Generally, the report would need to include an intensifier like substantial, significant, or serious -- unless the substantiality is clear and obvious from the report or from the actions taken (e.g., issuance of orders disqualifying most of the trustees). Absence of a public report will cause this to resolve to NO.
For example, this language from a recent report on another charity would qualify, although I view it as a fairly close call:
The Commission has concluded that there was misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity’s administration by the trustees. This includes a serious disregard for, and/or a lack of understanding of, the importance of proper financial controls and accountability in respect of the charity’s funds.
Effective Ventures, so much to hide,
Charity Commission digs deep inside,
Will they uncover mismanagement grave?
Or will EVF their reputation save?
Question for users: When I created this market and the "significant regulatory action" market, I viewed them as partially overlapping attempts to operationalize the badness (or lack thereof) of the outcome in a way that was objective as possible. I intended for them to point to a roughly equal level of badness as the threshold.
Right now, the other market is at a higher percentage than this one. I'm curious about what encouraged bidders to bid on one market vs the other, and (currently) with a meaningful difference in expectancy. Is one market a better operationalization of badness, more objective, etc?
Thanks for the feedback!
@berealistic I think this market was easier for me to understand, so I was more confident on the number. The other market seems vaguer so I don't even consider it until I'd read this message properly.
I don't trade in my own markets where there is any subjectivity involved, but the current 22 percent chance seems significantly too low to me.
Related markets
Related markets