Discussion in 'Dancers Anonymous' started by Pacion, Jan 24, 2008.
What's really bizarre is that he didn't seem to profit from it himself.
I think he just took a gamble, some £1bn plus, the markets turned in a way he had not expected and by the time the bank's employees managed to undo what he did, the losses amounted to what they had.
He may not have profitted in the short-term, but give it time. The cynic in me says that someone will want to do a movie followed by a book, but not necessarily in that order. Not to mention, the after dinner fees he could earn talking about "how he did it" nor the "consultancy fees" to prevent anyone else doing such a thing. The cynic in me says... watch this space. He may become a millionaire yet. Unfortunate really, when you consider quite a few innocent people's jobs (and therefore their homes) are now on the line as a result of these losses.
What is also sad about this is that he had previously worked in the "back office", the department responsible for processing a lot of what the "front office" did ie. setting up the trades. He got a job in the "front office" and according to initial reports, was able to use the "back office" knowledge to coverup what he was doing. Sadly, this might make it difficult for an ambitious person with a lesser ego to make such a career transition in the future. :?
Apparently, the CEO offered his resignation but the board refused it. He has since said that he and the Vice will forgo their salaries until June. An interesting way of behaving compared to have others in similar situations have behaved. :?
For us Americans who aren't up on our British usage, the word "redundancies" in the material Pacion quoted is a polite way of saying that people are going to be laid off.
Thanks - I needed that!! and a translation from English to English no less!
I think "redundancies" must be the longest four letter word in the dictionary!
'If you are lucky' you will get a decent sum of money to go on your way. In a lot of cases, it is the support staff/juniors to lose their jobs and therefore, the payout is not that great. Some use it to do something else - travel, go back to studying, move to another country, change professions completely...
The one 'upside', if you can call it that, is that since the 1990s, having been made redundant is less of a stigma than it used to be. But, still not a good position to be in. I have read that a quite a high percentage of people would have have their job (no matter how much they hate it) than to be made redundant.
Same thing happens to lotto winners. Give 'em a ton of money, they gamble it away and wonder where it went...
For my fellow Americans, that translates to $7.3 billion. I simply can't imagine losing that much that fast...
His actions cost a lot of people a lot of money and a very bad week for many.
I read in the news that he's claiming that he's being setup as the scapegoat rather than being the lone "bad trader".
He'll work out some sort of plea deal and get off with a small fine, few months in jail...
As the saying goes "he would say that, wouldn't he?"
That all said, it's difficult to believe the guy gambled 50bn euros ($73bn) without anyone noticing something...
So why was the charge dropped? Was he a scapegoat?
Hmmm. The item I read did not say why other than... he was only doing his job; that there were others in the team/bank doing the same thing; that the bank was using his losses to hid other losses incurred as a result of the US Sub Prime problems.
One interesting thing is:
:shock: It has been my view for sometime that these guys (and gals) take extreme 'bets' and...
- if they do well, they get a 'smack on one hand' for putting the bank's assets at risk and a 'handshake with the other hand' by way of saying "well done".
- if they do badly, they are let out into the lions den.
'win or lose', they should be let out into the lions den!
Weird - in a "life imitating art" moment, his photo reminds me of Charlie Sheen who starred in Wall Street.
:lol: Some of his ex/soon to be ex colleagues have apparently commented on that too!
"Greed is good."
It's trades, they buy and sell. What is sold by traders is bought by other traders. If SG lost 4 billion pounds, some other bank has necessarily won the corresponding amount.
Also, the loss is SG's and not Kerviel's. SG sold Kerviel's investments in three days, losing 10% of the value in the process, which is what you'd lose too if you sold your belongings in three days.
Again with the Charlie Sheen/Bud Fox angle, apparently Kerviel felt like an outsider who had to prove himself and was at the bottom of the ladder. Similar to how the Bud Fox character wanted to prove himself beyond his blue collar family upbringing.
It does sound like management turned a blind eye to his leveraging as long as it was making money.
Separate names with a comma.