82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
===Extending the metaphor=== | ===Extending the metaphor=== | ||
Strikes us that this metaphor | Strikes us that this metaphor: of ''defence'' being judged by by consistent perfection, and ''attack'' being judged by momentary inspiration, translates. We wonder how closely this translates to finite and infinite games. | ||
A criminal defendant will be severely prejudiced if there are | A criminal defendant will be severely prejudiced if there are is a ''single'' lapse in her story. The prosecutor, however, needs just one moment of inspiration, to breakdown that story, and find that lapse, and the prosecutions case can hold. | ||
A regulated financial services institution, likewise, must be flawless in its conduct of its regulatory compliance program. That it may be unfailingly virtuous, altruistic, and motivated towards public good in 99% of its affairs will count for nothing if a [[bad apple]] is laundering money in an unregarded | A regulated financial services institution, likewise, must be ''flawless'' in its conduct of its regulatory compliance program. That it may be unfailingly virtuous, altruistic, and motivated towards public good in 99% of its affairs will count for nothing if a single [[bad apple]] is laundering money for a single in an unregarded branch office in Murmansk. By contrast, its supervising regulator, less so. What regulatory oversights it misses do not, generally form part of the public record: “[[what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with]]”. It is not so closely monitored, nor held to account, and — to great extent — it does not matter how ineffectual its regulatory coverage or investigation was in any other regard: if it finds that one regulatory breach it can extract a fine and [[knee slide]] to the gallery. | ||
But, but, but — this is all true as long as you are in defence mode and not attack mode. For — but for an apex predator — ''everyone'' spends some time on attack — punching down — and some on defence — avoiding ''being'' punched down. Client mode is attack; adviser mode is defence. The [[Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]], when investigating [[Bernie Madoff|Madoff]], is in attack mode and, sure it didn’t land one but the expectation is a clear round; when explaining its failure to find anything to a Congressional Committee, it is in ''defence'' mode. | |||
There are notable exceptions, of course but these prove the rule by their relative absence the excoriation hand out to the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] over [[Madoff]], and the public criticism of [[BaFin]] over the [[Wirecard]] affair — but even here the relative punishments are in no way comparable. | There are notable exceptions, of course but these prove the rule by their relative absence the excoriation hand out to the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] over [[Madoff]], and the public criticism of [[BaFin]] over the [[Wirecard]] affair — but even here the relative punishments are in no way comparable. | ||
Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
===Those media ratings in full=== | ===Those media ratings in full=== | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+ Professional sports journalists rate a striker and a defender | |+ Professional sports journalists rate a striker and a defender |