Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 2748318" data-attributes="member: 9225">OK. Some companies are in litigation for some things. It amazes me that anyone would believe this magically ensures their honesty, unless of course, they were ideologically devoted to corporations. Hm -- and it's your job, you say?You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view. The fact is that post-Enron accountability measures are aimed mostly as boards and financial statements, such as the rules for outside board members and the cooling of period to ensure independence. Charles Ryan is not making a financial statement beyond saying that the D&D brand is driving more profit than it did before.Sure. That's why energy companies are testifying under oath right n . . . oh, wait, they aren't. Oops!Charles Ryan cannot be fudging sales numbers because his statements say nothing of how many SKUs ae being moved. Making money hat can be categorized under a brand is not the same as moving SKUs. In fact, it is difficult to construct a scenario in which he might be lying, because his statements are materially vague.Nobody really seems to want to find this out s much as believe that it means that more PHBs are selling than ever.Actually, it is relevant to us, because details about what it means help determine why things are in their current shape. You don't know anything about the business of gaming outside of what a layperson would. It seems we're even, except of course that it's easier to educate yourself about corporate governance than the business of a specialized niche hobby.It has nothing to do with that. Licensors are a special case because they rely on the value of somebody else's property. This means that false representation of the property can damage them (i.e. Activision vs, Viacom).That is not really an ethical position beyond basic egoism.You are arguing that the equivalent of these things in corporate governance will always work now. That's  . . . super.No, they haven't. The idea of hand-off market correction is a joke. Exxon never suffered a year where they lost money do to the Valdez. From LTCM to the less-known companies involved in Enron (RBC conspired with them to conceal losses and were not punished), the trend has been that only massive malfeasance can have consequences for individuals. And that's without getting into the Butcher of Bhopal . . . yet somehow, you think that a bank (RBC) that concealed billions in losses for Enron can get off scot-free while talking about D&D cannot even be phrased to put a company in the best light. This defies credulity.Well, no, they don't, because the cost isn't high enough. That speaks directly to the issue, really.You misread. You are saying that it would be impossible for Charles Ryan to say anoytjing without spinning it to look good. You are simultaneously asking for an unwarranted degree of trust and, of course, denying that companies should actually have to be any more trustworthy than the letter of the law defines. This is a contradiction.Nothing of the sort. I'm talking about making the most positive statements possible without drawing legal penalties. It is not "circumventing" anything to present those in the best light, even if it means not discussing certain particulars.</blockquote>

Verification