From rogue trader to Robin Hood: Why Jerome Kerviel is a national hero in France
By DAVID JONES
February 2008


When he was a boy, growing up in the rural backwaters of Brittany, Jerome Kerviel's life was refreshingly uncomplicated.

He was raised in a simple house adjoining the shed where his father eked out a living as a self-employed metal worker.

And as his family couldn't afford to buy him sophisticated gadgets, he whiled away hours playing hide-and-seek around the huge Druid stone monument at the end of his cul-de-sac.

Who could have imagined then that 20 years later Kerviel would be reviving this pastime - playing hide-and-seek with the world's media, as he crouched in the boot of his lawyer's car as it sped away from a Paris police station?

That was the indignity forced upon 31-year-old Kerviel this week. For Kerviel is an obscure Breton boy no longer.

Ten days ago he was unmasked as a rogue trader sans pareil; the stock market maverick whose illicit deals cost his employees, Societe Generale, France's second biggest bank, a breathtaking £3.7billion.

Alongside Kerviel's losses, Nick Leeson's £800million sting on Barings Bank is petty theft.

Here was a young man prepared to gamble a mind-blowing five billion Euros (or £3.7 billion - a sum equivalent to the entire GDP of Morocco) on his secret hunches.

A man, moreover, who came within a few computer clicks of sending Europe's financial market's into possible irreversible meltdown and sparking a global recession.

The story behind Kerviel's sting is astonishing. Yet, in many ways, the reaction to it is equally intriguing. Ordinarily, one might think, a dealer prepared to play fast and loose with billions of pounds would be reviled for his chicanery.

Yet instead, Kerviel is being hailed in his home country as a modern-day Robin Hood; the non-entity who dared to make a mockery of the greedy fat-cats who control the all powerful markets, and almost got away with it.

Before the scandal broke, he was a diffident loner. Now thousands have joined his online "fan club"; trendy young Parisians sport T-shirts bearing his face; he is even being dubbed "the Che Guevara of France".

Nor is it only among gleeful Left Bank subversives that Kerviel is being viewed as an anti-hero. He is the toast of bars in Middle France, where he is held to embody the social catastrophe that they fear will ensue should the French abandon a Gallic lifestyle to adopt the frenetic, profits-driven model of British and American capitalism.

A major opinion poll yesterday showed that only 13 per cent of the French population blame Kerviel for SocGen's losses, with half blaming the bank itself, and a quarter pointing the finger at the country's financial regulators.

For President Nicolas Sarkozy, who swept to power on a pledge to drag "Vieux France" to the forefront of the global market, this backlash couldn't have come at a worse time.

So, what is the truth about the boy who broke the bank? Was he a brilliant but psychologically flawed young man intent on proving his ingenuity (and perhaps lining his pockets in the bargain)? Or was he the scapegoat for a deeper malaise within the French banking system?

rest of article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511842&in_page_id=1770)

i think he's great. make shit disappear with a push of a button. imaginary numbers, gone.

It seems highly unlikely to me that his bosses were unaware of what he was doing.

too bad the banks insurance will pay on imaginary numbers. but this WILL effect world economies in one way or another.
i hope the french banks don't pay shit.
i hope there is someone else out there in the finance community who will make some more imaginary numbers disappear. fuck em.

but this WILL effect world economies in one way or another.
I hope you'll forgive me if I don't have faith in your knowledge of economics.

i hope there is someone else out there in the finance community who will make some more imaginary numbers disappear. fuck em.
Great way to think...all that chaos and disorder (not to mention financial ruin) is great for everyone from the little man to the government heads.

Twit.

It's a form of penis envy. Unable to achieve much on his own his wishes misfortune on others so his own 'accomplishments' don't seem so small.

i hope that wasn't my pension he was fucking with....i wonder how those old folks are going to react when they don't get a check next month?

It seems highly unlikely to me that his bosses were unaware of what he was doing.

I agree.

It seems highly unlikely to me that his bosses were unaware of what he was doing.

Did you read the article? It does describe how he did it.

from the article

Kerviel maintains that his bosses knew exactly what he was doing - and were prepared to turn a blind eye so long as he was winning.

Did you read the article? It does describe how he did it.

Yes, but only vaguely. As a network engineer, who administers firewalls and IPSs for a living, I don't see how he could do all that without anyone knowing. Especially if he was doing it all from one computer.

By using his deep knowledge of all aspects of SocGen's operations, including the computerised fraud detection system, he was able to create a web of fictitious trading accounts, even as his unsuspecting bosses stood over him.

He seems to have done it with the aid of false internal company e-mails, and the ability to by-pass in-house computer security software, such as firewalls and codewords. Plus, of course, quite staggering chutzpah.

Kerviel used these bogus accounts to place outlandish bets, exposing SocGen to massive risk. Yet ironically, his initial problem was that he was too successful.

Then you should know as well as anyone that no system is fool proof. He's worked in the back office, he understands how accounts get created, trades get processed, how the trades are monitored for VAR..... He knew the passwords of some of his colleagues. It's highly probable.

The notion that the bank would let the kid play with enough money to bankrupt the organization is silly. Why take the risk.

Why would he know his colleagues passwords? There is no reason he should.

Should and would are two different things.

Perhaps I missed where in the article it says he knew his colleagues passwords.
Where does it say that?

There's a search engine called google. Try using it you lazy twit.

Waldo, you're ridiculous. You make a claim, and you expect everyone else to prove it for you. It's getting a little old.

Waldo, you're ridiculous. You make a claim, and you expect everyone else to prove it for you. It's getting a little old.

Will wonders never cease. Another dolt, too lazy to move her ass chimes in to defend her champion. Just for you darling.:flowers: Any other insights you'd like to offer about yourself?

http://www.informationweek.com/security/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QLIQ45NBBGBRCQSNDLQSK H0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=205920600

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/business/worldbusiness/29trader.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.sap.info/public/INT/int/index/Category-28813c6138d029be8-int/0/articlesVersions-30698479ee4768f8a0

I am neither a dolt, nor lazy, just intelligent enough to recognize that the person making a claim has the responsibility to support it with evidence. How many times have you chided dharma for not providing evidence for his claims? Not only are you unable to support your arguments, you are also a hypocrite. Good job.

Oh! a temper tantrum. Tears next?

You were provided with enough info to get the proof yourself. There is page after page on the subject of 'kerviel passwords' in google. But even typing those two words into the engine proved either too much effort or too little intelligence. Which do you prefer?

And even when the proof is provided we get this sweet bit of insight Not only are you unable to support your arguments indicating she's not really interested in the proof anyway. :rolleyes:

Take this in the spirit of learning how to think, clearly.

Of course I'm not interested in the proof. I don't care about this subject at all. You do not get the point, apparently. You made a claim. Someone asked you to substantiate it, and then you called them lazy and told them to find evidence to support your claim. I can't believe that you are so dense as to not be able to understand why that's unacceptable. It's YOUR responsibility to provide your own evidence - other people should not have to go out of their way to substantiate your arguments for you.... And ironically, you call others lazy.

Of course I'm not interested in the proof. I don't care about this subject at all.

Then why are you here? Are you a stalker?

You do not get the point, apparently. You made a claim. Someone asked you to substantiate it, and then you called them lazy and told them to find evidence to support your claim. I can't believe that you are so dense as to not be able to understand why that's unacceptable. It's YOUR responsibility to provide your own evidence - other people should not have to go out of their way to substantiate your arguments for you.... And ironically, you call others lazy.

I'm surprised you haven't been so forthright with drama and his 'claims'. Why is that? Can we look forward to you admonishing him as well? Something you'd like to share about you two?

I gave him enough to figure it out for himself. To paraphrase, better to teach a man how fish then give merely give him a fish.

This is not about Dharma's unsubstantiated claims. Of course he makes many of them. However, I haven't seen him go so far as to ask other people to do his research for him, and if I did I would certainly call him out on it.

I find it hilarious that you're suggesting some sort of pro-dharma bias on my part, considering that I agree with you a lot more than I agree with him.

I find it hilarious that you're suggesting some sort of pro-dharma bias on my part, considering that I agree with you a lot more than I agree with him.

Yeah, that is true, illogical though it is...

Yeah, that is true, illogical though it is...
I hate agreeing with Waldo though. And I dislike his arguments even about issues in which we're on the same side. Point is, he's an ass.

What she's trying to say drama is that she agrees with me but dislikes the fact that i treat your's and free's and sham's arguments with such disdain. She wants a kindler, gentler more cuddly waldo.
Help us all out, enough with the inane arguements. I won't have to deconstruct them, you won't have to ramble on with endless and meaningless rhetoric and we'll both help df feel better about the world.:bighug:

Waldo - it's not that you treat others' arguments with disdain, you treat other people with disdain. You are hypocritical and frankly, you are mean. You make flawed arguments, and then you insult the people who disagree with you. You apparently don't know the difference between insulting a person themselves and insulting a position.

I hate agreeing with Waldo though. And I dislike his arguments even about issues in which we're on the same side. Point is, he's an ass.

Yes, he certainly is.

The disdain was earned long before you showed up. You merely have to look at prae's or froggers comments to understand that. The three amigos hold their position regardless of facts presented which contradict what they are saying. (Even you'd agree with that.) They are their arguments. And their arguments in most cases are a crock of shit.

Maybe you find their dogged insistence endearing. I find it disingenuous.

Yes, he certainly is.

Still trying to be relevant eh.

The disdain was earned long before you showed up. You merely have to look at prae's or froggers comments to understand that. The three amigos hold their position regardless of facts presented which contradict what they are saying. (Even you'd agree with that.) They are their arguments. And their arguments in most cases are a crock of shit.

Maybe you find their dogged insistence endearing. I find it disingenuous.
I have been a member longer than dharma has, so I don't know what you're talking about with the "long before you showed up" comment....

Also, you treat me just as badly as you treat dharma. What did I ever do to you to deserve the hostility you throw at me all the time? You throw it at everyone who so much as hints at disagreeing with you on any minor issue. It's very rude and tiresome.

You throw it at everyone who so much as hints at disagreeing with you on any minor issue. It's very rude and tiresome.

Understatement of the week.

I have been a member longer than dharma has, so I don't know what you're talking about with the "long before you showed up" comment....

Also, you treat me just as badly as you treat dharma. What did I ever do to you to deserve the hostility you throw at me all the time? You throw it at everyone who so much as hints at disagreeing with you on any minor issue. It's very rude and tiresome.

You've not been participating in the political discussions until recently

So it's really about you. If you're getting snarked it's because like this thread you inject yourself into the conversation with irrelevancies. You don't care about the subject but for some reason or other (your desire for attention?) you've decided to 'contribute'. What's wrong with that picture?

Here's an idea. In the future if you don't want to get snarked dont' participate in discussions you don't care about. Make sense?

You've not been participating in the political discussions until recently

So it's really about you. If you're getting snarked it's because like this thread you inject yourself into the conversation with irrelevancies. You don't care about the subject but for some reason or other (your desire for attention?) you've decided to 'contribute'. What's wrong with that picture?

Here's an idea. In the future if you don't want to get snarked dont' participate in discussions you don't care about. Make sense?
Actually I've been participating in political discussions since 2004, and although I did take a break of almost a year, I came back from my break months before dharma joined. The political section has always been the section in which I participate the most. Yet another topic in which you apparently don't know what you're talking about.

And I do care about this discussion, I just don't care whether or not the guy had his colleagues' passwords. Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I think I have just as much right as any other poster to point out when someone makes a flawed argument (in this case, in the form of an unsubstantiated claim).

Honestly you are not a very nice person. When you do something illogical and someone points it out, you respond with insults and condescension. And now you're blaming your own meanness on me, for joining a conversation "with irrelevancies". You are one of very few posters who are rude and mean to me. If it were something about me that provoked rudeness, don't you think I'd be a little less well liked? I'm perfectly civil to most people, and most people reciprocate.

You don't care, but kinda you do, but not really. And you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, it'll help if it's meaningful.

One last thought. Whining isn't becoming. You've spent the entire day whining about me and not a word on the subject you supposedly care about. Ask yourself why is that?

I am neither a dolt, nor lazy, just intelligent enough to recognize that the person making a claim has the responsibility to support it with evidence. How many times have you chided dharma for not providing evidence for his claims? Not only are you unable to support your arguments, you are also a hypocrite. Good job.
i tried being lazy, it turned out to be too much work.

Damn DF...you tell him;)


he's mad cause he got his ass handed back to him by a girl

Thanks, Michelle. :D

I dont know why anyone would want to pic a fight with DF.... it is definetly more trouble than it is worth...she had those red headed powers.

remember folks.... Never....Ever..... Ever..... trust a girl with red hair.

:rolleyes: Red headed powers... That's a laugh. Anyways my hair is more blond than red now... My roots are REALLY long.

only idiots trust banks, financial institutions, wallstreet, etc..
imaginary numbers are more easy to make disappear than a bar of gold or silver.

only idiots trust banks, financial institutions, wallstreet, etc..
imaginary numbers are more easy to make disappear than a bar of gold or silver.
that depends on how big the thief is.

Bwahahahaha