Another Day At A Medium-Sized International Bank V

As the curtain on my banking career looms large I feel a certain drive to record some of the little details that make the financial industry unique. In an earlier post I mentioned that the daily spaghetti of crossed-wires communication had a lot to answer for. Here’s another little nugget….

Dear Mr Tchübacher,

I hope you may be able to assist. One of my team has asked for clarification on personal account trading rules in relation to certain products.

I have scanned the compliance manual and haven't come across any specific guidelines on this subject, so I would like to seek your clarification on what regulations or rules apply for a member of staff to use margin trading accounts?

Many thanks in advance,
UDH Boy

….Two days later…..

Hi Mr Tchübacher,

I have not had a reply to my previous mail. My team member is still asking me about the rules governing this kind of activity. Could you please pass on to whoever can answer so that I can inform my staff accordingly?

Many thanks,
UDH Boy

….One day later….

hey UDH Boy,
i give this to advisory to clear the new structure of our team. For the moment i think that our new structure with the same workaround still have the same rules as before. I escalate it today and hope that it will be clear in the near future. ;-)

Herr E. Tchübacher
Compliance Officer

Hello Herr Tchübacher,

I’m sorry, I didn’t quite follow your mail. Please can you clarify the rules on margin trading accounts or direct me to the appropriate person?

Thanks,
UDH Boy

…..One day later…..

Hey UDH Boy,
sorry for delay but we have still problems. It´s what i say yesterday, before it will be finaly clear the new structure with our Boss and Compliance, the best way is to leave it as before. The appointment will be in the near future (i hope next week). Offiziell rules are not exist of this point. But it´s in inoffiziell rule to say before we know the new rules we must leave the oldest rules. Better is better. I hope it help for the moment.

Herr E. Tchübacher
Compliance Officer

(This issue is unlikely to be resolved in 2008...)

Happy Birthday to Lisnambulist ;-) x

Collecting Lawyers

You wait forever for a bus, and then two come along at the same time.

On Sunday I had no lawyers. This morning I have two: MCE Avocats who are going to help me deal with the Swiss architect-locusts (if you ever come into contact with these people, I suggest you run a mile. Their service is worse than their website); and Speechly Bircham who are reviewing our developer's contract for Project Dennis.

First impressions on both counts are very good - they seem polite and professional. However, they haven't asked for any money yet...

On the good side, oh-my-Darling has cut VAT by 2.5% from next week, reducing our beta-site development costs by enough to afford at least half an hour of lawyer-time.

New Weblogo

One of the great things about this creative space we call t'Internet is all the new words that get made up to describe things that never existed before. I fancy myself as a bit of a neologician(TM) and so I am describing the new bit of artwork on the left <---- as my "weblogo"(TM).

The original design was as a possible idea for A Tiger In Africa(TM) identity but we decided it was a bit flat and old hat. However, I handed it over to that intergenuis(TM) Penfold at GTZero(TM), in the hope that he could make it more 3D-ey, button-y and badge-y, and by Jove, that's exactly what he has done. A+ old chap!

Weblogo(TM) by Penfold(TM)

Birthday Portrait

Apparently it's customary for future monarchs to sit for a portrait on their 60th birthday. I can't deny that I was somewhat taken aback when I chanced across this photograph, and learnt that Daddy Papersurfer has a royal bloodline.

HRH Prince Surfeur de Papier (Snr)

Phriday Photo XVII

The spot monkeys were discussing the other day how much EUR/USD a certain fund had bought in a certain space of time to move the market a certain amount, and the consensus of opinion was "truckloads." A wonderfully malleable term, I think.

When oil neared $150 earlier this year, the local car-pooling policy proved remarkably popular...

To view previous Phriday Photos click here!

Somnambulist Mothership For Sale

We got the revised quote for the enhanced-specification Project Dennis beta-site yesterday. Thud. So...

An almost unique opportunity to own a mildly mini-somnambulist-tainted, environmentally unfriendly Autobahn-hogger. Dog hairs included. Many extras still work.

One careful (ahem) owner. Any reasonable offer considered. May accept safe passage across the nearest border as part exchange...

Birth Canal Conundrum

There's a lot of debate on the internet, of varying degrees of quality, but very little gets as vociferous as the religion vs. science battle. I find it quite difficult to get involved with this because although I largely come from the scientific corner, I actually think that each field has precious little of value to say about the other. Most of the arguments that you read, most especially on the comments sections of any relevant articles in major publications, are just a series of conflicting straw men with no hope of ever agreeing on a frame of reference, let alone striking some sensible dialogue.

There is one thing I think most sane people can agree on, however. Each of us has a world view (for want of a better phrase), and our world contains evidence as to the true nature of things. When we encounter a conflict between our world view and evidence, then it stands to reason that one of the two must be wrong in some way.

This got me thinking, as I chanced upon an article detailing recent fossil evidence that suggests large birth canals in early hominids (allowing delivery of large-brained early hominid sprogs) evolved hundreds of thousands of years earlier than previously thought. I wondered to myself, and cannot stop wondering, what young-earth-creationists think when they encounter such evidence. Do they just ignore it? Do they assume it is patently wrong? Or some kind of scientific conspiracy to undermine their beliefs? Or do they simply not read such surreptitous publications (the BBC News website)? To someone who genuinely believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old, debating whether early humans appeared 200,000 or 2,000,000 years ago is utterly irrelevant and a total waste of time. But surely there must be some spark of interest, some nagging question as to why other people believe that fossilization of bones takes much longer than the supposed life-span of the earth. The cognitive dissonance must be excrutiating. Or perhaps not....

A diagram detailing the evolution of red underpants (3.2 million years ago to the present day)