Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

keptman77 t1_jc5qoz8 wrote

Reply to comment by TealPotato in Silicon Valley Bank posted 'financial crimes' senior manager job listing just before closure by carolinaindian02

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