3 ms·
In the unrelated later article about the "Chicken Libor" later in the document, he says: > Anyway it totally worked? “Georgia agriculture officials suspended t
by piker 7y ago
In the unrelated later article about the "Chicken Libor" later in the document, he says:
> Anyway it totally worked? “Georgia agriculture officials suspended the index late that year after some poultry companies declined to provide documents attesting to the accuracy of the data they submitted.” One possible reading is that companies were willing to lie about chicken prices, but they weren’t willing to lie about whether they were lying about chicken prices. 4 I suppose you could try that with real Libor too.
He missed the point. These guys were willing cause the company to lie. But, as the certifications presumably came from the individuals making them, were unwilling to be personally liable for the statements' accuracy. It's the same principle that underpins executive liability under SarBox.
[Edit: Huge fan nonetheless. Incredible volume of high level content comes from this guy.]
- ineedasername 7y agoHe missed the point That depends on how the certification worked. If it was an internal compliance officer or someone that had to sign off, then you're right. But it also sounds like it might just have been that Company X has to hand over some documents, in which case no specific individual is accountable for certifying accuracy.
- feintruled 7y agoI loved that article. You might be right about the personal liability aspect but maybe there is something else at play too? Perhaps the amount of cognitive dissonance increases beyond some bearable threshold when asked to specifically confirm the lie (basically lie twice). Similar to how when you ask a child "Are you sure it wasn't you who broke the vase?" They made the additional denial, surely once that step has been taken, the hard work is done.. but you can practically see the additional psychological pressure!