4 ms·
>If they are that good then more should be expected of them. They should be conducting independent audits - "trust by verify" or do some innovating in the area
by jonwachob91 10y ago
>If they are that good then more should be expected of them. They should be conducting independent audits - "trust by verify" or do some innovating in the area of compliance. Their M.O. is always to blame someone else, the buck never stops with them.
Isn't that a little extreme? $500MM sounds like a butt ton of money to you and I, but Deutsche Bank has over $800B aum. To successfully audit $800B in assets a year he'd need to look at almost $2.2B of deals a day, assuming there's 0 fluctuation in earnings per day. Then he'd have to no time for figuring out what units are the most profitable and growing those business. He'd spend 100% of his time assessing risk, kind of like that department he hires to handle risk assessments. Even if he spent an hour a day doing random spot checks of deals, their are so many sour ones to clean ones that it'd almost be a waste of time.
- jimnotgym 10y agoThe person bearing overall responsibility to appoint the right people to build a system of internal controls that can audit whatever volume of trade they are doing. In this case it seems that the top people knew all about this trade and it is clear that the accounting treatment of a trade that spreads a loss into the future would be 'fair value'. IE 0. So if the courts find that this actually happened then of course the execs are culpable.