#risk

Is anyone else experiencing massive data and reporting issues for their LOB? An example would be incorrect regulatory reporting sent externally. It feels like the shift higher up to push for automation and restructure is placing health plans at compliance risk. Are we just going all in here despite legal, regulatory, and future RFP risk? This seems obvious as I'm typing, but more curious if others are seeing this.

Since I’m seeing people worried about layoffs, should I decline if a position is offered to me? I had an interview that went well but I don’t want to end up getting sc--wed over by leaving my current company if I am offered a job with Cigna and end up being laid off a few months down the road

I want to start this conversation because something isn’t adding up in the way our company talks about risk and reward.

We’ve all heard the narrative:
“Partners take on the financial risk, while employees share in the success.”

But when you look at how our compensation and margins actually work, the picture appears to be very different.

How the Current Model Really Works
Here’s what the numbers show:
• 11-12% profit margin is built into the financial model for LP and GP payments every year. Approximately 72% of that margin goes to the GPs. See page 30 and 50 of the publicly available 10-K.

•   After covering that 12%, whatever’s left goes to the employee variable compensation pool (bonuses,and profit sharing). We have all heard during bonus time that employee bonus can not be make the profit margin fall below a certain percentage depending on the bonus level.

In formula term
Revenue - Expenses - Bonus Pool = 0.12 Profit Margin
So the bonus pool is 0.88(Revenue - Expenses)

That means when expenses increase, bonuses automatically go down, because the partners’ 12% margin stays fixed.

Let’s put that into perspective:
Scenario Revenue Expenses Partners (12%) Employee Bonus
Normal year $10M $7M $1.2M $1.8M
Expenses increase $10M $7.5M $1.2M $1.3M

Even though revenue doesn’t change, employee bonuses fall by $500K while partners’ returns stay identical.

So the idea that partners are “bearing the risk” of expense increases doesn’t appear to be accurate mathematically. Employees appear to be bearing the brunt of increased expenses with lower bonuses. Unless my math is wrong, which maybe it is, but there have been lots of discussions about decreased bonuses with record profits over the years.

Now About the New Limited Partnership Offer
At first glance, it sounds like a great opportunity.

But here’s what’s changed under the surface:
Before: Limited partnership returns were guaranteed.
Now: There’s no guaranteed return, just “potential for higher earnings.”

That means the company is shifting more financial risk from the partners to employees. If GP payouts are guaranteed first, then the LPs again are taking on the risk of increased spending by the GPs.

What We Should Be Asking
Before signing or investing, ask these questions in writing:

1.  Priority of payments:
        Who gets paid first — partners or limited partners — and in what order?
2.  12% margin protection:
        Are we maintaining 12% margin protection and do GPs still get 72% of that margin? What percent will go to LPS?
3.  Profit calculation transparency:
        How exactly is “profit” defined for distribution purposes? Are partner salaries, perks, or expenses deducted first?
4.  Historical context:
        What would limited partner returns have been under this new structure for the past five years?
5.  Liquidity and exit:
        If an employee leaves or wants to sell their stake, how is the value determined? Is there a buyback obligation, and at what price?
6.  Governance:
        Do limited partners have any say in how profits are allocated or reported?

The offer sounds good but without a guaranteed return, you’re taking on real investment risk. At the same time, if the partner allocation remains fixed, then the risk is being shifted more to LPs.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t participate, there are still many unknowns about the new offering. It does mean you should go in with eyes wide open. Transparency and informed consent are what fairness look like. If the company truly wants shared success, the financial model should reflect shared risk not just shared language. I hope I am wrong and this is a good thing because given what we have all been through this year we need a silver lining. The culture has shifted drastically and a lot of trust has been lost. Let’s make sure we are asking the right questions to ensure GPs aren’t raking in cash and spending like drunken sailor, while we get the crumbs.

One of the questions asked was: is there risk of bankruptcy, assuming this spouted from someone who heard one of the many 3rd party analyst saying there is a high risk of such an event.

The answer from SB was: Absolutely not, as long as we execute.

A great follow up would have been; Is there risk of not executing going forward? Looking back we’ve had 12 quarters of not executing, what changed?

I'd like to volunteer, but I don't want to risk it if we're done for now. The last thing I need is to be PIPed and kicked out without anything because I put a target on my back for no reason.

https://investors.xerox.com/news-releases/news-release-details/xerox-releases-third-quarter-results-1

It's a question, not a statement.

We know they skipped the Goodwill testing and put it off until Q4. We also know they are required to do it once a year, and they absolutely have to in Q4.

If I'm reading this thing right, the Goodwill far exceeds the Total Equity. I know a lot of the one time losses will be gone on the Q4 call, but still, the EV could go to 0 or negative.

Part of corp risk

Hearing that both offshore and onshore have recently had process and controls integrity issues. On the onshore Eagleford shale appears galvanic corrosion and poorly designed kit is resulting in production deferment and significant retrofit costs.

Does chinook/cascade have operational challenges? How long will these assets be profitable?

Is there a future for the integrated GPU IP team? Is there a plan to use Nvidia IP to replace in house iGPU IP down the line?
How risky is it to be in GPU org after Nvidia partnership?

there are whisperings of a future lp offering. Would anyone buy in? With assets out almost exceeding assets in, i will probably sit this one out

Looks like Discovery is over according to the court docs. Any idea when the case goes to settlement or trial? Has factset disclosed the case yet or do they still think it‘s immaterial.

Like crowdstrike outage last year, similar issues with Amazon AWS.

Poor programmers in India

The current total XRX Goodwill is only $1.91 BN, but.... Lexmark has goodwill as well. With a total market cap of less than 1/3 of the Goodwill, you have to wonder if they have ANY Goodwill value left. They wrote down 1BN a yer ago when the stock was at $9, now it's $3. I was thinking before the Q3 loss would be 1BN, but now I'm thinking closer to $2 BN.

Was the WF rush to the cloud Risky? This risk averse employee thinks all of our data is at risk everyday it is on a cloud. Stupid is as stupid does.

Not sure what defines highly sophisticated hacker or not but clearly they went for the Jackpot Bingo. Application Delivery Controller or ADC is a single point of exposure of all traffic that goes through F5 that would be a magnet for hackers. It breaks all norms of security by concentrating in the same venue all the secret keys for every service that is on-boarded to the ADC. It is a matter of time until someone gets its hands on it. Otherwise no hacker would bother to go to break F5 if the traffic that goes through it is end to end encrypted. It was unwise and d-mb idea from the begining and only to support security of lax architecture in the back end. Now those all that were calling that is the only secure way to go about it are reaping their fruits. It was not at all driven from security point of view but more about sales, project check mark and also about sniffing transfers in the internal network for data loss prevention or DLP. Well those who pushed it all are not anymore around to be asked about it. Next all the secret vaults and smillar things.

https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/10/15/highly_sophisticated_government_hackers_breached/

Want to mitigate the risk of corruption and fraud to the firm? Hire someone who participated in it as your head of enterprise risk.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nebraska-economic-development-director-resigns-covid-grant-concerns

I know Risk has been affected. Any other areas so far? Mix of in-office and remote? Please share what you might know.

Have a offer. How risky is to accept? They are paying way beyond their standard offering for the role. In Nike , placed fine but loosing my relevance and experience and grossly underutilized(Very high workload but low expertise/support role)

With everything that is happening and on the horizon everyone should get out before it’s too late. Gainwell has some serious trouble coming up. Massive debt coming due that they don’t have the funds to pay, looming whistleblower activity, and their lack of ability to manage their finances. They are in serious trouble. Staying employed there is a sure recipe to be out on the street with no job.

Past time to walk away.

Investment bank Jefferies disclosed on Wednesday that its Leucadia Asset Management fund holds about $715 million in receivables linked to bankrupt auto-parts maker First Brands Group.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/jefferies-discloses-715-million-fund-exposure-first-brands-bankruptcy-2025-10-08/

Same problem as last year. What now. We are about to get creamed.

How do employees counter when Management tries to gives us a “needs improvement” rating (rather than a “Meets”) on our year-end review when we were moved into a new role? Of course there is going to be a learning curve, but I feel like we are being unfairly rated because we never asked to be moved into this new role…was voluntold.

I feel like Management will try and use this as a reason to justify a lower rating and/or as justification for eventually laying us off. What can we write in our end of year self-eval to give us some worth or value.

BTW, their justification in the past is that even though your daily responsibilities are totally different and new skill sets, it still falls under the same job title description. Total BS in my opinion.

This company does not care about you, and they think they can get rid of you in order to save costs. That is all this company cares about, is money. So, that is the way to make them hurt and feel some pain...

We are all in positions where we can make the company costs increase significantly relative to our puny wages. I'm not talking about doing something severe, illegal, or sabotage. I'm not encouraging that at all and don't condone it.

In our respective areas, we all have things such as:

• Improvements (nice to haves) that you are working to stream line or automate - stop working it.
• We all have "grey" areas in our work area's. Whether it is regulatory compliance (AER, Mines and Minerals act, ABSA, APEGA, OH&S, Law) etc. We have things that are often borderline and can be interpreted for or against us. We likely have sided on the companies side in these matters, at some personal exposure and risk. Stop supporting these, and side on the other side.
• We all have specific work items that have significant Financial Risk. Mine plans, Mine Equipment, End of life, etc. which we actively try to defer or push out. I certainly know of some items that could easily be $100M on the mine side that can hit the books next year, let them.

Again, for many of these things, you don't need to do anything active. Just stop pushing to save the company money. We can do way more cost damage than they think...

The $150M savings they are expecting annually by getting rid of us, we can easily cost them that + WAY MUCH MORE. So, Fu-k Them!

Do your part! Let the ship sink and let the bean counters feel some pain.

It’s ChatGPT compiled summary, but a good refresher and reminder we can adopt.

1. Knowledge Control & Asymmetry
   • Document selectively: Provide training and documentation, but keep it high-level. Leave out context, dependencies, or nuances only you know.
   • Use tacit knowledge: Emphasize things that require “experience” (judgment calls, historical context, relationships with regulators/vendors). GCC hires can’t easily replicate this.
   • Avoid “one-click transfer”: Break down processes into multiple steps when explaining, making them look more complex.

2. Strategic Friction in Rollouts
   • Ask clarifying questions: In transition meetings, phrase them as risk concerns:
   • “How will GCC handle regulatory nuances in [X country]?”
   • “What’s the fallback if response times slip due to time zone?”
   This slows decisions without looking obstructive.
   • Introduce dependencies: Link tasks to other teams or tools so that “handoffs” look harder.
   • Highlight local compliance: Bring up data residency, export control, union agreements, or contractual obligations. These almost always slow offshoring.

3. Delay Through “Support”
   • Over-offer help: Volunteer to be the bridge/trainer. This keeps you in the loop and drags timelines (“transition can’t close until full training is done”).
   • Pace knowledge transfer: Train slowly, highlight “complexities,” extend timelines by needing “extra validation.”
   • Audit their output: Position yourself as QC for GCC work. This makes you gatekeeper of quality and creates rework cycles.

1. Expose Hidden Costs (Quietly)
   • Track errors: Maintain a private log of GCC mistakes, delays, and escalations. Present data neutrally, never emotionally.
   • Escalate risk neutrally: Instead of “GCC can’t do this,” say:
   • “We saw 30% rework rate—might suggest a phased approach instead of full shift.”
   • Highlight stakeholder pushback: Collect subtle dissatisfaction from clients/customers, frame as “feedback.”

2. Protect Your Position
   • Brand yourself as irreplaceable: Be the person who knows the workarounds when GCC fails.
   • Shift to cross-functional roles: Move into strategy, supplier relations, or customer-facing projects—roles harder to offshore.
   • Stay visible to leadership: Share concise insights or risk notes with senior managers, so they see you as thoughtful, not resistant.

3. Long-Game Career Hedge
   • Upskill in automation/AI: Many GCCs are execution shops, not innovation hubs. Becoming the automation SME makes you future-proof.
   • Build network outside: Quietly explore trading, analytics, or industrial strategy roles—industries less prone to full-scale offshoring.
   • Stay neutral in tone: Never sound anti-GCC in writing; instead, frame everything as “risk management” or “ensuring smooth transition.”

How will Ford be affected if their India workforce becomes part of India’s US-Tariff-boycott?

Would that completely shutdown the company, and for how long?

Apache has several headwinds ahead that could alter the company’s outlook and trajectory.
Abandonment liabilities increasing into the +4 billion dollar range as North Sea and Fieldwood combine to create a very significant financial drag.
Permian basin starting to show signs off deliverability well issues as wells enter the post flush phase…that long runway is looking less attractive.
Gran Morgu…aka Deepwater Alpine High…something is off here…like a purposeful delay and concern from project manager…that the promised 250,000 bopd peak may actually be closer to half advertised and with high decline rates

All I want to say is that, I hope this is being carefully managed. This and the housing bubble could burst at once... however, they keep listening to the very same people that are creating this bubble...

x x x x x x x

The AI bubble is the only thing keeping the US economy together, Deutsche Bank warns

When the bubble bursts, reality will hit far harder than anyone expects

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED: Warnings about the overinflated prospects of a still-hypothetical "AI economy" continue to mount. Some analysts expect the AI bubble to burst sooner rather than later, arguing that current investment growth cannot continue indefinitely in a finite world.

According to a research note recently sent to clients by Deutsche Bank, the AI bo-m is currently helping the US economy avoid a recession but it cannot continue indefinitely. George Saravelos, Global Head of FX Research at Deutsche Bank, said the US would be close to a recession this year if Big Tech were not spending so heavily on building new AI data centers.

The "AI machines" are literally saving the US economy right now, Saravelos said, but this kind of growth cannot be sustained unless spending remains on an ever-growing course. Nvidia, the major supplier of powerful AI accelerators used in data centers, could potentially bear much of the residual growth the US economy has experienced in recent months.

"The bad news is that in order for the tech cycle to continue contributing to GDP growth, capital investment needs to remain parabolic. This is highly unlikely," Saravelos said.

Deutsche Bank highlights that much of this growth comes from new facilities being built by human workers, while the AI technology and services sector has yet to make a meaningful contribution to the GDP.

Around half of the market gains captured by the S&P 500 index have been driven by tech-related stocks, Deutsche Bank warns. A separate report by Torsten Sløk of Apollo Management concurs, noting that equity investors are "dramatically overexposed" to AI investments.

According to analysts at Bain & Co., even with all this spending, AI is likely to generate insufficient revenue to fund further growth initiatives. By 2030, anticipated demand for AI services would require $2 trillion in annual revenues, leaving a shortfall of $800 billion globally to meet that demand.

Nvidia recently committed $100 billion to OpenAI to build an additional 10 gigawatts of AI computing capacity, while OpenAI escalated the investment by planning a full network of new AI data centers. Meanwhile, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has acknowledged that AI investors are behaving irrationally, and some will inevitably lose significant sums of money as a result.

Will AI capital expenditure continue to surge with staggering figures and impossibly high revenue expectations? Baidu CEO Robin Li recently predicted that 99 percent of so-called AI companies will not survive the bubble, while legitimate businesses are now squandering money and potential productivity gains in an attempt to turn everything into an AI workload.

https://www.techspot.com/news/109626-ai-bubble-only-thing-keeping-us-economy-together.html

MORE WARNINGS:

AI bo-m drives record S&P 500 valuations, but Goldman Sachs warns of $1 trillion risk ahead

Investors debate how long Big Tech's AI spree can last

https://www.techspot.com/news/109358-ai-bo-m-drives-record-sp-valuations-but-goldman.html

x x x x x x x

David Einhorn warns about "AI Spending Splurge"

Hedge fund manager David Einhorn cautioned that the unprecedented amount of spending on artificial intelligence infrastructure may destroy vast amounts of capital, even if the technology itself proves transformative.

The Greenlight Capital founder said the trillion-dollar build-out by companies overall, such as Apple Inc., Meta Platforms Inc. and OpenAI is so extreme that the eventual returns are highly uncertain. While he expects AI will ultimately surpass today’s bullish forecasts, he questioned whether “spending a trillion dollars a year or 500 billion a year” will deliver good outcomes for the firms making those investments.

Video here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/david-einhorn-sees-tremendous-capital-230951096.html

AAPL, META, GOOGL: Investors Could Be the Losers of AI Spending Splurge, Warns Hedge Fund Guru

“When David Einhorn speaks, the markets should listen,” said Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB. “He is the hedge fund manager who pulled the rug from underneath the subprime mortgage market bo-m in 2007/2008. His warning could be seen as a threat to the lofty valuations of Google GOOGL +0.44% ▲ , Meta and Microsoft MSFT +0.42% ▲ . They have pledged some of the largest investments in AI infrastructure and are Nvidia’s NVDA -0.24% ▼ largest customers.”

More here, plus other articles if you scroll further down:

https://www.tipranks.com/news/aapl-meta-googl-hedge-fund-guru-einhorn-warns-that-investors-could-be-the-losers-of-ai-spending-splurge

At the risk of sharing too much and outing myself, I feel like it’s important for employees to know that there have been internal discussions for several weeks about preparing for a full return-to-office (RTO) with a target date of 12/01.

This shift will not affect designated telecommuters. However, leadership is considering changes that could indirectly impact them, such as reducing merit increases by a percentage, withholding them entirely, or halving API targets for remote employees. These adjustments are being framed as a way to “counterbalance” the RTO mandate. Announcements are expected around the start of the new year, once PTO balances reset.

The intent behind these measures is to drive natural attrition among both remote and in-office staff, minimizing or eliminating the need for another large-scale reduction in force. Notice the timing right before the holidays.

At the same time, corporate leadership is optimistic that AI and automation can replace many roles vacated through attrition. The long-term plan includes maintaining the hiring freeze indefinitely; at a minimum, next year’s budget will not allow for backfilling positions unless they are deemed business critical.

I worry there is significant risk. From what I’ve seen, the company is years behind in AI adoption. Betting heavily on it now could backfire, potentially resulting in millions in fines and penalties by 2026–2027.

Will Kaskida field development be a technical and commercial success?
Why does Kaskida not have other co-owners to differ cost and risk…

More than 70% of the Sycamore deal is financed through debt, meaning that the private equity firm doesn’t have “much skin in the game,” according to Parr. The risks of bankruptcy are especially troubling, according to the Private Equity Stakeholder Project. In the first quarter of this year alone, 70% of large U.S. corporate bankruptcies involved private equity-owned companies, despite private equity making up only 6.5% of the economy.

Had a recruiter ping me recently for a job with a "leading crypto" firm for grc work. Would be an 80k pay bump plus equity and full wfh. Too good to be true perhaps, but I'm doing my research.

What would you all do? I survived a few lay offs here but I know job security is not guaranteed anywhere; especially in crypto.

Buffalos are bold and strategic and would charge bravely with focus and determination into the approaching Elliott Management storm even though they probably won't survive it ! Be proactive like the Buffalo and face the challenge head on !

I am applying for a role but I’m being told it’s non-budgeted. What does that mean? It sounds risky even if I am internal.

The amount of money that CVS is paying out in lawsuits both recently and over the last few years is staggering. How is this not affecting CVS more?

@OP+1k4t1ksy3

SEE LINK BELOW - THIS IS WHY OUR STOCK IS TANKING OUT BIG TIME - HOW COULD SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN? A MAXIMUM SEVERITY RATING OF 10 OUT OF A POSSIBLE 10 ON S/4HANA and NETWEAVER PRODUCTS - ARE YOU KIDDING??

Who is responsible for this?

https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/09/as-hackers-exploit-one-high-severity-sap-flaw-company-warns-of-3-more/

No public relations announcements will cover this up.

This is pretty serious news that will definitely impact SAP sales going forward. Just who would now want to buy SAP with 3 of our major products now exposed to a "high-severity vulnerability"

What has happened to this company??

As a US Based employee, curiosity to what happens (or is there something in place) if Russia continues to escalate and attempt invasion with Poland or things go south quickly there. I worry for them.

Where else is in danger of going the way of Australia? Guyana from the beginning we don’t operate and have contractor doing everything.

Not everyone is excited about the deal. The Private Equity Stakeholder Project, which bills itself as a watchdog organization rooting out the impacts of private investment, said in March it was “very wary” of the deal, noting several of Sycamore’s portfolio companies have filed for bankruptcy.

The watchdog group further noted that Sycamore appears to be paying for the acquisition mostly using debt, which could leave Walgreens financially vulnerable down the line.