3 ms·

I've worked in finance for a long time, I don't buy this line. People are getting told all the time that they need to use certain tools, they know what the rule

I've worked in finance for a long time, I don't buy this line. People are getting told all the time that they need to use certain tools, they know what the rules are. You can't just set up your own line to clients just because it's convenient. It's not like everyone is doing illegal stuff just because they can set up WhatsApp either, it's just it's been drilled in so many times, there's no excuse.

tata71 5y ago
Your experience is anecdotal, and I have anecdotal experience directly to the contrary. Laws don't stop people who don't know, don't understand, don't care, or some combination.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  Sorry but what is anecdotal about this? It's well documented that there are rules that people are told.
  - kolbe 5y ago
    Please tell me the rules, since you're so knowledgeable and the rules are so obvious. I worked in finance. I read our company's rules. I attended compliance meetings every year. And I could not tell you for the life of me if a co-worker WhatsApped me to ask if I was coming to a bar on a Saturday, if we were violating any rules. The line between personal and business isn't black and white, and broker dealers are required to neatly separate them into "things you can talk about here and nowhere else" and "things you can only talk about elsewhere and never here." Oh, and to boot, WhatsApp is encrypted, so you never know what people are talking about anyway. So, even if they are talking about personal stuff as friends, the fact that they could have been talking about business can make it a fineable offense, even though they wouldn't have been allowed to talk about it in work channels. So, please tell me exactly why this is such an easy thing to follow. My personal view is that the SEC just wants to ban all finance employees from ever being allowed to use encrypted messaging (9mm people in the US), which would then put pressure on Facebook to decrypt its messenger (the government's actual goal). And they know that going after places like JPM will get all the finance-hating public riled up, and ignore the fact that this is just one more example of the government trying to get more power to spy on people. Just my take.
    - MR4D 5y ago
      This is simple - don’t text clients (Zoe anyone if you want to do it right) about either a security, company information, or client information. If your friend texts you about AAPL, then you email him back or call him. The rule is pretty clear.
      - kolbe 5y ago
        You're the third person to reply to this with a third, different answer. It sounds super 'simple' as you put it. You should call the lawyers I consult with on this topic and let them know they're wasting all their time trying to figure it out.
        MR4D 5y ago
        I get it. Our lawyers have been clear to us on this topic, but I understand lawyers don’t all have the same advice. This advice has worked for us and we all have to sign a document every year that we don’t text clients. That being said, the rule is way behind the technology. Most people use texting in place of talking, which has different requirements (sometimes very different requirements).
        kolbe 5y ago
        My guess is your lawyers have been very clear about communicating to you what they believe is the best course of action, but nothing in securities law is ever clear. The laws are intentionally vague and leave a ton of enforcement discretion, and every single new fine forces the lawyers to readjust their interpretations. Refraining from texting clients is not sufficient. You also cannot send an undocumented message to your coworker talking about how you’re going to approach a meeting with a client. But you can talk about how you think the client’s toupee is funny, unless the SEC is mad at you, then they will interpret this as a business communication and fine you. And I think it’s terrible that HN is on the side of making these terrible, vague, ‘regularly capture’ laws simply because the SEC put out a memo detailing allegations that were unlitigated in court and because big banks bad.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  > Laws don't stop people who don't know, don't understand, don't care, or some combination. So what? That doesn't take away from the credibility of the insinuation.
- mrcode007 5y ago
  The rules in finance are clear. On top of that, every year you have to certify and confirm that you followed them. Willingly certifying to the contrary on a legally binding document has serious consequences. Sometimes to the tune of $200M…
- sdenton4 5y ago
  It's the responsibility of the multi-billion dollar financial institution to ensure that their employees know the rules via regular trainings. This isn't mysterious.
- blitzar 5y ago
  > Laws don't stop people who don't know, don't understand, don't care, or some combination. There is litterally zero opportunity to not know or understand. The only reason to flout the rules is if you are either stupid, hate getting paid your bonus or straight up want to be fired. Annecdoteally, I have personally been involved with multiple firings of people for breaking these rules. Not a single one is emplyable within the finance industry as a result.
- maxbond 5y ago
  I'd be interested to hear your counter anecdote.
- zardo 5y ago
  If you're working in finance and don't know or don't care about applicable laws. It's no wonder you employer is racking up fines.
- kennend3 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is a top rated 'dumb' post of they day. Would it be fair to assume you dont actually work in finance, and therefor are posting about a topic you know very little about? If you did work in finance, you would know that you are required to attest that you will not do things like this. The attestation is very clear, and a legal contract you signed. Posting "dont know, dont understand, dont care" doesnt work. The attestation was signed, you said you understood it and agreed to adhere to the rules. Ignorance of the law has never been a valid excuse, the superior courts of almost every country in the world have ruled this way. your anecdotal experience isn't relevant, the attestation is.

tata71 5y ago

Your experience is anecdotal, and I have anecdotal experience directly to the contrary. Laws don't stop people who don't know, don't understand, don't care, or some combination.

lordnacho 5y ago
Sorry but what is anecdotal about this? It's well documented that there are rules that people are told.
- kolbe 5y ago
  Please tell me the rules, since you're so knowledgeable and the rules are so obvious. I worked in finance. I read our company's rules. I attended compliance meetings every year. And I could not tell you for the life of me if a co-worker WhatsApped me to ask if I was coming to a bar on a Saturday, if we were violating any rules. The line between personal and business isn't black and white, and broker dealers are required to neatly separate them into "things you can talk about here and nowhere else" and "things you can only talk about elsewhere and never here." Oh, and to boot, WhatsApp is encrypted, so you never know what people are talking about anyway. So, even if they are talking about personal stuff as friends, the fact that they could have been talking about business can make it a fineable offense, even though they wouldn't have been allowed to talk about it in work channels. So, please tell me exactly why this is such an easy thing to follow. My personal view is that the SEC just wants to ban all finance employees from ever being allowed to use encrypted messaging (9mm people in the US), which would then put pressure on Facebook to decrypt its messenger (the government's actual goal). And they know that going after places like JPM will get all the finance-hating public riled up, and ignore the fact that this is just one more example of the government trying to get more power to spy on people. Just my take.
  - MR4D 5y ago
    This is simple - don’t text clients (Zoe anyone if you want to do it right) about either a security, company information, or client information. If your friend texts you about AAPL, then you email him back or call him. The rule is pretty clear.
    - kolbe 5y ago
      You're the third person to reply to this with a third, different answer. It sounds super 'simple' as you put it. You should call the lawyers I consult with on this topic and let them know they're wasting all their time trying to figure it out.
      - MR4D 5y ago
        I get it. Our lawyers have been clear to us on this topic, but I understand lawyers don’t all have the same advice. This advice has worked for us and we all have to sign a document every year that we don’t text clients. That being said, the rule is way behind the technology. Most people use texting in place of talking, which has different requirements (sometimes very different requirements).
        kolbe 5y ago
        My guess is your lawyers have been very clear about communicating to you what they believe is the best course of action, but nothing in securities law is ever clear. The laws are intentionally vague and leave a ton of enforcement discretion, and every single new fine forces the lawyers to readjust their interpretations. Refraining from texting clients is not sufficient. You also cannot send an undocumented message to your coworker talking about how you’re going to approach a meeting with a client. But you can talk about how you think the client’s toupee is funny, unless the SEC is mad at you, then they will interpret this as a business communication and fine you. And I think it’s terrible that HN is on the side of making these terrible, vague, ‘regularly capture’ laws simply because the SEC put out a memo detailing allegations that were unlitigated in court and because big banks bad.
shukantpal 5y ago
> Laws don't stop people who don't know, don't understand, don't care, or some combination. So what? That doesn't take away from the credibility of the insinuation.
mrcode007 5y ago
The rules in finance are clear. On top of that, every year you have to certify and confirm that you followed them. Willingly certifying to the contrary on a legally binding document has serious consequences. Sometimes to the tune of $200M…
sdenton4 5y ago
It's the responsibility of the multi-billion dollar financial institution to ensure that their employees know the rules via regular trainings. This isn't mysterious.
blitzar 5y ago
> Laws don't stop people who don't know, don't understand, don't care, or some combination. There is litterally zero opportunity to not know or understand. The only reason to flout the rules is if you are either stupid, hate getting paid your bonus or straight up want to be fired. Annecdoteally, I have personally been involved with multiple firings of people for breaking these rules. Not a single one is emplyable within the finance industry as a result.
maxbond 5y ago
I'd be interested to hear your counter anecdote.
zardo 5y ago
If you're working in finance and don't know or don't care about applicable laws. It's no wonder you employer is racking up fines.
kennend3 5y ago
I'm sorry, but this is a top rated 'dumb' post of they day. Would it be fair to assume you dont actually work in finance, and therefor are posting about a topic you know very little about? If you did work in finance, you would know that you are required to attest that you will not do things like this. The attestation is very clear, and a legal contract you signed. Posting "dont know, dont understand, dont care" doesnt work. The attestation was signed, you said you understood it and agreed to adhere to the rules. Ignorance of the law has never been a valid excuse, the superior courts of almost every country in the world have ruled this way. your anecdotal experience isn't relevant, the attestation is.