3 ms·
The investors ONLY saw a 28.5% loss (1B/1.4B). In the scheme of things it could have been way worse if the whistleblower didn't speak up. If they gave say 1% of
by cobookman 5y ago
The investors ONLY saw a 28.5% loss (1B/1.4B). In the scheme of things it could have been way worse if the whistleblower didn't speak up. If they gave say 1% of the assets to the whistleblower (10 Million), it wouldn't have really changed the investor payout all that much. BUT it would encourage future whistleblowers. Especially when the whistleblower speaking up earlier prevent further losses to impacted investors.
- londons_explore 5y agoI wonder what the expected change in the loss to investors is compared to the delay in a whistleblower coming forward. I suspect a lot of companies which have illegally covered up losses have later managed to recoup losses to make investors whole again, and have never been discovered. In these cases, investors end up better off without a whistleblower.