4 ms·

> I find the story or incorrect archive settings/setup to be reasonably plausible and even likely. I work in finance and misconfiguration of systems are not tha

> I find the story or incorrect archive settings/setup to be reasonably plausible and even likely. I work in finance and misconfiguration of systems are not that uncommon. Testing and reviewing archive settings is often not very thorough. GP's point stands: they should be fined to a degree that it becomes clear to management that these "not uncommon" practices must become very uncommon.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> they should be fined to a degree that it becomes clear to management that these "not uncommon" practices must become very uncommon Why? Fining isn’t done for fetish, it’s done proportional to harm. The article mentions twelve civil suits (four independent). JPMorgan will lose those. Any lawyer worth their salt, meanwhile, will be looking for claims which could reasonably involve the evidence which was deleted to file. In this way, the people actually harmed get compensated versus a government agency, which mitigates corruption concerns.
- 36479669thrw 3y ago
  Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. The cost of doing business this way must go up, way up, so that these critical institutions are legally transparent* and motivated by a strong desire to avoid drastic haircuts. *for example, no more "the dog ate our homework" excuses.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. All fines are subject to court supervision. This sentence makes no sense. > cost of doing business this way must go up, way up We want regulators thinking of the public, not randomly increasing the cost of business. This seems more motivated by hatred for a thriving industry than claims to specific damages. Regulators who pursue this path are rightfully overturned by courts for acting capriciously.
    - gmd63 3y ago
      Regulators are not thinking of the public when they allow corporate sociopaths to neglect societal best interest while market fixing / mismanaging records / etc., activities that have demonstrably siphoned wealth from the lower class and moved it increasingly to the ivory towers of companies that do not deserve the influence that makes them "too big to fail". The wealth inequality gap is widening and it's due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime and strategic negligence.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > wealth inequality gap is widening You can’t fine a business just to reduce inequality. Any jurisdiction that starts ruling that way fails basic definitions for rule of law. (This is in part what ruined Argentina.) Also, in what universe would larger fines for banks decrease income inequality? The history of enforcement is capricious penalties increase incentives for cover-ups. If a record retention mistake means personal bankruptcy, you have zero incentive to correct mistakes. In practice, this leads to corruption among regulators, who are now the de facto commanders of private business. > due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime Where is the crime here? The SEC investigated and found no wilful wrongdoing. Those twelve private plaintiffs are going to win judgements, as will everyone else who brings claims which could reasonably by covered by the missing records.
        gmd63 3y ago
        The crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined. Once a corporate entity is operating at a sufficient scale, it does not matter if the people inside willingly mess up. The organization is required to be run properly. The problem is that slaps on the wrist for failure do not suffice as environmental stressors for corporate evolution. As for what we can do, the possibilities are endless. We shape society however we like, and that is the highest form of art humans engage in.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined The SEC is a civil agency. No crimes. > organization is required to be run properly It’s that easy? Just require good organization and you’ll get it by diktat? This entire thread seems to require a reading of Argentinian and modern Egyptian and Russian economic history.
- ouid 3y ago
  [dead]
gmd63 3y ago
100% Allowing "smart" individuals to play dumb to benefit themselves is not smart at all at a societal level. Strategists at these companies examine the costs of failure or cheating, and simply see that it's worth it to cut corners or pile on risk. Just look at JP Morgans history in getting fined for market manipulation.
giantg2 3y ago
I'm not saying they shouldn't. But it's a leap to attribute to malice what is easily explained by ignorance.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> they should be fined to a degree that it becomes clear to management that these "not uncommon" practices must become very uncommon Why? Fining isn’t done for fetish, it’s done proportional to harm. The article mentions twelve civil suits (four independent). JPMorgan will lose those. Any lawyer worth their salt, meanwhile, will be looking for claims which could reasonably involve the evidence which was deleted to file. In this way, the people actually harmed get compensated versus a government agency, which mitigates corruption concerns.

36479669thrw 3y ago
Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. The cost of doing business this way must go up, way up, so that these critical institutions are legally transparent* and motivated by a strong desire to avoid drastic haircuts. *for example, no more "the dog ate our homework" excuses.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. All fines are subject to court supervision. This sentence makes no sense. > cost of doing business this way must go up, way up We want regulators thinking of the public, not randomly increasing the cost of business. This seems more motivated by hatred for a thriving industry than claims to specific damages. Regulators who pursue this path are rightfully overturned by courts for acting capriciously.
  - gmd63 3y ago
    Regulators are not thinking of the public when they allow corporate sociopaths to neglect societal best interest while market fixing / mismanaging records / etc., activities that have demonstrably siphoned wealth from the lower class and moved it increasingly to the ivory towers of companies that do not deserve the influence that makes them "too big to fail". The wealth inequality gap is widening and it's due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime and strategic negligence.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > wealth inequality gap is widening You can’t fine a business just to reduce inequality. Any jurisdiction that starts ruling that way fails basic definitions for rule of law. (This is in part what ruined Argentina.) Also, in what universe would larger fines for banks decrease income inequality? The history of enforcement is capricious penalties increase incentives for cover-ups. If a record retention mistake means personal bankruptcy, you have zero incentive to correct mistakes. In practice, this leads to corruption among regulators, who are now the de facto commanders of private business. > due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime Where is the crime here? The SEC investigated and found no wilful wrongdoing. Those twelve private plaintiffs are going to win judgements, as will everyone else who brings claims which could reasonably by covered by the missing records.
      - gmd63 3y ago
        The crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined. Once a corporate entity is operating at a sufficient scale, it does not matter if the people inside willingly mess up. The organization is required to be run properly. The problem is that slaps on the wrist for failure do not suffice as environmental stressors for corporate evolution. As for what we can do, the possibilities are endless. We shape society however we like, and that is the highest form of art humans engage in.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined The SEC is a civil agency. No crimes. > organization is required to be run properly It’s that easy? Just require good organization and you’ll get it by diktat? This entire thread seems to require a reading of Argentinian and modern Egyptian and Russian economic history.
ouid 3y ago
[dead]

gmd63 3y ago

100% Allowing "smart" individuals to play dumb to benefit themselves is not smart at all at a societal level. Strategists at these companies examine the costs of failure or cheating, and simply see that it's worth it to cut corners or pile on risk. Just look at JP Morgans history in getting fined for market manipulation.

giantg2 3y ago

I'm not saying they shouldn't. But it's a leap to attribute to malice what is easily explained by ignorance.