4 ms·

You’re being downvoted for no honest reason, the “Head of Financial Risk Management & Model Risk” (to quote the exact title) should do just that, i.e. assess fi

You’re being downvoted for no honest reason, the “Head of Financial Risk Management & Model Risk” (to quote the exact title) should do just that, i.e. assess financial risk, she/he should leave the ideological shenanigans to people who are actually paid to do just that (PR, marketing etc). In fact, there’s probably a smart play right now to short the banks whose Heads of Financial Risk departments have been more into grammar and pronouns than into assessing financial risk.

fidgewidge 4y ago
Downvoted and flagged within minutes. Apparently there are plenty of HN readers who don't want others to know what SVB UK Head of Risk was doing with her time instead of managing risk. At least with SVB USA their head of risk had the decency to quit. Unfortunately I suspect your strategy would lead to you trying to short all banks. The complete loss of interest in their jobs amongst the college-educated laptop classes was a catastrophe waiting to happen.
- decremental 4y ago
  Flagging is very often abused here as a super duper downvote by motivated bad actors.
- cm2187 4y ago
  Or if she was a diversity hire.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I think they're being down voted for all the right reasons - a complete non sequitur to start the same old tired fight which is irrelevant to topic at hand. Yes some people believe in concepts of equality and personal freedom. Yes some people are morally offended by that. Yes people have 24hrs a day and have more than one interest, aspect, or thought on their mind. But the link contributes nothing to discussion (and on a personal note, I'm always astonished that people like op themselves have so much time, to try to throw in an ideological attack literally every chance available).
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  A non sequitur is a statement that has no connection to the previous statement. The sudden failure of SVB UK is due to the group taking on excessive risk. The person in charge of risk management at SVB UK is therefore highly connected, and her stated priorities are arguably the most highly connected least non-sequitur topic possible. It will certainly be a part of any investigation into what went wrong. > Yes some people believe in concepts of equality and personal freedom. Yes some people are morally offended by that Almost nobody is morally offended by those things, which is why you try and dress up your ideology in those clothes. What people are morally offended by is the widespread practice of placing people in critical executive roles because of their woke ideology and not their skill or commitment to their job. Look at the description she gives for herself here: https://www.diversityrolemodels.org/about-us/board-of-directors https://www.diversityrolemodels.org/about-us/board-of-direct... There is absolutely nothing about finance here, it's all stuff like: > She has helped establish and is the lead for the LGBTQ+ network at Silicon Valley Bank; where she works closely with Stonewall to create and promote a culture where all can bring their authentic selves to work. This wasn't some cute weekend hobby, she was clearly doing all those things on company time instead of what her job role actually required. Now the bank has literally gone bankrupt, meaning she failed at her job in the most extreme way possible. Many, many people will suffer badly as a result of this failure, and those people are justified in asking basic questions. Questions like: 1. Who was meant to ensure the bank didn't take on too much risk? 2. Why didn't they do that job? 3. How did they get their job in the first place? It would appear that the answers are (1) Jay Ersapah, (2) because they were much more interested in meetings with Stonewall than fighting bad bond purchases and (3) unclear but given we're talking about Silicon Valley Bank, quite possibly due to her demographics.
TMWNN 4y ago
To put another way, "Get woke, go broke"

fidgewidge 4y ago

Downvoted and flagged within minutes. Apparently there are plenty of HN readers who don't want others to know what SVB UK Head of Risk was doing with her time instead of managing risk. At least with SVB USA their head of risk had the decency to quit. Unfortunately I suspect your strategy would lead to you trying to short all banks. The complete loss of interest in their jobs amongst the college-educated laptop classes was a catastrophe waiting to happen.

decremental 4y ago
Flagging is very often abused here as a super duper downvote by motivated bad actors.
cm2187 4y ago
Or if she was a diversity hire.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I think they're being down voted for all the right reasons - a complete non sequitur to start the same old tired fight which is irrelevant to topic at hand. Yes some people believe in concepts of equality and personal freedom. Yes some people are morally offended by that. Yes people have 24hrs a day and have more than one interest, aspect, or thought on their mind. But the link contributes nothing to discussion (and on a personal note, I'm always astonished that people like op themselves have so much time, to try to throw in an ideological attack literally every chance available).

fidgewidge 4y ago
A non sequitur is a statement that has no connection to the previous statement. The sudden failure of SVB UK is due to the group taking on excessive risk. The person in charge of risk management at SVB UK is therefore highly connected, and her stated priorities are arguably the most highly connected least non-sequitur topic possible. It will certainly be a part of any investigation into what went wrong. > Yes some people believe in concepts of equality and personal freedom. Yes some people are morally offended by that Almost nobody is morally offended by those things, which is why you try and dress up your ideology in those clothes. What people are morally offended by is the widespread practice of placing people in critical executive roles because of their woke ideology and not their skill or commitment to their job. Look at the description she gives for herself here: https://www.diversityrolemodels.org/about-us/board-of-directors https://www.diversityrolemodels.org/about-us/board-of-direct... There is absolutely nothing about finance here, it's all stuff like: > She has helped establish and is the lead for the LGBTQ+ network at Silicon Valley Bank; where she works closely with Stonewall to create and promote a culture where all can bring their authentic selves to work. This wasn't some cute weekend hobby, she was clearly doing all those things on company time instead of what her job role actually required. Now the bank has literally gone bankrupt, meaning she failed at her job in the most extreme way possible. Many, many people will suffer badly as a result of this failure, and those people are justified in asking basic questions. Questions like: 1. Who was meant to ensure the bank didn't take on too much risk? 2. Why didn't they do that job? 3. How did they get their job in the first place? It would appear that the answers are (1) Jay Ersapah, (2) because they were much more interested in meetings with Stonewall than fighting bad bond purchases and (3) unclear but given we're talking about Silicon Valley Bank, quite possibly due to her demographics.

TMWNN 4y ago

To put another way, "Get woke, go broke"