![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some business jib jabs
Apr. 27th, 2005 01:38 pmAn interesting thing happened yesterday in the business world. PricewaterhouseCoopers refused to "sign off" the 2004 accounts of AIG. Their reasoning was simple. Under the new Sarbanes-Oxley laws in the US, and in the midst of Equitable Life sueing Ernst & Young "for not telling us that our company was in the shit", PwC have concluded that they would rather not go the way of Arthur Anderson, thank you very much.
The new laws in the US make the auditor potentially liable if it signs off accounts that later turn out to be incorrect. This legislation is a classic example of a knee-jerk reaction (to the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom and the fraud at Tyco) that creates more problems than it solves. And PwC (good on 'em) has put its head above the parapet.
You see, the problem with AIG's financial position is that it is so complicated that the true situation might not become clear for months, or even years. Since PwC can therefore say, quite honestly, that it cannot know AIG's real financial state, it cannot sign off on the figures. This means that AIG, one of the biggest companies in the US, cannot publish audited figures. Which, basically, brings the investment system in the US to some kind of crushing halt. And all because of legislators and lawyers.
---
An interesting follow-up to the Phoenix affair. Apart from cheap cars being available at www.phoenix-cars.com (proprieter, one of the Phoenix 4) we also have the spectacle of Sir Digby Jones, head of the CBI, calling the behaviour of the Phoenix 4 "appalling". Now, it's bad enough when that kind of vitriol comes from Denis Skinner. But when the head of the Confederation Of British Industry joins in, you must surely know that you have overstepped the mark.
----
It's election day next Thursday, and I have found out where I am going to vote. It's the Territorial Army Centre on Blackheath. This bereft building smack in the middle of nowhere has presumably been chosen with the explicit aim of achieving the lowest turnout in an urban polling office throughout the country. No bus stops nearby, and it's at the top of the hill. There are no residences within 200 yards. It's the kind of place that you can imagine being a polling office in Royston Vasey.
-----
Ulliott was on the Channel 5 poker a couple of nights ago. After he had come second to a Belfast player called Alex, who called an Ulliott raise with Q8, and promptly won, Ulliott said "a good player would have passed that Q8". What he means, of course, is that in the past, most players would have passed the Q8, which is why Ulliott has won so many tournaments. This time he got called. And, what will happen the next time Ulliott is in a similar position against the same player? How much more careful will he be with his raise? Quite a lot, I should think.
I found another marvellous quote from GPG's book. "Congratulations. Your calling days are over". Yes, they do write that.
When will these professionals realise that the last hand you play in a tournament is not the last hand you will play in all tournaments? People with a reputation for "I will call you if I think I am getting pot odds" will have reversed the situation on the old-style stealers. Because the stealers will now look for other victims, along the lines of burglars choosing easier houses to break into. Thus the guys with the "calling" reputation will be bluffed less, and they can fold more often in return.
Once again Fox's book and his theory of saddle points comes to the rescue. Every time I sit down some amateur who thinks he's a pro tells me that he will defend his blind vigorously -- which lasts precisely until I go all-in, and they then fold.
And Q8 heads up? It's a monster. Against Ulliott, it's a double-headed monster.
The new laws in the US make the auditor potentially liable if it signs off accounts that later turn out to be incorrect. This legislation is a classic example of a knee-jerk reaction (to the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom and the fraud at Tyco) that creates more problems than it solves. And PwC (good on 'em) has put its head above the parapet.
You see, the problem with AIG's financial position is that it is so complicated that the true situation might not become clear for months, or even years. Since PwC can therefore say, quite honestly, that it cannot know AIG's real financial state, it cannot sign off on the figures. This means that AIG, one of the biggest companies in the US, cannot publish audited figures. Which, basically, brings the investment system in the US to some kind of crushing halt. And all because of legislators and lawyers.
---
An interesting follow-up to the Phoenix affair. Apart from cheap cars being available at www.phoenix-cars.com (proprieter, one of the Phoenix 4) we also have the spectacle of Sir Digby Jones, head of the CBI, calling the behaviour of the Phoenix 4 "appalling". Now, it's bad enough when that kind of vitriol comes from Denis Skinner. But when the head of the Confederation Of British Industry joins in, you must surely know that you have overstepped the mark.
----
It's election day next Thursday, and I have found out where I am going to vote. It's the Territorial Army Centre on Blackheath. This bereft building smack in the middle of nowhere has presumably been chosen with the explicit aim of achieving the lowest turnout in an urban polling office throughout the country. No bus stops nearby, and it's at the top of the hill. There are no residences within 200 yards. It's the kind of place that you can imagine being a polling office in Royston Vasey.
-----
Ulliott was on the Channel 5 poker a couple of nights ago. After he had come second to a Belfast player called Alex, who called an Ulliott raise with Q8, and promptly won, Ulliott said "a good player would have passed that Q8". What he means, of course, is that in the past, most players would have passed the Q8, which is why Ulliott has won so many tournaments. This time he got called. And, what will happen the next time Ulliott is in a similar position against the same player? How much more careful will he be with his raise? Quite a lot, I should think.
I found another marvellous quote from GPG's book. "Congratulations. Your calling days are over". Yes, they do write that.
When will these professionals realise that the last hand you play in a tournament is not the last hand you will play in all tournaments? People with a reputation for "I will call you if I think I am getting pot odds" will have reversed the situation on the old-style stealers. Because the stealers will now look for other victims, along the lines of burglars choosing easier houses to break into. Thus the guys with the "calling" reputation will be bluffed less, and they can fold more often in return.
Once again Fox's book and his theory of saddle points comes to the rescue. Every time I sit down some amateur who thinks he's a pro tells me that he will defend his blind vigorously -- which lasts precisely until I go all-in, and they then fold.
And Q8 heads up? It's a monster. Against Ulliott, it's a double-headed monster.
