Hmmm
Cryptocurrency is good for this….
1439 posts • joined 4 Apr 2008
This is getting to resemble the Lloyds (of London) reinsurance spiral crisis from the 1980s/1990s (for those of us old enough to remember that).
It turned out that a lot of insurance was (in the end) reinsured with many of the original insurance when all of the intermediate contracts were factored out.
One large adverse event/failure and the whole spiral unwinds catastrophically...
This led to greater regulation/oversight/disclosure for good reason, some of which was that relatively unsophisticated "Names" (private individuals) made loads of money in the good times, but when it all went wrong, they were on the hook for liquidity/claims etc. and many lost everything.
Everything old is new again.
Not that I was expecting to understand any of the maths, the macroscopic two-level Hamiltonian thingy looks impenetrable, but I was wondering if this is also caused by mathematical markup/ formatting getting screwed up OR if they have invented a whole load level of brainf@ck style notation:
$${{{{{\mathcal{H}}}}}}=\hslash \left({\begin{array}{lc}{\omega }_{{{{{\rm{B}}}}}}[{N}_{{{{{\rm{B}}}}}}(t)]&-{{\Omega }}\\ -{{\Omega }}&{\omega }_{{{{{\rm{S}}}}}}\end{array}}\right),$$
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522152250/d283119dprem14a.htm#toc283119_20
P.49, second (full) paragraph
Mr. Musk also disclosed that his acquisition proposal was no longer subject to the completion of financing and business due diligence.
This doesn't mention skipping Accounting or Tax due diligence, but I don't think that is what is at question here.
In the UK at least, they should play “Greensleeves” (on a Glockenspiel) from the speakers as the safest tune.
People will (in the warmer seasons) either look round as they fancy an ice-cream, or in the colder seasons look round and wonder who is trying to sell ice-cream in the cold.
If they are going fast enough, people will still hear but can always quote Eric Morecambe and say “he’ll never sell any going at that speed!”
Stock-takes are usually given to the junior trainees since it often involves being on a remote, cold
industrial site at an early hour at a weekend or public holiday, up a ladder or in a warehouse trying to find a serial number for a widget or dipping the level in a huge oil storage tank.
Then they take you for a cuppa while they pump whatever was in the tank into the next one so that's full too when you get to it....
Or when counting vehicles, they drive them round for you to tick off the reg numbers, and then drive them round the corner and back past you again after swapping the plates over...
Or Trainee:"what's your stock valuation policy? FIFO/LIFO/Weighted Average". FD "FOFO - F@ck off and find out""
Or (possibly my favourite), a car factory says that there are some cars with luminous paint destined for the Scandinavian market parked amongst all the others (hundreds). The trainee doing the stock-take is given a torch and a blanket to go and find them. After 30 minutes they happen to glance back at the main factory windows to see most of the workforce laughing at them....
But I digress (I was a Coopers & Lybrand audit trainee nearly 30 years ago....)
After all, Deloitte were deceived / allowed themselves to be deceived
Precisely - if there is systematic collusion at the senior management level to deceive the auditors deliberately then there is not much the auditors can do about it, unless they get lucky and pick up on inconsistencies and start digging deeper.
Additionally a substantive testing approach (aka ticking and bashing transactions back to invoices/assets etc.) vs. a controls-based approach (i.e. rely on internal controls by testing those internal controls) could give differing results in a case of deliberate collusion to mislead.
Not a physicist either but:
A black hole "gobbles up light" only because light cannot travel fast enough along the spacetime infall to escape once inside the Event Horizon. It's a bit like trying to swim up a waterfall.
Light does not have mass, so that's not what is causing it (directly).
The sun will be losing so much mass (i.e. much more than the sunshine/coronal mass ejections we know and love presently....) at the Red Giant stage that Solar System planetary orbits will shift outwards due to this change in gravitational mass from the sun.
If the mass stayed the same then the density change wouldn't matter (unless we were then in the solar atmosphere in which case drag would send the smoking ember that was Earth spiralling in to the sun)!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022