3 ms·
>pay your risk guys a bit more so you hire the same calibre of individual that would otherwise end up on the trading/structuring/quant desks. Reverse the causa
by itsoktocry 6y ago
>pay your risk guys a bit more so you hire the same calibre of individual that would otherwise end up on the trading/structuring/quant desks.
Reverse the causation here: they don't pay risk guys enough because they don't really care about the risks they are taking.
Because, you're right, if they cared they could solve issues like this tomorrow.
- ethbr0 6y agoI think it can be chalked up to cost center vs profit center. Staffing trading makes money. Staffing risk costs money. It's inevitable the latter is going to get the short end of the stick, probably the bare minimum requires to satisfy regulation, when salaries are allocated.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoThey do care about the risks they’re taking and invest a lot of money into risk management. But the real risk management is in buying politicians with campaign donations, lobbying, and revolving door jobs after they leave office. Favorable regulations, weak punishments, and bailouts are much more effective. Bank risk departments are just risk theater.
- vmception 6y agoExactly, I always like to remind myself of the New York State court cases that reaffirmed Compliance Officers are at-will employees, and can be fired for any reason, like raising compliance issues. Some people are regulatory hires.