RBS Boss to get £1m share bonus?
Discussion
R11ysf said:
munky said:
Have you not heard of LTCM?
Have you not read the previous 2 pages 
munky said:
Your interview skills are crap then, if you hired 6 people that were "f'kin clueless".
Not really. If I trade oil and need someone to trade Japanese equities which I know nothing about, you look at people with good CV's, track record and are smart. That's all you can hope for if you don't know the area of expertise as well as them. It's not like you can get them to mock trade in the interview! It's like employing a footballer only you're not allowed to watch them play football first!munky said:
Our prop traders are physically separated from sales, market makers and analysts. They are in their own room that no-one else can get into. This is to stop them picking up tips from analysts and the flow desks and vice versa, to prevent conflicts of interest primarily. Not that anyone listens to analysts.
Oh yeah the famous chinese walls. Ok then.It's often possible though to determine whether the interviewee knows their subject inside out, or is just repeating something parrot fashion from a book or elsewhere. Like asking them to explain their answer. Are they saying which Jap stocks they like? Ask them why. Or ask what the previous quarter's earnings were, leverage ratio, capex and so on - they should know this stuff if they're confident enough to buy it.
Still, interviews are a really bad way of choosing staff (alternatives are often no better or not feasible/cost effective).
Not just chinese walls, but actual walls. There's a difference. Is it a huge difference? Maybe not, but means people outside the room simply can't get in to pick up papers, look at trading positions on screens etc. Their pass won't work. Even chinese walls are usually effective. I've been brought over the wall on ECM deals, it just means agreeing (verbally or written) not to discuss it with anyone else on the trading side. The incentive not to break the agreement is not losing your job. Works for me!
Edited by munky on Thursday 2nd February 14:51
munky said:
Your interview skills are crap then, if you hired 6 people that were "f'kin clueless".
Our prop traders are physically separated from sales, market makers and analysts. They are in their own room that no-one else can get into. This is to stop them picking up tips from analysts and the flow desks and vice versa, to prevent conflicts of interest primarily. Not that anyone listens to analysts.
'O woe is the analyst, left to verify the trades, matching buyers and sellers, all for the trader, a greater power than we can contradict, yet we are confound as ignorant, o woe is the analyst'.Our prop traders are physically separated from sales, market makers and analysts. They are in their own room that no-one else can get into. This is to stop them picking up tips from analysts and the flow desks and vice versa, to prevent conflicts of interest primarily. Not that anyone listens to analysts.
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
Bing o said:
turbobloke said:
We can also hope they're banned from reading company memos, accessing national newspapers, watching TV and going on the internet.
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would say that. Chinese Walls are their to prevent non-public data being shared. Whether they work is something else entirely.Thus, it pushed responsibility firmly back onto the company, making them liable and so the firms took to self policing and control. Little things like blocking SMS and BBM facilities on staff phones, tracking who moves around the building via their passcards and flagging up alerts when someone accesses an area they shouldn't be in.
Bing o said:
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
Bing o said:
turbobloke said:
We can also hope they're banned from reading company memos, accessing national newspapers, watching TV and going on the internet.
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would say that. Chinese Walls are their to prevent non-public data being shared. Whether they work is something else entirely.Thus, it pushed responsibility firmly back onto the company, making them liable and so the firms took to self policing and control. Little things like blocking SMS and BBM facilities on staff phones, tracking who moves around the building via their passcards and flagging up alerts when someone accesses an area they shouldn't be in.
It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
turbobloke said:
No problem, seeing as it's not me in banking claiming to know it all and have done it all with my willy waving in the wind. If you or DA are saying I don't respect experience and expertise you're mistaken.
It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying that I have direct experience of the regulations, and the practical applications thereof. Same way I defer to you in the CC threads. It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
To tackle your examples:
company memos - yes, we can and do block access to some of this information. In Asia, you can and will go to jail for some regulatory breaches (compared to Europe where the company is held accountable).
accessing national newspapers - this is a public information and not subject to Chinese walls. Chinese walls are created to prevent the flow of non-public information from one part of the business to another. Clearly, if this is in the press then it's not considered non-public
watching TV - ditto
going on the internet - ditto, and is monitored. emails and instant messengers are scanned for key words/phrases and records retained.
It's not a perfect science by a long way, and I don't pretend to have a perfect solution for it (people can and do meet outside of the office) but we try and prevent it where possible, and at worst, be able to evidence any wrong doing. As you say, human nature is what it is, hence we tend to lock people up in the office, before they get themselves locked up somewhere moderately less pleasant...
Anybody who believes that 'Chinese walls' are anything but a load of hogwash designed to keep regulators off your backs, probably also believes that the 'arms length companies' formed by Glasgow City Council are genuinely 'arms length' rather than a fig leaf for gross corruption. They must be heaving with Chinese walls. Because they are incapable of building any real ones.
If some merchant banker told me not to worry about conflict of interest issues because they operated 'Chinese Walls' I would just laugh at him.
If some merchant banker told me not to worry about conflict of interest issues because they operated 'Chinese Walls' I would just laugh at him.
turbobloke said:
No problem, seeing as it's not me in banking claiming to know it all and have done it all with my willy waving in the wind. If you or DA are saying I don't respect experience and expertise you're mistaken.
It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
The importance here is that the regulation understands that you cannot stop people breaking the law so you have to implement changes that ensure there is enough evidence to convict them and enough law to fine te company. It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
It shifts responsibility firmly onto the group that stands the best chance of preventing it.
So, technically the two people could sit right next to each but if they broke the law the firm would be fined so the firm is incentivised to police, spy and monitor.
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
No problem, seeing as it's not me in banking claiming to know it all and have done it all with my willy waving in the wind. If you or DA are saying I don't respect experience and expertise you're mistaken.
It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
The importance here is that the regulation understands that you cannot stop people breaking the law so you have to implement changes that ensure there is enough evidence to convict them and enough law to fine te company. It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
It shifts responsibility firmly onto the group that stands the best chance of preventing it.
So, technically the two people could sit right next to each but if they broke the law the firm would be fined so the firm is incentivised to police, spy and monitor.
Bing o said:
turbobloke said:
No problem, seeing as it's not me in banking claiming to know it all and have done it all with my willy waving in the wind. If you or DA are saying I don't respect experience and expertise you're mistaken.
It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying that I have direct experience of the regulations, and the practical applications thereof. Same way I defer to you in the CC threads. It's nothing to do with who did what, unless your installation changed human nature. My point has been about the impossibility of preventing determined people from circumventing whatever you set up. Not least by the bizarre notion of keeping them locked in a room. Are you saying there's a perfect approach and you created and implemented it?
To tackle your examples:
company memos - yes, we can and do block access to some of this information. In Asia, you can and will go to jail for some regulatory breaches (compared to Europe where the company is held accountable).
accessing national newspapers - this is a public information and not subject to Chinese walls. Chinese walls are created to prevent the flow of non-public information from one part of the business to another. Clearly, if this is in the press then it's not considered non-public
watching TV - ditto
going on the internet - ditto, and is monitored. emails and instant messengers are scanned for key words/phrases and records retained.
It's not a perfect science by a long way, and I don't pretend to have a perfect solution for it (people can and do meet outside of the office) but we try and prevent it where possible, and at worst, be able to evidence any wrong doing. As you say, human nature is what it is, hence we tend to lock people up in the office, before they get themselves locked up somewhere moderately less pleasant...
turbobloke said:
There's nothing to stop sharing information outside work. Memos can be memorised and repeated to a third party. Individuals let information slip in interviews for newspapers and on TV and this can happen whether or not anybody consdiders it to be 'non publuc'. Heck, reporters can hack into mobile phones so with a lot of money at stake others may be minded to do likewise and be successful at retrieving messages with the 'wrong' information in them. Regardless of the certainty of my respect for the quality of your work in devising and imlpementing systems, I hold equal certainty that these systems are fallible. This was the point I've been making all along initially in response to a bizarre notion concerning letting people out of a room. You say above it's not perfect but have apparently been arguing the toss for quite some time
Let's be clear. If the information is in the media, it's public whether it's meant to be or not. Phone hacking is illegal. All of our BB's and laptops are encrypted (even I don't know my own BB VM pin...). As DA said, the job of the Chinese Wall is to make the prosecution of offenders as easy as possible. And it's not all about having a separate room. But it does help to show the regulators that we are trying our best (for what it's worth). It seems fairly obvious to me that there has been little if any disagreement all along, Chinese Walls and other systems are indeed fallible and I was never distinguishing between lawful and unlawful means of circumventing them. This apparent but non-existent disagreement seems to have been an opportunity for you to tell us what you do and how good your systems are but as you say, they're not perfect. If you look back at my initial comment in reply to a silly remark about letting people out of a room, maybe you'll spot the pointlessness of you and DA pursuing this at length when there's no disagreement. There have been more pointless exchanges on PH but I can't remember many.
cardigankid said:
I can't believe that you, who are obviously commercial people in responsible positions take this so seriously, when any tramp on the bus could tell you it is a load of s
t. It risks damaging your own credibility.
???t. It risks damaging your own credibility.It's a serious matter and my posts have pointed out no more than that even well-developed and carefully implemented systems are fallible. How does this undermine credibility?
Ozzie Osmond said:
I always thought they were called chinese walls because they were made of paper so thin you could p155 through it.
Those are Japanese walls you fool Chinese walls, well the one every kid learns about in school is quite a big and protected device to keep the savages out.
Or is this building up to an 'all looking the same' gag?
Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 3rd February 11:41
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff