> This type of analysis has some obvious limitations:
> - Fraud is more likely to be recorded in public record when committed at big corporations. Many small companies also commit fraud, but it goes unnoticed, unpunished, or otherwise not recorded in ways accessible to researchers because they're too small to make waves. Maybe too small to bother prosecuting.
From the article
>We compiled data on 250+ US public companies involved in corporate securities frauds identified in 1,000+ Securities and Exchange Commission filings over 2005–2013; we randomly selected a comparable control group of 500+ US public companies from Compustat. Based on logistic multivariate regression analyses, marginal profitability, a strong growth imperative, and firm prominence were significant fraud risk factors. Prominent Fortune 500 firms were more susceptible to marginal profitability and/or strong growth-opportunities as risk factors.
So it seems they only compared public companies and used SEC filings for identifying fraud, are you saying fraud for small public companies is less likely to be reported to the SEC than for large companies? Otherwise your argument does not apply.
> - Big companies have, by definition, more people, more activity, more transactions, and more opportunities for fraud. It's a mistake to assume that all fraud is orchestrated from the top of these companies. Often, it's mid-level managers looking to get a bonus, raise, or promotion who think they can get away with fraud in their little department.
That does support the thesis that large companies would commit more fraud. I didn't see a claim that fraud is orchestrated from the top.
> In my anecdotal experience, big companies are far less likely to behave fraudulently than small, local companies. A big company knows that endemic fraud is a death sentence for their reputation and can bring intense regulatory scrutiny. A small company knows that they can defraud you out of a couple thousand dollars one time and it's not worth your time to pursue legal action.
So after dismissing the representative research you bring up your anecdotal evidence. Was the motivation behind dismissing the presented research maybe that it doesn't match your own experience? This is a common psychological trap to fall into, but just because something does not match our own experience does not make it necessarily less true.
> Of course, most small companies I've worked with are not out to defraud your customers. Building a long-term relationship with a small company can be much more fruitful than being customer number 10,001 for a big company.
> Always be careful, regardless of who you're dealing with.
> This type of analysis has some obvious limitations:
> - Fraud is more likely to be recorded in public record when committed at big corporations. Many small companies also commit fraud, but it goes unnoticed, unpunished, or otherwise not recorded in ways accessible to researchers because they're too small to make waves. Maybe too small to bother prosecuting.
From the article >We compiled data on 250+ US public companies involved in corporate securities frauds identified in 1,000+ Securities and Exchange Commission filings over 2005–2013; we randomly selected a comparable control group of 500+ US public companies from Compustat. Based on logistic multivariate regression analyses, marginal profitability, a strong growth imperative, and firm prominence were significant fraud risk factors. Prominent Fortune 500 firms were more susceptible to marginal profitability and/or strong growth-opportunities as risk factors.
So it seems they only compared public companies and used SEC filings for identifying fraud, are you saying fraud for small public companies is less likely to be reported to the SEC than for large companies? Otherwise your argument does not apply.
> - Big companies have, by definition, more people, more activity, more transactions, and more opportunities for fraud. It's a mistake to assume that all fraud is orchestrated from the top of these companies. Often, it's mid-level managers looking to get a bonus, raise, or promotion who think they can get away with fraud in their little department.
That does support the thesis that large companies would commit more fraud. I didn't see a claim that fraud is orchestrated from the top.
> In my anecdotal experience, big companies are far less likely to behave fraudulently than small, local companies. A big company knows that endemic fraud is a death sentence for their reputation and can bring intense regulatory scrutiny. A small company knows that they can defraud you out of a couple thousand dollars one time and it's not worth your time to pursue legal action.
So after dismissing the representative research you bring up your anecdotal evidence. Was the motivation behind dismissing the presented research maybe that it doesn't match your own experience? This is a common psychological trap to fall into, but just because something does not match our own experience does not make it necessarily less true.
> Of course, most small companies I've worked with are not out to defraud your customers. Building a long-term relationship with a small company can be much more fruitful than being customer number 10,001 for a big company.
> Always be careful, regardless of who you're dealing with.