>There are two possible answers for why this is. The first is just the sheer size of the big banks. These are large organizations and it's impossible to police

>There are two possible answers for why this is. The first is just the sheer size of the big banks. These are large organizations and it's impossible to police everyone's conduct. If large retail banks can figure out how to track and subsequently arrange a string of overdrafts to maximize "insufficient funds" fees for millions of personal banking customers, their investment arms can certainly track the transactions of thousands of employees. >Now, there's a second way of looking at this problem. According to this story, senior bank managers are well aware of the risk of rogue trading, and have, in fact, set up the risk management systems in a way that makes at least some rogue trading expected and almost inevitable. The idea is they give their traders leeway. As long as the bets are winning or not losing too bad, he's just a trader. When a big enough bet loses, he becomes a rogue. The banks are complicit and these "rogue traders" are the fall guys.