AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦 to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 8 months agoForbes' kiss of deathlemmy.worldimagemessage-square39fedilinkarrow-up1679arrow-down111
arrow-up1668arrow-down1imageForbes' kiss of deathlemmy.worldAlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦 to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 8 months agomessage-square39fedilink
minus-square@supercriticalcheese@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink70•8 months agoCalling using client funds as collateral for risky investments (over and over again) as poor risk management it is a bit of an understatement.
minus-squareAlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦OPlinkfedilink15•8 months agoIt wasn’t technically illegal nor was it fraud since it had an exemption from the Volcker Rule you’re referring to.
minus-square@JohnDClay@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilink41•edit-28 months agoIt’s illegal to misrepresent what you are using your clients funds for, as was proved in court. Edit: wait, I think that was SBF rather than SVB. Why are these acronyms so similar :(
minus-squareAlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦OPlinkfedilink34•8 months ago wait, I think that was SBF rather than SVB. Why are these acronyms so similar :( it doesn’t help that they were both featured on Forbes 😅
minus-square@psycho_driver@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink6•8 months agoAll they needed to do was put “Hookers and blow on yachts” in really, really small print somewhere.
Calling using client funds as collateral for risky investments (over and over again) as poor risk management it is a bit of an understatement.
It wasn’t technically illegal nor was it fraud since it had an exemption from the Volcker Rule you’re referring to.
It’s illegal to misrepresent what you are using your clients funds for, as was proved in court.
Edit: wait, I think that was SBF rather than SVB. Why are these acronyms so similar :(
it doesn’t help that they were both featured on Forbes 😅
All they needed to do was put “Hookers and blow on yachts” in really, really small print somewhere.