3 ms·

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 su

by 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.
  - cynicalkane 13y ago
    This sounds like an easy way to make sure nobody wants to be an executive of a major bank. Why would anyone want to take charge of an organization where the actions of any one of hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of employees can get them thrown in jail? Do you have the ability to monitor that? Or anyone you know? Would you bet your freedom on it? Do you want bank executives to be the sort of people who play the odds on going to jail vs. getting money? The smartest people in the world have trouble getting your friend feed to display ads you want to see. The smartest people in the world cannot get their 1ms trades--to use your example--to succeed more than 50+epsilon percent of the time. They don't have this genius power to monitor all fraud that you think they should have. And before you argue that banks don't even try to set up monitoring systems, they actually do. Every major bank now is into big data and machine learning precisely to stop employees and customers from breaking the law. (They are hiring, by the way.) This is in response to Congressional and popular pressure. In summary, I cannot think of a single significant way in which you understand what you're talking about.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by criley2 13y ago

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.
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  This sounds like an easy way to make sure nobody wants to be an executive of a major bank. Why would anyone want to take charge of an organization where the actions of any one of hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of employees can get them thrown in jail? Do you have the ability to monitor that? Or anyone you know? Would you bet your freedom on it? Do you want bank executives to be the sort of people who play the odds on going to jail vs. getting money? The smartest people in the world have trouble getting your friend feed to display ads you want to see. The smartest people in the world cannot get their 1ms trades--to use your example--to succeed more than 50+epsilon percent of the time. They don't have this genius power to monitor all fraud that you think they should have. And before you argue that banks don't even try to set up monitoring systems, they actually do. Every major bank now is into big data and machine learning precisely to stop employees and customers from breaking the law. (They are hiring, by the way.) This is in response to Congressional and popular pressure. In summary, I cannot think of a single significant way in which you understand what you're talking about.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]