Space X

[aurelius]

I don't think that you've thought this trough. If a company should be held liabile for harm (which I think we agree is yes), and it damages the world more than it could pay, then who is responsible? The shareholders OWNERS (meaning you and me)?

Owners of a business have limited liability for actions of the business. Let's say I own shares in an oil company. The oil company has a documented history of environmental disasters and water contamination. Another disaster happens. Why should I, as an owner, not have a liability for the oil company's actions? Abstractly: An owner benefits from the company's success. Especially if the company causes harm! Did the company profit from the harm it caused? Did the owners benefit? Why should an owner avoid the consequences of the harm if they benefitted from it? *I recognize it isn't black and white but fundamentally why?

Interesting question but my main frustration is tort law and liability due to malfeasance or negligence. I am discussing the legal and political system in place that highly favors established businesses and protects them from the consequences of their own, mostly, legal behavior.

The officers? We already have that for intentional acts, but (without the benefit of hindsight) innocent choices that turn out badly?

What you describe as innocent choices is highly subjective. Essentially if businesses routinely take risky positions that require bailouts (they do) or routinely engage in business practices that cause harm (they do), then those are not innocent choices. Agreed? The risk element is not appropriately weighted in decision making because business can use the legal system to protect them or expect political bail outs. This is now a systemic problem. And yes, I personally believe that officers of companies should be held more accountable for the decisions they make. Corporations don't make decisions. People do.

Insurers? OK, so then when the insurer can't pay?

Why would insurers be required to pay beyond whatever contractual agreement they have made?

[DoctorWho]

I don't think that you've thought this trough. If a company should be held liabile for harm (which I think we agree is yes), and it damages the world more than it could pay, then who is responsible? The shareholders OWNERS (meaning you and me)?

Owners of a business have limited liability for actions of the business. Let's say I own shares in an oil company. The oil company has a documented history of environmental disasters and water contamination. Another disaster happens. Why should I, as an owner, not have a liability for the oil company's actions? Abstractly: An owner benefits from the company's success. Especially if the company causes harm! Did the company profit from the harm it caused? Did the owners benefit? Why should an owner avoid the consequences of the harm if they benefitted from it? *I recognize it isn't black and white but fundamentally why?

Interesting question but my main frustration is tort law and liability due to malfeasance or negligence. I am discussing the legal and political system in place that highly favors established businesses and protects them from the consequences of their own, mostly, legal behavior.

The officers? We already have that for intentional acts, but (without the benefit of hindsight) innocent choices that turn out badly?

What you describe as innocent choices is highly subjective. Essentially if businesses routinely take risky positions that require bailouts (they do) or routinely engage in business practices that cause harm (they do), then those are not innocent choices. Agreed? The risk element is not appropriately weighted in decision making because business can use the legal system to protect them or expect political bail outs. This is now a systemic problem. And yes, I personally believe that officers of companies should be held more accountable for the decisions they make. Corporations don't make decisions. People do.

Insurers? OK, so then when the insurer can't pay?

Why would insurers be required to pay beyond whatever contractual agreement they have made?

Limited liability is so fundamental to a modern economy that it's hard to picture the world without it. Add liability of officers for a bad decision (in hindsight) then the system discourages anybody developing and selling anything on top of the disincentive for anybody to fund it.

If you are referring to a government bailout of a private company, everybody believes that it's (at least) something that can undermine the system. Probably why it's so rare.

Not sure if you are pointing to abuse of the system (serial bankruptcies, or improper use of the corporate shield, or the like) or that the system itself encourages bad behavior. If you have a specific example (real or hypothetical) you can point to, it would avoid a lot of talking past each other.

[mikeylikey]

Musk's business acumen is going into industries that have not adopted modern computer advancements to logistics/development and applying them. He has not 'invented' any new technology. Take his two successes:

Solar City/Tesla: Solar panels were invented in 1883. Electric motors are very simple and invented before internal combustion engines. The battery technology has been understood for some time. Have you seen a Tesla car battery? It's like 1000 AA batteries taped together. Not super high tech stuff. It is really limited by availability of rare earth materials. Musk recognized a market that the existing car manufacturers were ignoring. He took advantage.

Space X: the technology (rocket fuel and aluminum rockets were invented in the 50's) was invented in the 50's. Musk has access to 3D printing technology (that is the materials/construction advantage Space X has over previous eras) that allows those designs to be cost effective and viable (less welding points). Musk recognized an established need to deliver pay loads into near space and took advantage.

No. Musk's success is almost entirely the result of saying "yes we can" and then betting the farm on it.

The primary driver of Tesla's success has been the fact that a Tesla is in most ways better than a comparably priced internal combustion car. Not in every respect for every person, but on balance, and sufficiently so to attract many customers beyond the small minority of buyers who buy an electric car because it makes them feel like they are helping the environment - a market too small to sustain a business. This fact is the result of a revolutionary market strategy, not an espcially novel utilization of computers in design and logistics (which was already a thing). As a newer player with less entrenched ways of doing things, can Tesla also afford to think outside the box in manufacturing? Sure. But if they had the most efficient computer-controlled production model in the world and were churning out a Prius equivalent for 25% less money than whoever, they would would not be the succes they are.

WRT SpaceX, do you think the rest of the aerospace industry didn't notice that computers were invented? SpaceX is successful because they committed to reusability. This was a bold choice at the time, because *everyone* said it couldn't be done. The Falcon 9 is the Swamp Castle of rockets. SpaceX was primarily successful because they threw more resources at the reusability problem than anyone else could/would, not becaus they used CAD and 3d printing to get there. NASA has All The Computers; the thing that has stopped NASA from getting to reusability was inertial politics not lack of technological know how.

Musk has had ittle success where modern computing does not give a competitive advantage. Take Boring. It is an expensive, intensive process where little efficiency is to be found.

Maybe, or maybe Elon was just wrong about the need / desire for tunnels. As Meatloaf said, Two out of Three ain't bad.

[mikeylikey]

I don't think that you've thought this trough. If a company should be held liabile for harm (which I think we agree is yes), and it damages the world more than it could pay, then who is responsible? The shareholders OWNERS (meaning you and me)?

Owners of a business have limited liability for actions of the business. Let's say I own shares in an oil company. The oil company has a documented history of environmental disasters and water contamination. Another disaster happens. Why should I, as an owner, not have a liability for the oil company's actions? Abstractly: An owner benefits from the company's success. Especially if the company causes harm! Did the company profit from the harm it caused? Did the owners benefit? Why should an owner avoid the consequences of the harm if they benefitted from it? *I recognize it isn't black and white but fundamentally why?

Depends if you equate shareholders with "owners". In some sense, shares in a public company simply represent the least senior and most flexible debt obligation of that company. We would probably all agree that a bank which lends to a company is not responsible for the actions of the company* and should not have to lose more than its investment, and we would probably all agree the same for bold holders. So draw the line of responsibility at holders of common stock? Yes you have voting rights for the board of directors, but no say in day to day operations. A bank at which the corp has a large line of credit probably has far more immediate influence on the corps behavior than the owners of common stock. It is an interesting question that I'm not decided on but it is not obvious to me that owning stock creates a qualitatively different moral situation than other forms of lending.

*assuming we aren't talking about like a full-on conspiracy where the bank colludes with the corporation to do some egregious illegal or hazardous thing.

Essentially if businesses routinely take risky positions that require bailouts (they do) or routinely engage in business practices that cause harm (they do), then those are not innocent choices. Agreed? The risk element is not appropriately weighted in decision making because business can use the legal system to protect them or expect political bail outs. This is now a systemic problem.

Maybe the real problem is the bail outs.

And yes, I personally believe that officers of companies should be held more accountable for the decisions they make. Corporations don't make decisions. People do.

oooh oooh ooh ooh:

[aurelius]

Limited liability is so fundamental to a modern economy that it's hard to picture the world without it. Add liability of officers for a bad decision (in hindsight) then the system discourages anybody developing and selling anything on top of the disincentive for anybody to fund it.

Agreed. Limited liability as concept is sound. But it is not a binary concept. I am discussing the degree to which it is applied today.

This idea that holding individuals accountable for the harm they cause would destroy the economy is false. And propagated by those who cause harm. So yes, if an officer of a company authorizes actions that cause harm that are reasonably forseeable, they should be held accountable. This is the same discussion we have in the LE thread. It does nothing to change the behavior of LE officers for City's to pay out settlements and fines. Corporate officers effectively have qualified immunity in how the system currently operates.

It is my belief that Individual accountability is essential for any system that prioritizes incentivizing individuals to correctly weigh risk. As long as the system continues to individually reward people for risky behavior but only punishing the corporation for this behavior we will continue to see this.

If you are referring to a government bailout of a private company, everybody believes that it's (at least) something that can undermine the system. Probably why it's so rare.

I don't believe it is rare anymore. Granted, rare and common are subjective determinations. There are numerous ways the government acts to 'bail' out or, to phrase it differently, ensure businesses succeed. It isn't as simple or obvious as save corporation X with an infusion of cash. IMO, businesses operate with greater risk on the assumption that they will be 'saved' by the political system or can use the legal system to avoid any consequences. I believe it was Mikey that said the best ROI in the United States is a corporate donation to a Senator.

Not sure if you are pointing to abuse of the system (serial bankruptcies, or improper use of the corporate shield, or the like) or that the system itself encourages bad behavior.

All of the above falls under using the legal system to avoid consequences of risky behavior. And the numerous ways the legal and political system operate such that holding corporations liable and applying meaningful consequences is almost impossible.

If you have a specific example (real or hypothetical) you can point to, it would avoid a lot of talking past each other.

I believe this commonly occurs as to be self-evident. To give the classic example:

Take the 2008-2009 financial crisis. There were thousands, if not more, people in the banking and financing industry who knowingly packaged together bad assets and sold them as good assets. They all personally profited (that was their incentive) because they did not believe they would suffer consequences. How many were held criminally liable? How many were held civilly liable? How much harm did they cause? What have We as a society done to discourage such behavior in the future?

How many times has Wells Fargo been caught doing something fraudulent? How often do we see a large bank getting caught committing illegal and fraudulent behavior? Once a year? And they just pay a fine and keep doing it! The system is broken until individuals are held accountable.

I have zero belief I'm gonna be able to out lawyer a lawyer about the in and outs of liability. I'm looking at this wholistically.

[aurelius]

stuff

I clarified in my second comment but to restate: Mush combined risk taking with vision. As implicitly made the point that you explicitly state: This tech was there for anyone to jump in and go. Musk made it happen. Risk taking + vision = great businessman. Probably should be Risk taking + vision + execution = great businessman. Musk is a great businessman.

As to Tesla quality: I'm not so sure about that. Tesla's have had a lot of production problems. And quality has been hit or miss. I think Tesla branding is excellent. As it has become the car for the liberal elite. It is a statement vehicle. Build quality and real-world performance it does not compete at the price point it is at. And some of that is growing pains, scaling up, and so forth. Some of it is deceptive practices (look up Tesla's range issues). But plenty of car companies have operated for decades with sub-par quality at high prices (looking at you GM).

[aurelius]

Depends if you equate shareholders with "owners".

I do because that is what they are.

I recently became a shareholder in a privately held company. I had to take into the downside of becoming a shareholder. Which includes shareholder equity raises and assuming limited liability. If there was a judgement against the company, I would be financially liable for the % of shares I own. I'm 1 of 100ish shareholder. Owning less than a %. I'm not in charge in any meaningful way. I don't see how the status of a shareholder in a public company is materially different.

"But I want to own some of the company that pours toxic waste into the lake because it makes so much money. But I don't want ANY of the liability." And this is how the system incentivizes risky and/or harmful behavior. Because everyone is protected but the people being harmed. Just a simple change that shareholders could be held liable for judgements against the company like owners (because they are!), would change how people buy stocks and that would change how businesses assess risk and operate.

I'm kind of fleshing out an idea more than I have thought it through. So maybe I'm just off my rocker here. But my core belief is that if we as a society are going to have a system the prioritizes individual incentives above all else, then consequences must be applied to individuals. If not, the system is inherently flawed and will not appropriately weigh the risk/harm. Individual accountability is essential.

[mikeylikey]

As to Tesla quality: I'm not so sure about that. Tesla's have had a lot of production problems. And quality has been hit or miss. I think Tesla branding is excellent. As it has become the car for the liberal elite. It is a statement vehicle. Build quality and real-world performance it does not compete at the price point it is at. And some of that is growing pains, scaling up, and so forth. Some of it is deceptive practices (look up Tesla's range issues). But plenty of car companies have operated for decades with sub-par quality at high prices (looking at you GM).

For sure. What I was getting at was more, buying a Tesla is not a sacrifice you make to save the planet. That is the categorical leap that Tesla made from every electric car previous.

You buy a tesla because it is intrinsically a "good" car - depending on your personal needs and priorities etc etc; intrinsically good from the perspective of enough people to be wildly successful anyway. The genius of Tesla was making an electric car that is so fast and sexy you forget it's also "good for the planet" whatever that means.

[mikeylikey]

Depends if you equate shareholders with "owners".

I do because that is what they are.

I recently became a shareholder in a privately held company. I had to take into the downside of becoming a shareholder. Which includes shareholder equity raises and assuming limited liability. If there was a judgement against the company, I would be financially liable for the % of shares I own. I'm 1 of 100ish shareholder. Owning less than a %. I'm not in charge in any meaningful way. I don't see how the status of a shareholder in a public company is materially different.

Well for one thing you don't sign a contract assuming liability when you buy publicly trades shares. That is relevant.

You can make good arguments from first principles both for and against this convention, I think.

It is my position that most, or lets say, enough that we could probably live with it, of the really pernicious moral hazard type consequences could be sufficiently remedied with a more intelligent government posture towards large public corporations. Of course, who here doesn't think "put me in charge and I could fix it."

"But I want to own some of the company that pours toxic waste into the lake because it makes so much money. But I don't want ANY of the liability." And this is how the system incentivizes risky and/or harmful behavior. Because everyone is protected but the people being harmed. Just a simple change that shareholders could be held liable for judgements against the company like owners (because they are!), would change how people buy stocks and that would change how businesses assess risk and operate.

^Case on point. Pouring toxic waste into the lake is a moral crime and an assault against the property of other people, it should be straight illegal. The history of "regulation" is replete with examples of government, rather than stopping such behaviors, instead attempting to titrate them to some acceptable level, informed in large part by advice from the industry in question, and so long as the actors involved have done sufficient paperwork.

[aurelius]

Well for one thing you don't sign a contract assuming liability when you buy publicly trades shares. That is relevant.

I understand. And would say this is the issue. There are legal abstractions that no one really owns or is responsible for being operated by individuals that are essentially immune to the decisions they make while operating under the auspices of that legal abstraction. What could go wrong?

You can make good arguments from first principles both for and against this convention, I think.

Agreed. Restating: it isn't all or nothing but a continuum. And my belief is the system has gone far too the end of the spectrum that protects corporate interests. I'm trying to think of solutions that don't require heavy handed regulation which always works great and never have unintended consequences. But instead apply both positive and negative incentives for individuals to appropriately weigh risk/harm. Probably a fool's errand.

It is my position that 'most' of the really pernicious moral hazard type consequences could be sufficiently remedied with a more intelligent government posture towards large public corporations. Of course, who here doesn't think "put me in charge and I could fix it."

[JonA]

Yeah. "Modern computer technology" isn't just laying around. Companies like Amazon literally invented it to satisfy their needs.

Correct. AWS is now the core business of Amazon. I see and agree with you that Amazon invented the infrastructure to make what they do possible.

It is an obvious gross simplification of the business model Bezos pioneered describing it as using modern computer technology. I'm writing in short-hand because this is sub-forum on strength training board. Caveats for broad generalizations and gross simplifications. Do we really need these disclaimers at this point?

Over simplification is just fine, as long as it accurate. Amazon revolutionized the entire IT industry. This was a huge risky undertaking, technically challenging and cost huge amounts of R&D, and took years for Amazon to accomplish. It was *this* that allowed Amazon to revolutionize (again) the retail business.

Stop and think about that for a bit. They literally invented something that was required for them to even begin to invent something else. It was like inventing a light bulb and seeing that you'd have to invent an entire power grid to support it. And doing both.

Your simplification made it sound like they simply benefitted from someone else's ideas and work, which isn't true at all.

[aurelius]

@JonA
You are right. My simplification made it sound easy or obvious. What Bezos and Musk (and others) have done is exceptional. Risk Taking + Vision + Execution

I tend to think what Bezos has done makes him lead dog in the modern Captain's of Industry. Also, Space X is cool as shit. We need more space stuff.

[DoctorWho]

Limited liability is so fundamental to a modern economy that it's hard to picture the world without it. Add liability of officers for a bad decision (in hindsight) then the system discourages anybody developing and selling anything on top of the disincentive for anybody to fund it.

Agreed. Limited liability as concept is sound. But it is not a binary concept. I am discussing the degree to which it is applied today.

This idea that holding individuals accountable for the harm they cause would destroy the economy is false. And propagated by those who cause harm. So yes, if an officer of a company authorizes actions that cause harm that are reasonably forseeable, they should be held accountable. This is the same discussion we have in the LE thread. It does nothing to change the behavior of LE officers for City's to pay out settlements and fines. Corporate officers effectively have qualified immunity in how the system currently operates.

It is my belief that Individual accountability is essential for any system that prioritizes incentivizing individuals to correctly weigh risk. As long as the system continues to individually reward people for risky behavior but only punishing the corporation for this behavior we will continue to see this.

If you are referring to a government bailout of a private company, everybody believes that it's (at least) something that can undermine the system. Probably why it's so rare.

I don't believe it is rare anymore. Granted, rare and common are subjective determinations. There are numerous ways the government acts to 'bail' out or, to phrase it differently, ensure businesses succeed. It isn't as simple or obvious as save corporation X with an infusion of cash. IMO, businesses operate with greater risk on the assumption that they will be 'saved' by the political system or can use the legal system to avoid any consequences. I believe it was Mikey that said the best ROI in the United States is a corporate donation to a Senator.

Not sure if you are pointing to abuse of the system (serial bankruptcies, or improper use of the corporate shield, or the like) or that the system itself encourages bad behavior.

All of the above falls under using the legal system to avoid consequences of risky behavior. And the numerous ways the legal and political system operate such that holding corporations liable and applying meaningful consequences is almost impossible.

If you have a specific example (real or hypothetical) you can point to, it would avoid a lot of talking past each other.

I believe this commonly occurs as to be self-evident. To give the classic example:

Take the 2008-2009 financial crisis. There were thousands, if not more, people in the banking and financing industry who knowingly packaged together bad assets and sold them as good assets. They all personally profited (that was their incentive) because they did not believe they would suffer consequences. How many were held criminally liable? How many were held civilly liable? How much harm did they cause? What have We as a society done to discourage such behavior in the future?

How many times has Wells Fargo been caught doing something fraudulent? How often do we see a large bank getting caught committing illegal and fraudulent behavior? Once a year? And they just pay a fine and keep doing it! The system is broken until individuals are held accountable.

I have zero belief I'm gonna be able to out lawyer a lawyer about the in and outs of liability. I'm looking at this wholistically.

We might be talking past each other on limited liability regarding individuals. The company, not the individuals, is liable except for when the individual acts outside his scope of employment or breaks the law or where the individual operates the business entity as his alter-ego. (Enron guys, Elizabeth Holmes went to jail. A judge I worked for gave jail time to guys for monopolizing plastic tableware, iirc). I take it you think it should be easier to hold individuals liable. OK.

I don't know enough about the financial crisis -- you could convince me that it was handled badly. There are connected people who play by different rules and there is a crisis every generation or decade that needs fixing. And things always look diffrent in hindsight.

In the world of environmental clean-up (relatively small scale, not Exxon Valdez), it's the opposite of taking undue risks because of being able to weasel out of responsibility. This also has a downside.

[BostonRugger]

@JonA
You are right. My simplification made it sound easy or obvious. What Bezos and Musk (and others) have done is exceptional. Risk Taking + Vision + Execution

I tend to think what Bezos has done makes him lead dog in the modern Captain's of Industry. Also, Space X is cool as shit. We need more space stuff.

"Everything you thought was cool when you were 12 is what is actually cool. Arnold, war, metal, huge rockets, all of it."

[JonA]

@JonA
You are right. My simplification made it sound easy or obvious. What Bezos and Musk (and others) have done is exceptional. Risk Taking + Vision + Execution

I tend to think what Bezos has done makes him lead dog in the modern Captain's of Industry. Also, Space X is cool as shit. We need more space stuff.

"Everything you thought was cool when you were 12 is what is actually cool. Arnold, war, metal, huge rockets, all of it."

You forgot Barbie

[mikeylikey]

The market cap of a public company is typically many times its liquidation value. Say a company has a market cap of 50 billion, liquid assets of 2 billion, and does some bonehead thing that causes a billion dollars of external damage.

First of all, in the real world, government is going to fine that company 2 million and that's the end of it. This isn't the fault of limited liability it's the fault of bought and paid for politicians.

If we lived in a world where companies actually had to pay for mistakes like this, that billion dollar award could easily cost shareholders 20-30 billion in market cap. If companies were actually held responsible for real damages, shareholders (including the boards and upper management) would be pretty well incentivized to avoid fucking things up because the downside to the shareholder might be several times the actual damage, at least in cases of a screwup that doesn't exceed the liquidation value of the company.

Yeah if that company manages to somehow singlehandedly cause $100 billion of damage, there's no way to make restitution. It's pretty hard to do that much damage singlehandedly. I don't think the mortgage collapse is a very good example because none of those companies were acting alone.


How exactly does unlimited liability for public companies work anyway. "Dear citizen, in 2008, records show you owned the equivalent of 26.1 shares of Goldman Sachs in your large cap mutual fund IRA. As you know, this company's practices contributed to the financial collapse, which has cost taxpayers 1.6 trillion dollars to date. As a shareholder, you are responsible for a pro-rata portion of this cost. Your first installment is due in the amount of $2,408.09. Please remit C.O. US Treasury, Washington DC 20220"

[aurelius]

We might be talking past each other on limited liability regarding individuals. The company, not the individuals, is liable except for when the individual acts outside his scope of employment or breaks the law or where the individual operates the business entity as his alter-ego. (Enron guys, Elizabeth Holmes went to jail. A judge I worked for gave jail time to guys for monopolizing plastic tableware, iirc). I take it you think it should be easier to hold individuals liable. OK.

Yes. Elizabeth Holmes is a great example. She wasn't convicted of committing harm by falsifying medical tests. It would have been nearly impossible to get past the corporate liability shield for that. She was convicted of defrauding investors.

How the legal system actually operates the underlined is almost impossible to enforce. People like Elizabeth Holmes engage in fraudulent and harmful behavior for profit because they do not fear personal consequences for their actions. Just Google Wells Fargo and fraud. Every year they get caught committing fraud. They just hide behind their corporate liability shield and pay a fine. At some point it is simply obvious that they operate fraudulently because the settlements the corporation (that the corporation negotiates and agrees to) are not sufficient to change their behavior.

We probably are talking past each other.

[aurelius]

The market cap of a public company is typically many times its liquidation value. Say a company has a market cap of 50 billion, liquid assets of 2 billion, and does some bonehead illegal thing that causes a billion dollars of external damage.

First of all, in the real world, government is going to fine that company 2 million and that's the end of it. This isn't the fault of limited liability it's the fault of bought and paid for politicians.

Agreed. Discussing limited liability it is not all or nothing. IMO: the combination of laws, how the legal system actually works, and politicians have gone too far to protect the bad actions of corporations. I believe that applying individual responsibility and consequences to people's business decisions will result in better outcomes. For me that means making the corporate liability shield easier to pierce and applying consequences to shareholders for how the corporation operates. Not eliminating limited liability. As you point out, this is not a silver bullet solution.

[DoctorWho]

We might be talking past each other on limited liability regarding individuals. The company, not the individuals, is liable except for when the individual acts outside his scope of employment or breaks the law or where the individual operates the business entity as his alter-ego. (Enron guys, Elizabeth Holmes went to jail. A judge I worked for gave jail time to guys for monopolizing plastic tableware, iirc). I take it you think it should be easier to hold individuals liable. OK.

Yes. Elizabeth Holmes is a great example. She wasn't convicted of committing harm by falsifying medical tests. It would have been nearly impossible to get past the corporate liability shield for that. She was convicted of defrauding investors.

How the legal system actually operates the underlined is almost impossible to enforce. People like Elizabeth Holmes engage in fraudulent and harmful behavior for profit because they do not fear personal consequences for their actions. Just Google Wells Fargo and fraud. Every year they get caught committing fraud. They just hide behind their corporate liability shield and pay a fine. At some point it is simply obvious that they operate fraudulently because the settlements the corporation (that the corporation negotiates and agrees to) are not sufficient to change their behavior.

We probably are talking past each other.

Maybe. There are two sides to every story. All of us are suseptible to be swayed by advocacy that hits just the right note.

[KyleSchuant]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... sk-safety/