5 ms·

I don't understand. Are we really talking about personal savings? Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own mo

I don't understand. Are we really talking about personal savings? Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money?

muninn_ 9y ago
Because of federal regulations. I have previously worked in an investment bank as well and you are not allowed to day trade, you're only allowed to trade during certain periods, and for my employer you were only allowed to have retirement accounts including things like IRAs with certain reputable companies (Vanguard, Goldman, JP, etc.).
hvidgaard 9y ago
If you're trading for a company, your legal work actions may impact certain markets. If you know about this beforehand, you may trade with your own money with an advantage - to prevent people abusing this, you're not allowed to trade privately if you're responsible for trading or the decisions on what to trade. Your salary should reflect this restriction.
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  The article says that all employees are going to be restricted. That seems a bit ridiculous.
  - philipov 9y ago
    Typically, anyone working at an investment firm may be privy to material information, and is banned from investing in any security that that firm has in their universe. Doesn't matter if you actually do the trading.
    - CogitoCogito 9y ago
      I don't understand. Does Nordea trade in bitcoin? This is a quote in this Reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-group-nordea-bans-bitcoin-trading-idUSKBN1FB1XZ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-gr... ): > “The risks are seen as too high and the protection is insufficient for both the co-workers and the bank,” a Nordea spokeswoman told Reuters in an e-mail, adding that employees who currently own cryptocurrencies will not be forced to sell them, although recommended to do so. They don't seem to say anything about Nordea workers having any privy information. By their rationale, I don't understand why they wouldn't be unable to declare any instrument off the table. I'm kind of surprised that this kind of unilateral change of workers' rights is allowed in Sweden.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Crypto markets are small enough that there's a risk of employees buying in and then evangelizing clients in order to boost their own investments. It's basically impossible to do that in traditional markets.
        CogitoCogito 9y ago
        According to this site ( https://www.coindesk.com/price/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/ ) the value of the bitcoin market is more than $100 billion. That doesn't exactly seem like a small market. I could sort of see the argument on smaller up and coming crypto-currencies, but not for bitcoin.
        bpicolo 9y ago
        Compared to stock markets, liquidity is low. Fake news can (and recently has) killed 30% of the market's value in a day.
        CogitoCogito 9y ago
        I really think there is far too much arbitrary reasoning here and I still don't understand how your average Nordea secretary is well-positioned to influence the bitcoin market. All of the reasoning I've read here seems to apply equally well to all Scandinavians if it applies to all of Nordea workers. It seems to me that a better approach would be for financial regulators to make these decisions or at least provide more warning time than a little over a month. Most Swedes I know need to give at least 3 months notice when quitting. I would hope that Nordea's actions mean that employees could at least quit early if they so choose.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Well it's really a problem in so far as the bank employee thinks they can influence the market. The bank may care marginally about an employee influencing crypto markets but what they're really worried about is an employee influencing bank customers. There is a huge and pervasive belief in the bitcoin community that they really need to talk up bitcoin, nothing that can happen to bitcoin is really bad, it's destined to climb higher, etc. Even on this board I've read stuff like 'if the top 1% only put 1% of their portfolios in bitcoin it would be worth a gajillion times more.' I can understand wanting to make sure your employees aren't feeling that same way when they're making investment decisions with other peoples money.
- arghwhat 9y ago
  Would that not be considered insider trading, in which case the employee is privately committing a criminal offense, and thus does not require any additional restrictions?
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    Insider trading is a huge part of what they're trying to avoid - intentional or otherwise. It puts the firm at risk if their employees are making dubious trades, even on their own time with their own money
    - arghwhat 9y ago
      It makes sense that the company wishes to avoid insider trading, but it doesn't make sense that the company is telling its employees to not commit a criminal offense. It should be obvious, and the disincentives by the company is nothing compared to huge fines and time in jail.
      - bpicolo 9y ago
        It's not just that the tell them not to, they actively audit for it. It's a risk to the company, not just a personal risk to the employee
wyldfire 9y ago
It seems backwards but it's to prevent things like insider trading. For example, if this Finnish bank were planning to open its own cryptocoin exchange, the employees would have advance knowledge. They could buy or short impacted securities before the announcement/opening.
- bighi 9y ago
  But if that was the reason, why also ban bitcoin and other crptocoins? Also, why is it even legal? Companies shouldn't have the power to decide what its employees can or can't do with their own time or money.
thisisit 9y ago
Workplaces like banks are very sensitive about what you can or can't do. This article is thin on details. Better source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/nordea-bans-employees-from-trading-bitcoin-spokeswoman-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/nordea-ba... “It is widespread practice across the banking industry to restrict the personal account dealing of staff to prevent them taking positions in speculative investments, or which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing,” Kellberg said. “Nordea therefore, like all banks, has the right to set out policies in this area that apply to its staff.”
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  Are we sure we're clear over what is violating noncompetes / "insider trading" vs. I want to avoid my employees undergoing complete financial ruin if X-coin crashes What tipped me off was this statement: > which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing The question isn't whether they can (they just did) but "why"? Their reasoning (unless article is cutting this out) doesn't go into insider trading.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Just speculating, but when an employee is suddenly short on cash, they might feel tempted to take some home from their job. So banks would try to make sure that their employees are more interested in their continued income over the long term, rather than a single large payday.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Even low level employees at a bank can do amazingly large amount of damage to bank customers and access enormous amount of money. While such actions can be unwound by the banks it is very costly and time consuming. It may also result in sanctions.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Yes, so you don't make work-trades to advantage your personal-trades. My employer bars us from certain things like short holding periods and naked puts.
eatmyshorts 9y ago
Yes. The compliance team at most investment banks will prevent individuals or members of their family from trading any instrument that the firm is actively trading in without going through a "waiting period". All personal trading accounts for the employee and direct family members must be registered with the compliance team. Banks employee independent investigators to ensure their employees follow through on these requirements; violations are a fireable offense, and I have seen multiple people fired for lack of compliance. This is to prevent insider trading, among other things. Compliance issues with individual traders can result in massive fines for their employers.
jVinc 9y ago
"Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money?" If they intend to do anything in the crypto world, any employees who invest prior are acting on insider information. Even suspicion will lead to investigations which will be really bad PR. They can't go out and say "you can't invest because that makes you insiders" because then they jump the gun. But they can simply add cryptos to the existing list of investments you are barred from due to your position. Jobs have requirements, like showing up, not burning down the place, and sometimes not investing in certain assets. You sign the contract and can stop at any time if you feel like investing in crypto, not showing up or burning the place down. Though that last one you'll still get in trouble with the authorities. But if you quit first you won't be in breach of contract.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money? Conflict of interest. You can do whatever you want with your own money, but some of those things are incompatible with working for the bank.

I don't understand. Are we really talking about personal savings? Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money?

muninn_ 9y ago

Because of federal regulations. I have previously worked in an investment bank as well and you are not allowed to day trade, you're only allowed to trade during certain periods, and for my employer you were only allowed to have retirement accounts including things like IRAs with certain reputable companies (Vanguard, Goldman, JP, etc.).

hvidgaard 9y ago

If you're trading for a company, your legal work actions may impact certain markets. If you know about this beforehand, you may trade with your own money with an advantage - to prevent people abusing this, you're not allowed to trade privately if you're responsible for trading or the decisions on what to trade. Your salary should reflect this restriction.

CogitoCogito 9y ago
The article says that all employees are going to be restricted. That seems a bit ridiculous.
- philipov 9y ago
  Typically, anyone working at an investment firm may be privy to material information, and is banned from investing in any security that that firm has in their universe. Doesn't matter if you actually do the trading.
  - CogitoCogito 9y ago
    I don't understand. Does Nordea trade in bitcoin? This is a quote in this Reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-group-nordea-bans-bitcoin-trading-idUSKBN1FB1XZ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-gr... ): > “The risks are seen as too high and the protection is insufficient for both the co-workers and the bank,” a Nordea spokeswoman told Reuters in an e-mail, adding that employees who currently own cryptocurrencies will not be forced to sell them, although recommended to do so. They don't seem to say anything about Nordea workers having any privy information. By their rationale, I don't understand why they wouldn't be unable to declare any instrument off the table. I'm kind of surprised that this kind of unilateral change of workers' rights is allowed in Sweden.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Crypto markets are small enough that there's a risk of employees buying in and then evangelizing clients in order to boost their own investments. It's basically impossible to do that in traditional markets.
      - CogitoCogito 9y ago
        According to this site ( https://www.coindesk.com/price/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/ ) the value of the bitcoin market is more than $100 billion. That doesn't exactly seem like a small market. I could sort of see the argument on smaller up and coming crypto-currencies, but not for bitcoin.
        bpicolo 9y ago
        Compared to stock markets, liquidity is low. Fake news can (and recently has) killed 30% of the market's value in a day.
        CogitoCogito 9y ago
        I really think there is far too much arbitrary reasoning here and I still don't understand how your average Nordea secretary is well-positioned to influence the bitcoin market. All of the reasoning I've read here seems to apply equally well to all Scandinavians if it applies to all of Nordea workers. It seems to me that a better approach would be for financial regulators to make these decisions or at least provide more warning time than a little over a month. Most Swedes I know need to give at least 3 months notice when quitting. I would hope that Nordea's actions mean that employees could at least quit early if they so choose.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Well it's really a problem in so far as the bank employee thinks they can influence the market. The bank may care marginally about an employee influencing crypto markets but what they're really worried about is an employee influencing bank customers. There is a huge and pervasive belief in the bitcoin community that they really need to talk up bitcoin, nothing that can happen to bitcoin is really bad, it's destined to climb higher, etc. Even on this board I've read stuff like 'if the top 1% only put 1% of their portfolios in bitcoin it would be worth a gajillion times more.' I can understand wanting to make sure your employees aren't feeling that same way when they're making investment decisions with other peoples money.
arghwhat 9y ago
Would that not be considered insider trading, in which case the employee is privately committing a criminal offense, and thus does not require any additional restrictions?
- bpicolo 9y ago
  Insider trading is a huge part of what they're trying to avoid - intentional or otherwise. It puts the firm at risk if their employees are making dubious trades, even on their own time with their own money
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    It makes sense that the company wishes to avoid insider trading, but it doesn't make sense that the company is telling its employees to not commit a criminal offense. It should be obvious, and the disincentives by the company is nothing compared to huge fines and time in jail.
    - bpicolo 9y ago
      It's not just that the tell them not to, they actively audit for it. It's a risk to the company, not just a personal risk to the employee

wyldfire 9y ago

It seems backwards but it's to prevent things like insider trading. For example, if this Finnish bank were planning to open its own cryptocoin exchange, the employees would have advance knowledge. They could buy or short impacted securities before the announcement/opening.

bighi 9y ago
But if that was the reason, why also ban bitcoin and other crptocoins? Also, why is it even legal? Companies shouldn't have the power to decide what its employees can or can't do with their own time or money.

thisisit 9y ago

Workplaces like banks are very sensitive about what you can or can't do. This article is thin on details. Better source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/nordea-bans-employees-from-trading-bitcoin-spokeswoman-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/nordea-ba... “It is widespread practice across the banking industry to restrict the personal account dealing of staff to prevent them taking positions in speculative investments, or which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing,” Kellberg said. “Nordea therefore, like all banks, has the right to set out policies in this area that apply to its staff.”

FilterSweep 9y ago
Are we sure we're clear over what is violating noncompetes / "insider trading" vs. I want to avoid my employees undergoing complete financial ruin if X-coin crashes What tipped me off was this statement: > which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing The question isn't whether they can (they just did) but "why"? Their reasoning (unless article is cutting this out) doesn't go into insider trading.
- yorwba 9y ago
  Just speculating, but when an employee is suddenly short on cash, they might feel tempted to take some home from their job. So banks would try to make sure that their employees are more interested in their continued income over the long term, rather than a single large payday.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Even low level employees at a bank can do amazingly large amount of damage to bank customers and access enormous amount of money. While such actions can be unwound by the banks it is very costly and time consuming. It may also result in sanctions.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Yes, so you don't make work-trades to advantage your personal-trades. My employer bars us from certain things like short holding periods and naked puts.

eatmyshorts 9y ago

Yes. The compliance team at most investment banks will prevent individuals or members of their family from trading any instrument that the firm is actively trading in without going through a "waiting period". All personal trading accounts for the employee and direct family members must be registered with the compliance team. Banks employee independent investigators to ensure their employees follow through on these requirements; violations are a fireable offense, and I have seen multiple people fired for lack of compliance. This is to prevent insider trading, among other things. Compliance issues with individual traders can result in massive fines for their employers.

jVinc 9y ago

"Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money?" If they intend to do anything in the crypto world, any employees who invest prior are acting on insider information. Even suspicion will lead to investigations which will be really bad PR. They can't go out and say "you can't invest because that makes you insiders" because then they jump the gun. But they can simply add cryptos to the existing list of investments you are barred from due to your position. Jobs have requirements, like showing up, not burning down the place, and sometimes not investing in certain assets. You sign the contract and can stop at any time if you feel like investing in crypto, not showing up or burning the place down. Though that last one you'll still get in trouble with the authorities. But if you quit first you won't be in breach of contract.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money? Conflict of interest. You can do whatever you want with your own money, but some of those things are incompatible with working for the bank.