It all started so nice, the morning was nice and sunny (its winter and my laptop was fixed), so as I was enjoying a laptop with a good space bar, my youth came calling through a knocker like a sledgehammer. After 84 years Olympus is stopping. My second camera was an Olympus, an OM-10, which was followed 2 years later with the OM-2, a camera I never stopped worshipping. Olympus was on the tip of all tongues, on the edge of what was possible and they were giving Nikon a fight, Cannon was not that big (but in an impressive stage) and Minolta was there as well. It is in that age that photography started to become affordable. And in this age they have faltered. It is a shame, but there were indicators that they were lagging more and more and the mobile phones with their less is merely one factor. Age is there to distinguish of what is in the now and what will no longer be, a playing field the forever in turmoil.
And it is that turmoil that matters, even as Olympus went under in an honourable way, some competitors in other fields were not that lucky. That can be said of Wirecard, a company that had apparently $2,000,000,000 on the books that did not exist and is now in a state where they owe $4,000,000,000 and have no way to pay it, alas Wirecard, out you go! So can anyone explain to me how one person did this?
I believe it a lot more and as we see Reuters giving us “Wirecard is the first member of Germany’s prestigious DAX stock index to go bust, barely two years after winning a spot among the country’s biggest 30 listed companies with a market valuation of $28 billion.” I wonder how the $28,000,000,000 was achieved, in a stage where 7% did not exist, there is every chance that the damage is larger and spread in a larger stage, and we merely see on what was NOT signed off on. Is that such a weird consideration? Whilst some make calls for reforms, which is a call for change, yet the need to identify the things not being OK will also be less likely to be found, that is the nature of things. You se, I see more, it is seen in the quote “once one of the hottest financial technology companies in Europe, dwarfs other German corporate failures. It has shaken the country’s financial establishment”, if it was the hottest Financial technology company, the technology is still there, the question was was it abused and more important, how can something this so called hot, be this flawed? How do you show $2,000,000,000 you do not have?
Then there is “German law firm Schirp & Partner said that with Wirecard now effectively sidelined, it would file class actions against EY on behalf of both shareholders and bondholders”, so EY does not sign off on the books and they get to be in the dock? Questions rise to the sirface, do they not? I would reckon that in that stage the UK would need a much better setting towards the economy, especially as the banking sector will be in the rough until the end of the year, so the UJK gets to be lucky as we see ‘China’s Huawei to build $1.2 billion research facility in England’, it gives the light towards a growth inn 5G options for the UK as Huawei is trying to be nice to the EU (they need to) and as the US is in a stage of collapse, it makes sense for Huawei to set the stage to a larger field. The step makes sense win a few levels, even as some will state that the mainland of the EU would be better, appeasing the UK will also have its influence in Australia and Canada. Two much larger players and as such Huawei is going to be moving forward. It is therefor weird that 6 minutes later everyone’s favourite Labour puppet Tony Blair gives us ‘Britain should side with U.S. over Huawei, former PM Blair says’, Well one could argue that he is deep in American pockets, can we not? So when we mull over ““I think we do need to make a call and I think it has got to be pro-U.S. in the end,” Blair said when asked about Huawei at a Reuters Newsmaker event. “It is very hard for us not to be with the U.S. on anything that touches U.S. security.””, so why? America has not now, not ever produced any evidence that gives rise to the imaginative danger of China via Huawei. In addition, where was the US when Wirecard had created the imaginative $2,000,000,000, none had seemingly a clue and now that the pied piper is piping they have no issues making a move on EY being the optional culprit in this.
We need to change the way we do business and as we see how valid makers like Olympics go under without doing anything wrong, we need to set much larger question marks on evidence and demanding it sooner from people on every level of government administration, even former elected officials making claims and especially when they are willing to to rely on evidence, so when we look at Wirecard, take in mind that we need to demand the clear setting on how $2,000,000,000 could be created out of thin air (my bank account needs a bit of that too).