undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyalogin7y ago0 comments

The analogy was that Equifax lost all of its assets and then some. It failed in the only job it had, protecting users' data, its only asset. It lost credibility and could be argued that its name became toxic. Its very similar to Bear Sterns and Enron, IMO

0 comments

3 comments · 3 top-level

harryh7y ago

They didn't lose them. They still have them. They just let someone else make a copy. That didn't make the copy that Equifax still has any less valuable.

Keeping that data secret isn't the only job it has. In fact that isn't even really their primary job. Their primary job is evaluating the credit worthiness of potential customers for equifax clients. As far as I know, they are still doing that job quite well.

g0510517y ago

It didn't "lose" anything, nor is "protecting users' data" it's only job, nor is that data their only asset. It certainly lost credibility, but the name isn't toxic.

Again, Bear Stearns was insolvent due to being overextended, and Enron was propped up by massive accounting fraud (like WorldCom). Equifax, on the other hand, was the victim of a cyberattack.

arduanika7y ago

> its name became toxic

What tends to matter is whether your name is toxic to your customers, not whether your name is toxic to your unwilling inventory.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse