One of the great social benefits of the Madoff scandal

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

Michael Lewis (Liar’s Poker, Panic) and David Einhorn explain that one of the great social benefits of the Madoff scandal may be revealing the S.E.C. for what it has become:

Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors. (The task it has performed most diligently during this crisis has been to question, intimidate and impose rules on short-sellers — the only market players who have a financial incentive to expose fraud and abuse.)

The instinct to avoid short-term political heat is part of the problem; anything the S.E.C. does to roil the markets, or reduce the share price of any given company, also roils the careers of the people who run the S.E.C. Thus it seldom penalizes serious corporate and management malfeasance — out of some misguided notion that to do so would cause stock prices to fall, shareholders to suffer and confidence to be undermined. Preserving confidence, even when that confidence is false, has been near the top of the S.E.C.’s agenda.

It’s not hard to see why the S.E.C. behaves as it does. If you work for the enforcement division of the S.E.C. you probably know in the back of your mind, and in the front too, that if you maintain good relations with Wall Street you might soon be paid huge sums of money to be employed by it.

The commission’s most recent director of enforcement is the general counsel at JPMorgan Chase; the enforcement chief before him became general counsel at Deutsche Bank; and one of his predecessors became a managing director for Credit Suisse before moving on to Morgan Stanley. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the whole point of landing the job as the S.E.C.’s director of enforcement is to position oneself for the better paying one on Wall Street.

Consider the strange story of Harry Markopolos

Monday, January 5th, 2009

Michael Lewis (Liar’s Poker, Panic) and David Einhorn ask us to consider the strange story of Harry Markopolos:

Mr. Markopolos is the former investment officer with Rampart Investment Management in Boston who, for nine years, tried to explain to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard L. Madoff couldn’t be anything other than a fraud. Mr. Madoff’s investment performance, given his stated strategy, was not merely improbable but mathematically impossible. And so, Mr. Markopolos reasoned, Bernard Madoff must be doing something other than what he said he was doing.

In his devastatingly persuasive 17-page letter to the S.E.C., Mr. Markopolos saw two possible scenarios. In the “Unlikely” scenario: Mr. Madoff, who acted as a broker as well as an investor, was “front-running” his brokerage customers. A customer might submit an order to Madoff Securities to buy shares in I.B.M. at a certain price, for example, and Madoff Securities instantly would buy I.B.M. shares for its own portfolio ahead of the customer order. If I.B.M.’s shares rose, Mr. Madoff kept them; if they fell he fobbed them off onto the poor customer.

In the “Highly Likely” scenario, wrote Mr. Markopolos, “Madoff Securities is the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme.” Which, as we now know, it was.

Harry Markopolos sent his report to the S.E.C. on Nov. 7, 2005 — more than three years before Mr. Madoff was finally exposed — but he had been trying to explain the fraud to them since 1999. He had no direct financial interest in exposing Mr. Madoff — he wasn’t an unhappy investor or a disgruntled employee. There was no way to short shares in Madoff Securities, and so Mr. Markopolos could not have made money directly from Mr. Madoff’s failure. To judge from his letter, Harry Markopolos anticipated mainly downsides for himself: he declined to put his name on it for fear of what might happen to him and his family if anyone found out he had written it. And yet the S.E.C.’s cursory investigation of Mr. Madoff pronounced him free of fraud.

What’s interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it. It wasn’t just Harry Markopolos who smelled a rat. As Mr. Markopolos explained in his letter, Goldman Sachs was refusing to do business with Mr. Madoff; many others doubted Mr. Madoff’s profits or assumed he was front-running his customers and steered clear of him. Between the lines, Mr. Markopolos hinted that even some of Mr. Madoff’s investors may have suspected that they were the beneficiaries of a scam. After all, it wasn’t all that hard to see that the profits were too good to be true. Some of Mr. Madoff’s investors may have reasoned that the worst that could happen to them, if the authorities put a stop to the front-running, was that a good thing would come to an end.

The Madoff scandal echoes a deeper absence inside our financial system, which has been undermined not merely by bad behavior but by the lack of checks and balances to discourage it. “Greed” doesn’t cut it as a satisfying explanation for the current financial crisis. Greed was necessary but insufficient; in any case, we are as likely to eliminate greed from our national character as we are lust and envy. The fixable problem isn’t the greed of the few but the misaligned interests of the many.

The Optimal Way to Board Plane Passengers

Monday, January 5th, 2009

John Allen Paulos shares The Optimal Way to Board Plane Passengers — according to Jason Steffen, an astrophysicist at Fermi Lab near Chicago, who has run a few simulations:

For simplicity, his model assumes a plane with 120 passengers seated in 40 rows, each with a central aisle having three seats to the left and three seats to the right of it. It also assumes that each of the 120 passengers has an assigned seat number and carry-on baggage and that they move forward if and only if no one is directly in front of them.

So, given these reasonable assumptions, what’s the best way to board? It seems intuitive that the worst way is to load those passengers seated in the front of the plane first and then those a bit further back and so on. And this is, in fact, the worst way to board passengers.

So, it might seem almost as intuitive that the standard way — loading the back rows first and then gradually rows nearer the front — should be among the best ways to board, but Steffen’s simulations indicate that this is the second-slowest way. Even random boarding is faster.

After many simulations allowing for different sets of passenger quirks and luggage-stowing times, it turns out that the best method (one of several more or less equivalent methods) calls for passengers in even-numbered window seats near the back of the plane to board first.

Passengers hefting their carry-ons into the overhead compartments are less likely to get in each other’s way if there’s an empty row between them. Moreover, they can step into the empty row if someone seated further back needs to pass.

After these passengers have boarded, passengers in even-numbered window seats in the middle of the plane board, and they are followed by those in even-numbered window seats near the front of the plane. Next, the same procedure is followed for those in the even-numbered middle seats and then for those in the even-numbered aisle seats.

Finally, after the even-numbered passengers have boarded, the same procedure (window, middle, aisle from back to front) is followed for passengers in the odd-numbered seats. These passengers may not always have an empty row to step into, but they will still be separated from entering passengers by a row of already seated even-numbered passengers.

It appears that the reason the protocol is faster is that it allows multiple passengers to simultaneously stow their baggage, the most time-consuming component of the boarding process.

This and other similar schemes Steffen discusses may seem too complicated for passengers to master, but passengers needn’t remember the seating order algorithm. They can each be assigned a zone consistent with it and enter by zones, as they presently do.

The outcome is fairly robust in the sense that it’s relatively insensitive to deviations from it, say, because of couples or families being seated together.

Airlines should, of course, supplement these theoretical conclusions with empirical investigations.

I’m glad he included that last line.

The Twenty-Dollar Millionaire

Saturday, January 3rd, 2009

Tom Chiarella took two grand in twenties, rolled them up, and left for New York, planning to spend three days greasing palms from gate to gate to see what it got him. Thus, he became the twenty-dollar millionaire:

I bought my way into a good table at a Les Paul show with a twenty. I got an usher at NBC to hold a front-row seat for Busta Rhymes on the Carson Daly show. I got a seat at Dos Caminos, Manhattan’s jumpingest Mexican restaurant, in five minutes despite the two-hour wait. I cut to the head of the line at the half-price Broadway ticket booth in Times Square. I got my shoes resoled in twenty minutes instead of two weeks. I got a little love by shoving a twenty into a homeless guy’s coffee cup.
[...]
A twenty can’t buy everything. I failed often enough with my twenties that there were times when I doubted whether they could do anything at all. I tried to get into the Guggenheim when it was closed. I pushed the docent to let me roll one ball in the Frick museum’s secret bowling alley. I asked a stripper for a big wet kiss. I tried to get an ABC security guard to show me Peter Jennings’s car. I attempted to jump to the head of the rotation at a karaoke place. I tried to get into the premiere of Analyze That by passing a twenty folded in the shape of a ticket. The doorman looked at me like I was a mime.

Then I realized something else: Most people aren’t willing to lose their job for twenty bucks, but if they have something they already take for granted — a place in line, a seat, a ticket to a show they’ve already seen — they’ll jump on a twenty like a possum on a wet bag of groceries. It’s a matter of opportunity. You have to find your moments.
[...]
It’s all about attitude and need. You have to have the attitude. You must discern the need. If you are the least bit hesitant or apologetic for offering the money, you are doomed. No one likes to take money if he feels as though the person is stretching himself to give it away. Remember, the more public the favor, the more private the pass. Whip out the bill, move swiftly. Fold it in quarters for discretion. Use the right palm. Smile knowingly. Wave it flat, like a flag, when you’re after more favors, more fealty. In this case, use the fingertips. Either way, it’s really just a sort of greeting. Treat it like a how-do-you-do and nothing more.

Wal-Mart’s Worst Nightmare

Wednesday, December 31st, 2008

Apparently British mega-retailer Tesco is Wal-Mart’s Worst Nightmare:

British retailer Tesco entered the U.S. market only last year but already it has managed to put Wal-Mart, the world’s No. 1 retailer, on the defensive. Tesco fired the first salvo, in a battle that retailing analysts expect will intensify, by launching Fresh & Easy, a chain of 10,000-square-foot convenience stores, in cities across California, Nevada, and Arizona in November 2007. Eleven months later, Wal-Mart returned fire, taking on Tesco in Arizona with the debut of the similar-size Marketside, its first new store format in a decade.
[...]
Back home in Britain, Tesco has long outpaced the Wal-Mart-owned discount chain Asda. The British giant currently has 34% market share, nearly double that of Asda. In a quarterly trading update on Dec. 2, Tesco reported that despite the economic slowdown, group sales rose 11.7% for the 13 weeks ended Nov. 22, compared to the same period the previous year, due in large part to the strength of Tesco’s international operations. While like-for-like sales in Britain rose a paltry 2%, the slowest growth rate in 15 years, Tesco’s international operations posted revenue growth of 28%. Analysts at Citigroup expect sales for the full fiscal year ending Feb. 28 to rise 13.6%, to $82 billion.

Tesco’s international momentum is expected to continue. A recent report from the Institute of Grocery Distribution, a British food industry group, forecasts Tesco will continue to grow at an average of 11% annually through 2012, enabling it to overtake France’s Carrefour to become the world’s second-largest retailer by 2012.

I thought this was WalMart‘s key strength:

Analysts say that Tesco’s big advantage over major international rivals, which also include Germany’s Aldi and Lidl, is its unrivaled ability to manage vast reams of data and translate that knowledge into sales.

Tesco’s strength lies just outside of Tesco actually:

While data crunching may sound dull, it has given Tesco two major advantages: an unmatched ability to operate multiple retail formats — ranging in size from convenience stores to hypermarkets — and the market knowledge to offer what many analysts say is the best and broadest range of house brands from any retailer.

Tesco uses information gleaned from Dunnhumby, a British data mining firm of which it has majority control, to manage every aspect of its business, from creating new shop formats to arranging store layouts to developing private-label products and targeted sales promotions. In 2003, U.S. supermarket chain Kroger copied Tesco’s example, setting up a joint venture with Dunnhumby in the U.S. Since then, Dunnhumby also has signed deals with a number of other U.S. retailers including Home Depot, Best Buy, and Macy’s.

Tesco’s other strength is its private-label goods:

While U.S. retailers have struggled to convince shoppers that supermarket brands are as good as big-name counterparts, Tesco’s private-label products account for as much as 60% of sales in many countries. According to the company, private-label products also account for more than 70% of Fresh & Easy’s sales. “Wal-Mart and France’s Carrefour are lucky to get 35% of sales from private label,” Flickinger says. The reason, he says, is that Tesco has a range of house brands to cover every price point. In fact, some of its premium-range products, such as Tesco Finest chocolate or yogurt, even sell at up to a 50% premium to established brands such as Cadbury and Danone.

Colbert, SpongeBob may go dark on Time Warner

Wednesday, December 31st, 2008

Colbert, SpongeBob may go dark on Time Warner:

Media giant Viacom Inc. said its Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 16 other channels will go dark on Time Warner Cable Inc. at 12:01 a.m. Thursday if a new carriage fee deal is not agreed upon by then.

The impasse over carriage fee hikes would mean “SpongeBob” and other shows like “The Daily Show” will be cut off to 13 million subscribers, said spokesman Alex Dudley, a vice president at Time Warner Cable. The nation’s second-largest cable operator primarily serves customers in New York state, the Carolinas, Ohio, Southern California and Texas.

Viacom has asked for fee increases of between 22 percent and 36 percent per channel, an amount that could increase customers’ cable bills, Dudley said. Viacom spokeswoman Kelly McAndrew said the requested increase was in the very low double-digit percentage range.

“The issue is that they have asked for an exorbitant increase in their carriage fees and their network ratings are sagging,” he said. “Basically we’re trying to hold the line for our customer.”

Viacom said the increases would cost an extra 23 cents a month per subscriber — which works out to $35.9 million more in total. It said that Americans spend a fifth of their TV time watching Viacom shows but its fees make up less than 2.5 percent of the Time Warner cable bill.

The Skinny on Big TVs

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Cringely suggests that The Missing Link in home theater adoption — and thus sales — is an industry standard for wireless speakers.

But I found this prelude to his main point more interesting:

Something unanticipated happened that has driven LCD and plasma TV sales higher than expected. The fact that these new sets are skinny and can be hung on a wall has changed the way we buy televisions, not just in the U.S. but globally.

There has for almost a century now been a space carved out in most American living rooms for a piece of consumer electronic furniture. Originally it was a console radio complete with gleaming wooden cabinetry. Later the radio was replaced with a TV of comparable size or larger. We positioned our furniture to help us see or hear better, changing the social dynamics of our living spaces. Rooms came to be sized with televisions in mind. And the biggest analog TV screen in my era were 21-23 inches measured diagonally, a size dictated both by the economics of glass blowing and by the maximum cabinet depth the manufacturers thought they could get away with.

Bigger sets were rare because they were expensive but also because they required bigger rooms. Projection sets went into American homes as a result, rather than into homes in Europe or Asia with their generally smaller rooms. And because the size of the market was limited in this way, so too were limited the economies of scale that could be enjoyed by the projection TV makers. Big sets were not only more expensive — they were a LOT more expensive.

Then along came plasma and then LCD displays, which could be hung on a wall taking no floor space at all. Wonder of wonder, when these TVs started selling in Japan most of the buyers were replacing smaller sets with ones that were substantially larger. You could put a honking-big TV in a tiny room if you liked — especially if it was a tight-grained 1080p set. Japanese customers started buying bigger sets, economies of scale began to kick-in so those sets got cheaper so people bought sets that were bigger still. The size effect happened everywhere, too. People the world over are buying bigger sets than ever because they can hang them on a wall.

Ford has grabbed the fuel-economy crown

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Ford has grabbed the fuel-economy crown, Martin Zimmerman notes, just in time for the lowest gas prices in years:

Ford said today that its new 2010 Fusion hybrid has been certified by the EPA at 41 mpg/city and 36 mpg/highway, with a combined rating of 39 miles per gallon. That beats the hybrid versions of its competitors in the mid-sized sedan segment (at least based on their 2009 EPA ratings): the Toyota Camry (33 city/34 highway); Chevy Malibu (26/34); and the Nissan Altima (35/33).

In fact, based on the competition’s ’09 ratings for combined city and highway driving, the new Fusion hybrid beats every widely sold vehicle in America except the Toyota Prius hybrid (46 mpg combined) and the smaller Honda Civic hybrid (42 mpg combined).
[...]
With a suggested list price of about $27,000, however, the Fusion hybrid costs $1,500 more than the ’09 Chevy Malibu hybrid and $1,000 more than a Camry hybrid, based on retail price information from Edmunds.com. The federal hybrid tax credit should eliminate that gap with the Camry, which is no longer eligible for the credit.

A tougher sell may be convincing consumers to pay the $8,000 premium over a basic Fusion (20 MPG city/28 highway) at a time when gas prices are tumbling. The current price in California for a gallon of regular is $1.806, according to AAA. That’s down 60% from its high last summer. And in New York trading today, gasoline futures fell to December 2003 lows.

Ford’s marketing spin is completely ludicrous:

“Fuel economy will never go out of style,” Ford spokesman John Clinard said. “No matter what the price of gas is, people always want to save money at the pump.”

All those Hummers and Explorers plying area freeways may belie that statement.

The Sin in Doing Good Deeds

Thursday, December 25th, 2008

Nicholas D. Kristof reviews Dan Pallotta’s Uncharitable, about The Sin in Doing Good Deeds:

Mr. Pallotta’s frustration is intertwined with his own history as the inventor of fund-raisers like AIDSRides and Breast Cancer 3-Days — events that, he says, netted $305 million over nine years for unrestricted use by charities. In the aid world, that’s a breathtaking sum.

But Mr. Pallotta’s company wasn’t a charity, but rather a for-profit company that created charitable events. Critics railed at his $394,500 salary — low for a corporate chief executive, but stratospheric in the aid world — and at the millions of dollars spent on advertising and marketing and other expenses.

“Shame on Pallotta,” declared one critic at the time, accusing him of “greed and unabashed profiteering.” In the aftermath of a wave of criticism, his company collapsed.

One breast cancer charity that parted ways with Mr. Pallotta began producing its own fund-raising walks, but the net sum raised by those walks for breast cancer research plummeted from $71 million to $11 million, he says.

Mr. Pallotta argues powerfully that the aid world is stunted because groups are discouraged from using such standard business tools as advertising, risk-taking, competitive salaries and profits to lure capital.

“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them,” Mr. Pallotta says. “Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”

Hello Kitty Maternity Ward

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

If you don’t like the typical hospital experience, perhaps you’d consider this Hello Kitty Maternity Ward:

A nurse tends to a baby inside a Hello Kitty themed maternity ward inside a hospital in Changhua County December 4, 2008. Mommy, daddy — and Hello Kitty — welcome newborns at a cat-themed Taiwan maternity hospital that hopes the Japanese cartoon icon will ease the stress of childbirth as well as boost business. The 30-bed Hau Sheng Hospital in Yuanlin in central Taiwan claims to be the only institution of its kind authorised by the popular cartoon cat’s parent company Sanrio Co Ltd. Newborns get everything Hello Kitty but a set of whiskers, including pink or blue receiving blankets, nurses dressed in pink uniforms with cat-themed aprons, cot linen and room decor.

Diary of a Self-Help Dropout

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) spent a couple weeks “flirting with The 4-Hour Workweek” and other productivity regimens, and he shares his experience in his Diary of a Self-Help Dropout, which he sums up nicely:

Allen, Morgenstern, and Ferriss are a nicely compatible family unit: David Allen is the practical dad who reminds you not to overcomplicate things; just get the job done. Julie Morgenstern is the encouraging mom who, while hugging you, says, “It’ll be all right; you just need to focus on what’s important here.” And Tim Ferriss is the upstart kid who cries, “Think outside the box, man!” So in retrospect, it makes sense that I found it easier to cherry-pick elements from each and stitch together my own wearable cloak of efficiency. Now, I know that David Allen is the head vampire of productivity, but if you only have the fortitude to read a single book, I’m gonna throw my lithe frame behind The 4-Hour Workweek. Ferriss lays out a series of nimble yet perfectly legal cons to help you break out of the corporate Bastille — and work from the actual Bastille, if you want. That sly creativity best fits the rogue nature of the freelancer.

Toyota Expects Its First Loss in 70 Years

Monday, December 22nd, 2008

Toyota Expects Its First Loss in 70 Years:

On Monday, Toyota said it expected an operating loss in its auto operations of 150 billion yen, or $1.7 billion, for the fiscal year ending March 31. That would be the company’s first annual operating loss since 1938, a year after the company was founded, and a huge reversal from the 2.3 trillion yen, or $28 billion, in operating profit earned last year.
[...]
With some $18.5 billion in cash, and relatively little debt, Toyota is still in far better shape to weather the downturn than General Motors and Chrysler, which on Friday received $17.4 billion in emergency loans from Washington.

The Brains of TSA

Monday, December 22nd, 2008

David Henderson says you’ll wonder why he’s quoting his own Making Great Decisions in Business and Life while discussing The Brains of TSA, but be patient:

A few years ago, I volunteered to serve hamburgers, hot dogs, and veggie burgers at a barbecue held at my daughter’s high school. When it looked as if we were running out of any of the three items, one of the cooks would put more of those items on the grill. At one point, the line got long, with about 12 people suddenly waiting for their meal. That was the symptom of the problem. The cooks quickly put more burgers on the grill. That was their solution. But I looked down and saw that I had about four each of hot dogs and veggie burgers. I realized that the cooks were implicitly assuming that everyone wanted hamburgers. But, I wondered, what if some of them were in line for hot dogs and veggie burgers? There was a simple solution that addressed the real problem: ask them. So I announced, in my booming voice, “Anyone who’s in line for hot dogs or veggie burgers please come up here.” Immediately, six people came up, cutting the apparent hamburger line in half. Interestingly, the server who had made the panicked request to the cook for more hamburgers was a high-level manager at a logistics firm. He didn’t see any easy way around the problem.

The punchline:

When Charley and I tell a story of poor thinking, we almost never give the name of the person. But here I’ll make an exception. This high-level manager of a logistics firm? Well, his name is Kip Hawley and he’s now head of TSA.

The tweakers are crashing on us

Friday, December 19th, 2008

John Emerson believes that the tweakers are crashing on us:

So here’s my explanation of the present Collapse of Western Civilization: amphetamines. The world of finance is a rather small one, populated entirely by supersmart, extremely aggressive and competitive men (mostly) who have to go at top speed twelve or more hours a day, day after day. How do they do it? Performance-enhancing drugs, that’s how: legally-prescribed amphetamines. (Cocaine is uncool, and so Eighties.)

And since finance controls the world, when the tweakers crash, the whole world crashes with them. Like a football team collapsing in the fourth quarter, the world has run out of beans. We’ve had our jag, and now we’re crashing. Not much fun.

In my small experience, amphetamines are very nice. The world becomes a happy place. You get smarter and have lots of energy, and you can keep on going indefinitely. Complex ideas seem simple and all of your ideas look good. The crash isn’t even that bad if you use in moderation. But amphetamines are not conducive to moderation.

Profitable Until Deemed Illegal

Friday, December 19th, 2008

Jeff Atwood describes swoopo.com as Profitable Until Deemed Illegal:

I was fascinated to discover the auction hybrid site swoopo.com (previously known as telebid.com). It’s a strange combination of eBay, woot, and slot machine. Here’s how it works:
  • You purchase bids in pre-packaged blocks of at least 30. Each bid costs you 75 cents, with no volume discount.
  • Each bid raises the purchase price by 15 cents and increases the auction time by 15 seconds.
  • Once the auction ends, you pay the final price.

I just watched an 8GB Apple iPod Touch sell on swoopo for $187.65. The final price means a total of 1,251 bids were placed for this item, costing bidders a grand total of $938.25.

So that $229 item ultimately sold for $1,125.90.

But that one final bidder got a great deal, right? Maybe. Even when you win, you can lose. Remember that each bid costs you 75 cents, while only increasing the price of the item 15 cents. If you bid too many times on an item — or if you use the site’s “helpful” automated BidButler service, which bids on your behalf — you’ll end up paying the purchase price in bids alone. For this item, if you bid more than 305 times, you’ve paid the purchase price — and only raised the cost of the item by $45.75 total.

OK, so bidding a lot is a bad idea, so maybe we only bid one time, or a few times, and near the end of the auction? Great plan, except the auction is extended 15 seconds each and every time someone bids in those final seconds. There are absolute end dates for the auctions, but they’re usually so far in the future that the auction will end through attrition long before they reach their end date. I’ve often wondered if eBay would implement this feature, as it would effectively end last second sniping, a huge problem for auction sites. Well, beyond the obvious problem with auctions, which is that the most optimistic person sets the price for everyone else.

There’s something else at work here, though, and it’s almost an exploit of human nature itself. Once you’ve bid on something a few times, you now have a vested financial interest in that product, a product someone else could end up winning, rendering your investment moot. This often leads to irrational decisionmaking — something called the endowment effect, which has even been observed in chimpanzees. So instead of doing the rational thing and walking away from a bad investment, you pour more money in, sending good money after bad.

It’s pretty clear to me that swoopo isn’t an auction site. It bills itself as “entertainment shopping”. I think it is in fact a lottery; the only way to win here is sheer dumb luck.

Or, of course, by not playing at all.

I don’t know that I’d call it pure, distilled evil, but I did immediately think of Martin Shubik’s dollar auction (as one of the commenters did).