Public Spanish Registry



  • Little context. Before 2015 a company could send their account books to the registry, where those were physically marked and closed so you couldn't add new stuff.

    Comes 2015 and now this has to be done over the Internet, using a ZIP file that looks like this:

    my_company_accounts.zip
     accounting_2015.xls 
     accounting_2015.sha256
     counsil_session_20150101_transcript.txt
     counsil_session_20150101_transcript.sha256
     ...
    

    Something like that. You basically have to send all information about your company over the wire. But TRWTF is that you're forbidden to use any sort of encryption. So, a file, containing all the information about your company, even communications between board members in board meetings, is stored, in plain text, somewhere.



  • @Eldelshell said:

    You basically have to send all information about your company over the wire. But TRWTF is that you're forbidden to use any sort of encryption. So, a file, containing all the information about your company, even communications between board members in board meetings, is stored, in plain text, somewhere.

    In the US, we have the NSA to do that for us, which is much more efficient. And they even let us believe we can encrypt it!



  • What is a "public Spanish registry?"


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Eldelshell said:

    TRWTF is that you're forbidden to use any sort of encryption

    :wtf:

    @trwtfbot @Eldelshell's TRWTF



  • @Eldelshell's TRWTF is TRWTF

    <!-- Posted by SockBot 0.16 "Hazardous Hera" on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:48:04 GMT-->

  • sockdevs

    @trwtfbot is not summoning @trwtfbot with a hidden mention



  • is not summoning with a hidden mention is TRWTF

    <!-- Posted by SockBot 0.16 "Hazardous Hera" on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:49:22 GMT-->

  • sockdevs

    ... BUGGER! forgot the output syntax!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What is a "public Spanish registry?"

    Provides legal information about companies such as address, social order, capital, managers, etc.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I completely forgot you can small something into oblivion lol...

    But yeah, that's ridiculous. No kinds of encryption. Glorious. Probably passed over FTP too?



  • Social order!? "My laundromat is a duke, but yours is only a knave! Give me that soiled pair of trousers as tribute!"


  • sockdevs

    you can <big> it into oblivion too. ;-)

    it works for any non-self-closing HTML tag. :laughing:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Even <br>?

    Probably should page a @tl4 to jeff some posts too...


  • sockdevs

    <br/> is self closing. <p> would work though.

    also, yeah that's probably a thing. I'd do it myself but i've rightly not been trusted with that power.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    You did say any :P


  • sockdevs

    point. i have amended my prior comment.



  • @trwtfbot 19 nested <i> tags



  • 19 nested <i> tags is TRWTF

    <!-- Posted by SockBot 0.16 "Hazardous Hera" on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:07:53 GMT-->

  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I really and truly love how posts with no content break the CSS. I mean, they don't technically break it, but it looks really bad...


  • sockdevs

    looks okay to me.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    The replies thing and the buttons are in the post "area". Like I said, not technically broken but it looks strange...


  • sockdevs

    It only looks like that because the post area is 0px tall :stuck_out_tongue:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Yup


  • sockdevs

    @RaceProUK said:

    It only looks like that because the post area is 0px tall

    slap a min-height rule in the CSS and away we go!

    :-D



  • @accalia said:

    <small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small>@trwtfbot is not summoning @trwtfbot with a hidden mention

    Have I recently expressed my love for the :fa_code: button?


  • sockdevs

    @Zecc said:

    Have I recently expressed my love for the button?

    i don't know.... @onyx, has he?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I don't know. The button is now a public good as far as I'm concerned.

    Use it freely my children, no need to grovel at my feet with eternal gratitude.

    I mean, you can. If you really want to...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Zecc said:

    Have I recently expressed my love

    :giggity:



  • I often use it on mobile to check if what I'm seeing is actually what the user posted.



  • I use it for reading what's behind an <abbr> tag too.



  • Congratulations, this thread is now trash.


  • mod

    @accalia said:

    it works for any non-self-closing HTML tag.

    @accalia said:

    <p> would work though.

    WRONG!

    What happens is anything nested 19 or more styling tags deep is auto hidden. The nested tags can be closed or not. However, this excludes certain tags, such as <p>

    <p><big><sup><sub><i><big><b><big><u><kbd><kbd><big><big><small><big><sup><sub><big><big>test</big></big></sub></sup></big></small></big></big></kbd></kbd></u></big></b></big></i></sub></sup></big></p>

    test

    <small><big><sup><sub><i><big><b><big><u><kbd><kbd><big><big><small><big><sup><sub><big><big>test</big></big></sub></sup></big></small></big></big></kbd></kbd></u></big></b></big></i></sub></sup></big></small>

    test

    Note that the only change from the first to the second style is the <p> tag was changed to <small>.


  • sockdevs

    huh.... unclosed tags are no longer closed by the parser?

    test

    your original test is above., but longer.

    test <p>

    test <div>

    hmm.... looks like <p> doesn't work. parser must collapse them or maybe the CSS rules fight and a different one wind....



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Congratulations, this thread is now trashbasura.

    FQPT



  • Spanish Trade Registry

    See here, for this quote:

    Capital companies are compelled to deposit annual accounts at the corresponding Trade Registry according to their business address within one month after approval by the General Shareholders’ meeting (article 279 of the LSC).

    We're unfamiliar with this because, here in the USA, accounting records are a trade secret. That's to ensure that the companies can defraud investors by publishing reports and prospectus that show the company is solvent, when it actually has one foot in the bankruptcy grave.



  • @boomzilla said:

    AEPT

    <not empty


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Spanish Trade Registry

    It sounds similar to an institution called Companies House in the UK, which holds basic records on all companies in the relevant jurisdiction(s). Most of the information that is lodged is really basic stuff, like who is actually sitting on the board of directors, how many shares have been issued, what the overall profit/loss of the company is (which I believe should've been audited). It's not really enough to see whether the company is in good health — investors still have to do their homework — but it's better than nothing I guess.



  • In Spain too and that's the WTF here. You have to trust those guys in the registry that no one will have access to those records... And we all know how that works.



  • @Eldelshell said:

    In Spain too and that's the WTF here. You have to trust those guys in the registry that no one will have access to those records... And we all know how that works.

    Yes, that would be a problem. But the US approach doesn't work well at all.

    I once overheard a British citizen complaining to someone that he wanted to invest in a company here in USA. But, as he told the guy he was sitting with, "I had to give it up. Because every company I looked had two sets of books: the books that showed they were profitable and the books showing they were broke, that they show the tax authorities. It was impossible to know what the company financial condition is."

    Basically, in this country, it's not really possible to know the financial condition of a company...unless it collapses of course. Enron and Madoff's company: pretty much everyone thought they were fine until...BLOOEY!

    Not sure which way is better, but our way seems to suck. Frequently.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Basically, in this country, it's not really possible to know the financial condition of a company...

    :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Not sure which way is better, but our way seems to suck. Frequently.

    Eh...I don't think your examples are good examples. People breaking one law are apt to break another, like financial disclosure. Of course, that was just the sort of law that Madoff was breaking to begin with. And bubbles and changes in conditions etc will still happen.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    I once overheard a British citizen complaining...

    I always heard that as a joke. I'm not certain that I've heard it differently here. Or that it really is much different here than other places.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Eh...I don't think your examples are good examples. People breaking one law are apt to break another, like financial disclosure. Of course, that was just the sort of law that Madoff was breaking to begin with. And bubbles and changes in conditions etc will still happen.

    I agree on all counts, which is why I said I'm not sure their way is better. I just know there are enough failures to make our system kind of suck; and I'm sure I could find a random 50 just as easily as a random 2: WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, AIG...do I need to list more?

    @boomzilla said:

    I'm not certain that I've heard it differently here. Or that it really is much different here than other places.

    Well, I overheard it in person. He was clearly frustrated by the experience; it wasn't hard to overhear; more like hard to ignore.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    do I need to list more?

    I think you need to prove that there is something unique about US accounting law that made those guys particularly vulnerable to...whatever...

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    He was clearly frustrated by the experience

    OK. My take away from that, however, is that the tax system is doing something wrong to make the companies spend so much energy avoiding them. This is certainly true WRT the insanity of how we treat international operations.

    But he could be entirely correct. I can't say that I have a lot of experience with how stuff like that is done in other countries. And even then, how much you can rely on it.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I think you need to prove that there is something unique about US accounting law that made those guys particularly vulnerable to...whatever...

    No, I don't. It's enough proof that it can and has happened, and all too frequently. The crooks clearly have lots of freedom to carry out their crimes away from investor view. Since there's no way for the investors to know what is going on, investment here in the US is like rolling dice. A lot of crooks would maintain that the fact that investment works most of the time is because most of the time investments are constructed by people too insipid to rip people off.

    A perfect example is the current argument over whether brokers should have a duty to give good advice to their clients, instead of screwing them out of their money to win on some background investment. The Goldman Sachs scandal was a case in point: thousands of investors directed to a fund that was designed to fail so that a derivative fund would pay off for Goldman Sachs. What the hell kind of ethics is that?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    A perfect example is the current argument over whether brokers should have a duty to give good advice to their clients, instead of screwing them out of their money to win on some background investment.

    There's a debate on this matter (the abstract thing of whether a broker ought to be required to truly act on behalf of their clients)? :wtf:



  • @dkf said:

    There's a debate on this matter?

    Oh yes.

    Opinion: Surprise: Your broker doesn’t work for you
    SEC Joins Battle on Broker Bias That Could Remake Industry
    NYC Comptroller Calls For Broker Fiduciary Duty Law
    Dueling fiduciary standards from SEC, DOL 'not workable,' says industry expert

    Basically, right now, your investment broker does not work for you; he works for himself. There is no fiduciary duty on his part. He might do his best for you, or he might sell you the investment that is best for him.

    Goldman Sachs is now the classic example. They created two sets of investment funds: The first set was designed to be a loser, filled with worthless mortgages that would never yield an ROI. The second was a derivative based on the first, so that if the first plan lost money (which it was deliberately designed to do) Goldman would make money from the second set. Goldman called the first funds AAA investment grade, but they were actually junk grade; they then sold $40 billion dollars of securities in those funds to hundreds of thousands of investors. Who promptly lost their investment. Goldman itself made a mint on the second set of funds, just as planned--and that mint was mostly powered by the taxpayer money that propped up AIG.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    So, why haven't the relevant people been tarred, feathered, and horse-whipped out of town yet? This is the sort of thing for which pitchfork-wielding vigilante mobs were invented.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    No, I don't. It's enough proof that it can and has happened, and all too frequently.

    Unstated was to convince me of your thesis.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Since there's no way for the investors to know what is going on, investment here in the US is like rolling dice

    And somehow other places have solved omniscience? You made a pretty big claim and haven't backed it up from what I've read. That's all.

    @dkf said:

    So, why haven't the relevant people been tarred, feathered, and horse-whipped out of town yet?

    Guess who regulates those guys? Their former bosses and employees.



  • @Eldelshell said:

    send their account books

    @Eldelshell said:

    You basically have to send all information about your company over the wire.

    I'm curious: when you say all information do you mean the complete books for the year, transcripts from all meetings etc. or is it just the annual report, the minutes of the annual general meeting and such?

    If the former, I'd venture that this particular bit of company law is TRWTF.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dkf said:

    why haven't the relevant people been tarred, feathered, and horse-whipped out of town yet?

    Because people are pussies.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.