The dog in the night time: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Hostility''': combative/aggressive demeanour to criticism | *'''Hostility''': combative/aggressive demeanour to criticism | ||
*'''No errors''': no screw ups, no bad launches: everything is fine. Real companies have setbacks. Especially if defended with hostility - e.g., you threaten to ruin EVERYTHING with your questions. | *'''No errors''': no screw ups, no bad launches: everything is fine. Real companies have setbacks. Especially if defended with hostility - e.g., you threaten to ruin EVERYTHING with your questions. | ||
*'''The dog ate my homework''': Promised answers to your questions are delayed, derailed, lost or excused. There's an excuse for everything. The excuses are implausible/out of proportion with the question. (what's the most plausible explanation: The dog really did eat your homework or ---? | |||
*'''Sleepy backwater''': It’s a boring and unglamorous part of the operational network. No one’s taking any risks there: Libor, Kerviel, Abodolo | |||
*'''Weird whistleblowers''': The people who called it out were unglamorous, outsiders, easy to catagorise as cranks | |||
With all the checks and balances in financial regulation, how did: | With all the checks and balances in financial regulation, how did: | ||
| Line 24: | Line 27: | ||
*Dot com bust | *Dot com bust | ||
*CDOs | *CDOs | ||
*Libor | *Libor | ||
===Women in STEM=== | |||
Does regulation work? | Does regulation work? | ||
- Netting | - Netting | ||
- Diversity | - Diversity | ||
Revision as of 13:51, 28 January 2019
Podcast idea - look at unusual anomalies in the markets and ask why they persist
Categories
Fraudsters
what are the red-flags that an out and out fraud, pyramid, ponzi scheme is going on? are there some consistent themes?
Theories:
- Over-reliance on regulators: we imagine regulators/rating agencies are better resourced, more powerful and more talented than they are. - assumed the SEC was doing its job
- Credibility: Connection to well-regarded community pillars - If George Schultz is on the board the company must be legit, right? We imagine community pillars have done their due diligence on our behalf?
- Interconnectedness of red-flags
- Belief in paradigm shift as part of the story: We’ve banished risk. The internet has changed economics forever
- Micromanager: Single person unusually able to influence/control the narrative
- Cult of personality: single svengali
- Secrecy: Insistence on confidentiality not just of unannounced plans but of entire operation. Black box operations.
- High turnover: Especially when combined with confidentiality. Workplace bullying etc.
- Hostility: combative/aggressive demeanour to criticism
- No errors: no screw ups, no bad launches: everything is fine. Real companies have setbacks. Especially if defended with hostility - e.g., you threaten to ruin EVERYTHING with your questions.
- The dog ate my homework: Promised answers to your questions are delayed, derailed, lost or excused. There's an excuse for everything. The excuses are implausible/out of proportion with the question. (what's the most plausible explanation: The dog really did eat your homework or ---?
- Sleepy backwater: It’s a boring and unglamorous part of the operational network. No one’s taking any risks there: Libor, Kerviel, Abodolo
- Weird whistleblowers: The people who called it out were unglamorous, outsiders, easy to catagorise as cranks
With all the checks and balances in financial regulation, how did:
- Bernie Madoff get away with it? - Author Harry Markopoulous
- Nick Leeson
- Theranos
- Enron
- Dot com bust
- CDOs
- Libor
Women in STEM
Does regulation work? - Netting - Diversity