RE:RE:RE:One thing I learnedAs a banker for more years than I would like to admit, I always found it relatively easy to investigate and confirm data and facts. It was always the intangibles like character that were difficult to put one's finger on. People always like to say they are honest so why do banks need security? But guess what? Lenders don't intend to make bad loans but yet they write-off millions and billions every year (even with security usually). Sometimes it's because of issues that a lender could not reasonably expect to occur or the lender gave it a lower risk factor than was deserved. That happens. But how often does a lender know about an executive that is using cocaine or one, given the opportunity, will abandon his or her responsibility to the corporation and its shareholders to steal, or effectively steal, millions. After being satisfied with the data and "facts" I went easy on Vic because he had been the president of Jamieson Laboratories for many years. I did not consider two things - Andy's role in the previous screw up and his hand in the recent assets and, secondly, Vic's hubris. At Jamieson, he was effectively an employee. Now he was a major owner, a co-founder and was subject to little oversight from a weak and "stacked" BOD who did not fulfill their fiduciary role. Whether he listened to Andy or someone else he saw his chance to make a lot of money and he took it. I thought I had done a reasonable job of DD. That was my hubris.