, this distinction is invaluable. What matters is not whether we like a founder, but whether the business works.
Palantir is the best example. Anyone who avoided the stock out of dislike for its founders missed one of the most spectacular rallies of recent years. Sympathy and antipathy are not analytical criteria. The market doesn't ask whom we like, only whether we are right. And this applies beyond the stock market: Anyone who keeps Palantir software out of public security not for substantive reasons, but out of antipathy toward Thiel or Karp, may one day pay for it with human lives.
The desire to stay right is often stronger than the desire to be right. In your portfolio, it costs money. In politics and life, possibly much more.