3 ms·
I think its important to note that they didn't end up this way because they were stupid or power hungry. Like alot of companies, they made decisions that made
by chollida1 10y ago
I think its important to note that they didn't end up this way because they were stupid or power hungry.
Like alot of companies, they made decisions that made sense at the time that ended up having poor long term consequences.
When they decided to really grow it was due to a couple of things..
1) Their competitors were all doing the same thing and they almost needed to grow their investment arm and international presence just to stay in business.
It used to be that Audi, Porchse etc would come to them for basic loans etc and business was good. But as these firms grew internationally they also needed a bank that did the same.
Audi sells in Brazil it needs a bank with a presence there as well. And along comes the big american and European banks who start selling themselves to Deutsche's current clients as a one stop shop who can do what Deutsche does but also all these new things that international modern companies need.
A company needs to get a currency or interest rate swap, well Goldman Sachs can do that, so Deutsche followed suit.
From this perspective its easy to see how they started down the road they did.
And once you start building out a international team of investment bankers and traders that means you're now competing for talent with the rest of the big players.
So how do you hire the best traders/investment bankers?
You pay them like everyone else does, which is to say you have to pay them..... alot.
You have to provide perks like New York/London/Tokyo offices and the ability to trade the hottest products and markets.
You need to let your traders make money like other firms do or they'll just leave for those other firms.
All just to keep your existing clients.
And before long you are just like everyone else.
Then in the mid 2000's during a huge bull market you have one of wall streets stars Boaz Weinstien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaz_Weinstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaz_Weinstein or read "The Quants") running your derivatives desk. And they made money hand over fist..... at the time.
Now the funny thing about bull markets, is that even bad trades can make money during them because everything is up and to the right.
And even if you think you are putting on too much exposure, tough, remember that so is everyone else and if you stop, then the good traders and bankers quit and go to competitors who will let them make money.
It's sort of like raising money as a startup in frothy markets. You'd just better raise money because if you don't and all your competitors raise 20 million then even if you're better they'll often win because they can survive longer than you.
It just happens that Deutsche didn't quite understand the game that was eing played, and when the music stopped, they were holding the bag so to speak.
- mavelikara 10y agoWhy do you need good traders in a bull market, if everything goes up?
- Bombthecat 10y agoSo you can make 20% instead of 10%?
- blub 10y agoAccording to the article they were both stupid and power hungry and yet you make it sound like they accidentally manipulated Libor or bet against their own clients. Should we feel pity for them or what? They could have expanded AND kept some control of what the investment bankers were doing. Other banks managed to reduce their exposure while DB was blisfully sailing ahead, so your assertion that "so is everyone else and if you stop, then the good traders and bankers quit and go to competitors who will let them make money" is incorrect. This is mentioned in the article. It also says right in the article that traders were amazed how poor the oversight from HQ was.
- chollida1 10y agoWow, I don't normally respond to replies but it looks like you tried as hard as you could to take the most negative outlook possible on my post. I mean you completely failed in any way to give my note the principle of charity. Have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity I really don't know how to respond to that:( My point was that their transformation from a regional bank into an international bank wasn't just a power grab or kingdom building but a very natural progression, that lots of their competitors, to keep their existing customers. it then turned out that one of their new areas, derivatives desk, was minting money like crazy so it became tougher for them to reign in that team, and as a side effect the risk that team generated, until it was painfully clear that they'd gone too far. Their problem wasn't in the idea of growing and transforming the bank but in the implementation, and I believe I laid out in pretty easy to follow detail, why they went the way they did.