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
In simplifying credit risk models, EBA could compound capital costs
Skipping hard yards of internal ratings-based approach might trip higher capital charges and implementation costs
Change fatigue could dim EBA’s credit risk simplicity drive
Revisions may be kept to a minimum as short-term implementation burden weighs on banks
Foreign banks can swerve US Basel op risk capital charges
New proposal offers category III and IV banks op-out from regime, but intragroup trades penalised
BoE’s Bailey expects global consensus on FRTB internal models
Isda AGM: UK is reviewing proposals from US and EU regulators before finalising its IMA rules
DRW chief slams ‘ridiculous’ OCC stablecoin rule
Isda AGM: Wilson warns week-long redemption freeze would deter use of Genius Act coins as cash leg of tokenised repo
Dealers push for more revisions to Basel III endgame
Isda AGM: Goldman, JP Morgan bankers want changes on cross-product netting, CVA and default risk charges
StanChart: UK, EU should copy US ‘commercial’ Basel III
Isda AGM: Exec warns divergent Basel III rules will push trading into less-regulated entities
NBFI oversight ‘no longer adequate’, say BdF economists
Researchers call for stronger supervision of non-bank sector ‘before risks actually materialise’