Service of Too Big to Question

October 12th, 2015

Categories: Due Diligence, Real Estate, Scams, Trust

 

Due diligence

In the news last week were at least two examples of people who should have known better. They conducted zero due diligence on activities of an individual or about a company for which they were about to pay dearly either because of the stellar background of the former or the size of the deal in the latter instance–or maybe because they were gullible [unlikely] or lazy. In all cases people were not doing their jobs.

Anupreeta Das and Jean Eaglesham’s Wall Street Journal story, “Harvard, Goldman, VC…Fugitive,” is about Iftikar Ahmed, known as “Ifty” to his friends. [Shifty is more appropriate.] They report that he “allegedly stole $65 million” from his partners at Oak Investment Partners. He “exploited the trust-based culture of the venture capital firm,” they wrote. According to the reporters, “Mr. Ahmed’s former colleagues at Norwalk, Conn.-based Oak found that he used doctored deal documents, phony exchange rates and fake invoices to siphon off millions of dollars into secret bank accounts, according to prosecutors and regulators. Oak made the discoveries only after Mr. Ahmed was arrested on insider-trading charges unrelated to his work at the firm.” Nobody knows where Ifty is these days–India they think.

The article describes the fascinating details and is worth a read. What got me was a trustsideline detail. Ifty’s wife was able to buy a Manhattan apartment for $8.5 million cash weeks after he was arrested! The intrusive financial raking that small fries must go through to buy a co-op is insulting, so clearly, this purchase must have taken place at a condo whose board members wear blinders. They aren’t the only board so equipped. Please read on.

Next, I was glued to The New York Times article, “A Deal That Still Haunts Hewlett-Packard” which you should also read. The allegations illustrate inconceivable neglect by a CEO and board of a publicly owned company. To describe their vetting process as “scrutiny light” is an exaggeration in the $11 billion purchase of a British company called Autonomy, covered by reporter James B. Stewart. Most people would do more research before purchasing a vacuum cleaner than HP’s chairman Léo Apotheker and the HP board did before buying a foreign software company.

wearing blindersAccording to Stewart, “Some consider the Autonomy acquisition to be the worst corporate deal ever. Just how bad is confirmed by the latest revelations from a shareholders’ suit over the deal: Mr. Apotheker didn’t even read the due diligence report on Autonomy that H.P. commissioned from KPMG, the giant accounting firm. Nor did Raymond J. Lane, the board chairman, or any other member of the board, according to a report prepared by the law firm Proskauer Rose, which was hired to represent H.P.’s independent directors.”

Stewart notes that the executive summary contained “numerous warnings.” But they didn’t read the executive summary either. [Stewart did--as well as the full report.] He wrote: “The executive summary stresses repeatedly that Autonomy stonewalled KPMG accountants, who were granted ‘access to very limited proprietary financial and tax information.’” The summary questioned the “claimed stellar revenue growth” and Autonomy’s “revenue recognition practices,” crucial backup information to justify such an expensive acquisition. 

In the first instance, does a “trust-based culture” have a place in today’s world? Were the Oak venture capital partners asleep at the switch, busy doing similar fiddles or simply blindsided?

Regarding the second example, I Googled “most expensive vacuum cleaners,” and saw one that cost $5,599.99. Would you pay that much based on a brochure claim that it was worth the money with no other information? Stewart wrote, “I’d say that for $11 billion, HP should have been able to see whatever it wanted.” Do you agree?

warning

 

 

Tags: , ,

5 Responses to “Service of Too Big to Question”

  1. Lucrezia Said:

    The illiteracy rate is reportedly still embarrassingly high in the US. Perhaps these folks were among those who slipped through the cracks?

  2. Jeanne Byington Said:

    Lucrezia,

    Perhaps….maybe all they can do is count money.

  3. hb Said:

    As anyone who has been bullied will tell you, the bigger the bully, the worse the bullying. And as anyone who has worked in the banking industry, especially with investment bankers and management recruiters, will tell you, big money corrupts more effectively than little.

    Our two greatest (in my opinion) twentieth century presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, understood this well, Teddy as a trust buster, and Ike in his balanced management of the country’s affairs despite the opposition of his immoderate, but powerful, right wing and especially in his Farewell Address warning against the military-industrial complex — a warning second only in importance to President Washington’s against entangling alliances.

    The two examples you describe of, to put it politely, poor business decisions, based upon my experience, were not as much the consequence of inadequate due diligence and the like. Rather, they are evidence of core corporate corruption that is inevitably the consequence of excessive size and power. The massive mountains of money the people involved must have made as a consequence of their actions only reinforces that old American axiom: Greed pays.

    What we need is a President, like Ike and Teddy, smart enough and tough enough, capable of doing something about it. Big business and big money must be cut down to size.

  4. Jeanne Byington Said:

    hb,

    One of the first changes must involve the unlimited funds corporations are permitted to donate to candidates. That must stop.

    It would be un-American to restrict the amount of money a person could make but taxes could help tone things down in this regard.

    I can think of only one of the current candidates on both sides who would want to do what you describe. Whether or not he can is another matter.

    If you worked in the venture capital company I wrote about and one of your partners had fleeced you of $65 million, that would be punishment enough and the fact that you didn’t know about it isn’t illegal–unless his thefts meant that your company didn’t admit to profits and didn’t pay the taxes it should.

    HP shareholders must be blue with anger. Corporate directors are paid plenty not to speak of CEOs. I have no clue what those on the HP board are compensated but some of the highest paid board members see checks of $500,000/year according to something I read on Google. What infuriates me is that I’ve been on countless non profit and 501c3 boards as a volunteer as well as on a co-op board that managed the building I lived in–we were all volunteers as well. I took my responsibilities seriously and devoted hours as did most of my colleagues. Guess these folks would consider us all A-1 chumps.

  5. hb Said:

    Viva Bernie!

Leave a Reply


Clicky Web Analytics