Important to highlight that Excel’s row limit brought down Charlie Javice
cc: @ryxcommar@twitter.com
Due diligence check #2: code to search all docs for Excel row limit multiples
We are learning so much, investing is easy
https://twitter.com/shitmgmtsays/status/1613975696757624833?s=46&t=GnVNlJhMEPl0RYdOFRyG9Q
Due diligence check #3: check font vintages to make sure forged docs don’t feature a font of the future
I take it back—investing is hard https://twitter.com/markcwebster/status/1614407749013569536
Making up fake clients is a thing. Here's Wirecard pulling it off with a SoftBank raise:
https://www.ft.com/content/996c3c9b-c095-42c9-baf9-d07b1b319c9d
Wirecard used client data from one segment to support a fake segment & wouldn’t share anything in writing. SoftBank could only view the data at a one-time screening at Wirecard HQ
So if you wanna do fraud, just say no to DD & make them come to you. It’ll come off as confidence
Full JPM/Javice complaint here. It’s full of gems
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.81082/gov.uscourts.ded.81082.1.0.pdf https://twitter.com/shitmgmtsays/status/1614462882095431681
Email exchange on how to make fake data look more real. Amateur hour fraud over here. Never put anything in writing. Is this because GenZ hates the phone
These are Task Rabbit level fees, not “commit fraud” level fees
C’mon, fraudsters, know your worth.
So I think there are at least two broader takeaways from this debacle:
1) Due diligence. I've tweeted enough about this re: FTX, but I do have some sympathy for the teams having to conduct. When a company provides a data room with millions, billions of data points --
with separate teams designated to examining one piece of the giant pie, I can imagine a scenario where the legal team finds 2 red flags, finance finds 3, HR finds 3...collectively they'd add up, but sometimes these red flag sightings even get buried due to internal politics
Sometimes you're conducting due diligence knowing that your boss' boss' boss needs to get this deal done to plug a revenue hole. So it's always the case that diligence teams miss obvious signs. It's that the signs are shared, surfaced, and worse, they are seen and buried
Other takeaway is more of a side rant. Data science. It is a tool, not a science, and it's intended to support "data-driven decisionmaking." However, there is simply no such thing.
Data science is, when used in business, is almost unilaterally data laundering -- using data, using unconscious or conscious bias, to drive home the point that you want to see
Not illegal or wrong, but I do hope people get that data isn't without bias
RIP data science
There’s also a regular debate about the value of learning calculus, and that’s a whole ‘nother thing. I’m Team Calculus bc it teaches problem solving. But everyone seems very upset about not using the quadratic formula on a daily basis or whatever https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1614437126103498757
BT/DT, quit a high-paying job because it was unethical. The higher-priced the consultant, the more likely they will (grudgingly?) lie for money.
@Shitmgmtsays Revenue or product hole — I have been involved in transactions where there are obvious risks (which you try to mitigate in the agreement) but the target has something of value that is independently worthwhile
@misanthropesq yes, definitely
@Shitmgmtsays when the investors are actually doing the work and they're getting fake data, it's hard to say they're badly at fault given how often there's literally no work done at all.