Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TealPotato t1_jc5n5df wrote

SVB issued credit cards, it would be normal for a bank to have that kind of a role. They need to vigilant against fraud.

1,248

keptman77 t1_jc5qoz8 wrote

More than that it is a regulatory required position.

505

Globalist2 t1_jc5rgje wrote

Agreed. ITT, people who don't understand the financial services industry

235

The_Northern_Light t1_jc5wqda wrote

not just ITT but throughout reddit and beyond

also not just financial services, but everything to do with money

82

takeoff_power_set t1_jc5zpic wrote

Look at the source, it's fox. Not even worth a click. The whole thread should just be deleted

52

Kirshnerd t1_jc7k24m wrote

Skip the middle step, just delete Fox "News"

4

JustLurkinDontMindMe t1_jc77htn wrote

Can confirm. I work in banking compliance and the amount of misunderstanding when it comes to banks is unbelievable.

9

cleopete t1_jc9c0fj wrote

That's what makes them such an effective political tool for demagogues.

1

[deleted] t1_jc71qss wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_jc71qy9 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

Negatrev t1_jc5zm8l wrote

...and people are missing the connotations of a bank going under just after their previous incumbent of the role left their position.

13

leetskeet t1_jc64alx wrote

This role is for a low level employee that would get paid like $60k at best, not some C-level exec running the company. The phrase 'subject matter expert' is a giveaway that it's a role for following a particular policy

Any bank of this size would have an entire department dedicated to checks for onboarding customers/ongoing compliance.

35

leaflavaplanetmoss t1_jc654nt wrote

While I agree with you in principle, AML/EDD managers make significantly more than $60k; that's starting salary for an AML analyst.

The job posting is still available on LinkedIn, and the description itself has a base pay range (not a LinkedIn estimate) of $130 - $240k: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3518005299

I work in financial crimes and for a Sr. Manager role, you're looking at high 100k range typically.

24

Writer10 t1_jc6chry wrote

You are 100% correct. Risk, AML, EDD officers/managers in the Bay Area start around the range you posted. Those of us in the industry know the truth about roles & comp, and it amazes me what people on Reddit think about us. Like we’re complicit in the corruption when WE are the ones uncovering and cleaning it up.

Regardless, props to you for weighing in with facts, and keep up the good fight.

18

Johndough99999 t1_jc6c7zw wrote

> more than $60k; that's starting salary

If in California, that would be the minimum salary for any position. Salary cannot be less than 2x minimum wage in CA.

−1

hurtfullobster t1_jc6ocnv wrote

Ok Reddit, time for some banking education. In the majority of banks, role structure works as below;

Directors - In charge of broad functional areas, what you would call ‘executives’ in general public terms.

Manager - In charge of specific departments. In my experience is what you would call directors and VPs in other industries.

VP - Salaried employees and low to mid level managers.

Associate - Hourly employees.

You’ll get variations depending on the bank, most commonly having the high end of one category in the low pay range of the bucket above it (example - high end departments lead may be a director without a C-level designation depend on the number of people under them). Most large banks more or less follow this layout. So as others have pointed out, this not a $60k job. This in a minimum 10+ years of managing in financial crimes to be seriously considered level, $200k + large bonus level job.

5

atascon t1_jc7itsr wrote

Associates are not usually hourly employees “in the majority of banks.” At least not in the revenue-generating parts of banks.

1

blahbleh112233 t1_jc6w3ca wrote

I don't want to sound mean but do you know the reasons by SVB went under in the first place? It wasn't fraud or a lack of controls, it just sheer incompetence on behalf of management.

4

Negatrev t1_jc6yoe8 wrote

That's doesn't change anything. A required role for regulatory reasons would be advertised as soon as the previous incumbent left (or announced they were leaving). So this means that management hid the failures so much that this senior position still had the job listing updated and published while the office was in actuality burning down around them!

−3

blahbleh112233 t1_jc6z9gi wrote

What? Unless I missed something, there was nothing to hide, the entire finance industry knew basically all of SVB's deposits were uninsured and just underestimated systemic risk.

Don't want to take a shot at you but do you have experience in the finance industry? Its posts like this along with the weird political bent that makes me wonder how much of reddit just a weird witch hunt.

3

Negatrev t1_jc7090z wrote

What politics? It's just amusing that either the person listing the job didn't know, or listed it regardless of everything happening. Either way it's funny!

0

blahbleh112233 t1_jc717zd wrote

It's a broad statement given how redditors are making pretty wild leaps of judgement based on no facts.

I'm really not sure what the regulatory job has to do with SVB going under, when SVB went under because of a bank run that had nothing to do with the job posting at all. This is like if an apartment complex burns down due to arson, and people point to an open plumber position as the smoking gun

3

Negatrev t1_jc73kjd wrote

Which would be amusing if the position was posted while the complex was already on fire 🤷

3

lasssilver t1_jc8oplm wrote

And regulations were clearly being followed to the tee here at SVB.

1

keptman77 t1_jc8w01j wrote

Two different organizational issues. Complying with anti-money laundering laws are completely separate from the investment side of the business, which is where SVB failed. You can comply in one segment and be negligent in another. As far as I have read, SVB hasnt yet been accused of disregarding laws related to AML compliance.

2

Dannei t1_jc5we8n wrote

Does a US bank even need to be issuing credit cards to need to do that these days? Regulations in other western countries for SVB's business clients and transfers of the size they regularly see would require a sizeable fraud department.

15

Perhyte t1_jc5ynhf wrote

The job listing existing is less interesting than posting it just before closing, IMHO. The latter implies the previous person filling that job was no longer willing and/or able to do it, which begs the question "why not?".

If they found a better job (leaving the sinking ship?) or left for unrelated reasons then whatever, fair enough.
If they felt their employer wasn't taking financial crimes seriously enough despite their best efforts, on the other hand...

15

LamarMillerMVP t1_jc6b9sp wrote

“Senior Manager” is essentially like a middle management role, not a person in a real executive position

22

fang_xianfu t1_jc62grw wrote

The job posting, which is quoted in article, specifically calls out money laundering as well. There are tons of banking regulations related to prevention of money laundering.

7

Sherifftruman t1_jc6rci3 wrote

Yeah I’m sure there was an open request from some manager and HR just got around to posting it not knowing the true footing of the bank as I’m sure it was not widely known.

3

Genmaken t1_jc6ni3t wrote

THE FRAUD IS CALLING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE

2

SamohtGnir t1_jc75ej2 wrote

Yea, like, would you want someone at a multi-billion dollar bank to not have someone looking into financial crimes? They probably had someone already and they recently left or something.

1

rainer_d t1_jccb2yh wrote

Of course. I thought it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek posting.

1

24-Hour-Hate t1_jcda0a8 wrote

Probably not normal to call them a manager of financial crime though. I'd at least expect a word like prevention or investigation to be thrown in there (though it was probably some idiot who messed up the job posting). Also, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on being fraudulent. Banks get caught doing fraud all the time and have no incentive to stop because in recent years the punishments, if there are any, are not at all a disincentive.

1

Jacuul t1_jc7ea5u wrote

See, there is where you are mistaken, you're reading it as SVP of Financial Crimes Prevention, but if you look in the super small print it says SVP of ^(^(commiting)) Financial Crimes

0

nowyourdoingit t1_jc5g459 wrote

A scandal I haven't heard about yet, but it looks like one of the Board of Directors of the bank was the former Under Secretary *of Domestic Finance, in charge of the Financial Stability Oversight Council

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_J._Miller

I mean, fuck, this woman was in charge of keeping all US financial markets stable and was completely asleep watching just the one bank she was on the board of? Wild

Feels like more of a story.

580

tackle_bones t1_jc5kw7j wrote

That last line of the into… we live in a world of idiots.

Edit: the line said ‘she worked at the Woke bank SVB as it collapsed’. The page has since been edited to remove that.

135

Riaayo t1_jc61gii wrote

We're experiencing the logical conclusion of a culture of failing upward.

Eventually nobody at the top knows what the fuck they are doing.

38

metameh t1_jc6502k wrote

All I'm saying is that you gotta fail in order to know what not to do. Its not like there's decades of best practices one could look to to make sound decisions or anything. And to expect a government regulator to understand the industry? You most be out of your mind.

Real talk: this is why there needs to be a wall between civil servants and the businesses they oversee, not a revolving door. The latter create incentives for regulators to sell out and leave us holding the bag.

18

noishmael t1_jc72ib2 wrote

This exactly, the entire financial cabinet to border to foreign affairs, it’s almost funny because before 2020 the media was excited for “adults” to be back in charge! But turns out those adults are actually little kids playing with their toys. At least we have the first African lesbian press secretary

0

wormholetrafficjam t1_jc5qa8z wrote

Sigh. That’s the best their faculties allow them to understand the situation.

23

Ficon t1_jc6pomh wrote

"She was also a director of Silicon Valley Bank, the second biggest bank to go bankrupt in US history."

1

WorshipNickOfferman t1_jc5glx2 wrote

Problem with SVB was that they were too cautious. They had a massive portfolio of low interest real estate mortgages and were left holding the bag when interest rates climbed. But this is Reddit and what really happened doesn’t matter.

83

rood_sandstorm t1_jc5hljd wrote

They didn’t have a risk management team, which could have prevented that

99

Science_Over_Twitter t1_jc5m3s0 wrote

Why bother with a risk management team when they can go straight to hiring the financial crimes manager? /s

32

WorshipNickOfferman t1_jc5hsbe wrote

You have an authority on that? Cause google says otherwise. Curious where your information is coming from.

Edit: the lack of an appointed “risk management chief” does not mean SVB did not have a risk management team. It had one. That team just did not have a full officer running it. Guess these distinctions are lost on people around here. Nothing new.

21

carolinaindian02 OP t1_jc5k9e4 wrote

They didn’t have a risk management officer between April 2022 and January 2023.

Edit: and the risk officer they eventually hired turned out to be ex-Deutsche Bank.

50

jimbosdayoff t1_jc5q1bk wrote

That sounds like a recipe for...a situation with unmanaged risk

14

AzertyKeys t1_jc5rk7w wrote

Thanks for posting that. This website turned into Facebook

8

WorshipNickOfferman t1_jc5rq2l wrote

It’s Reddit. “Bank bad” is all they know. Heaven forbid anyone put any effort into actually understanding what is happening in the world. Knee jerk reactions win the day around here.

10

Greenmind76 t1_jc6blrf wrote

Most people are tired of seeing bad banks get bailed out and PPP loans be forgiven, while the government argues over forgiving $10-20k of student loan debt…

Let’s not also forget that many people still remember the bullshit from 2008.

Not saying you’re wrong, just saying shit like that leads to a lot of resentment from a lot of people.

3

SuckMyBallz t1_jc7ah9r wrote

Nobody got bailed out here though except people who had their money in the bank. The bank didn't get bailed out. They no longer exist. The feds are going to give everyone their money that they deposited then recoup the costs by selling off the banks assets. No body is getting free money in this scenario. The back is shutdown and the consumers who had money in the bank will be made whole. This is the opposite of the 08-09 bullshit.

2

shalafi71 t1_jc9d647 wrote

And if the consumers weren't made whole, those are some of our company vendors. Price hike for us, less money for us.

I should note: My company shares profits very equitably and is 100% aboveboard as to reporting our financial health and plans.

2

funkyb001 t1_jc61wmh wrote

This is entirely missing the point. It isn’t just “bank bad” it’s “some banks bad, this one might be, but I don’t give a fuck either way”.

This is not unreasonable. You can get cancer and fall into unassailable medical debt whether you are a good person or not. Why should those people squeezed dry by capitalism give a shit when a bank falls to the same system?

−5

damola93 t1_jc705xw wrote

Ya, it was terrible risk management. They essentially made a bet that interest rates won't go up in the next 5.6 years(average length of the bonds), starting from 2021. They also didn't hedge against that bet, which you would see on r/wallstreetbets.

They probably had, and they did a terrible job or were overruled.

2

The_Northern_Light t1_jc5w65w wrote

> Problem with SVB was that they were too cautious.

absolutely wild take lol can I have some of what you're having?

from Patrick Boyle's video on SVB:

> [...] they basically had no hedges in place at all. To be really clear, this is not just extremely unusual, it is unheard of. All large banks hedge their interest rate risk. They do it because if you don't, you can be wiped out (as we've just seen).

and that's just part of how negligent SVB was

25

damola93 t1_jc70lbr wrote

This is the weird part for me, that is typical of what you would see on WSB and not a bank holding 200 billion in deposits.

They also used legal accounting tricks to hide their unrealized losses on the bonds they bought.

3

The_Northern_Light t1_jc7x1g7 wrote

Exactly. It may or may not be criminally negligent but it sure smells like it is.

Saying they were “too safe” when they went so heavy on hold to maturity long duration treasuries when we were at zero overnight rate because “they were treasuries” is just delusional.

They were in the riskiest asset they could be without having additional reserve requirement and they were utterly unhedged. They saw a train coming and tied themselves to the tracks.

1

jessquit t1_jc5wlle wrote

lolno, they gambled everything on interest rates staying low (despite everyone and their dog talking about the obvious inflation trend) instead of doing the actually risk averse thing and hedging

ridiculous take bro, banks don't go bust because they're risk averse. smh at your ironic edgy take at the end too

16

san_serifs t1_jc6nd6b wrote

The sheer speed of this bank’s collapse is why I’m considering selling all my individual positions and putting it all in indexes.

Don’t want to go out for lunch and come back to a company I hold getting a 60% haircut while I’m eating a sub sandwich.

2

ultramatt1 t1_jc78hz4 wrote

You don’t need to fully sell all the individual positions but the majority of your equity investments should definitely be in index funds

3

Redpandaling t1_jc5iutj wrote

Didn't they also have a pile of government bonds, but from the pandemic, so no one wants them?

14

WorshipNickOfferman t1_jc5ixup wrote

Essentially yes. They were over-invested in “safe” investments that lost lots of value when interest rates stated climbing.

26

bool_idiot_is_true t1_jc5wuu9 wrote

The problem is bonds are used as a hedge when the other markets turn to shit. They're a lot less valuable when inflation is high.

They have low interest rates but since governments, especially the US government (as long as the debt ceiling fuckery gets resolved), are very reliable debtors so there's almost no risk in getting paid back. Because the interest is a set amount over time; if you want to liquidate them quickly you'd need to sell them lower than whatever the remaining interest is. Profit margins are razor thin at the best of times.

Right now high inflation means the bond markets are crappy in general. So the SVB bonds were sold at a steep loss.

8

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpp t1_jc5u2q3 wrote

Uhhhhhhh no.

That’s not cautious. They could have held shorter term bonds, but they wanted more $$$$$ so they got longer term

14

LonnieJaw748 t1_jc5u6ep wrote

Source on that? Of all the circumstances leading up to their demise, first I’ve heard of what you’re claiming here. Mostly it was they got greedy on long term bonds when rates were zero or near zero, didn’t keep the correct proportion of shorter term bonds, then the fed stopped QE and went QT, putting their bond portfolio underwater when it didn’t have to be. Had they sought more shorter term bonds that would have given them lower returns but at least the liquidity to handle the bank run, they wouldn’t have had to eat shit selling “held to maturity” bonds at a massive realized loss. Where did you read that mbs had anything to do with their shite portfolio and risk management?

6

hugganao t1_jc5rzsx wrote

honestly at this point the WHY doesn't even fking matter, because according to everyone on reddit, they all fking saw it coming a mile away?

It's down to who they're going to hold responsible and how.

5

WorshipNickOfferman t1_jc5tkwq wrote

No one on Reddit saw this coming. Most people on Reddit don’t even understand what happened. And the WHY is extremely important. It lets us learn and prepare for next time.

19

hugganao t1_jc5tqin wrote

Well according to reddit, the solution was to just have better risk management. Talking to a bank. A bank of all places lol

Regardless the ppl who's opinions actually matter know what happened. So really what matters is how they go about dealing with it.

−1

Adventurous_Aerie_79 t1_jc5tkur wrote

> It's down to who they're going to hold responsible and how.

Somehow I'm sure the public will be the ones writing the bailout checks.

−7

WorshipNickOfferman t1_jc5tof6 wrote

Except that’s not how this bail out is working. But keep on spreading misinformation. That’s what Reddit’s good for.

8

CreamPuffDelight t1_jc5uyy2 wrote

I love how sanctimonious and all knowing you are, on reddit.

Its as if you don't realize at all that you're doing exactly what you're condescending all the other redditors about. There's a word for that you know.

1

Adventurous_Aerie_79 t1_jc5yh6e wrote

agreed, he epitomizes everything he hates about reddit. And he seems to want to respond to every comment, usually in a prett dickish way.

4

Adventurous_Aerie_79 t1_jc5u1rk wrote

yes, hence the "somehow". I've seen too many bank bailouts in my life to beleive the banks will cover it.

−2

beepos t1_jc60a9u wrote

The problem though is that their portfolio seems to only have been long term T bills. They didnt have adequate amounts of short term And medium term T bills to protect against a run

That's still being greedy. Long term T bills have a higher return than short and medium term bills. Had they not had a run, they'd have been fine.

4

san_serifs t1_jc6ms5z wrote

“Interest rates have been ridiculously low for a long time. Surely, they will never go up. Right? “

2

DavidlikesPeace t1_jc7h4ph wrote

Diversification is caution. Putting all your loot in one basket is reckless. If I put all my stock into Facebook that wouldn't make me smart.

I do like how you value treasury bonds. They are in truth a vital foundation to the economy. But is it cautious to put all your capital in a long term very low liquid asset? Almost assuredly no!

2

ArchimedesQPotter t1_jc672q6 wrote

Everyone screamed for over a year interest rate hikes we're coming, inflation wasn't transitory. They made terrible financial bets.

1

Whosdaman t1_jc5zkmr wrote

It’s because she is an idiot hired to be there

2

Octubre22 t1_jc63z7z wrote

If she was a Republican it would be, but since she is a democrat and served under Obama, this will not be a story

2

damola93 t1_jc6zivx wrote

There's a difference between being on a board and being a C-Suite executive. Most of the time, Board Members are there to lend their credibility and leverage their contacts. They are probably going to rely on the information coming from the C-Suite and ask questions based on what they are being fed. They also look good on a PowerPoint, which would help convince investors to put money into a business.

After researching what happened at Theranos, I found out only a few board members fact-check the information they are being given. For example, several people with connections to the DoD didn't bother to check Holmes' claims about what Theranos was doing with the military. Ya, these boards are sold to the public as safety valves and watchdogs on behalf of investors. In reality, many just take the paycheck, believe what they are told, and leverage their contacts when needed. I can't blame them because many are on several boards and don't have the time to do deep dives on every company under their purview.

2

nowyourdoingit t1_jc768no wrote

Yes, that's how it works.

Lots of people text and drive. They're busy. Driving is pretty easy and rarely do things go wrong. Sometimes it's an important text. THEY'RE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CAR CRASH!!!!

2

mfb- t1_jc5o3xz wrote

Banks need experts to spot clients committing financial crimes. What's oniony about that?

319

worm600 t1_jc5rq1s wrote

OP is implying that SVB went under because they were doing something illicit.

Sadly, the real reason - some bad investment decisions, poor communication, and a whole lot of bad luck - is a lot more boring.

179

san_serifs t1_jc6nszy wrote

Agreed that it doesn’t appear SVB was doing anything shady with the investments. They just made a poor decision on a long-term bet that backfired.

23

LamarMillerMVP t1_jc6b5wm wrote

More like a whole lot of bad decisions and a little bad luck

−4

SuckMyBallz t1_jc7ayld wrote

What bad decisions? They were invested in the most boring investments possible; bonds. Who could've predicted a bank run?

3

LamarMillerMVP t1_jc7r37p wrote

The bank run happened because the bank was technically insolvent, and the situation was quickly deteriorating. Bonds are low risk of default. They are not “low risk” in an economic sense. If I take my money and I stuff it in a mattress, that’s low risk that the government or a bank will steal it from me, but high risk in an economic sense - it will become less valuable over time, unless all investments shrink.

What happened here was that the bank tried to invest in assets that had low risk of default, and in order to get better percentage terms, said “ok and also you can take my money for a very long time without giving it back.” As a result of that, they got more money. But that gives you more money because it’s risky! And a bank’s job is specifically to manage this exact type of risk - borrowing short to lend long is the core business model. And they lost track of what they were doing, because their deposits grew immensely in just a few months.

On paper, SVB was in the worst shape of pretty much any major bank, and that fact was what sparked the run. When you hear these VC guys going apeshit - these guys didn’t spark the run. They’re morons, they’re screeching because they were almost left holding the bag, and the bag was emptying. The guys who actually “started” the run were fine, because they understood what was happening and acted appropriately

−2

DarkKerrigor t1_jc5tfe7 wrote

Negligence is still criminal

−8

kendred3 t1_jc5unil wrote

Sure, for things like vehicular manslaughter... not when a bank fails because of a run after their bonds lost value...

45

MrBurnz99 t1_jc6j9aj wrote

No its not. It can be in some circumstances but not always.

8

leaflavaplanetmoss t1_jc5uvg4 wrote

This is an idiotic "article". Essentially all financial firms are going to have financial crimes staff in order to comply with their legal obligations around anti-money laundering, fraud prevention, and sanctions compliance. An EDD manager like the one that the article talks about is needed because banks are literally legally mandated to have due diligence processes to comply with anti-money laundering laws.

It would be a huge issue if SVB didn't have financial crimes staff.

Not to mention that at least as of now, we don't have reason to believe that SVB's collapse was in any way criminal. Poor portfolio risk management could be negligent, but there's a legal threshold to cross before it would be considered criminally negligent. Regardless, a financial crimes team has nothing to do with financial risk management of the sort that brought down SVB; that would be the financial risk management team.

66

TripleBanEvasion t1_jc5g01z wrote

For committing or preventing them

34

insideoutcognito t1_jc5hs19 wrote

Preventing them. It's basically the fraud department, again preventing - not committing.

50

Aoes t1_jc5nwt8 wrote

Depending on what you mean specifically when you say"fraud", that's a very small part to this role and tbh, this role most likely doesn't even touch that part as I don't see transaction monitoring as part of the jd.

5

The_Holier_Muffin t1_jc5rk55 wrote

Why is this oniony at all? That’s a very normal position within a bank. I’d be more surprised if they didn’t have / didn’t look for someone in this role.

34

CynAq t1_jc694ht wrote

It's not the position, it's the juxtaposition (of the name of the position and the timing of the posting).

−10

accountant_at_a_big4 t1_jc6hoe0 wrote

You do realize that there was a fraud department at SVB right? Posting new job listings isn’t a red flag.

Banks post jobs relating to Compliance and KYC/AML all the time, are they all committing large frauds? Seriously, use common sense.

8

spydormunkay t1_jc5q2v9 wrote

The bank collapsed because their portfolio of US government bonds collapsed in value due to interest rate hikes.

Hardly financial crimes, but hey “durrr banks are all bad gimme up boat”

29

Ishidan01 t1_jc605nv wrote

For detecting, not committing. Sheesh.

17

Nekrofeeelyah t1_jc62dah wrote

Why does this have 1300 upvotes lmao

this is idiotic

17

Psychomadeye t1_jc7mluo wrote

I thought the bank failure was just a skill issue. Have charges actually been filed?

2

Budget_Walk_6988 t1_jc6gmch wrote

Fox has a lot idiots to entertain for their clientele. They have to really take a sledgehammer to their base IQ to get these people to believe anything. Almost as if it isn't true at all. Imagine.

1

DaveOJ12 t1_jc5fagt wrote

It doesn't sound too Oniony.

14

AwTickStick t1_jc6dst1 wrote

That’s a required position at many banks. This isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

11

Rosebunse t1_jc6emh9 wrote

I think the problem is if this position wasn't filled until then

−2

AwTickStick t1_jc6fm11 wrote

I didn’t read about a gap in the position. Maybe I missed it.

2

Rosebunse t1_jc6lpnu wrote

Yeah, it looks like the real problem here is that these smaller banks basically were making very risky investments and didn't always have the people in place who might actually help the situation.

−2

AwTickStick t1_jc6udhq wrote

I still haven’t found the gap you’re referring to regarding this position. This isn’t the risk assessment department, though I’m sure they work together. The problem your highlighting doesn’t directly correlate with the job position being discussed from everything I’ve seen so far.

7

ValyrianJedi t1_jc81mdx wrote

I definitely wouldn't call treasury bonds a risky investment

3

Rosebunse t1_jc83buo wrote

I guess that depends on how much money you have invested.

0

ValyrianJedi t1_jc83vjl wrote

Treasury bonds are quite literally considered to be one of, if not the, absolute safest investments in existence. It's literally guaranteed returns... If somebody put every penny that they had in treasury bonds 99% of financial advisors would tell them they are being too risk averse.

2

Rosebunse t1_jc84cgs wrote

That would be considered a risk. Unless you're really old, then you are just leaving money sitting on the table. And I'm not sure this was the only thing that happened with this bank.

0

ValyrianJedi t1_jc84qcm wrote

That isn't what risk means. "You aren't getting the biggest returns possible on this money" isn't financial risk.

2

abzrocka t1_jc5fhz2 wrote

That position wouldn’t of helped this situation.

8

Aoes t1_jc5nzl3 wrote

Exactly... SVB is a giant fck up, but this has nothing to do with what happened. It's click bait for ppl that don't know shit.

9

GenesisDH t1_jc5zum7 wrote

What do you expect from a Fox News source? This is their bread and butter, deceptive reporting.

2

diggidydav t1_jc6n4zm wrote

What was the financial crime that happened that makes this a funny coincidence? 🤔

7

pointman t1_jc69cwc wrote

Is the implication here that some senior manager position (which is practically entry level at a bank where everyone is typically called vice president of something) would have the authority to do anything about fraud in the bank even if that was the purpose of the role? Some people are really dumb.

5

wabashcanonball t1_jc61wn8 wrote

I think it’s more telling that it went more than a year without a senior risk manager.

3

mudohama t1_jc67o3l wrote

Look at the source, people. Trash

3

DFWPunk t1_jc6k5gp wrote

That's not what you think it is.

3

V0ldek t1_jc6wws0 wrote

Taking into account that Fox is just as much for entertainment as the Onion, and just as little for actual news as the Onion, it's actually pretty easy to believe that this is a headline from Fox.

3

Aerodrive160 t1_jc76jyp wrote

Whatever you do, don’t read the comments section. Depressing

2

ACrazyTopT t1_jc70ppn wrote

This isn't oniony at all. All banks and credit unions have teams called "financial crimes" to deal with attempted money laundering and fraud.

3

Oliverklsof t1_jc6ynz7 wrote

I literally was approached for a senior role by SVB for their financial crimes group about a year ago. The pay was about 45k, and the average for the role is about 80k no experience. This was a role that involved screening clients for risks essentially. Not surprised this happened with what they were offering

2

Accomplished_Camp_88 t1_jc7l1h4 wrote

It’s short for Financial Crime Prevention or anti Financial Crime Regulation compliance.

Did anyone actually think they advertised to hire a crook?

Like in the minions movie?

Blame SVB for mismanaging interest rate risk but no - they didn’t actually advertise looking for a villain boss.

2

nursecarmen t1_jc6q6uy wrote

They also didn’t have a risk manager for nine months.

1

amitrion t1_jc76sp1 wrote

Pretty sure it's like a mandatory role. But in practice, they just go on the hub all day.

1

sreback t1_jc7jwm2 wrote

All banks have a Financial Crimes Compliance department. It's required by the BSA (Bank Secrecy Act).

1

sansandflowey54 t1_jc836kd wrote

Time for funny depression moment. Store ya money in local small banks if ya don't want it gone

1

charshine t1_jc8slii wrote

Does it really count as oniony if the people who wrote the headline are trying to actually mislead people?

1

TacoMeat563 t1_jc8xeq2 wrote

Seems like a regular banking job. Does fox business think they were looking for someone to help with conducting financial crimes?

1

cleopete t1_jc9cg55 wrote

To be fair, HR probably expected the company to be around a month after they posted the job. Unless the implication is that 'financial crimes' were responsible for the bank's demise, rather than Peter Thiel and his friends orchestrating a bank run on Twitter?

That would probably be a crime for poorer people.

1

not_that_planet t1_jc7rj0a wrote

I guess what? The last "financial crimes" senior manager got fired because he said SVB was doing crimes and the board didn't like him using those words?

0

[deleted] t1_jc69hsg wrote

They trying to tell people the truth and got eaten whole to shut them up.

Absolutely classic capitalism. Not even a plot twist in sight and everyone’s confused.

−3

sighbourbon t1_jc607mh wrote

>The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation

Laugh? Cry?

−4