351–360 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For it to not be fraud you'd have to actually exchange services proportional to the line items. That isn't what was described. Falsifying line items to juice your numbers is fraud plain and simple.
Yet we see it happening all the time with various AI deals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dollars/receivables in and dollars/deliverables out is just a question of rate, unless I'm missing something. If a 10 billion dollar company has a per-second dollar out/in rate of $1,000,000 due to actual organic business, a company with $2,000,000 can set up an LLC it buys and sells from, and legally 'swap' $1,000,000 a second back and forth in services "bought and sold" to mimic the appearance of the $10B company,…
Correct. These kind of metrics invite fraud exactly because they are not rooted in reality. "Money circulation" is a bad metaphor. https://oleganza.com/all/money-does-not-circulate/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For it to not be fraud you'd have to actually exchange services proportional to the line items. That isn't what was described. Falsifying line items to juice your numbers is fraud plain and simple.
No, there is no proportionality aspect to the law. Once you’re in the support and software subscription realm, quite vast amount of “value” can be charged for with nothing being done.
Sure, you could inflate your numbers a bit and likely get away with it. But it's still fraud (getting away with it doesn't make it not a crime) and you will likely be caught if you overdo it.
This seems like bad news for regular investors, and good news for insiders. Reporting is burdensome, sure, but being listed on public exchanges is not a requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Americans who invest money don't trade at all. They pay some guy at a bank to do it, and the guy at the bank is exactly the kind of guy who is trading at 3am.
Financial illiteracy will be the end of democracy
This seems like bad news for regular investors, and good news for insiders. Reporting is burdensome, sure, but being listed on public exchanges is not a requirement.
it used to be raise money. now that money is done privately. the result exacerbates the gap between private and public markets and ultimately between rich and poor. Private market participation is usually for accredited investors where you need $1m net worth.
Public markets are one of the best ways to create wealth in the US, if the historical record is any hint about the future. Fewer public companies gives regular investors less choice. So if you're a private company and you have 1/2 as many reports to file each year, well now you have a slightly less onerous reporting regime and slightly tilts in favor of going public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarbanes-Oxley-Act Like the building and electrical code, these regulations were written in blood.
> The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron. Except Enron's results were audited . By (now defunct) Arthur Anderson: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Collapse The auditing already existed and didn't stop Enron (or WorldCom; see also t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not actually fraud if there is some ostensible service they're performing. Business units within businesses 'pay' each other for 'services' all the time. Ditto for subsidiaries. Whether something is fraud might come down to intent alone. The line between legal and illegal business transactions can be murky as hell.
For it to not be fraud you'd have to actually exchange services proportional to the line items. That isn't what was described. Falsifying line items to juice your numbers is fraud plain and simple.