yes, upper management used to parade those guys around the office (boston) and say this is how u should do it. same thing @ agedwards. In the  brokers defense, they knew it was a time bomb ready to go off and never came off arrogantly to me.

Should Boston be capitalized?

Boston is already the capital.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

Any former, or current for that matter, PRUSec or Wachovia brokers who think the DOJ was far too lenient in not seeking criminal sanctions against PRUSec senior mgt?

Anyone think the pawns (brokers) got spanked too hard while the execs got off the hook by permitting those common shareholders aka bagholders and D&O insurance firms to pony up fine revenues to make the lazy/incompetent "prosecutors" in the Boston office of the DOJ look like they're doing their jobs?

[/quote]

Are you saying that the reps who facilitated the late trading were supposed to have been punished less severely than the senior management that quite likely did not know what they were doing?

There is always a failure to supervise component to these things--however common sense requires that a decison maker come down in favor of the idea that those who lead very often do not know what is being done by those who are led.

The "The Buck Stops Here" ideal works well on paper, but rarely in the real world. 

It worked for Harry Truman.  He dropped the bomb.  Twice.  And yes, he knew what Paul Tibbetts and crew were doing that morning.

[quote=Starka]It worked for Harry Truman.  He dropped the bomb.  Twice.  And yes, he knew what Paul Tibbetts and crew were doing that morning.[/quote]

Do you think he knew what was going on at the US Embassy in Mexico?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But he was man enough to accept the fact that as top dog, he and he alone bore the brunt of the responsibility for their actions.

You see, he abhorred the concept of "plausible deniability" which is the concept that you are putting forth as acceptable in the current business world.  This is one of the reasons that management is in many cases justifiably loathed.

[quote=Starka]

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But he was man enough to accept the fact that as top dog, he and he alone bore the brunt of the responsibility for their actions.

You see, he abhorred the concept of "plausible deniability" which is the concept that you are putting forth as acceptable in the current business world.  This is one of the reasons that management is in many cases justifiably loathed.

[/quote]

I am not putting forth the doctrine of plausible deniability.  What I am asking is why should senior management of a brokerage firm be barred because of something being done in the mutual fund department by people that the senior management wouldn't know if they met them on the street?

Should a US President be removed from office because of something done by somebody at the State Department--or is it sufficient to remove the guilty party and perhaps their immediate supervisor?

Your argument doesn't hold water, simply because from the standpoint of 'the manager', it's common practice to let the sh*te roll downhill, and too bad for those in the valley.  As you rightly point out, it's a common practice which does more than suggest that those in management who condone and allow this behavior are creatures of little to no moral fiber.  Managers should and in my opinion must know that with their elevation to some exalted management position, there is a corresponding increase in accountability.  This is sadly lacking in corporate management over the last 25 or so years.

By the way...that is EXACTLY the doctrine of plausible deniability.

[quote=Starka]

By the way...that is EXACTLY the doctrine of plausible deniability.

[/quote]

Nope, it's reality.  Do you think that Michael Dell is personally responsible for the fact that Dell computers catch on fire?

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Starka]

By the way...that is EXACTLY the doctrine of plausible deniability.

[/quote]

Nope, it's reality.  Do you think that Michael Dell is personally responsible for the fact that Dell computers catch on fire?

[/quote]

No, it's plausible deniability.

Are you suggesting that Michael Dell should be rewarded for the company's performance of late? 

Michael Dell, as founder and President of the company should and must bear the ultimate responsibility. 

[quote=Starka][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Starka]

By the way...that is EXACTLY the doctrine of plausible deniability.

[/quote]

Nope, it's reality.  Do you think that Michael Dell is personally responsible for the fact that Dell computers catch on fire?

[/quote]

No, it's plausible deniability.

Are you suggesting that Michael Dell should be rewarded for the company's performance of late? 

Michael Dell, as founder and President of the company should and must bear the ultimate responsibility. 

[/quote]

No I don't think he should be rewarded for the recent performance, and I have not heard that his board has rewarded him.

As for the rhetoric, "...must bear the ultimate responsibility."  What does that mean, shoot himself in his office?  Just what is the ultimate responsibility?

Since you don't seem to know, the leader of a company, department, or any other group of employees must in some way be punished for the wrongdoings of his or her subordinates.  If this is not so, all superiors will allow their malfeasances to fall upon their subordinates.  Plausible deniability.

In your example with Dell, do you have some evidence that a Dell employee is somehow responsible for the batteries catching fire due to his or her derelection?  If yes, then a nuber of managers up the food chain are responsible.  If no, then it's now a case of finding out what went wrong, and making it right.  This, by the way, is something that I think Michael Dell is doing right.  His company initiated one of the largest recalls in American business history.  He took the hit...he took the ultimate resposibility to the American consumer.

[quote=Starka]

Since you don't seem to know, the leader of a company, department, or any other group of employees must in some way be punished for the wrongdoings of his or her subordinates.  If this is not so, all superiors will allow their malfeasances to fall upon their subordinates.  Plausible deniability.

In your example with Dell, do you have some evidence that a Dell employee is somehow responsible for the batteries catching fire due to his or her derelection?  If yes, then a nuber of managers up the food chain are responsible.  If no, then it's now a case of finding out what went wrong, and making it right.  This, by the way, is something that I think Michael Dell is doing right.  His company initiated one of the largest recalls in American business history.  He took the hit...he took the ultimate resposibility to the American consumer.

[/quote]

So what should be the penalty extracted from the CEO of a brokerage firm if there is a rogue trader somewhere in the organization?

Should he be barred for life, suspended for thity days, asked to pay a monetary fine?

If you forged a client's name on something and turned it in, should your branch manager be fired?

To again refer to your Dell example, do you think that the stand he made is going to do his career any good?

I the case of forgery, that's a crime in the event that you didn't know.  And yes, punitive action should be taken against a manager who failed to supervise because you committed a securities crime.  Do you think he shouldn't?  (Here's a hint...if you pick "shouldn't", I must question your moral code, or lack thereof.)

[quote=Starka]

To again refer to your Dell example, do you think that the stand he made is going to do his career any good?

I the case of forgery, that's a crime in the event that you didn't know.  And yes, punitive action should be taken against a manager who failed to supervise because you committed a securities crime.  Do you think he shouldn't?  (Here's a hint...if you pick "shouldn't", I must question your moral code, or lack thereof.)

[/quote]

I think that a branch manager who does not know a broker in his branch is committing a crime is no more guilty of the crime than a parent is if their son holds up a convenience store.

A failure to supervise claim should arise if there is a patern of misbehavior, but to claim failure to supervise regarding a single incident is ridiculous.  Especially when the person performing the illegal act knew it was illegal at the time it was being done.

Bust the manager for failure to supervise in a churning case, but him if there is a second unauthorized trading charge, but there is no way a manager should be busted for a first unauthorized trading charge or for any sort of single incident criminal act such as forgery.

As I said, the idea that the buck stops here is a great slogan, and looked good on Truman's desk, but it's an unrealistic expectation.  Not just in 2006, it was unreal in 1946 and every year since the dawn of time.

Are you honestly suggesting that if a broker commits a crime such as embezzlement or forgery that his managers bear no responsibility?  Remember...we're not discussing what could be construed as a missed communication, but real crime.  You seem to have a jaded and somewhat limited knowledge of how the operational end of a business works, particularly the financial services business.

As to what you believe regarding right and wrong, unless you're doing some serious leg-pulling here, I'm grateful on behalf of the investing public, that your career is over.

Shouldn’t it be bust, not but(Line # above). Senior mgmt knew what was going on and encouraged it (different acct #'s for the same acct after fund co. kicked them out, give rep a new rep # then open same account under new rep). I know the facts in this case and it was encouraged.

[quote=badmove?]Shouldn't it be bust, not but(Line # above). Senior mgmt knew what was going on and encouraged it (different acct #'s for the same acct after fund co. kicked them out, give rep a new rep # then open same account under new rep). I know the facts in this case and it was encouraged.[/quote]

badmove?, I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at.