Exactly How Do You Hide $73 Billion In Fraudulent Trades?
from the bet-big,-lose-big dept
At the end of last week, the latest banking scandal started hitting the wires as news broke of a low level trader for the French bank Societe Generale was somehow able to lose the bank $7.2 billion by sneaking around various control and security systems to make a series of complex bets, well beyond what he should have been allowed to do. Many people are comparing it to the case of Nick Leeson, who brought down Barings bank over a decade ago -- though, with Leeson, it only took a little over a $1 billion. And, over the weekend, the details got worse. That $7.2 billion loss came on bets up to $73 billion. It certainly raises plenty of questions about the controls that are in place. No matter how sneaky you are, you would think that $73 billion would be pretty hard to trade without anyone noticing. Apparently not. The trader in this case, Jerome Kerviel, supposedly had a detailed understanding of the security systems thanks to an earlier job at the bank, that involved monitoring the trading systems and then used other people's accounts and falsified documents to hide his tracks. Even so, you would think that someone would have taken notice of $73 billion moving around. Societe Generale claims that, unlike Barings, it can easily survive this fraud and will even turn a profit. Of course, at the same time, it also announced it needs to raise $8 billion -- and given the size of the loss, that certainly makes it sound like the bank needs to replace that money pretty quickly.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Slowly by ChurchHatesTucker on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 6:38am
His trading took place over the course of a year. It was when he tried to get rid of his profits (which he was too successful at) that he was detected. See the article here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/rogue-trader-the-man-who-saved-the-world-or-not-7746 58.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Don't you find it odd... by Barbara on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:09am
Don't you find it odd that a person would perpetrate such a fraud and not have any personal gain for themselves. Why did he do it if he personally wasn't going to gain - just for giggles? I think there is a lot more going on here that they are not sharing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:19am
Wall Street Journal has a good article on how this happened. Actually, the positions he took recently is what did him in. 2007 was pretty much a neutral year for his trades, his positions in 08 sank the ship.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:35am
what is missing from this article is that the employee being blamed is a 30 year old mid lvl employee who has been in bank for less than 1 year.
which makes me wonder:
Is he really the cause or just a scape goat, if he really is the only one involved that bank has some serious security issues.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Vincent Clement on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:40am
A few years back, MasterCard was able to detect fraudulent activity on my card and called me to confirm if I did or did not purchase the material. We are talking about $600. Yet a bank cannot detect a $7.2 billion loss?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Slowly by dorpass on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:41am
That article is quite interesting. Besides the different numbers, it has Ed Yardeni saying that ".. the recession is almost over." Quite fascinating seeing how we STILL did not have 2 continuous quarters of decreasing GDP. Sounds like someone is trying to write up a sensationalist article.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Professional Gain by Drew on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:41am
He might not have had a lot to gain personally, but he sure had a lot to gain professionally.
Imagine everything had worked out perfectly, and he made his company BILLIONS of dollars. As a hot-shot banker, you gotta believe that he thought that might propel him up the corporate ladder... And what a reputation he'd have.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I have trouble getting excited over this by Duodave on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:49am
Why do I get the feeling this goes on more often than the banks care to let us know? I take issue with the inferrence that these were "bets" - when I saw that in your description I thought this guy was visiting Monte Carlo with $7.2 billion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Speling errors by Dave Barnes on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 7:50am
It is not: Jerome Kerviel and Societe Generale.
It is: Jérôme Kerviel and Société Générale
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Speling errors by 4-80-sicks on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:03am
It is: Jérôme Kerviel and Société Générale
American keyboards don't have those keys, and such characters must be typed by pressing Alt-0224, Alt-0232, etc. We don't usually bother.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Speling errors by Spuds on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:05am
ғüĉķ ŸǒǗ
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I have trouble getting excited over this by Joe Smith on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:14am
I take issue with the inferrence that these were "bets" - when I saw that in your description I thought this guy was visiting Monte Carlo with $7.2 billion.
He was trading derivatives and "bets" is not a bad or unfair characterization.
When you go to Monte Carlo the rules of the game are known and you can calculate your odds. Its seems pretty clear that in the current meltdown there were lots of Wall Street types who did not did not understand the rules and could not calculate the odds. It brings to mind the old advice: if you sit down at a poker table and can't spot the mark - you're the mark.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anthony on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:22am
The credit card company was able to detect the illegitimate charge because certain flags were triggered by the bank's computer. A rather simplistic example, after a card is stolen a thief might attempt to get gas for just a few dollars to make sure the card has not been canceled right before he buys his girlfriend a $3000 necklace at the jewelry store.
By working in the backroom trading facility before he started trading Jérôme knew those rules and was able to get around them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A must watch by SimonSays on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:23am
Money = Debt. The system is broken. This is a reminder to everyone to watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Jack Sombra on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:26am
"Imagine everything had worked out perfectly, and he made his company BILLIONS of dollars. As a hot-shot banker, you gotta believe that he thought that might propel him up the corporate ladder... And what a reputation he'd have."
If you read the article he actually he did make a billion or so, but because he could not explain it to the bank he had try to lose it, problem was he over did it and went from about a billion plus in the black to a billion plus in the red
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I have trouble getting excited over this by dorpass on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:55am
"Bets" is quite a common term in the stock market, there is no reason to be up in arms about it. This has nothing to do with this one bank coming up with the term for their purposes. If you want a conspiracy theory, try again, Duodave.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 10:10am
My understanding is the $7.2 loss was because the bank closed out all of his undocumented positions immediately upon discovery of the fraud. I wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been discovered?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 10:19am
The guy never tried to lose money. He placed bets on the industry averages, that was his department. When he placed a bet on the upside, he was supposed to place a offsetting bet on the downside. Through numbers, the bank would make a small profit. He made the bets, but was not hedging the bet with the appropriate offsetting bet (he just made those up by forging documents) and recently the bank was liable for up to $40 or so billion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Also... by Lance Hassan on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 11:04am
In the war to point the finger it has also come out the Eurex the Exchange through which the trades were taking place, notified the bank that something did not look right, Back in November. Dealing with bad news like a lot of banks do these days, they ignored the warning.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Speling errors by Cixelsid on Jan 30th, 2008 @ 9:00am
"ғüĉķ ŸǒǗ"
Damn, that must have taken you a while. Your depth of devotion touches my soul.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
SocGen Resume by James on Mar 19th, 2008 @ 5:41pm
I guess 8 years of Judo classes can help. Here's the rouge trader's resume:
http://razume.com/resume/view/916
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment