4 ms·

> Anyone working in risk management will tell you SVB’s risk team and executive team should be in jail. Jail seems extreme for an error in judgement that neith

> Anyone working in risk management will tell you SVB’s risk team and executive team should be in jail. Jail seems extreme for an error in judgement that neither killed nor maimed anyone.

nerdponx 4y ago
It nearly killed billions of dollars in real value and required untold thousands of taxpayer-funded employees working through the weekend to unfuck the situation. If I drive recklessly, I am still guilty of reckless driving even though I didn't hit anyone or anything.
- ihateyouall123 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    I see in your post history that you're a comedian, so I can only hope that this is meant to be funny, because the irony here is layered on so thickly.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    There is actually a money<->life tradeoff (because money can buy medical treatment), but that requires the value to be actually destroyed/created.
  - pnt12 4y ago
    This reminds me of that dumb meme: "you criticize society, and yet you participate in it... Interesting". In a capitalistic system, money is power, and messing with it has serious consequences. I'd rather be punched in the face than have all my savings drained, for example (as long as it's not Mike Tyson doing the punching).
tracker1 4y ago
They could be jailed for insider trading for selling all their stocks within the past few months. And the funds from those sales should absolutely, at least, be clawed back and then some for their responsibility for their decision making. I'd, for a change, like to see those responsible for massive business failures held to account personally and financially. The limitations on corporate liability are meant for investors, not executives or board members. And TBH, those accounts with over 100MM in deposit should probably lose the 10% or so under normal rules for this kind of thing, not be bailed out by the Fed, who will in turn likely need to be bailed out by taxpayers, or worse if this happens another couple times in the next couple years.
watwut 4y ago
People go to jail for all kinds of frauds and all kinds issues they cause to other people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 4y ago
Directly, nobody was injured. Proximately, we really have no idea. I am in favor of strict liability for a broader variety of negligent behavior. Losing one's career over bad judgment is of course a kind of deterrent, but realistically lots of people fuck up and then go on to have moderately profitable second careers by writing a book and giving talks with titles like 'Learning Hard Lessons'. If they're entrepreneurial they can become stars of the MBA circuit.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Yes people make mistakes. That's legal and it should be. Especially in a business such as finance where the job literally is to estimate risk, someone will make the (in hindsight) wrong decision.
- jalapenos 4y ago
  Strict liability for negligence would just mean sending business overseas where that rule isn't in play, and chilling it domestically. No one is interested in the deal "if you get it right, you make some money; if you get it wrong, we obliterate you". The move from caveat emptor to caveat venditor has coincided with everyone legally ringfencing things with corps & LLCs. People find ways back to a fair deal.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    If we have strict liability for truck drivers nobody will sign up to drive hazardous cargo.
colinsane 4y ago
that might (or might not) be arguable from a moral viewpoint, but it definitely isn’t arguable from the actual statistics. about half of the US state prison population is there for non-violent crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Violent_and_nonviolent_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
- concordDance 4y ago
  Those mostly wouldn't be errors in judgement but people who knew they were doing something wrong, like shoplifting.
  - colinsane 4y ago
    > like shoplifting or like being in possession of a gram of meth for personal use: something a person might legitimately believe isn’t “wrong”. the meth user didn’t get into jail for violating his own moral code: he’s there for an error in judgement, this error being that he didn’t understand how strongly the people around him would react to actions he thought were not that big of a deal. sibling comment does good by calling attention to driving: enough people text while drive that it can be considered normal behavior, that people who do this don’t actively think they’re doing wrong. but that doesn’t save them from culpability when they roll the dice poorly and hit a pedestrian. what’s the difference between “manslaughter” and “murder”: it’s intent. our justice system does consider intent, but it doesn’t require it.

> Anyone working in risk management will tell you SVB’s risk team and executive team should be in jail. Jail seems extreme for an error in judgement that neither killed nor maimed anyone.

nerdponx 4y ago

It nearly killed billions of dollars in real value and required untold thousands of taxpayer-funded employees working through the weekend to unfuck the situation. If I drive recklessly, I am still guilty of reckless driving even though I didn't hit anyone or anything.

ihateyouall123 4y ago
[flagged]
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I see in your post history that you're a comedian, so I can only hope that this is meant to be funny, because the irony here is layered on so thickly.
- concordDance 4y ago
  There is actually a money<->life tradeoff (because money can buy medical treatment), but that requires the value to be actually destroyed/created.
- pnt12 4y ago
  This reminds me of that dumb meme: "you criticize society, and yet you participate in it... Interesting". In a capitalistic system, money is power, and messing with it has serious consequences. I'd rather be punched in the face than have all my savings drained, for example (as long as it's not Mike Tyson doing the punching).

tracker1 4y ago

They could be jailed for insider trading for selling all their stocks within the past few months. And the funds from those sales should absolutely, at least, be clawed back and then some for their responsibility for their decision making. I'd, for a change, like to see those responsible for massive business failures held to account personally and financially. The limitations on corporate liability are meant for investors, not executives or board members. And TBH, those accounts with over 100MM in deposit should probably lose the 10% or so under normal rules for this kind of thing, not be bailed out by the Fed, who will in turn likely need to be bailed out by taxpayers, or worse if this happens another couple times in the next couple years.

watwut 4y ago

People go to jail for all kinds of frauds and all kinds issues they cause to other people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 4y ago

Directly, nobody was injured. Proximately, we really have no idea. I am in favor of strict liability for a broader variety of negligent behavior. Losing one's career over bad judgment is of course a kind of deterrent, but realistically lots of people fuck up and then go on to have moderately profitable second careers by writing a book and giving talks with titles like 'Learning Hard Lessons'. If they're entrepreneurial they can become stars of the MBA circuit.

geysersam 4y ago
Yes people make mistakes. That's legal and it should be. Especially in a business such as finance where the job literally is to estimate risk, someone will make the (in hindsight) wrong decision.
jalapenos 4y ago
Strict liability for negligence would just mean sending business overseas where that rule isn't in play, and chilling it domestically. No one is interested in the deal "if you get it right, you make some money; if you get it wrong, we obliterate you". The move from caveat emptor to caveat venditor has coincided with everyone legally ringfencing things with corps & LLCs. People find ways back to a fair deal.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  If we have strict liability for truck drivers nobody will sign up to drive hazardous cargo.

colinsane 4y ago

that might (or might not) be arguable from a moral viewpoint, but it definitely isn’t arguable from the actual statistics. about half of the US state prison population is there for non-violent crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Violent_and_nonviolent_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

concordDance 4y ago
Those mostly wouldn't be errors in judgement but people who knew they were doing something wrong, like shoplifting.
- colinsane 4y ago
  > like shoplifting or like being in possession of a gram of meth for personal use: something a person might legitimately believe isn’t “wrong”. the meth user didn’t get into jail for violating his own moral code: he’s there for an error in judgement, this error being that he didn’t understand how strongly the people around him would react to actions he thought were not that big of a deal. sibling comment does good by calling attention to driving: enough people text while drive that it can be considered normal behavior, that people who do this don’t actively think they’re doing wrong. but that doesn’t save them from culpability when they roll the dice poorly and hit a pedestrian. what’s the difference between “manslaughter” and “murder”: it’s intent. our justice system does consider intent, but it doesn’t require it.