The dog in the night time: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "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..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Theories: | Theories: | ||
*'''Over-reliance on | *'''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 | *'''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 | *'''Interconnectedness of red-flags | ||
*'''Belief in paradigm shift as part of the story''': We’ve banished risk. The internet has changed economics forever | *'''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 | *'''Micromanager''': Single person unusually able to influence/control the narrative | ||
*'''Cult of personality''': single svengali | *'''Cult of personality''': single svengali | ||
*'''Secrecy''': Insistence on confidentiality not just of | *'''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. | *'''High turnover''': Especially when combined with confidentiality. Workplace bullying etc. | ||
*'''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. | |||
With all the checks and balances in financial regulation, how did: | With all the checks and balances in financial regulation, how did: | ||
Revision as of 13:43, 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.
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 - Anthony Browne
Does regulation work? - Netting - Diversity