[HN Gopher] An Alleged Fraud Uncovered by a Short Seller Ends in...
___________________________________________________________________
An Alleged Fraud Uncovered by a Short Seller Ends in Gunfire
Author : prostoalex
Score : 70 points
Date : 2022-03-25 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| mistrial9 wrote:
| every day in Las Vegas ..
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| > Mr. Beasley said he wished the agents had killed him--he said
| he would rather die than go to prison
|
| He had been shot by the FBI and had a gun in his possession. That
| outcome seems like something he was in control to ensure. His
| revealed preferences show that statement wasn't true.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| It's possibly the case that had he been killed by police his
| insurance plan would reward his heirs differently than if he
| billed himself.
|
| I thought of this because of a weird commercial for life
| insurance.
| vmception wrote:
| According to this source, most plans have just an "exclusion
| period" like 2 years after opening the plan where suicide
| would not be covered but may result in a refund of premium
| payments, after that period seems like they pay out in full
|
| https://www.coverage.com/insurance/life/the-truth-about-
| suic...
| KMag wrote:
| "Life insurance won't pay out if you commit suicide" sounds
| like a common misconception/noble lie worth perpetuating.
|
| On the one hand, I'm generally in favor of trusting people
| to make the right decisions for themselves based on their
| own circumstances if they're given enough information. On
| the other hand, if that one piece of information means the
| difference between life and death... then I feel a bit more
| confident in asserting that everyone is probably better off
| with them living.
| vmception wrote:
| It makes more sense to raise the premiums on people prone
| to it or just refund the premiums, which is also based in
| reality. Protects the insurance pool all the same and
| better.
|
| I don't think random inaccuracies about suicide
| repercussions are worth perpetuating, it just perpetuates
| the ignorance about the subject and general unwillingness
| to discuss the nuances of the subject
| KMag wrote:
| I agree with your first point, but it's orthogonal to the
| question if people who would commit suicide given enough
| money goes to their loved ones should be tricked into not
| committing suicide. And, as far as the utility argument
| is concerned, the insurance pool is best off if they're
| tricked into staying alive and paying into the pool.
|
| As to your second point, I agree in general with reducing
| ignorance about suicide, but this one misconception
| feels... somehow worth the lie. I agree it's not the most
| objectively rational position to take, but if the money
| is the only thing making the difference between life and
| death, I feel like it's better they pretend the money
| isn't there, and it's easier to pretend if they don't
| know they're pretending.
| vmception wrote:
| alright, a non-negligible subset of these are suicide by
| cop attempts. thats just as inconsiderate of their
| feelings as it would be of a loved ones feelings, except
| now there is an additional person potentially screwed up
| just because the dead person believed a myth about their
| life insurance.
| KMag wrote:
| > ... an additional person potentially screwed up just
| because the dead person believed a myth ...
|
| The police and the loved ones will presumably both be
| emotionally better off if the person believes the myth,
| because the myth reduces suicide rates.
|
| We are in agreement that the myth reduces suicide
| rates... right? Or are we talking right past each other
| here?
|
| So, looking at just the cases at the margin where the
| difference is believing the myth or not believing the
| myth, the statements would be "because a dead person
| didn't believe the myth" or "because the myth tricked
| someone into living". We're talking about increased or
| decreased probabilities, but pushing the probabilistic
| argument to the extreme, there are no dead people who
| believe the myth (at the margin where the myth is the
| deciding factor).
|
| There are lots of good arguments against prolonging the
| myth, but sparing the feelings of police and loved ones
| falls on the side of prolonging the myth.
| vmception wrote:
| I don't know. If we are including suicide by cop and
| suicide attempts by cop, I think this isn't reducing
| suicide rates and isn't reducing the trauma some cops
| encounter (for the cops that care). I don't know how it
| compares to all suicides, suicide attempts, or suicides
| that didn't happen.
|
| If you have those numbers, be my guest.
|
| I'll still be for reducing ignorance either way, at best
| I might find it good parlor talk to repeat the concession
| about how the myth tricks people into living.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It may prevent people from committing suicide, but it
| also may prevent people from asking for payouts when they
| are entitled to them. It also causes the seriously in
| pain to continue suffering in an attempt to find some
| other way to die for their families sake.
| KMag wrote:
| Very good points.
| KMag wrote:
| I think the GP is speculating that the perp was in a position
| to nearly force the police to mortally wound him. Given they
| had already shot him once, presumably waving a gun in their
| direction would have drawn a mortal wound.
| MichaelBurge wrote:
| Isn't the insurance payout the proceeds of crime?
|
| Since shooting at the FBI(a crime) is in the causal chain of
| events leading to his estate receiving a payout of money, the
| estate should forfeit that payout.
| sokoloff wrote:
| It is a crime they may have been accused of under other
| circumstances, but legally (assuming life insurance
| eligibility is the question), it is not one they will have
| been _convicted of_ (obviously).
|
| I also strongly suspect that drunk drivers who die in a car
| crash have their life insurance paid out; that's also a
| crime.
| bluetwo wrote:
| Paywalled.
| [deleted]
| thomasjudge wrote:
| https://archive.ph/https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-alleged-f...
| rossdavidh wrote:
| In case anyone else has a problem reaching this, I had to use
| Chrome, otherwise I got "Error code:
| SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP".
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| inasio wrote:
| Here are more details from the source (Hindenburg research):
| https://hindenburgresearch.com/jj-purchasing/
| dessant wrote:
| This is the same team that brought attention to Opera's
| predatory lending apps: https://hindenburgresearch.com/opera-
| phantom-of-the-turnarou...
| inasio wrote:
| And the amazing Nikola downhill self-propelled electric truck
| sofixa wrote:
| Their name is really well chosen.
| codetrotter wrote:
| https://archive.ph/ASgp1
| dannyphantom wrote:
| > "...Individuals allegedly put in hundreds of millions of
| dollars for what were described as high-reward, low-risk
| contracts to fund loans tied to personal-injury lawsuits through
| two companies..."
|
| Makes you wonder if this type of transaction is practised by
| billboard personal injury law firms ("ambulance chasers") across
| the country. With how common personal injury commercials play on
| the radio and television it seems there is no shortage of
| attorneys willing to take a personal injury claim where insurance
| is quick to pay out.
| mikeryan wrote:
| This is not, generally, the law firms but legal investment
| companies (often founded and or run by ex-attorneys). There's
| two, under reported, investment strategies in law. The first is
| funding class action lawsuits for a cut of the return -
| occasionally this can be paying out the actual class before a
| judgement and betting on getting a higher return when the case
| settles or is adjudicated. The second is this one, which is
| paying out to people who have already won a case and need cash
| fast before the normal payout date. It's essentially payday
| lending for smaller settlements.
|
| The billboard guys are just, usually, getting paid their normal
| cut of a lawsuit.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| ex-attorneys !!
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Litigation financing - funding the lawsuit in exchange for a
| percentage of recovery - is not limited to class actions. I
| knew someone that was in a firm that did this. Everything I
| ever heard about it from him made it sound like it was run in
| a very similar manner to venture capital firms. I never once
| heard the word "loan" or any indication that the risk of
| losing every penny invested on a specific lawsuit was
| anything other than "high".
|
| Now, these firms aren't very likely to even take a meeting
| from the type of law firm that advertises on billboards or
| TV.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| Firms that handle lemon law cases in my state operate this
| way, too -- no fee for the client assuming the case is
| actually worth a damn because the law includes a provision
| that the automaker pays the legal fees if they win a
| buyback/replacement/remedy.
| cmauniada wrote:
| Related:
| https://twitter.com/hindenburgres/status/1506976271959564302...
| blobbers wrote:
| This is exactly why I manage my own (closed) fund. Too many scams
| out there. It goes both ways too, in big investment firms you
| have no idea who's money you're investing. It's just a green line
| going up and down.
| toss1 wrote:
| Interesting - any suggestions of pitfalls to avoid and helpful
| resources to start doing similar?
| blobbers wrote:
| If investing is truly a passion of yours, I would spend some
| time working for an institutional investor before you get
| involved in the business.
|
| Most folks are better off using a boglehead style investing
| strategy and not working their regular job.
| vmception wrote:
| Do you do a full master feeder structure? what
| jursidictions+entity types are the offshore feeders? I've
| become re-fascinated by segregated portfolio companies, since
| the closest US analogs dont have enough case law behind them.
|
| I like the concept of pooling all my tax exempt entities
| alongside my taxable ones
|
| Simplifies the investing and exposure, while it does have the
| drawback of increasing compliance costs with a couple countries
| and industry regulators
|
| Curious who your fund admin is too, open to trading notes
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > for what were described as high-reward, low-risk contracts
|
| A very good heuristic is that any investment described as high-
| reward, low-risk is a scam.
| wnevets wrote:
| If someone knew of an easy way to make a lot of money with very
| little risk, why would that person share it with anyone,
| especially in exchange for money?
|
| At some point you have to think the people that invest in these
| type of scams have to know they're scams and are just hoping to
| get in early enough to be closer to the top of the Pyramid.
| carapace wrote:
| Greed, like all negative emotions, makes you stupid. Conmen
| occasionally write books about what they do and they all say
| that greed is the hook that catches their victims.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Access to capital? This site is literally funded by doing
| that!
| HWR_14 wrote:
| If I knew a way to make you 100% every year with no risk, I
| would try my hardest to convince you to let me do that for
| you for 1%. Because finding 1000 people who all agree to that
| makes me 10x as much money as just using my own cash. And
| that's assuming we're all equally rich to start. I could
| probably, if I prove it was true, have each of those 1000
| people write me a check for a multiple of my net worth.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-25 23:01 UTC)