Although I need the money now more than ever, I will not join the looting of the very people I was hired to protect. I never intended to turn a job in risk management into a crusade, but after suffering at the hands of the Deutsche executives I will not join them simply because I cannot beat them.
I request that my share of the award be given to Deutsche and its stakeholders, and the award money clawed back from the bonuses paid to the Deutsche executives, especially the former top SEC attorneys.
I would then be happy to collect any award for which I am eligible.
I'm impressed by this man's character. Not many people would give up $8 million to which they are legally entitled.
Huge respect for this guy. How much better would the world be if 30% of the population could take this level of ethics to life. Some reputable bank should chase this guy to work in their regulatory affairs.
I doubt he will ever find a job in this field again.
If you show such 'disloyalty' towards your employer you will be tainted forever. Companies, especially banks, do not want to run the risk of having their dirty laundry exposed (both legal and illegal dirty laundry). If there is any hint that you cannot look away when questionable things are happening there is no chance you will get hired.
The Financial Times has an article about three Wallstreet whistleblowers (including the
Assuming they're as sinister as you think (not sure if this is true) he won't get hired at Goldman, JPM or similar, but I know that Risk/Compliance dept at company I work for would jump at the chance to hire someone so knowledgable and ethical as this guy if they had open positions.
But I'm not at all sure that's a solution.
For example you can't take out an insurance policy on your house and set it on fire and claim the insurance afterwards.
Life insurance policies usually have an "under suspicious circumstances" or "self inflicted death" clauses that restrict the payout of the policy as well as the usual "in good faith clause" so if you have a life threatening condition and you hid it from the insurer you can kiss your policy goodbye.
Insurance policies that provide coverage in case of loss of work exist but those are limited to conditions in which you lost your work due to a health issue, got fired etc. and you usually have to meet pretty strict conditions to get any payout from the policy.
A CEO can most likely find some insurance company to cover their compensation package but you'll be your ass there will be a "fraud" or "gross incompetence" clause in it that would prevent them seeing a penny.
What do you think of Levine's idea in the last one?
> He said his ex-wife and his lawyers had claims to a
> “portion” of the money, without being more specific.
that (which would help prevent moral hazard) seems to be his redline
how about John Oliver
Where does all the money that SEC collects in fine go? Nobody seems to know. It doesn't seem to go to anything that benefits the society that is regularly victimized by these white collar criminals. It doesn't go to an education fund for underprivileged people or donated to disease research. It just seem to go into to some discretionary slush fund that the SEC controls the purse strings on. Case in point, an 8 million dollar reward for doing the right thing. They dole out hundreds billion of dollars in fines a year. The dollar size of the individual settlements no longer phases the causal reader.
The SEC seems like another part of this crooked banking machinery. Only in the United States can you pay a fine of 10s of millions of dollars and not have to admit wrong dong. Talk about theater. The fact that they were maybe going to start requiring admission of wrong doing in certain was itself a news item:
In 2014 the SEC collected over 4 billion dollars in fines!
I would love to buy this guy a beer. I also think he would accept and appreciate it.
The crooked executives got their bonuses and didn't have to pay a fine.
Regardless of the motivation though; I think this move is good for society and sends the right message.
For any event, if I have two possible explanations to choose from:
a) A simple, pure, altruistic explanation
b) A complex, contrived 'evil' explanation
I believe 'b' by default; unless there is sufficient proof to show otherwise. It needs to be reasonable proof, not consensus - Consensus means nothing; just look at all the different religions that exist - We know for sure that at least some of them must be wrong even though they have millions or billions of followers.
I agree 100% though that it's a shame that the media doesn't do more write ups on these kinds of events - Reading the article, I also have the gut feeling that this is the kind of news which will be forgotten tomorrow.
This is terrible when you consider that this article is actually pretty interesting/noteworthy in itself but also because it could lead to a lot of even more interesting articles (which will probably never be published unfortunately).
Even lottery winners get better news coverage than this.
"Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." - Stephen Colbert
Cynicism has nothing to do with complexity or evil or contrivance.
It's the belief that people are fundamentally motivated by self-interest. That's ethically neutral, at worst (best?). And it's also demonstrably false if you pay any attention to economics.
It's not really easy to tell what does actually motivate people, but self-interest isn't it.
a good portion of them were, but were further covered up by gains made by "fixing" Libor in 2008/9.