Why Do Rogue Traders Always Lose Money?

Author:
Publish date:

Another rogue trader has caused huge losses at a major financial institution. MF Global Inc., which is largest broker of exchange-traded futures and options contracts, has said it set aside $141.5 million to cover losses caused by a trader who "substantially exceeded" trading limits in his own account. The FT identifies the culprit as Evan Dooley, a broker at the Memphis office, and reports that the trades were carried out at the CME Group in Chicago. Wheat traders in Chicago say he took a large short position on Tuesday night that backfired when the market turned the following day.
MF Global blames a failure of "retail order entry systems." We have no idea what that means. It sounds a lot like when our tech people tell us that our email has gone down because of "core switch failure" but they're reversing the polarity so everything will work better from now on.
There's a serious question about how many of these rogue traders are out there. We hear about them when they take losing positions but apparently no one who "substantially exceeded" his or her trading limits has ever made money for his firm. At least, that's what you'd have to believe by the absence of disclosures about gains from rogue traders.
"How come 'rogue trader' disclosures are always losses?" Kynikos founder Jim Chanos asks.
It's a good question. Is it even plausible that rogue traders always lose money? Or are risk management practices generally far more lax than is commonly believed? Are there lots of these "unauthorized trades" that we never hear about because they either make money or don't lose that much? From what we understand about SocGen,it seems at least plausible that they were all too happy to look the other way when Jerome Kerveil's trades were making money.
Rogue wheat trader loses $140m [Financial Times]
MF Global Statement [Wall Street Journal]

Related