[grzm]

Do you believe the behavior described in the piece is a result of Saudi investment? Your comment leans in that direction, which is quite an insinuation if that's not what you actually believe to be the case. If so, I'd like to know more about what leads you to believe it is, or is even likely. It seems to me that much more prosaic explanations are likely.

[mst]

My reading is that their belief is that Saudi investors wouldn't care about such behaviour or consider it marginally positive, as a contrast with non-Saudi investors who might reconsider doing a deal given such information.

[grzm]

I think this sentence is implying something much stronger than that:

It may even be viewed as a plus, influencing an American company to adopt Saudi values.

[mst]

I'm unsure what difference you see between "a plus" and "marginally positive" except I'm specifically pointing out it's probably a secondary consideration to profit.

[grzm]

Interesting take. The operative word for me is influencing. Thanks for pointing out in detail where you where getting your reading.

[010a]

Investors pull the strings. The behavior isn't the result of an investment, but failing to implement procedures after the fact to stop future incidents definitely can be. Not through action, but through inaction.

Meaning, more ethical investors (also known as: Board Members) might say "We need to do something about this."