61–70 of 123 posts
Its unfair and awkward but ventures which heavily push the mission like this one should be pushed harder on their fundamentals by the investor / startup community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Javice interfered in due diligence in a very sophisticated way. JPMC tried to verify user data but Javice claimed they couldn't provide user personal information "due to privacy concerns". In the end Javice was able to convince due diligence team by engaging in multiple layers of fraud. Sure due diligence team could've done a better job, but Javice was a sophisticated adversary. It's not like due diligence team didn'…
> JPMC tried to verify user data but Javice claimed they couldn't provide user personal information "due to privacy concerns". DD guy here. This is the most plausible explanation. When you're under LOI there is a lot of back and forth, which ultimately guide how the purchase agreement gets formulated. So if this was the case, then they would have made the trade off of "ok she's not letting us see the list, but we'll…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I am always astounded at stories like this, you acquired a company for 175 million dollars and didn’t even peak at some real data?
I mean from what I understand, they did peek at the “real data”, it’s just that it was convincingly fabricated.
You need to follow at least some threads all the way down to the ground truth.
First, ask for 20 references of successful happy customers, talk to all of them, and do some verification. Then demand to see all the "real" data and select a random sample of 50 emails and track them all down to real people (or not), and ask the people at those endpoints what is going on.
Yes, this would take a week for a handful of interns/junior employees and one senior staffer. But you are about to invest $175 million. It is worth a bit of actual effort, not just a bunch of handwaving over expensed dinners.
This should be a career-ending move for anyone involved at Chase.
( Remember: should =/= is )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> JPMC tried to verify user data but Javice claimed they couldn't provide user personal information "due to privacy concerns". DD guy here. This is the most plausible explanation. When you're under LOI there is a lot of back and forth, which ultimately guide how the purchase agreement gets formulated. So if this was the case, then they would have made the trade off of "ok she's not letting us see the list, but we'll…
[flagged]
The gist of what she is alleged to have done: “An internal investigation revealed that Javice and Frank chief growth officer Olivier Amar — referred to as "CC-1" in the federal charges — paid a New York data science professor $18,000 to create nearly 4 million fake accounts in order to juice Frank's user numbers, JPMorgan alleged in its lawsuit. Amar later bought a list of student email addresses from a marketing fir…
So they paid someone 18k to just create a random list of fake email addresses? HAHA stupid
Software People: Ha they paid 18k for fake emails!
Business People: .. (nothing, they think nothing of spending 18k to push through a 175MM deal.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> JPMC tried to verify user data but Javice claimed they couldn't provide user personal information "due to privacy concerns". DD guy here. This is the most plausible explanation. When you're under LOI there is a lot of back and forth, which ultimately guide how the purchase agreement gets formulated. So if this was the case, then they would have made the trade off of "ok she's not letting us see the list, but we'll…
[flagged]
There is generally a lot of jargon and acronyms used here. All the time. Just that most of it is regarding programming/development, so people don't notice it.
Also, even if they were spelled out, you'd still need to google the term to understand what it means. I.e., LOI and "Letter of Intent" are still just tokens that represent a concept.
Anyway, wasn't there some business behind the supposed 4M users? You can fabricate 4M users in a csv file and insert them into your production DB, but shouldn't there be some revenue associated with those users, and couldn't the acquirers have looked to see if that revenue existed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they really pay a professor $18K to use a Faker library to generate 4 million records?? That's wild.
If they’re that incompetent that they need to fake their database and think it’s a good idea, there’s little surprise that they’re also too incompetent to realize that task is only a couple hours of coding.
[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-12/jpmorg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> JPMC tried to verify user data but Javice claimed they couldn't provide user personal information "due to privacy concerns". DD guy here. This is the most plausible explanation. When you're under LOI there is a lot of back and forth, which ultimately guide how the purchase agreement gets formulated. So if this was the case, then they would have made the trade off of "ok she's not letting us see the list, but we'll…
[flagged]
Sounds very clearly that JPMC was defrauded, and at the same time did a very poor job of due diligence in a 9 figure acquisition. How did a financial audit not uncover the dramatic mismatch in actual vs. purported activity? How does a transaction value of $41 per user (x 4.25M users) not translate to an auditable revenue stream? This doesn't look good on either party.
A 9-figure acquisition sounds like a lot, but consider that this is less than 0.05% of JP Morgan's market cap. Their market cap is down $6 billion today, and it's not even a particularly notable day. And it's not like that money is completely gone. JPM will sue and probably recover a very large chunk of it. Say that of the $175 million, they get back $150M, so they are out $25M. It's just not that much money to them.…
Who are they going to sue? Javice's stake in the company was only worth $21M.
If the rest is held by shareholders who weren't involved in the running of the company, good luck getting it back from them.