6 ms·

Having scanned the documents, I can imagine a dynamic where Ellison was the CEO, but SBF was really pulling the strings. I bet many companies are like that, wh

Having scanned the documents, I can imagine a dynamic where Ellison was the CEO, but SBF was really pulling the strings. I bet many companies are like that, where investors or a chairman are the real decision maker and the CEO is managing downwards only. Especially when you have a complex corporate setup where you are told to request funds and resources from a parent org etc. If I am in a C-level position again I would definetly avoid a situation where I was C-level in name only, if only to avoid the legal risk.

Gareth321 4y ago
> If I am in a C-level position again I would definetly avoid a situation where I was C-level in name only if only to avoid the legal risk. How much are they paying, exactly?
- aldanor 4y ago
  Barely fits in an int32.
  - salawat 4y ago
    It doesn't matter. Keep your nose clean. Do not enable shady people to do shady things using you as a plausibly deniable umbrella. No matter how profitable.
ls15 4y ago
That restaurant at the corner that never has guests, but doesn't go bankrupt, is probably the same.
LatteLazy 4y ago
I get where you are coming from, but if she was CEO, she was responsible for her actions (and inactions) in that position. Letting some people off is not just and the various narratives these people are all spinning to avoid responsibility for their actions are ALL equally BS.
- benjaminwootton 4y ago
  As the CEO of a company then you are still subservient to the chairman, board, investors, CEO of the group etc. Its a difficult dynamic at the level when you start to carry civil and criminal liability too.
- csomar 4y ago
  Of course. That’s the price you pay for getting a high salary and big benefits. And that’s why the effective beneficiary cares about who owns the things or who actually really control the thing. I have seen this dynamic way too many times (especially with spouses being “CEOs” or directors)
knorker 4y ago
Yeah, how much would you really lose sight of a multi billion dollar business you own 90% of? (at least I read that it was 90%)

Gareth321 4y ago

> If I am in a C-level position again I would definetly avoid a situation where I was C-level in name only if only to avoid the legal risk. How much are they paying, exactly?

aldanor 4y ago
Barely fits in an int32.
- salawat 4y ago
  It doesn't matter. Keep your nose clean. Do not enable shady people to do shady things using you as a plausibly deniable umbrella. No matter how profitable.

ls15 4y ago

That restaurant at the corner that never has guests, but doesn't go bankrupt, is probably the same.

LatteLazy 4y ago

I get where you are coming from, but if she was CEO, she was responsible for her actions (and inactions) in that position. Letting some people off is not just and the various narratives these people are all spinning to avoid responsibility for their actions are ALL equally BS.

benjaminwootton 4y ago
As the CEO of a company then you are still subservient to the chairman, board, investors, CEO of the group etc. Its a difficult dynamic at the level when you start to carry civil and criminal liability too.
csomar 4y ago
Of course. That’s the price you pay for getting a high salary and big benefits. And that’s why the effective beneficiary cares about who owns the things or who actually really control the thing. I have seen this dynamic way too many times (especially with spouses being “CEOs” or directors)

knorker 4y ago

Yeah, how much would you really lose sight of a multi billion dollar business you own 90% of? (at least I read that it was 90%)