You must log in or register to comment.

abzrocka t1_jc5fhz2 wrote

That position wouldn’t of helped this situation.


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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


mfb- t1_jc5o3xz wrote

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


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”


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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...


Ishidan01 t1_jc605nv wrote

For detecting, not committing. Sheesh.


sighbourbon t1_jc607mh wrote

>The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation

Laugh? Cry?


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.


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?


wabashcanonball t1_jc61wn8 wrote

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


Nekrofeeelyah t1_jc62dah wrote

Why does this have 1300 upvotes lmao

this is idiotic


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.


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.


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:

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


mudohama t1_jc67o3l wrote

Look at the source, people. Trash


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.


[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.


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.


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.


AwTickStick t1_jc6dst1 wrote

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


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.


DFWPunk t1_jc6k5gp wrote

That's not what you think it is.


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.


diggidydav t1_jc6n4zm wrote

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


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.


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.


nursecarmen t1_jc6q6uy wrote

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


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.


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.


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


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!


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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!!!!


amitrion t1_jc76sp1 wrote

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


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.


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


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!


sreback t1_jc7jwm2 wrote

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


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.


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


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?


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.


sansandflowey54 t1_jc836kd wrote

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


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.


charshine t1_jc8slii wrote

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


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.