To take issue with some bad terminology is to miss Mr Ebert's point. He writes for laymen, so his argument is not about the exact internals of Wall Street, it's

To take issue with some bad terminology is to miss Mr Ebert's point. He writes for laymen, so his argument is not about the exact internals of Wall Street, it's about the big picture. In this case Richard Fuld of Lehman took home $480 million even as the company was falling apart. Billions in bonuses all around. Ebert thinks that's highly unethical. Traders/quants/etc snort cocaine when dealing with billions of other people's money, including mortgages and pension funds, according the article. Ebert thinks that's highly unethical, too. So this isn't about Roger Ebert's technical understanding of the matter, it's about traders acting against the interests of their clients, and not giving a fuck about it. I think Ebert is perfectly qualified to comment on that.