Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sileni | Hacker News Reader

I'd be a bit worried that was like playing Russian Roulette. At some point, the companies have to actually correct right? I imagine the reason they were able to take the hit was the number of people waiting to buy low already. That number of people has to be consumed to a certain extent each time a cycle happens.

I mean, if there's fundamental problems, it eventually has to reflect in the stock price... right?

Please?

View on HN

>I mean, if there's fundamental problems, it eventually has to reflect in the stock price... right?

From a business perspective, poor IT security doesn't have to be a fundamental problem. Occasionally beating up your customers may be fine, and being voted as worst company in America isn't nessesarily that bad either.

Are there fines high enough to impact business? Are you on the receiving end of new legislation because of the event? Is the market both capable and willing to punish you? Depressingly often the answer to all of those is "no".

Well, that's the thing, they don't _have_ to correct. Look at Enron. They were huge and I can clearly remember people buying in post revelations saying: "oh it's going to come back".

Sometimes, maybe. Perhaps at insolvency. Worldcom looked pretty healthy in 2002, then they were chapter 11.

Just like the previous mention of Enron, Worldcom engaged in systematic large-scale accounting fraud. Very different from the Equifax breach situation.

The thing about roulette is that you can bet most numbers except a couple, and do pretty well in the short term, albeit with small winnings. But the odds are still against you long term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com