6 ms·

Many of the largest banks in the world launder much greater sums and get away with the lightest slap on the wrist. Wherever money changes hands you will find et

by strick 13y ago

Many of the largest banks in the world launder much greater sums and get away with the lightest slap on the wrist. Wherever money changes hands you will find ethically challenged people making a profit. Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-t...

billmalarky 13y ago
This is what I was thinking. Sounds pretty much like big banking as usual.
imnoexpertbut 13y ago
Could this happen in Canada?
cynicalkane 13y ago
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering might be more interesting to a hacker. As I've discussed previously[1], Taibbi is not noted for being a reliable systems expert on the international banking system. The simple facts are damning enough without layers of editorializing cruft from an unreliable source. For example, consider the assertion that people need to go to jail for fraud in the HSBC case. Most of these bad things are instances of the bank systemically not monitoring transactions closely enough. You can't pick individuals and throw them in jail for responding to bad institutional incentives--you have to pick out a specific criminal act that's punishable by jail time and pin it on someone, beyond reasonable doubt. Truth be told, if you start doing this in an equitable fashion with the goal of "punishing" bad banking behavior, you'll target a lot of lower-middle-class mortgage brokers from the 2008 mortgage crisis who knowingly committed fraud, which seems like an undesirable result. Or maybe you could pick a few politically convenient scapegoats, but that would be unjust in a different way. That's why we fine banks billions of dollars instead. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5616805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5616805
- criley2 13y ago
  For the life of me, I don't understand why the biggest investors and executives, who are rich because "with great risk of captial comes great opportunity for success". So they get the 99% of the profit, they get the big paychecks, because they took the big risk in the beginning. But on the flip side, they don't accept the risk for the behavior of their company. I don't understand how the system operates whereby they accept all the profit from their risk, but successfully mitigate almost all of the negatives of their risk, reducing jail time and criminal penalties to fines and loss of investment. If a man earns profit from an investment in his control, to me, he also is responsible for the legality and behavior of that investment. This seems obvious: Take down the executives. And keep on doing it, keep throwing them in jail until banks hire executives who don't let this bullshit happens. How many millionaires in jail would it take to change the culture? I'm betting not many.
  - nostromo 13y ago
    That sounds nice, but it's impossible for an executive of a multinational bank to know what every employee is doing at all times. It's not like their quarterly business review slides include, "committed fraud to increase revenue 20%."
    - criley2 13y ago
      Quite frankly, I don't care. They as executives are trusted to handle every dollar, every share. They are the stewards leading their company, making the decisions, creating the profit or loss. When they succeed, they take the praise and the reward. When they fail... it's too hard for them to manage everyone? What? The buck stops there. It must stop there. It is THEIR PROBLEM to control the misbehavior of those who they entrust with their capital, not OUR problem. Those that Executives entrust with their assets are the Executive's responsibility. As a citizen, I don't get to say "Your accountant is immoral, fire him". I don't get to have a say in the ethics of private sector employees. I don't get to speak to who an executive entrusts with capital. I'm not responsible for their actions by design. So with that isolation of the private sector comes the responsibility of the private sector to handle it's own shit. Buck stops with the executive. I imagine the richest people alive, if they can "solve" the problem of <1ms trades cross-Atlantic, they can "solve" the problem of unethical behavior. What I think: they don't want to solve it. Why would they, unless we forced them? If they don't have control over their assets and those that manage it, why do they get the profit from what they do not control and do not risk? Either they accept responsibility for their assets and those that manage it... or the public should get the credit and profit from an asset the public is forced to manage and protect.

by strick 13y ago

billmalarky 13y ago

This is what I was thinking. Sounds pretty much like big banking as usual.

imnoexpertbut 13y ago

Could this happen in Canada?

cynicalkane 13y ago

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering might be more interesting to a hacker. As I've discussed previously[1], Taibbi is not noted for being a reliable systems expert on the international banking system. The simple facts are damning enough without layers of editorializing cruft from an unreliable source. For example, consider the assertion that people need to go to jail for fraud in the HSBC case. Most of these bad things are instances of the bank systemically not monitoring transactions closely enough. You can't pick individuals and throw them in jail for responding to bad institutional incentives--you have to pick out a specific criminal act that's punishable by jail time and pin it on someone, beyond reasonable doubt. Truth be told, if you start doing this in an equitable fashion with the goal of "punishing" bad banking behavior, you'll target a lot of lower-middle-class mortgage brokers from the 2008 mortgage crisis who knowingly committed fraud, which seems like an undesirable result. Or maybe you could pick a few politically convenient scapegoats, but that would be unjust in a different way. That's why we fine banks billions of dollars instead. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5616805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5616805

criley2 13y ago
For the life of me, I don't understand why the biggest investors and executives, who are rich because "with great risk of captial comes great opportunity for success". So they get the 99% of the profit, they get the big paychecks, because they took the big risk in the beginning. But on the flip side, they don't accept the risk for the behavior of their company. I don't understand how the system operates whereby they accept all the profit from their risk, but successfully mitigate almost all of the negatives of their risk, reducing jail time and criminal penalties to fines and loss of investment. If a man earns profit from an investment in his control, to me, he also is responsible for the legality and behavior of that investment. This seems obvious: Take down the executives. And keep on doing it, keep throwing them in jail until banks hire executives who don't let this bullshit happens. How many millionaires in jail would it take to change the culture? I'm betting not many.
- nostromo 13y ago
  That sounds nice, but it's impossible for an executive of a multinational bank to know what every employee is doing at all times. It's not like their quarterly business review slides include, "committed fraud to increase revenue 20%."
  - criley2 13y ago
    Quite frankly, I don't care. They as executives are trusted to handle every dollar, every share. They are the stewards leading their company, making the decisions, creating the profit or loss. When they succeed, they take the praise and the reward. When they fail... it's too hard for them to manage everyone? What? The buck stops there. It must stop there. It is THEIR PROBLEM to control the misbehavior of those who they entrust with their capital, not OUR problem. Those that Executives entrust with their assets are the Executive's responsibility. As a citizen, I don't get to say "Your accountant is immoral, fire him". I don't get to have a say in the ethics of private sector employees. I don't get to speak to who an executive entrusts with capital. I'm not responsible for their actions by design. So with that isolation of the private sector comes the responsibility of the private sector to handle it's own shit. Buck stops with the executive. I imagine the richest people alive, if they can "solve" the problem of <1ms trades cross-Atlantic, they can "solve" the problem of unethical behavior. What I think: they don't want to solve it. Why would they, unless we forced them? If they don't have control over their assets and those that manage it, why do they get the profit from what they do not control and do not risk? Either they accept responsibility for their assets and those that manage it... or the public should get the credit and profit from an asset the public is forced to manage and protect.