Agreed, but I was reiterating the author's (admittedly speculative) point here. It is interesting even if it's not conclusive; the incentive is at least there,

Agreed, but I was reiterating the author's (admittedly speculative) point here. It is interesting even if it's not conclusive; the incentive is at least there, if not the intention. That said, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. I'd call it shrewd business acumen. If the law permits you to reduce your costs using contracted third parties, you'll likely avail yourself of the opportunity when shareholders are demanding returns. It sounds sensational, but I think it's really quite mundane.