Bad apple: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|systems|{{image|bad apple|jpg|}}}}{{dpn|/bæd ˈæpl/|n|}}One of those mischievous human imps occupying unobserved crevices in the great steampunk machine who, by their human frailty, ruin the best-laid plans of the machines.
{{a|systems|{{image|bad apple|jpg|}}}}{{dpn|/bæd ˈæpl/|n|}}One of those mischievous human imps occupying unobserved crevices in the great steampunk machine who, by their human frailty, ruin the best-laid plans of the machines.


On the conventional wisdom, [[bad apple]]s are the remaining fly in the ointment between us and the sunlit uplands of [[financial services utopia]]. Once the last one can be removed all will be well in perpetuity.
On the conventional wisdom, [[bad apple]]s are the sole remaining fly in the ointment separating us from the sunlit uplands of [[financial services utopia]] that our patient labours have earned. Once the last bad apple has been rooted out all will be well in perpetuity.


The JC wonders whether we should be quite so surprised. Bad apples gonna be bad. They will always find and exploit [[Zero-day vulnerability|zero-day flaws]] in the system, ''which is [[Air crashes v financial crashes|what we should expect bad apples to do]]''. These they will find them exactly where the system least expects them to be found, and is therefore not looking: apparently harmless, sleepy backwaters. [[LIBOR]] submissions. [[Enron|The accounting department]]. The [[Kweku Abodoli|Delta-one index swaps desk]]. In a [[Archegos|family office]].
It’s not clear what we'll all then ''do'', but this is but a quibble.
 
The JC ponders human nature and wonders whether we should be quite so credulous. For ''bad apples gonna be bad''.  
 
Perhaps we would be better worrying less about ''curing'' humans of their nature, and more about ''neutralising'' its unwanted effects.
 
There will always be bad apples, and they will always seek out, find and exploit [[Zero-day vulnerability|zero-day flaws]] in the system. We should expect this, because it is in their — ''our'' —nature. what ''which is [[Air crashes v financial crashes|This is what bad apples do]]''.  
 
Bad apples will find [[Zero-day vulnerability|zero-day vulnerabilities]] exactly where the system least expects them, and is therefore paying least attention: ostensibly harmless, sleepy backwaters. [[LIBOR]] submissions. [[Enron|The accounting department]]. The [[Kweku Abodoli|Delta-one index swaps desk]]. In a [[Archegos|family office]].
 
Leaving it to “the system” to detect and destroy bad apples — by policy attestation, outsourced compliance personnel in Manila reading from [[playbook]], “A.I.-powered” software applications — is the Bond villain’s preferred method of despatching Bond: tying him up and leaving him unattended while a nasty-looking but plainly fallible clockwork machine counts down from a thousand.
 
These risk control systems often trip up peaceable, but ignorant, citizens as they go about their quotidian day. Wised up bad apples have already worked out the flaws and work-arounds.
===How to spot a bad apple===
The regrettable thing about bad apples is their habit of looking like boring functionaries, and sometimes even good guys, right up to the moment they reveal their rottenness.
 
This is another way of saying a bad apple that doesn’t ''look'' like a bad apple, and that no one ''believes'' is a bad apple, isn’t really a bad apple.
 
It won't really due to say we must be better at spotting bad apples — thereby spreading by association the stigma of bad appledom on those who failed to spot. ''Why'' did they not notice perfidy going on around them? Are they on commonly stupid, or or have their bullshit detectors been somehow disarmed?
 
Might they have been disarmed by ''process''?
 
To test this hypothesis consider what happens to those who do call bullshit.


But ''who'' the bad apples are depends on who is asking, and, critically, ''when''.
But ''who'' the bad apples are depends on who is asking, and, critically, ''when''.

Revision as of 19:43, 18 January 2023

The JC’s amateur guide to systems theory
Bad apple.jpg
Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Bad apple
/bæd ˈæpl/ (n.)
One of those mischievous human imps occupying unobserved crevices in the great steampunk machine who, by their human frailty, ruin the best-laid plans of the machines.

On the conventional wisdom, bad apples are the sole remaining fly in the ointment separating us from the sunlit uplands of financial services utopia that our patient labours have earned. Once the last bad apple has been rooted out all will be well in perpetuity.

It’s not clear what we'll all then do, but this is but a quibble.

The JC ponders human nature and wonders whether we should be quite so credulous. For bad apples gonna be bad.

Perhaps we would be better worrying less about curing humans of their nature, and more about neutralising its unwanted effects.

There will always be bad apples, and they will always seek out, find and exploit zero-day flaws in the system. We should expect this, because it is in their — our —nature. what which is This is what bad apples do.

Bad apples will find zero-day vulnerabilities exactly where the system least expects them, and is therefore paying least attention: ostensibly harmless, sleepy backwaters. LIBOR submissions. The accounting department. The Delta-one index swaps desk. In a family office.

Leaving it to “the system” to detect and destroy bad apples — by policy attestation, outsourced compliance personnel in Manila reading from playbook, “A.I.-powered” software applications — is the Bond villain’s preferred method of despatching Bond: tying him up and leaving him unattended while a nasty-looking but plainly fallible clockwork machine counts down from a thousand.

These risk control systems often trip up peaceable, but ignorant, citizens as they go about their quotidian day. Wised up bad apples have already worked out the flaws and work-arounds.

How to spot a bad apple

The regrettable thing about bad apples is their habit of looking like boring functionaries, and sometimes even good guys, right up to the moment they reveal their rottenness.

This is another way of saying a bad apple that doesn’t look like a bad apple, and that no one believes is a bad apple, isn’t really a bad apple.

It won't really due to say we must be better at spotting bad apples — thereby spreading by association the stigma of bad appledom on those who failed to spot. Why did they not notice perfidy going on around them? Are they on commonly stupid, or or have their bullshit detectors been somehow disarmed?

Might they have been disarmed by process?

To test this hypothesis consider what happens to those who do call bullshit.

But who the bad apples are depends on who is asking, and, critically, when.

Often, the people who look like heroes — NASDAQ chairmen, visionary innovators, star traders —before the fact only start to look like bad apples after it. And vice versa.

Before and after fact: a play in two acts

Quiz time: taking the information supplied about who everyone thought was the hero, or bad apple, before a celebrated financial markets catastrophe, fill in who you think it might have turned out to be after the event.

The JC’s famous “guess the bad apple”™ game
Incident Before After
Hero Bad Apple Hero Bad Apple
Enron Jeff Skilling
Ken Lay
Andrew Fastow
Fortune Journalist Bethany MacLean
Short-seller Jim Chanos
_______ _______
Madoff Bernie Madoff
Fairfield Sentry
The SEC
Option Trader Harry Markopolos
Barron’s Journalist Erin Arvedlund
_______ _______
Barings Nick Leeson
Peter “not terribly difficult” Baring
Er... _______ _______
Archegos Bill Huang
Co-heads of PB, everywhere
Junior credit officer _______ _______
FTX Sam Bankman-Fried
Caroline Ellison
Matt (So it’s a ponzi scheme?) Levine _______ _______
WireCard Markus Braun
Jan Marsalek
BaFin
FT Journalist Dan McCrum
Internal lawyer Pav Gill
Short-seller Matthew Earl
_______ _______

The JC’s view: the “bad apple” concept is not a good one if the virtue of one’s applehood is only apparent in hindsight.

See also