11–20 of 114 posts
what were these transactions for?
No wonder the big banks keep shitting the bed. There's never any real consequences for their fuckups.
I think the most impressive part is that apparently the same system and code had been running for 15 years as the number of transactions reported on had increased exponentially
I think it's the bad kind of impressive, one where ATMs still run COBOL.
I think the most impressive part is that apparently the same system and code had been running for 15 years as the number of transactions reported on had increased exponentially
I think it's the bad kind of impressive, one where ATMs still run COBOL.
Besides, C is 44 years old and used on a ton of stuff.
$7m is pocket change for Citigroup. No wonder the big banks keep shitting the bed. There's never any real consequences for their fuckups.
26810 requests, do you think they made more than $7m on this?
It's about proportional fines. Just because they're a giant company doesn't mean we should find then $1b for forgetting to put a handicapped parking space at one of their offices.
I think the most impressive part is that apparently the same system and code had been running for 15 years as the number of transactions reported on had increased exponentially
I think it's the bad kind of impressive, one where ATMs still run COBOL.
Programmers reinvent the universe every few years, but really nobody else does.
I think the most impressive part is that apparently the same system and code had been running for 15 years as the number of transactions reported on had increased exponentially
$7m is pocket change for Citigroup. No wonder the big banks keep shitting the bed. There's never any real consequences for their fuckups.
Instead of something sensible like "you trade, you report", the regulators have set up a patchwork of formats, inclusion criteria and target agencies that pretty much ensures that lapses like this occur. Turning Frank-Dodd into workable code is fucking hard: I spent a couple of years pushing that boulder up the slope until I ragequit a couple of months ago.
The regulators should be ingesting data in one place and running analytics on a data lake. The banks are so sick of spending money dealing with the lack of regulatory technical competence that they'll probably happily pony up a couple of billion dollars between them to set up the surveillance system for the Feds; doing it once is cheaper in the long run than repeating the same set of mistakes at every bank on the Street.
They didn't lose anything, they were FINED $7m for submitting incorrect reports. With the number of mergers that they have gone through it's not surprising they have trouble with company wide reporting.
"But in 1998, the company started using alphanumeric branch codes as it expanded its business. Among them were the codes 10B, 10C and so on, which the system treated as being within the excluded range, and so their transactions were removed from any reports sent to the SEC."