International media, Business, and Finance industry observers have analyzed extensively Kumar's actions in aiding Rajaratnam. Consensus remains divided on the precise motivators of money, respect, and relationship, with The New York Times asking, "Why would people who seem to have it all — wealth, prestige, powerful jobs and infinite access to others with the same — risk that, and more, to provide inside information to the Sri Lankan-born Billionaire?" Rajaratnam's annual payments were estimated at less than 5% of Kumar's annual income (and just 1-2% excluding a one-time bonus), further raising the question of motivation. Prosecutors wondered "why an incredibly bright, highly accomplished, professional consultant, and senior partner at arguably the world’s leading consulting firm, who contributed considerable time to start the Indian School of Business and to other charities, would betray his profession’s core values." One media source questioned Kumar's sentencing report. Judge Chin would ultimately rule that "greed wasn't the motive in [Kumar's] case."