This, plus Keating's Fortune rebuttal, is fascinating stuff. Fundamentally, she was the CEO so the buck stops with her; if the company folds because she didn't

This, plus Keating's Fortune rebuttal, is fascinating stuff. Fundamentally, she was the CEO so the buck stops with her; if the company folds because she didn't understand the financials or the practical operations of the business, then the blame is on her. But, you also have to wonder why Keating didn't offer any guidance about the iceberg at which she was steering the ship. It almost sounds like he wrote up some kind of simplified model, not something meant as an actual operating document. She wanted to convert people to employee status and took the doc as justification, rather than understanding the actual data presented. Keating was not employed as CFO or similar role, so apparently decided he was under no real obligation to provide further guidance. I think what's most interesting about this is that I recall doing case studies on basics like this 20 years ago as an undergrad; because it's just that basic. One is left wondering if there's a deeper story that would make these seemingly obvious mistakes (IE: there is no way they could afford to make those people employees) less obvious. Or, was it just hubris that they could keep growing the business / an investor would come along and rescue them.