The Rules
The professor I was speaking to is Belgian. He was asking all about my accident, and my Dakar hopes. Funny thing is that Paris-Dakar is not a big deal in the UK, but it is a massive deal in French-speaking countries. He not only knew about Paris-Dakar, he also knew about Thierry Sabine and the like. Once we had finished talking about bikes, we talked about bizz-ness and computer stuff.
So here's me, no degree, talking about computer stuff and technology with a University Professor, and the ways in which I could solve the problems they've got.
I was watching a video on Google last night about Enron and what happened there:
This kind of stuff interests me. I like Economics, and I am cynical. The wheeling and dealing that goes on at the bottom - it's exactly the same as the wheeling and dealing that goes on at the top - only the numbers are different.
If you recall, Enron went completely belly-up in 2002 and produced a massive scandal of fraud and wrongdoing. Everybody was in on it - the Banks, the Accountants, the Lawyers - the whole lot. As long as they were making money - lots of it - everybody looked the other way.
The guy at the head of Enron was a colourful character by the name of Jeff Skilling. Unlike a lot of Fortune 500 Company executives, he rode motocross in his spare time. At one point, he took a bunch of the Enron board of Directors on the Baja 1000 rally in Mexico - all 1,200 miles of it - on motorcycles.
Reporting to him was his chief deal-maker - a guy by the name of Cliff Baxter. Super-intelligent, and manic depressive, he shot himself after the scandal broke.
Jeff Skilling was described as "incandescently brilliant", at the same time as being described as "flawed". He applied to Harvard University and turned up for an interview. The interview famously went like this:
- Professor: Are you smart?
Skilling: No. I'm fucking smart.
The first thing he did - a condition of him taking the job at all - was to use an accounting technique called "Mark to Market". Sounds complicated huh? Really though, it's as simple as this:
- You and I agree a deal. We agree that at some point in the future (say 10 years from now) you will buy a widget from me, and you will pay a billion groats for it. What Mark-to-market allows me to do is to put a million groats on my books today - even though the money won't change hands until ten years from now.
Imagine that for a second. You could make the profits of your company whatever you wanted them to be. Since our share price is related to your profits, you could make the share price whatever you wanted it to be.
You give yourself a million share options - priced at (say) 1 dollar per share. You then manipulate the profits until the share price is $201, then you sell your shares. You just made $200 million. Nice work if you can get it. This is what Skilling - and others - did.
Skilling, brilliant though he may be, is currently serving 24 years in jail. He'll be out when he is 78 years old.
The thing is, I have to admire the guy. My ageing friend and I disagree on this. He is of the opinion that you cannot admire somebody who does things which are plain wrong. My argument is that I don't admire what he did - I admire the brilliance with which he did it. Let me explain.
Skilling knew the rules - the rules of the Market and the rules of business. He played within those rules, using the mechanisms provided by these rules, and managed to do something completely and utterly wrong. But he did it according to the rules. And that was his brilliance. If he was a lawyer, they'd have named a loophole after him (apologies to my ITM for the theft of that phrase).
Everybody who had their hand in the till, they were all looking the other way. Nobody asked too many questions because, if they did, then the answers would cause the gravy train to hit the buffers. When it finally did hit the buffers, everybody took the "if we had known what was going on, we would never have done ..." defence.
Mr Happy was back in to the outsourcer today to do another presentation. We did two, so they should be allowed to do two. This makes it "fair". Those are the rules.
Here's the problem. We have the better solution, but Mr Happy is a "less risk" option. They've been in bizz-ness for longer, and they have done bizz-ness with the outsourcer before. They are friends with people high up in the outsourcer. We, on the other hand, are relying on peoples' sense of fair play and their desire to get the best job done. Like that ever mattered - it's all about who you know, and who your friends are.
That said, we still cracked open the champagne last night when my ageing friend came over with his Missus. When you consider how far we have come, and how we have turned a sure thing for Mr Happy into a two-horse race, we deserve it. All of the late nights, the hours of coding, the proposals written whilst propped up on morphine in a hospital bed, the one-handed typing. We deserve it.
I am expecting a front brake assemble through the post from Martin. When it arrives, my ageing friend is forbidden from touching it - he has form.
So I'm starting to get a little nervous about having no work on the books. Sure, I need the time to complete the software I've been working on for years but I also need a job. Decision is on Monday - please do wish us luck.

