SG gives details of fraud, but questions remain
Société Générale has released more details of the rogue equity index trades that cost it €4.9 billion, alongside news that the bank was first alerted to the trades as far back as November 2007.
But, the bank acknowledged, the instruments in his first (real) portfolio had required margin payments, which the bank had made without becoming suspicious. When the bank finally uncovered the fraud, it had a nominal value of €50 billion - but the margin payments involved could have been as high as €5 billion.
One London equity derivatives trader commented: "I can't see how [the margin requirements] wouldn't have shown up. It definitely wouldn't have looked like part of his legitimate job - his risk limits would have been of the order of tens or hundreds of millions."
"It doesn't hang together," another commented. "The initial margin must have been very big - billions of euros. For this to get through without being noticed, at a sophisticated bank like SG, just doesn't compute." That the margins were paid without raising the alarm points to a major failure in the bank's back office, one exchange insider added.
The rogue trades might have been in progress since last year - reportedly the Eurex exchange alerted SG to a potential problem in November 2007, but the trader remained undiscovered. The unauthorised trades reportedly started as early as 2005.
See also: "He didn't want to tell the truth immediately"
Questions remain over SG rogue trader
€4.9 billion fraud at Société Générale
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Credit spread risk: the cryptic peril on bank balance sheets
Some bankers fear EU regulatory push on CSRBB has done little to improve risk management
Credit spread risk approach differs among EU banks, survey finds
KPMG survey of more than 90 banks reveals disagreement on how to treat liabilities and loans
Bowman’s Fed may limp on by after cuts
New vice-chair seeks efficiency, but staff clear-out could hamper functions, say former regulators
Review of 2025: It’s the end of the world, and it feels fine
Markets proved resilient as Trump redefined US policies – but questions are piling up about 2026 and beyond
Hong Kong derivatives regime could drive more offshore booking
Industry warns new capital requirements for securities firms are higher than other jurisdictions
Will Iosco’s guidance solve pre-hedging puzzle?
Buy-siders doubt consent requirement will remove long-standing concerns
Responsible AI is about payoffs as much as principles
How one firm cut loan processing times and improved fraud detection without compromising on governance
Could one-off loan losses at US regional banks become systemic?
Investors bet Zions, Western Alliance are isolated problems, but credit risk managers are nervous