> we (or at least I) nonetheless place the bulk of the blame for fraud on the malicious seller, not the hapless buyer.
I agree, and find the tone of this thread interesting because it is very much reversed. In that blame seems to be falling on the buyer for not knowing better. Yet, it was the seller that seemed to manipulate the business to inflate standard business metrics at the expense of sustainability. Further, the investment banks then turned a blind eye to the state of the business and facilitated the sale.
This reminds me of the sub-prime fiasco. Ie. we had a a system where everyone optimized their own position, but overall those optimizations led to net losses. Same seems to apply here--Private equity optimized their own position, Fund managers likewise, yet the company itself is no longer viable. The long term outcome of this is a failed economy unless systemic corrections are made before that happens.
I agree, and find the tone of this thread interesting because it is very much reversed. In that blame seems to be falling on the buyer for not knowing better. Yet, it was the seller that seemed to manipulate the business to inflate standard business metrics at the expense of sustainability. Further, the investment banks then turned a blind eye to the state of the business and facilitated the sale.
This reminds me of the sub-prime fiasco. Ie. we had a a system where everyone optimized their own position, but overall those optimizations led to net losses. Same seems to apply here--Private equity optimized their own position, Fund managers likewise, yet the company itself is no longer viable. The long term outcome of this is a failed economy unless systemic corrections are made before that happens.