4 ms·

The problem here is this wasn’t about MAU. JPMorgan wanted a verified student data asset they could market to, so stale accounts were fine. Diligence focused on

The problem here is this wasn’t about MAU. JPMorgan wanted a verified student data asset they could market to, so stale accounts were fine. Diligence focused on whether Frank had “records” (name, email, DOB, etc.), not whether those records were active. Beyond that, JPMorgan didn’t want to push too hard and risk blowing up the deal as there was competitive pressure. Calling out “these numbers seem odd” could have spooked Jauvice, and they figured the reps & warranties in the contract gave them enough protection if things went south.

TuringNYC 1y ago
>> The problem here is this wasn’t about MAU. JPMorgan wanted a verified student data asset they could market to, so stale accounts were fine. Diligence focused on whether Frank had “records” (name, email, DOB, etc.), not whether those records were active. This isnt about inactive data, they had an outside data scientist create an artificially generated usage dataset!
- brandall10 1y ago
  That's not what I said. JPMorgan thought they were getting legitimate users of the product at some point in time - they didn't care whether or not they were currently active, hence vetting ops didn't really matter much.
wat10000 1y ago
Funny how that has the exact same shape as a typical scam targeted at individuals. They usually rely on creating a sense of urgency and the sense that you could blow the whole thing if you aren't careful. A warrant scam will tell you that they need payment (in gift cards, of course) right now or you're going to jail, and likewise if you hang up or tell anyone what's going on (and thus might have someone tell you that you're being had) you're going to jail. Not far off from "you can't inspect the business you're buying too hard, or the deal is off." And just like with individual scams, that should be a sign that it's shady and you should bail out.
- brandall10 1y ago
  Of course, but this is basic human psychology when power asymmetry is at play. Frank "held the cards" in this deal, so to speak, and was helmed by a CEO that demonstrated sociopathic tendencies willing to do whatever it took. You can of course hold to a particular standard, but if a competitor is willing to relax that standard, you lose a distinct advantage.
  - hobs 1y ago
    No you don't - they are now vulnerable to scams and you are not.
    - brandall10 1y ago
      For this deal, sure. What about others? Many times your competitors will come out ahead. Risky decisions happen all the time in business, as long as the risk is outweighed by the perceived reward.
    - chii 1y ago
      > they are now vulnerable to scams and you are not. if the scam is not going to hurt the agent (in this case, the CEO responsible for the buy out), and the success is going to reward the agent, then the incentives are not completely aligned between the agent and the principle. So signing the deal with less due diligence, then correcting it later (if needed) seems more profitable to the agent, while the principle takes all of the losses (if any).
  - quickthrowman 1y ago
    > Frank "[..] was helmed by a CEO that demonstrated sociopathic tendencies willing to do whatever it took. To be fair, Jamie Dimon also fits this description. This entire case can be explained thusly: “JPM had FOMO during ZIRP and agreed to a stupid deal without doing proper due diligence.” This deal would’ve never happened if rates had not been cut to 0%.
    - deleted 1y ago

TuringNYC 1y ago

>> The problem here is this wasn’t about MAU. JPMorgan wanted a verified student data asset they could market to, so stale accounts were fine. Diligence focused on whether Frank had “records” (name, email, DOB, etc.), not whether those records were active. This isnt about inactive data, they had an outside data scientist create an artificially generated usage dataset!

brandall10 1y ago
That's not what I said. JPMorgan thought they were getting legitimate users of the product at some point in time - they didn't care whether or not they were currently active, hence vetting ops didn't really matter much.

wat10000 1y ago

Funny how that has the exact same shape as a typical scam targeted at individuals. They usually rely on creating a sense of urgency and the sense that you could blow the whole thing if you aren't careful. A warrant scam will tell you that they need payment (in gift cards, of course) right now or you're going to jail, and likewise if you hang up or tell anyone what's going on (and thus might have someone tell you that you're being had) you're going to jail. Not far off from "you can't inspect the business you're buying too hard, or the deal is off." And just like with individual scams, that should be a sign that it's shady and you should bail out.

brandall10 1y ago
Of course, but this is basic human psychology when power asymmetry is at play. Frank "held the cards" in this deal, so to speak, and was helmed by a CEO that demonstrated sociopathic tendencies willing to do whatever it took. You can of course hold to a particular standard, but if a competitor is willing to relax that standard, you lose a distinct advantage.
- hobs 1y ago
  No you don't - they are now vulnerable to scams and you are not.
  - brandall10 1y ago
    For this deal, sure. What about others? Many times your competitors will come out ahead. Risky decisions happen all the time in business, as long as the risk is outweighed by the perceived reward.
  - chii 1y ago
    > they are now vulnerable to scams and you are not. if the scam is not going to hurt the agent (in this case, the CEO responsible for the buy out), and the success is going to reward the agent, then the incentives are not completely aligned between the agent and the principle. So signing the deal with less due diligence, then correcting it later (if needed) seems more profitable to the agent, while the principle takes all of the losses (if any).
- quickthrowman 1y ago
  > Frank "[..] was helmed by a CEO that demonstrated sociopathic tendencies willing to do whatever it took. To be fair, Jamie Dimon also fits this description. This entire case can be explained thusly: “JPM had FOMO during ZIRP and agreed to a stupid deal without doing proper due diligence.” This deal would’ve never happened if rates had not been cut to 0%.
  - deleted 1y ago