Forbes' kiss of deathAlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world – 691 points – 11 months ago48Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentCalling 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 :( 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.
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 :( 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.
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 :( 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.
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 :( 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.
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 😅
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.