3 ms·

I am more than 100% confident that those controversies have nothing to do with the current mess. CS is failing not because it laundered cartel money, it is fail

I am more than 100% confident that those controversies have nothing to do with the current mess. CS is failing not because it laundered cartel money, it is failing because it didn't manage risks properly, namely Archegos and Greensill. You guys make it sound like the universes punishes those who do bad things which is laughable.

timmytokyo 4y ago
It's not exactly surprising that a company known for its extensive dealings with corrupt actors is also bad at managing risk.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Yeah this makes sense. One of the cases where A causes both B and C. People willing to take part in criminal activities are almost definitionally less risk averse. You're risking fines, loss of reputation, prison, unemployability, destitution. Not then surprising that those same people would be more willing to take undue financial risk, all the while maybe closing an eye to some red flags.
- riffraff 4y ago
  > It's not exactly surprising that a company known for its extensive dealings with corrupt actors is also bad at managing risk. HSBC is just as evil, and is doing well enough that they just acquired the UK branch of SVB https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
  - HorizonXP 4y ago
    FTX bought Voyager when they went down. Acquisitions != health
    - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
      Its well known that acquisitions are a great way to hide fraud, too. Number of studies on that front. Another (usual) reason is when a company lacks clear avenues for growth so they are looking to buy some growtg
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
They're both on the list too, and it seems based on a cursory glance that shady dealings were involved in both cases. I was just confirming the notion that they're a very shady bank. I'm not qualified to say whether the shadyness is the primary cause of their downfall, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to me. And sure, anyone can reduce any view down to a laughable caricature. Good job, I guess.

timmytokyo 4y ago

It's not exactly surprising that a company known for its extensive dealings with corrupt actors is also bad at managing risk.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Yeah this makes sense. One of the cases where A causes both B and C. People willing to take part in criminal activities are almost definitionally less risk averse. You're risking fines, loss of reputation, prison, unemployability, destitution. Not then surprising that those same people would be more willing to take undue financial risk, all the while maybe closing an eye to some red flags.
riffraff 4y ago
> It's not exactly surprising that a company known for its extensive dealings with corrupt actors is also bad at managing risk. HSBC is just as evil, and is doing well enough that they just acquired the UK branch of SVB https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
- HorizonXP 4y ago
  FTX bought Voyager when they went down. Acquisitions != health
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    Its well known that acquisitions are a great way to hide fraud, too. Number of studies on that front. Another (usual) reason is when a company lacks clear avenues for growth so they are looking to buy some growtg

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

They're both on the list too, and it seems based on a cursory glance that shady dealings were involved in both cases. I was just confirming the notion that they're a very shady bank. I'm not qualified to say whether the shadyness is the primary cause of their downfall, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to me. And sure, anyone can reduce any view down to a laughable caricature. Good job, I guess.