4 ms·

Unless decision-makers go to jail, this means nothing. Execs should not be able to buy themselves out of jail.

by 1024core 6y ago

staticautomatic 6y ago
We should probably consider charging and trying them first.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  That's a great suggestion. Unfortunately, press releases like TFA are seldom followed by criminal charges against executives. This is the big announcement, right here.
- frongpik 6y ago
  First you need to find them. It's not like those in charge leave paper trail that could pin responsibility to them.
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    You’d be surprised how often they do.
sargun 6y ago
How do you prevent the execs from delegating decision making (on paper) to engineering, and then forcing them to make certain decisions?
- codebje 6y ago
  One delegates authority, not accountability.
- yulaow 6y ago
  C-levels should be personally responsible for the decisions "made by the corp". They will need to obviously add checks and verification to what happens inside the company and could not claim anymore they "didn't know" because it would be explicit that their role is exactly to know and respond for it. Simple as that
  - robotdongs 6y ago
    This already occurs with SOX, it's definitely a workable model for processes and decisions not just impacting the finical statements.
    - t0mas88 6y ago
      In theory SOX only has benefits, but in practice the compliance costs due to it are very high. I'm sure some of that is for the better (bad oversight before SOX) but I can't imagine the insane paper tigers that come out of it are a net positive in the end.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    "Knew or should have known". If you're a C-level exec, and you don't know, it's your fault that you don't know.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  Looking at chat records. There are already enough laws to put top executives in jails, it's just that the laws aren't used.
linuxftw 6y ago
Don't forget about the regulators. Homicidal negligence.
nickthegreek 6y ago
At the very least fine could a MUCH higher percentage of annual profit. That would at least give the company incentive to fire people.
- apta_ 6y ago
  Who would get fired though? It seems that it is more likely to affect those lower in the hierarchy.
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  The number here ($2.5 billion) seems to be ~20% of Boeing's 2016 EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization) and ~18% of their 2017 EBITDA. It's ~700% of their 2019 EBITDA (they had a pretty bad year revenue-wise in 2019) and I expect they will have a significantly negative EBITDA for 2020 (it's -$4.6 billion for the 12 months through 2020-09-30). Looking at historical trends at https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/ebitda https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/ebitda it looks like it's something like 25% of an eyeballed "average year" for Boeing. I suspect you're right that this is a little low given what was going on here.

Unless decision-makers go to jail, this means nothing. Execs should not be able to buy themselves out of jail.

staticautomatic 6y ago

We should probably consider charging and trying them first.

jessaustin 6y ago
That's a great suggestion. Unfortunately, press releases like TFA are seldom followed by criminal charges against executives. This is the big announcement, right here.
frongpik 6y ago
First you need to find them. It's not like those in charge leave paper trail that could pin responsibility to them.
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  You’d be surprised how often they do.

sargun 6y ago

How do you prevent the execs from delegating decision making (on paper) to engineering, and then forcing them to make certain decisions?

codebje 6y ago
One delegates authority, not accountability.
yulaow 6y ago
C-levels should be personally responsible for the decisions "made by the corp". They will need to obviously add checks and verification to what happens inside the company and could not claim anymore they "didn't know" because it would be explicit that their role is exactly to know and respond for it. Simple as that
- robotdongs 6y ago
  This already occurs with SOX, it's definitely a workable model for processes and decisions not just impacting the finical statements.
  - t0mas88 6y ago
    In theory SOX only has benefits, but in practice the compliance costs due to it are very high. I'm sure some of that is for the better (bad oversight before SOX) but I can't imagine the insane paper tigers that come out of it are a net positive in the end.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  "Knew or should have known". If you're a C-level exec, and you don't know, it's your fault that you don't know.
xiphias2 6y ago
Looking at chat records. There are already enough laws to put top executives in jails, it's just that the laws aren't used.

linuxftw 6y ago

Don't forget about the regulators. Homicidal negligence.

nickthegreek 6y ago

At the very least fine could a MUCH higher percentage of annual profit. That would at least give the company incentive to fire people.

apta_ 6y ago
Who would get fired though? It seems that it is more likely to affect those lower in the hierarchy.
bzbarsky 6y ago
The number here ($2.5 billion) seems to be ~20% of Boeing's 2016 EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization) and ~18% of their 2017 EBITDA. It's ~700% of their 2019 EBITDA (they had a pretty bad year revenue-wise in 2019) and I expect they will have a significantly negative EBITDA for 2020 (it's -$4.6 billion for the 12 months through 2020-09-30). Looking at historical trends at https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/ebitda https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/ebitda it looks like it's something like 25% of an eyeballed "average year" for Boeing. I suspect you're right that this is a little low given what was going on here.