5 ms·

$444B 'Fat Finger' Trade Crashed Stocks.Now Citigroup Is Paying the Price

3 points by Element_ 2y ago

Element_ 2y ago
https://archive.ph/LHBT0 https://archive.ph/LHBT0
bell-cot 2y ago
> Instead of $58 million, the basket created had a value of $444 billion. A warning sign popped up on his screen but he failed to heed it, the agency said. Citigroup’s controls kicked in and blocked most of that sum from being traded, but a big chunk still made it onto the markets. Roughly $189 billion of the basket went to an algorithm that then sliced it into portions to be sold throughout the day, the FCA said. If your "controls" can only turn a $444B oopsie into a $189B oopsie...maybe you need tighter controls?
- strangattractor 2y ago
  Begs the question - why does it take 2 people to launch an ICBM but only one to make a $444 billion trade?
  - throwaway1105q 2y ago
    This begs the more important question... Why does it take only one more person to end the world than to change some numbers in excel?
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Capitalism. Seriously. Each owner decides how to allocate resources. Citigroup decided to let one person make wide-ranging decisions. Wonder how much the loss was. Surely more than $78 million. Citigroup doesn't say the policy has changed (substantively) so I guess the advantages of this… uh… nimbleness must be in nine digits too.
      - throwaway1105q 2y ago
        My point was that 2 is really not enough to end the world. Damn their money, it's their problem. Launching nukes should require 200, not 2.
        Arnt 2y ago
        Suppose it actually required twenty, or 200. In that case, would the relevant organisation publish the truth or rather lie and say "two"? I think lying makes a lot of sense. Telling the truth would be like saying "go ahead and kill the most accessible of these 20/200 people". So I don't think the "2" is very likely to be true.
        throwaway1105q 2y ago
        It could be 200 out of 20k, or something like that. Though yes, you're right, lying makes sense.
        appplication 2y ago
        It takes more than two. Two is enough to launch, but other silos have override authority. So if two people went renegade they could still be shut down.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Perhaps the USAF nuclear launch system designers were relatively decent humans, who actually cared about the effects of their actions upon the world?

3 points by Element_ 2y ago

https://archive.ph/LHBT0 https://archive.ph/LHBT0

> Instead of $58 million, the basket created had a value of $444 billion. A warning sign popped up on his screen but he failed to heed it, the agency said. Citigroup’s controls kicked in and blocked most of that sum from being traded, but a big chunk still made it onto the markets. Roughly $189 billion of the basket went to an algorithm that then sliced it into portions to be sold throughout the day, the FCA said. If your "controls" can only turn a $444B oopsie into a $189B oopsie...maybe you need tighter controls?

strangattractor 2y ago
Begs the question - why does it take 2 people to launch an ICBM but only one to make a $444 billion trade?
- throwaway1105q 2y ago
  This begs the more important question... Why does it take only one more person to end the world than to change some numbers in excel?
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Capitalism. Seriously. Each owner decides how to allocate resources. Citigroup decided to let one person make wide-ranging decisions. Wonder how much the loss was. Surely more than $78 million. Citigroup doesn't say the policy has changed (substantively) so I guess the advantages of this… uh… nimbleness must be in nine digits too.
    - throwaway1105q 2y ago
      My point was that 2 is really not enough to end the world. Damn their money, it's their problem. Launching nukes should require 200, not 2.
      - Arnt 2y ago
        Suppose it actually required twenty, or 200. In that case, would the relevant organisation publish the truth or rather lie and say "two"? I think lying makes a lot of sense. Telling the truth would be like saying "go ahead and kill the most accessible of these 20/200 people". So I don't think the "2" is very likely to be true.
        throwaway1105q 2y ago
        It could be 200 out of 20k, or something like that. Though yes, you're right, lying makes sense.
      - appplication 2y ago
        It takes more than two. Two is enough to launch, but other silos have override authority. So if two people went renegade they could still be shut down.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Perhaps the USAF nuclear launch system designers were relatively decent humans, who actually cared about the effects of their actions upon the world?