Slashdot Mirror


Knight Capital Fined $12M For a Software Bug That Cost $460M

Mark Gibbs writes "Knight Capital monumentally fouled up a software update. According to the SEC, 'Knight did not have supervisory procedures to guide its relevant personnel when significant issues developed.' In other words, not only was Knight's code management inadequate but their human management processes were just as bad. The fine for what could have been a biblical financial disaster? A measly $12 million."

192 comments

  1. The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cost to them was $472 M. I *think* that will discourage them.

    1. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      That 472 million didn't come out of their pocket..

      It came out of their CUSTOMERS...

      You know.. People. All those investors who handed over cash and said make it grow... They got boned.

    2. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The IRS has issued $13.6 billion in bogus EIC checks last year, and over $132 billion in bogus checks over the last decade.

      The money comes out of our pockets, you know, the governments 'customers.'

      You know, People. All those citizens who handed over cash under threat of force and said here take it don't hurt me. They get boned.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/22/irs-paid-132B-bogus-tax-credits-over-last-decade/

    3. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Who cashed those checks?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly, the $12M should have been a direct fine to the CEO or the board members. You have to punch in the face the people responsible.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      The cost to them was $472 M. I *think* that will discourage them.

      Law enforcement love to rub salt in the wound. A friend of mine had an accident that wrote-off a car. He had no MOT and the insurance investigators found that the car was unroadworthy. This meant that his insurance defaulted to "road traffic act only", which is the legal minimum and only covers third party injury claims. He had lost a car, and had to pay £2,000 for repairs to another vehicle.

      On top of that the police then sent him a court summons, where he was fined £30 and had three points on his license for driving an unroadworthy vehicle on a public highway. Like this - I think the $12M fine is just to rub salt into the wound and to show that the law enforcement agencies are doing their job - as you say there is enough deterrent without this.

    6. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the $12M should have been a direct fine to the CEO or the board members. You have to punch in the face the people responsible.

      The 12M won't come out of their pocket, it will come out of the customers. They will just award themselves are 12M bonus for good management.

      As soon as you start subscribing to the idea that you can't fine a corporation because it hurts the customers than you have already lost. "Hurting" the customers is the point of fining a corporation as they will either need to eat the cost or raise prices; raising prices lowers the barriers on competitors allowing someone who is not a dick to undercut them, or new players to slide into the marketplace under the raised financial limbo bar.

    7. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Yep, risk is part of investment.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you need to go over what a corporation actually is again. If board members and directors are found "personally liable" then why bother incorporating in the first place?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That 472 million didn't come out of their pocket..

      It came out of their CUSTOMERS...

      You know.. People. All those investors who handed over cash and said make it grow... They got boned.

      Oh, so you mean the same pockets that the $12M fine comes out of?

    10. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You friend is a criminal or a retard. Everyone knows a lack of an MOT means your insurance is going to be invalidated. He should have gone to jail if there was more than a week of lapse due to extenuating circumstances. Imagine if he did some serious damage to a person knowing his vehicle should not have been on the road. What a cunt.

      * For the US readers, the UK has a law where all vehicles have an annual roadworthiness test, it's called the "MOT". It checks vehicle structure, breaking power and emission levels, only takes a few minutes, especially on cars less than 10 years old. The test is quite basic but sufficient to dissuade the usage of complete junkers from being used. People that avoid them know their car has problems, because the MOT comes with a report of everything that needs to be fixed (can be a lot) before the thing is considered legal for public roads usage.

    11. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      You friend is a criminal or a retard. Everyone knows a lack of an MOT means your insurance is going to be invalidated.

      uhm no. Its the unroadworthy condition that invalidates the insurance. That said he was a retard in that case - the reason he had no MOT is because he knew that the car would not pass and was unroadworthy.

    12. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If board members and directors are found "personally liable" then why bother incorporating in the first place?

      Are you telling me that all I have to do to get away with murder is form "Murder Inc." -- sorry, I meant "Loving Hands, Inc."? And then as chairman I can just hire a hit man and shield myself from liability? Shweet!!

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    13. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by edjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of a corporation is to shield the shareholders from liability beyond the value of their shares. Directors can be held liable if they are particularly negligent or criminal.

    14. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I think you need to go over what a corporation actually is again. If board members and directors are found "personally liable" then why bother incorporating in the first place?

      Which is why corporations, directed by people who are not held accountable other than to their shareholders who care nothing about anything but money, do whatever the fuck they like and more often then not get away with it.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    15. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Kingkaid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it won't come from customers either. This is why companies have insurance for such things.

    16. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Good question. Maybe we should abolish corporations and hold people personally accountable for their crimes. If you invest in a criminal organization, you are a criminal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Why do you think corporations were created to begin with? It was rich criminals looking for a way to shield their assets from their criminal activities. It's the only reason Incorporation every came to exist. Rockefeller was a huge proponent of this and he was one of the biggest scumbags out there in the industrial age.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you telling me that all I have to do to get away with murder is form "Murder Inc." -- sorry, I meant "Loving Hands, Inc."? And then as chairman I can just hire a hit man and shield myself from liability? Shweet!!

      Executives and board members can still be charged with actual crimes they personally committed or are an accessory to. But being bad at your job is not a crime. If they can show that executives or board members intentionally defrauded someone, then they can go to prison like anyone else. But if it was just their negligence, arrogance, lack of caring, gaming the system, etc. that caused the problem, they didn't commit any crimes.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    19. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If board members and directors are found "personally liable" then why bother incorporating in the first place?

      Are you telling me that all I have to do to get away with murder is form "Murder Inc." -- sorry, I meant "Loving Hands, Inc."? And then as chairman I can just hire a hit man and shield myself from liability? Shweet!!

      That the parent is modded insightful is a pleasant commentary on the shithole Slashdot has become.

    20. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      But being bad at your job is not a crime...
      But if it was just their negligence, arrogance, lack of caring, gaming the system, etc. that caused the problem, they didn't commit any crimes.

      Unfortunately, for financial matters this is true.

      However, IMHO there should be a class of criminal liability equivalent to criminal negligence, only for property crimes.

      As it is, Knight Capital will likely get sued out of existence, but it's executives will walk away with no harm whatsoever, despite being shockingly uncaring towards their governorship of other people's money.

    21. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Right. So the regulations were clear about Knight's responsibilities. The Knight board hired executives to run the company. Either those executives are negligent because he did not meet their obligations under the law or they was prevented from meeting those obligations by actions of the board. If you are saying one or more executives were ignorant of the law, then the board was negligent in their duty to hire competent executives with the proper industry knowledge. The idea that ignorance or willful negligence is an excuse in white-collar crimes is absurd.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    22. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      Directors can be held liable if they are particularly negligent or criminal.

      Can they? I thought the standard was that executives could only be charged for criminal offenses.

      i.e. if you demonstrated gross negligence that caused physical harm, then sure, as that is a criminal act. I can't think of any time when an executive has been criminally charged for being financially negligent.

    23. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Do you think companies like losing their clients money? That is plenty of an incentive to avoid the problem in the future.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    24. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      They can be charged for gross negligence of their company or making known-bad decisions that ruins the business, but it's really hard to prove that they should have known better and are grossly negligent (sorry I don't know the formal terms here). And as such these cases are really rare.

    25. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called the "MOT". It checks vehicle structure, breaking power and emission levels, only takes a few minutes, especially on cars less than 10 years old. The test is quite basic but sufficient to dissuade the usage of complete junkers from being used

      Hence, their a fucking joke and a waste of time. Probably why he didn't have one. I've gone months without an inspection when I lived in Missouri. Band new car. His story could have happened to me My current resident state doesn't require an "MOT". Arkansas. Because they realize how much of a joke they are.

    26. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by mlw4428 · · Score: 2

      It's not over threat of force. It's under the concept that you believe in the Constitution and your duty as a citizen to abide by the Constitutionally granted power of taxation to the United States Congress. If you're in such duress you can surrender your citizenship and leave the country. Generally the people that complain about taxes being theft or extortion are those who don't really pay all that much into it. I'm sure there's some 3rd world nation out there that doesn't tax their citizens and you're more than welcome to move there. Good luck, please make sure you don't take the US taxpayer food drops when you start starving.

    27. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      However, IMHO there should be a class of criminal liability equivalent to criminal negligence, only for property crimes.

      Although this sounds like a good idea, it is not. The problem with holding executives and board member's personally responsible, is that it discourages competent people from taking these jobs, raises the cost of hiring people for these positions, and basically just spreads out the cost from the firms that are incompetently run to all firms, thus reducing the incentive for investors to perform due diligence. All of these factors will make the problem worse. Incompetence is not a crime, and should not be.

    28. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      It cost the shareholders $472 million. The men and women mismanaging Knight Capital drew their paychecks and benefits as before and didn't lose a dime in remuneration.

      The only lesson learned here was that no lesson was learned.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    29. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Xenx · · Score: 1

      But, the insurance is paid for ultimately by the customers. Usually, premiums are derived from risk. So, the customers are still paying for it.

    30. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive Mohammed! He just doesn't like boys!

    31. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      I wonder what "Executive Fuckup" insurance costs. You think it comes with a free set of pens or maybe a calendar?

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    32. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and? What exactly is your point? Are you trying to imply that the other AC is a hypocrite, even though they don't bring up government at all?

    33. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Civil law != criminal law. I know it's confusing for Americans.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    34. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, IMHO there should be a class of criminal liability equivalent to criminal negligence, only for property crimes.

      Although this sounds like a good idea, it is not. The problem with holding executives and board member's personally responsible, is that it discourages competent people from taking these jobs, raises the cost of hiring people for these positions, and basically just spreads out the cost from the firms that are incompetently run to all firms, thus reducing the incentive for investors to perform due diligence. All of these factors will make the problem worse. Incompetence is not a crime, and should not be.

      Take the fines out of their pay/bonuses and untaxed assets. The corp shield should apply only to their personal assets which they have paid the full 35% or whatever taxes on. Bonus effect: discourages tax avoiding-borderline-evasive shell games.

    35. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      Your tone would suggest that people are discouraged from denouncing their US citizenship because they will ultimately be the losers in that transaction.
      How many US schmucks will it take to offset this single losers tax bill. And he isn't the only one doing this. Perhaps you over estimate "the greatest country int he world".

      "Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill."

    36. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by publiclurker · · Score: 0

      Well, if you only kill the poor and do it with poisoning, sure.

    37. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Bonus effect: discourages tax avoiding-borderline-evasive shell games.

      That makes no sense. It would have the exact opposite effect. If the USA makes bad judgement a crime, there will be a flood of corporations moving their headquarters overseas, and taking thousands of jobs with them.

    38. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Knight had customers... they were mainly market makers trading their own funds. The nearly half billion dollars was their own money. Knight has since been purchased.

    39. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were a proprietary trading company, not a broker. They didn't have customers. They traded their own funds.

    40. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, the $12M should have been a direct fine to the CEO or the board members. You have to punch in the face the people responsible.

      "Smithers, my wallet is in my right front pocket. Oh, and I'll take that statue of Justice too!"

    41. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your overall point might still be valid, but what you say is not _quite_ true. Most Knight Capital employees, most especially most senior ones, were locked into substantial shareholding because a lot of their compensation was in shares on a multi-year vesting schedule. Indeed very many held vested shares as well, because they believed in the company. Senior management shareholdings are public and you can see in public records that many lost millions. Only very senior management holdings are public but I assure you that the pain went way down. If you knew the numbers you might or might not think it's enough, but it's fair to guess that the large majority of employees, including secretaries and others, truly lost tens of thousands of dimes. I'd guess that a quarter of the workforce each lost - in real money - hundreds of thousands of dimes. Rather few people in a mid-or-higher level management position who had been there for more than a few years would have lost less than a million dimes.
            Because of the error, Knight no longer exists. Technically it was merged with, but more realistically said it was taken over, by a high-frequency-trading firm called GetCo. At least at the senior management level it's public to see how many former Knight managers are still employed (hint, it's not many). It might be fair to guess that similar ramifications also apply deeper in the organization chart than is public.

      The fact is that Knight's failure fell entirely on it's shareholders and employees, and was (unevenly) devastating to them both, but (whatever might have happened in another world) in actual fact the public and other companies were unharmed. Knight's error fell almost entirely upon itself. There was no bailout. There were no trades cancelled in its favor (which you might compare with what happened in a few other recent public outages, to more "connected" firms). In the bad trades, Knight took the bad price and mostly gifted money to the other side. Customers don't have "accounts" with Knight (that's not its business) so the question and risk of customers losing money is entirely moot, but to be clear that did not and could not even in a worse case have happened.

      No one wants financial firms to screw up. But relative to what else has gone on, we'd want the consequences of an error to fall more or less as happened with Knight. You might ask for more criminal punishment, but in the "Wall St never suffers, and lives by different rules" story this stands out as one of the less egregious, by far, by very very far, than so much else that has gone on.

    42. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The job itself discourages competent people from taking the job. Competent people tend to want to do things hands on, not indirectly through others. The proportion of competence drastically decreases as you find people who WANT to indirectly do things. How about a legal salary cap to dissuade the criminally minded from taking these high paying jobs?

    43. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh indeed, it is under threat of force. Please see what happens to people who don't pay the bill. This is of course, different, than those who choose to not incur future bills, so please do not conflate the 2 seperate circumstances.

      Also, when the government KNOWINGLY takes $13+ billion a year from honest, hard working, tax payers and KNOWINGLY gives it to fraudsters and criminals who are not eligable for it, and KNOWINGLY does nothing about it, that is theft and extortion in my book, and has nothing to do with the tax money collected and used for services legitimitly as it should be.

      As for categorizing me as someone who doesn't pay anything at all, and attacking my character, I'll just say that I have worked and paid taxes my entire life, and when I found myself homeless, the federal government came to my rescue by offering to put me on a 2 year waiting list for housing assistance, while private sector charities actually housed and fed me voluntarily, without threat of force, while I looked for work and eventually found a job.

      And, kudos on ignoring the irony that is
      1) A branch of the federal government, the SEC, fineing a private company, for losing private sector money, under the guise of accountability ...
      2) while another branch of the federal government, the IRS, takes money from private individuals, and gives it to criminals, and doesn't bother to even try and stop it, and acts like it doesn't matter, because everything belongs to them anyway.

      Good day comrade.

    44. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Directors of a Corporation can be held legally liable. That's why they carry Directors Liability insurance. It's the limited liability but still Liability.

    45. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can be held liable for their non criminal actions if the actions are determined to be unreasonable or negligence. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what they did they can be held liable.

    46. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      The men and women mismanaging Knight Capital drew their paychecks and benefits as before

      And their bonuses no doubt.

    47. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus effect: discourages tax avoiding-borderline-evasive shell games.

      That makes no sense. It would have the exact opposite effect. If the USA makes bad judgement a crime, there will be a flood of corporations moving their headquarters overseas, and taking thousands of jobs with them.

      "Bad Judgement" aka drunk driving for one example, is already a crime. See also Gross Negligent X. The problem is those crimes are not punished severely enough. A $50k fine may seem like a lot to a working class schmuck, but it's nothing to a multi-billion dollar a year behemoth.

      If it was more profitable to do that, they would already have done it. A company has no loyalty to a nation, and few seem to care about more than the next couple of quarters. Companies have the equivalent of a "renter" mentality. If they mess up a place, they can just move.

    48. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Even worse, Knight will probably file an insurance claim, and then write off any deductible and premium hikes as a cost of doing business. Oh yeah, and pass those on as increased costs to any customers or clients. Nothing like double-dipping in case like this. I mean we can't pass by a golden opportunity to bugger tax-payers and clients, can we?

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    49. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by Meski · · Score: 1

      And good luck finding a country whose government does not tax. You probably won't find it offering rule of law either.

    50. Re:The Fine was $12 M, but, by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Who are these "criminals" you speak of?

  2. Wait, a fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fine?

    If you make bad decisions (as a company or as a person), you kinda have to live with 'em. That should be as far as it goes.

    The result of this should be 'you fucked up with all the money, now go away'.

  3. It's their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It cost THEM $460M. That money was not lost, HFT is zero-sum. The market gained 460M, they should receive a bonus from their competitors not a fine.

    1. Re:It's their money by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What does HFT have to do with this?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:It's their money by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's what Knight Capital was in the business of doing when they gave away $460 million to other players.

    3. Re:It's their money by home-electro.com · · Score: 1

      My thought exactly. What seems to be the problem? The money were not lost. Just redistributed.

    4. Re:It's their money by gnupun · · Score: 2

      That's like saying mugging is not a crime. Your money is just being redistributed to the needy.

    5. Re:It's their money by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      But this wasn't Knight mugging someone, this was Knight giving up the money by their own choice.

      The people who were hurt were Knight's owners, which is an incentive for them to do a better job of oversight in the future.

      I refer to the trading losses, not the fine.

    6. Re:It's their money by sjames · · Score: 1

      Cool! I have a bunch of throwing rocks. I see a big bonus from the Glass Doctor in my future.

    7. Re:It's their money by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That's like saying mugging is not a crime.

      No it isn't. It is like saying that going up to people in a dark alley and stuffing money into their pockets is not a crime.

    8. Re:It's their money by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      [HFT is] what Knight Capital was in the business of doing when they gave away $460 million to other players.

      This had nothing to do with HFT. "Algorithmic Trading" and "High Frequency Trading" are two different things. Before anyone says "but they both use a computer": Algorithmic Trading predates the invention of the digital computer. In the early 1900's it was common to use human "computers" (they were actually called that) to perform calculations by hand according to specific rules, and then forward the buy/sell orders to traders in the pits.

    9. Re:It's their money by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      One is a subset of the other, and Knight Capital does the subset that is high frequency - plus other things of course.

      Hence why GETCO, another large HFT player, swallowed them up. And why they describe themselves with terms like:

      """Knight Capital Group, Inc. (NYSE Euronext: KCG) a leading liquidity provider in global markets specializing in high frequency trading""" - http://www.knight.com/careers/summerInternship.asp

  4. What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence??? by gweihir · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What they did was criminal negligence, plain and simple. And they did it out of greed. As long as mismanagement this severe has no personal consequences for the perpetrators, nothing will change.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They were FINED 12M, and they LOST 460M discovering the bug. This cost them a total of 476M.

    I am not understanding the outrage. Why should the SEC care if Knight Capital wanted to lose a big pile of money.

    1. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why should the SEC care if Knight Capital wanted to lose a big pile of money.

      Because SEC has the political mission to portray the stock market as a rational, efficient, professional and socially useful apparatus - not the cesspool of mother-fucking sharks that it is. Hence all the trading rules which are selectively enforced so as to maintain the illusion without scarring the sharks away to, say, London.

    2. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing a number... 460 + 12 does not equal 476, unless M is some weird number I'm not familiar with.

    3. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Clearly, M = $991,596.63865.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Because they broke the rules while losing that money. Do you think the SEC should only fine institutions that make money when they break the rules?

    5. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by TheJediGeek · · Score: 1

      So, this was calculated using the original Pentium processors?
      I wonder how many people still here even know about that.

    6. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because SEC has the political mission to portray the stock market as a rational

      Bzzt.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by AlecC · · Score: 2

      As it happens, they lost an amount of money they could just about afford. But they could have lost more money than they had - leaving other people with losses in what is supposed to be a safe market place. It is like fining people for speeding - they have not caused an accident, but they are driving in a way likely to cause an accident. As it was, it nearly wiped out Knight: if it had gone further, it would have wiped out other, innocent, parties and done serious damage to the market, which the SEC is tasked to protect.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    8. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I think OP used Knight Capital's software to do this highly complex calculation.

    9. Re:Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I still have a PC with one of the affected processors. It hasn't been my primary desktop for quite a while though...

    10. Re: Maybe I am stupid, please explain. by joemck · · Score: 1

      But no divides were involved.

  6. compensation by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?

    For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again? Individuals that paid thousands of dollars simply got a small payment while banks just had to deal with "the cost of doing business."

    I think I know the answer (lobbying/congresscritters in their pockets) but I think it's one of the most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008.

    1. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple. They are so big, that giving them what they deserve would do more harm to the market than good. Can you imagine how much money regular people would lose if their bank had gone bankrupt?

    2. Re:compensation by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      How about suing? Did those who were hurt sue? I bet they didn't sue.

      I'm saying that you don't have to wait for other people to do the right thing. In fact, I wouldn't wait at all. Go grab the appropriate paperwork and file a Small Claims case. At the 2,000 received court summons or so they'll just start settling as a default action.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They did, the $460mil was trades Knight Capital made for nobody that they had to cover, that $460mil bankrupted the company when they paid it out. If anything everyone else in the market profited off of their trades (that $460mil mostly just went into the market).

    4. Re:compensation by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      A lot of times, it's because punishing them too severely would just hurt even more innocent people. It's the same reason that criminals with kids are sometimes given a somewhat lighter sentence or lesser fines so as to avoid putting the kids through even more undue hardship as a result of punishing the parent.

    5. Re:compensation by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Because they're careful to write contracts that legally protect them from such lawsuits.

    6. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?
       
      Ummm, because that's a civil court matter between the institution and the clients? That's my guess.
       
      There is a system in place for this and if that system fails please don't act like the answer is to give the SEC powers outside of their current scope. That much of a focus of power is A Bad Thing(tm) as we've witness with nonsense like The Patriot Act and its warrantless wire tapping abilities along with its control over "enforcement" entities like the IRS.
       
      You may get a chuckle over the groups that they have targeted but don't act like it's not an abuse of power even if you agree with them at heart. This is why there are suppose to be silo structures like the branches of government, to ensure that one entity cannot be judge, jury and executioner.
       
      This is Civics 101 logic, folks. If any of this is a revelation to you about how government was meant to work then I suggest not posting as much and going back to the 9th grade and retaking the course again.

    7. Re:compensation by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?

      Seriously? Because that would complete the loop, and someone has to be putting in more than they're taking out.

      Granted, "financial institutions" is a pretty broad term, so I'm not entirely certain which situation you are talking about, but since you mentioned the mortgage stuff, I'm currently assuming you mean the big thing involving the banks and the gov't bail out to them. Doesn't really matter which situation though... someone has to lose. It's just like Vegas - lots of individuals put in money hoping for a payout; the house takes a healthy cut; most people lose; enough win that it still looks attractive to suckers; regulations keep it from being outright robbery.

      Regardless of how we got there, the banks needed bailed out or loads more people would get hurt. We, the people, bailed them out (taxes -> gov't -> them). If they turned around and compensated the individuals that lost, we'd just be paying ourselves, but with the overhead of gov't and banks skimming a lot of it... what's the point in that? Someone has to take the hit. In this case, the hit was spread out out amongst the people. In most other cases, where it's some company, the company should take the hit (IMO), which seems like what happened here.

    8. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most regular people don't go above the FDIC limits. If the bank went bankrupt they would simply get their pile of cash.

    9. Re:compensation by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?

      Because in capitalism the power is in the money and financial institutions have more money than individuals. You could as well ask for an explanation on why kings were not forced to compensate peasants in feudalism.

      The society where all individuals are equal doesn't exist. For as much as we know, it would have other inequalities and problems, but we cannot be sure because it doesn't exist and never has.

    10. Re:compensation by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 4, Informative

      How about suing? Did those who were hurt sue?

      The customers have probably signed an agreement to settle disputes exclusively through binding arbitration - I believe this is an almost universal practice in the financial industry, as a condition for doing business, and no, you can't take your business elsewhere. That arbitration is widely regarded (at least outside of the industry) as being biased towards the financial industry.

    11. Re:compensation by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 4, Informative

      For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again?

      I don't intend to defend Knight Capital, but there is a big difference between its incompetence and negligence in this case, and the deliberate and fraudulent actions that characterized the mortgage mess. No individual in the financial industry has been held accountable for these actions, even while some of the people they exploited have been prosecuted: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all [In Prison for Taking a 'Liar Loan' - Joe Nocera - NY Times; may require registration, or try reaching it through a search engine.] This, I believe, is the "most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008."

    12. Re:compensation by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Most people don't, but most companies do. The FDIC limits are pretty low and it's quite easy for a month's payroll for a medium-sized company to be over it. How many people would have suffered if their employers had suddenly not had enough liquid capital to cover their salary? How many businesses would have closed if they'd been unable to purchase anything for a few months?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:compensation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The schools teach that if you vote in an election, then your interests will be represented by your elected officials. Informed adults know that's such a steaming crock, but do we really expect government schools to teach that? Meanwhile, most voters don't bother to get informed (they did that in school, right?).

      Heck, my kids' school teaches that Columbus thought the Earth was flat and that Lincoln started the Civil War to end slavery - it's mostly all folklore with the varnish of history.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:compensation by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?

      For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again? Individuals that paid thousands of dollars simply got a small payment while banks just had to deal with "the cost of doing business."

      I think I know the answer (lobbying/congresscritters in their pockets) but I think it's one of the most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008.

      Conceptually it's more like they have the (bankrupt) government as a whole in their pocket.

      Got enough money to buy off a (bankrupt) government and you can get away with an awful lot.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    15. Re:compensation by chill · · Score: 1
      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    16. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they have 10,000 bank accounts all with $249,999.99
      Sure it's a pain, but if the bank ever goes bankrupt they'll get 10,000 checks for just under 250k.

    17. Re:compensation by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Customers are investors, and investment carries risk. Sometimes it's good investors see a good chunk of their money disappear, it makes them more careful about their money. This is not exactly the proper way of losing that money, of course.

      I'm actually surprised that this company hasn't gone belly-up yet. It lost US$ 460 mln - that's enough to kill most companies if it's their own capital, and if it's their customers capital, those customers would likely take their losses and take their money to another company that doesn't make this kind of capital mistakes, and actually makes them some money instead.

    18. Re:compensation by sjames · · Score: 1

      The bailout should have had a lot more strings attached. For example it should have allowed us to put the brakes on the foreclosure frenzy that is still going on.It should have forbid any kind of management bonuses.

    19. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and no, you can't take your business elsewhere.

      This is a tech news site, half of us are using bitcoin already.

    20. Re:compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's insane! If those parents did something so bad and are fined so much that they can no longer care for a child, then you'd think some of that money could go towards Foster care.

    21. Re:compensation by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the FDIC limit protects individuals, not accounts. You are insured up to that limit as the total of all of your accounts, not per account. You'd need to split your money between different banks. Even then, the FDIC payout isn't immediate, so you still have the problem of companies losing liquidity.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. The fine wasn't all of the punishment by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 5, Informative

    That $460 million came out of Knight Capital's pockets too...and is far more effective than any fine the SEC could levy. Why should the SEC pile on, aside from the populist outrage that goes along with people handling billions of dollars?

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    1. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by Software · · Score: 3, Informative

      If Knight had put the $460 million in a pile and burned it, there would be no fine. The problem was that their algorithm was wildly buying and selling shares in the open market, and thus distorting that market. See the graph at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/the-knightmare for an example of a stock that was affected. What if you were an investor in that stock who had set a stop-loss at $10? Knight's wild selling would have triggered the stop-loss, and you'd lose money because of Knight's actions. This gross market distortion is what the fine was meant to punish.

    2. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Normal selling can blow through your stop loss also. "But it's not the right kind of normal selling. It's evil normal selling."

    3. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Of course, the people who suffered because of the destabilization of the markets caused by such cavalier trading algorithms can sue to collect compensation for damages. But the same people who valiant rise to the defense of free markets, and "let people do what they want with their money and if they lose it, its their problem" are the same ones who rail against the trial lawyers and push for "tort" reform to reduce penalties.

      Remember this folks, when you are pushing for complete free markets, trial lawyers and courts are the only form of defense against the big players. And once the government has been shrunk small enough to be drowned in a bath tub, will the courts have any power to enforce judgements?

      Look at how toothless SEC is against powerful traders. That would exactly be the situation in the libertarian paradise where everyone acts anyway they want, and any harm they cause would have to be proved in court and compensation claimed. In that world taxes are so low and the Government would be so powerless and the courts would be so overloaded, the common man will have absolutely no protection. That is the side most libertarians refuse to see.

      Do you wonder what happened after all the Atlases shrugged, ditched the world of moochers and moved to Galt's Gulch? The biggest Atlas there called himself Zeus and screwed all of them.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare & contrast: "Yes I killed my mother and father, but I'm the one that has to live without my parents now. I shouldn't be punished *further* with jail time, why should the courts pile on?"

    5. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      That $460 million came out of Knight Capital's pockets too...and is far more effective than any fine the SEC could levy. Why should the SEC pile on, aside from the populist outrage that goes along with people handling billions of dollars?

      As a punishment, obviously.

      If you break a law, and the action of breaking the law costs you money, you would still be penalized for breaking the law.

      i.e. if you spend five million dollars on trying to have someone killed and the assassin takes off with your cash you could still be held accountable for conspiracy to commit murder (IANAL but whatever) along with whatever punishment that merits.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if you were an investor in that stock who had set a stop-loss at $10? Knight's wild selling would have triggered the stop-loss, and you'd lose money because of Knight's actions.

      No, you'd lose money because you sold at the wrong time based on an automated trading rule rather than your own informed judgement. That is the risk you take when you enter a stop-loss order: if the drop in price is temporary, you're going to lose money. It makes no difference why the price moved. Knight's inadvertent trades are not to blame here. No one who payed attention to the fundamentals lost anything. Only those who panicked took a loss, and deservedly so.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    7. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course an advantage to fiction is that the author gets to gloss over all of the 'Atlases' moaning in bed every night when they discover that that unappreciated back breaking manual labor is really hard and takes a toll on health.

    8. Re:The fine wasn't all of the punishment by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You are right that those who are in the market to gamble have no reason to gripe. OTOH, I also feel they have no business in the market. Let them play the lottery, or poker.

      Still, I'll agree that the market is clearly not something that a sensible investor should get into without VERY deep pockets.

      FWIW, I think it should be illegal to sell a (particular) stock more than once an hour. Either that, or there should be a strongly progressive tax on each trade, with the rate of taxation depending on how long you have had the stock. 0% if you've held it 5 years, 100% if you've held it less than a microsecond, and smooth and without an inflection point in between. I tend to think it should be quadratic, but I can see value in making it linear (and then you might consider a negative tax if you hold it for longer than 5 years).

      The stock market should be for investment, NOT gambling.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. This works out to a 3% fine by mfh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This isn't a slap on the wrist. This is a pat on the back for inflicting harm with egregious negligence.

    Therefore this was probably engineered as an assault.

    Businessweek weighs in.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:This works out to a 3% fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Inflicting harm on who? They are the ones who lost the 460m.

  9. They've done this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.

    Some as far back as 2002.

    I think a bit more than a fine is due. Why isn't FINRA on these folks?!

    1. Re:They've done this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure they have a rule against ``writing buggy code that costs you millions''. Frankly, the money did go somewhere---it's like Knight literally gave away their capital to everyone who noticed the bug early enough.

  10. Re:What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they did was criminal negligence, plain and simple.

    In what way were the interest of other people or society's at large harmed ? At most you could say they have an obligation to the KCG shareholders, but they also have the obligation to be greedy. They've put in the cheapest system they could build, and it failed losing allot of money. Sounds like regular management to me, in no way criminal. Nowadays Microsoft does it more often than not.

  11. They lost their own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a proprietary trading firm, they were working entirely with their own money. They had no external investors or whatnot (like hedge funds do). So, they made a mistake and they paid for it dearly. It's not clear to me that they should have paid any fine.

    The article's whole argument seems to be made by comparing the size of the trading loss to the size of the fine, but no logical reasoning is given for why the one should have any relation to the other.

    TFA sucks.

    1. Re:They lost their own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As market maker, they probably have an obligation not to perform destabalizing trades---and on that day, market was surely destabalized by them.

    2. Re:They lost their own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right that the size comparison is stupid, but you're incorrect in they shouldn't have been fined.

      Financial institutions are regulated to increase market confidence and stability. (Okay, you can stop laughing now. Seriously, they are though. At least the ones who don't simply own the government.) There are penalties for breaching those regulations regardless of whether they only lost their own money. The fine is an incentive to facilitate this goal.

      Think about it. If one of these incidents happened every week, there'd be no confidence in the market at all. (Come on, I said stop laughing!) No confidence in the market leads to an extraordinarily painful time for everybody. Like, bank run painful. So some deterrent is necessary to let people know that yes, the regulators aren't going to put up with people doing irresponsible shit.

      As a car analogy - if you drive without a license, you will be fined. Do it repeatedly and you will be incarcerated, even if you never hurt anybody else - or yourself. Why? Because having unlicensed drivers on the road presents a hazard to others. The mere presence of that hazard is enough for deterrent measures to be taken regardless of whether the hazard eventuates into an incident. Prevention is better than cure.

      Another analogy - maybe you're on a job site one day and you think it's a good idea to pick up a lit welder and start juggling. You will likely pay for that mistake dearly by inflicting massive, permanent injury to some part of your person - and no-one else will be hurt. So maybe you've paid "enough". Nevertheless, that won't stop the boss from firing you on the spot, and the company commencing their own legal action against you. The laws exist to facilitate this as punishment so that others think twice before emulating stupidity.

    3. Re:They lost their own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, I'm not convinced that the government really needs to impose fines to dis-incentivize companies from throwing away half a billion dollars. It's kind of a self-correcting error.

    4. Re:They lost their own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one of these incidents happened every week, there'd be no confidence in the market at all.

      I would have thought the opposite, that if there were some massive deals popping up at random on the market, then the market would become more appealing.

    5. Re:They lost their own money by porjo · · Score: 1

      they were working entirely with their own money.

      From the article: "While processing 212 small retail orders that Knight had received from its customers...."

      Knight Capital are themselves listed on the stock market. Their stock took price collapsed as a result of this blunder. I think it's fair to say that other people's money was lost here

    6. Re:They lost their own money by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      From the article: "While processing 212 small retail orders that Knight had received from its customers...."

      They processed these 212 orders. For their customers. Then they processed the same orders again. Without being asked to do so by their customers, so it was on their own account. Then again, and again, and again.

    7. Re:They lost their own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Knight was not a public company when this happened.

  12. Not joking with this... by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not joking when I say that procure number one when money is flying out of your servers is to Shut Them Down instantly. I would have pulled the cables out so fast the CPU might have been yanked out with the network cable. Or a good old shutdown -h now !!!!! (The exclamation marks speed up the shutdown)

    And I wouldn't have done this one server at a time it would have been all the servers at the same time. I suspect they would lose money by not having the servers up but not at the firehose rate that they were losing money as they were.

    The worst part is that the admins were probably following some procedure in their book and were refusing to just pull the plug in some vain attempt for 99.9 percent up time or other admin related metric instead of the clear "Don't Lose $48 Million a minute!!!!" metric. So probably another clear case of IT's priorities getting way out of sync with the company's actual priorities.

    1. Re:Not joking with this... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      when stuff like that happens the Correct And Right response is to fire an AA-12 loaded with breaching rounds through the main power /data conduits. (this should be faster than finding and yanking cables)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:Not joking with this... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Nuke it for orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Not joking with this... by locofungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this is that they didn't know they were losing money.

      The trading had gone haywire and they didn't understand why it was doing what it was doing but at the time it was happening they couldn't say if they were making or losing money.

      They built up positions of billions of dollars and only once it was all unwound and settled were the losses finally known.

      I can feel for the programmers and sysadmins. Maybe this was right - maybe pulling the plug out would prevent the unwinding of positions that would then make money for the firm.

      I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't previous problems where programmers and admins had been criticized by management for "doing the wrong thing with hindsight" when they didn't understand what was going on. If you have that sort of management culture then the natural inclination becomes to do nothing and push the responsibility up the chain.

      Similar disasters have happened in the past - one that springs to mind was Piper Alpha where the other nearby rigs continued to pump gas to it even when they could see it was on fire - because if you stop pumping it takes days and costs a fortune to get things back up and running and it might just have been an easily controllable fire.

      There's a very fine line to be drawn between reacting to the unknown too soon and reacting too late. There's also a fine line between making a reasonable best guess with the facts available and just making a random guess.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

      The fire would have burnt out were it not being fed with oil from both Tartan and the Claymore platforms, the resulting back pressure forcing fresh fuel out of ruptured pipework on Piper, directly into the heart of the fire. The Claymore platform continued pumping until the second explosion because the manager had no permission from the Occidental control centre to shut down. Also, the connecting pipeline to Tartan continued to pump, as its manager had been directed by his superior. The reason for this procedure was the huge cost of such a shut down. It would have taken several days to restart production after a stop, with substantial financial consequences.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    4. Re:Not joking with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem is they didn't realize what was happening until it was having an obvious impact on the market.

    5. Re:Not joking with this... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on what the trading volume was. Maybe they were losing 48 million a minute, but shutting everything down would have caused them to hold on to stuff longer than they should have. They possibly could have been losing more than 48 million a minute just by doing absolutely nothing, by not being able to sell stuff that was dropping. Personally, I wonder why it took them 45 minutes though. It should have been a simple script to revert everything back to the previous software version. It's always smart keep the previous binaries around so you can do a quick revert without even doing a build in the case where there's some unforeseen problem with the code.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Not joking with this... by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Yes a key strategy when upgrading your servers is to have a retreat plan. Quite simply if you upgrade your servers regularly one of your upgrades is going to blow up. I know that I am nervous every time I push a new version and never push a new version and then run out for lunch.

    7. Re:Not joking with this... by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that they didn't know they were losing money.

      That is a load of utter bullocks.

      The problem is that they have any kind of process for testing things before putting them into production. It was a cowboy operation without following best practices and a result like this was inevitable. If they had followed best practices and done testing ahead of time, they would have known before losing hundreds of millions of dollars. But they didn't do that, they didn't do peer review or a number of other things. There are reasons that process is developed even though it is inconvenient.

      This was entirely preventable and the only way I would have sympathy for the programmers or sysadmins if someone had stepped up and said we need to run things through a dev to production test process and got overruled. Everything else was incompetence. You don't roll out new code to production without vetting it and verifying the results. The higher the risk, the closer you review the results.

    8. Re:Not joking with this... by locofungus · · Score: 1

      So, there are eight production servers. How many configurations do you think they should have tested?

      There are 256 ways of deploying a combination of the old and new code to those servers. Times two because the platform sending orders to those servers was changing too.

      The old code was good, and the new code was good, the bad deployment was the problem.

      Maybe even the order of deployment to those 8 servers matters - even if they're nominally identical I doubt they're exactly identical.

      Ok. So there's around 200 million different configurations to test to make sure that it fails safe in all circumstances.

      So there's a budget of around $2 per configuration test before the testing stops making financial sense even based on the huge losses that were incurred.

      There were failures, undoubtedly, but they're not trivially avoidable just by saying "If they had followed best practices and done testing ahead of time, they would have known before losing hundreds of millions of dollars"

      This is the typical management hindsight knee jerking that I was saying leads people into doing nothing and pushing decisions up the chain when things go wrong.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    9. Re:Not joking with this... by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      They had 8 systems in the cluster and only rolled out the code to 7 of them. The upgrade only ran on part of the cluster before it was put into production. A simple peer review would have caught the failure on the 8th system and prevented in from going live. A simple test would have caught that code on system didn't match the others. The more critical the system is the higher the level of review it should have before going live.

      This is what maintenance windows and peer review are for. So, yes, these failures are trivially avoidable by following best practices and testing before releasing to production. Traveling as a consultant that implemented changes like these onto production systems used on exchanges is how I made my living for a few years. It really isn't difficult, you just have to have a best practices friendly process and follow it.

    10. Re:Not joking with this... by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%, but it makes me wonder: How do you test a system like this?

      You can't just put in in a test environment & try it out, as you need the rest of the market to exist. You can't just simulate it's responses based on current market conditions as the trades your system makes likely result in changes to the market, which wouldn't happen with simulated trades.

      It still looks like there is plenty of blame here, but it would be interesting to see how these systems are tested at other institutions....

    11. Re:Not joking with this... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That could have been OK if they were appropriately instrumented to be able to see if they were making or losing money. Alas, they didn't do that ether.

    12. Re:Not joking with this... by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Make a package, use version control, or you could use something like trip wire, look for differences, or you could use your cluster control software to look for differences. Even something as simple as looking for differences between the file sizes, and MD5 checksum, or a failure report from your delivery mechanism. Without doubt there are a number of other methods to do this.

      The bottom line is to look for differences between the nodes of the cluster and you should pretty readily be able to tell that one of your systems isn't like the other. The peer review process should have looked for this difference before it went to production. This was a business critical system and the service owner should have had their representative sign off on the change during a maintenance window as successful.

      By the way, they trading firms will often retain old data just for the purpose of using it for testing systems like this in the Development lab. Set it up in a VLAN, isolate it from production and simulate an hour or two's worth of trading against known results to see what comes up. Now the testing for that is far more complicated as your simulating data and that is a different story altogether.

    13. Re:Not joking with this... by locofungus · · Score: 1

      If I have a runaway process that is either inflating the price due to buying or deflating the price due to selling then nominally, while it's running it looks like I'm making money. It's only when I stop and try to unwind my position does the price return to normal and I discover that what looked like an unrealized profit is actually a loss.

      For HFT firms, I'd say that the primary alarm needs to be if you're building up positions. AFAICT, for Knight that would have been proof that things were wrong.

      If I'm reading the various reports correctly they were also building up naked short positions, which was probably illegal. Again, an alarm for this when it first happened should have triggered a "Shit, I don't know what it's doing but it's illegal so we've got to shut it down"

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  13. I may be missing something, but... by bigHairyDog · · Score: 1

    TFA states that the $460 million was lost by Knight Capital themselves. If they'd been fined $12M for stealing $460M, I'd be as outraged as the article author, but from where I'm standing it looks like the SEC turned a $460M loss into a $472M loss.

    Sure, they're idiots, they've punished themselves amply!

    --

    foo mane padme hum

    1. Re:I may be missing something, but... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So if I break the traffic laws and while doing so crash my car, you are saying I should not be fined/jailed/whatever for breaking those laws since I already punished myself amply with the damage to my car?

    2. Re:I may be missing something, but... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If the accident was due to you being sloppy with maintenance, the punishment should be less than if you delinberately ran someone down.

      If you lost your car, destroyed $460 million of someone's fence, and already paid to repair it, is more than a ticket warranted?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:I may be missing something, but... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Let’s stick with the car analogy.

      Knight due to its negligence totaled its 460m car. It has to pay for that out of their pocket.

      When it was crashing its car, Knight also knocked down a street sign causing damage to public property. For that it was fined 12m.

      In this case Knight’s negligence mostly harmed itself. But there are other cases where most of the damage is born but other people. In that case the numbers could have been reversed.

    4. Re:I may be missing something, but... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      The $12 million is a ticket for the negligent driving/speeding/whatever analogy we are going with.

      The $460 million is irrelevant, it's just what caused the SEC to notice the rules violations - just like running a red light and crashing into someone is more likely going to get you a ticket for running the red than doing so without crashing into someone. Simply because the crash makes the traffic law enforcement folk take a look when without it no one would have noticed.

  14. biblical financial disaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fine for what could have been a biblical financial disaster?

    Perhaps it shouldn't be possible for single trader or trading company to create a biblical financial disaster. Perhaps this is indication of larger problems in the marketplace.

    If you're interested in this sort of thing, there's a great book about the rise and fall of "Long Term Capital Management", a hedge fund that just about wiped out the world financial markets - for REAL (none of this biblical hyperbole!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management.

  15. Bad code wasn't the problem by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    This had absolutely jack to do with bad code, that wasn't the problem. The problem was a failure to adhere to best practices that would have prevented the bad code from ever seeing production to begin with. The lack of a process for the distribution of code to production made a failure for bad code inevitable.

    This was sheer incompetence of the highest magnitude and should have been readily caught in the lab. This is what happens when cowboys run the show and ITIL is considered a four letter word. Take your younger staff, the wannabe cowboys and make them read this report. Let them learn at others incompetence. As for getting your management to read this, that's an entirely different story.

    1. Re:Bad code wasn't the problem by TTL0 · · Score: 1

      What is worse is that the wannabe cowboys think that they should be using all the latest and greatest like FB and Google do. Little do they understand the consequences between messing up a trade and losing someones cat videos.

      --
      Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
    2. Re:Bad code wasn't the problem by jimicus · · Score: 1

      It's not as simple as "badly-tested code" - it's actually "badly-designed deployment procedure and insufficient oversight".

      TFA is light on details, but other articles have picked up the details and explained them a bit better: basically, Knight Capital were running their code on a cluster of 8 nodes.

      They used a flag to signal a module to run. A particular module had been out of use for some years, so the flag to signal that module was re-used for a new module.

      With me so far? OK, this is all very nice. Except when they updated their cluster, one of the nodes was missed. It still had the legacy module on there.

      From this point on, their cluster was a disaster waiting to happen. Once the flag was triggered, all 8 nodes did exactly what they were supposed to do based on the code they were running - but because one of them was out of sync with the code it was meant to be running, it did something else entirely. Everything else cascaded from there.

      It would have been relatively trivial to add some sort of oversight to the system so as to stop it fast if what it was doing versus what it was meant to be doing were two different things - but Knight didn't do this.

    3. Re:Bad code wasn't the problem by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      I actually made your point on a comment I made about this story yesterday and am in complete agreement with you. The lack of proper process is what did this in and their failure to have proper change management and follow industry best practices is incompetence of the highest level. This was entirely preventable and I would have been fired in a heartbeat if I had done this when I was doing that work.

    4. Re:Bad code wasn't the problem by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      This had absolutely jack to do with bad code, that wasn't the problem. The problem was a failure to adhere to best practices that would have prevented the bad code from ever seeing production to begin with. The lack of a process for the distribution of code to production made a failure for bad code inevitable.

      This was sheer incompetence of the highest magnitude and should have been readily caught in the lab. This is what happens when cowboys run the show and ITIL is considered a four letter word. Take your younger staff, the wannabe cowboys and make them read this report. Let them learn at others incompetence. As for getting your management to read this, that's an entirely different story.

      After working in the early days of computer trading, I can tell you that every minute that the new code is not in place they are "losing money, and IT is to blame." If there's a glitch like this one, then they "lost money, and IT is to blame." Do you see a pattern. The managers and traders are never to blame.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    5. Re:Bad code wasn't the problem by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Thing is, much of this isn't particularly sophisticated.

      Hell, even the most basic change control process forces you to think about how you're going to do the job, what the criteria are for successful completion and how you're going to back out if there's the remotest sign of anything going wrong. That's noddy stuff you learn in a 3 day intensive ITIL course with zero real-world experience; there is precisely zero excuse for a trading firm not doing all that and more besides.

    6. Re:Bad code wasn't the problem by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree with you more. I set up the Software Delivery and Patch Management process at a very large trading company with a presence in just about every exchange across the world.

      It took 6 months to develop the process, build up the lab, institute change management, get people to understand the differences between Server up time and Service up time, introduce maintenance windows and their associated SLAs, all the way up to having an inventory of the disks used on the servers with the appropriate certified techs on hand for those first reboots. Developing the process involved two different server teams, the network team, management, infrastructure, database team, two security teams and myself.

      When everything was said and done the basic process fit on a single page Visio slide. Everything worked on a ticket system with each person assigned a given responsibility for part of the ticket and a peer review before anything went live. I also pressed that business critical systems had to be signed off on by the service owner to prevent something like this from happening.

      The time to develop the process took a while, however once it was up and running the time to actually runs things through it was fairly quick. Since everything was in the ticket it was easy to see exactly where things were at, who signed off on what and to ensure that due diligence was done.

  16. Failures in Large Software Systems Seem the Norm? by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

    I am a bit numbed by the number of failures of software systems at big companies (& governments) who should know better.

    If you are designing critical systems, there has to be an incredibly detailed master system describing fallbacks, trip points and fail safe conditions, let alone a gross shutdown (seen multiple times recently.) What do these failures in both checking and security and logic mean for trusting large institutions and government?

    The question: What overview system of principles of software design are going to be needed to properly organize a major software program from day one to prevent, at least, the obvious failure modes? There is something inherently wrong by design when hundreds to thousands of security breaches occur in the US on public websites and databases each year.

  17. No, you are not stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the way the story was reported.

    When a firm loses money, it's their customers' money. And quite a few of those are small investors ()212 of them.). Theoretically, this fine would come out of the pockets of the actual firm's equity - i.e. the owners' pockets.

    But 12 million for people like this is a month's rent for their mistress' Park Avenue penthouse.

  18. And the punishment doesn't necessarily stop by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, why would millionaires trust their money to a company that is getting pilloried in the press for fundamental failures of management, not to mention development practices?

    Cutting corners on developing the software that handles your money: penny wise and pound foolish.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  19. I don't see the point of a $12M fine. by mysidia · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a bad thing...

    Just make sure they suffer all the pain caused by the $450 Million loss

    In other words: don't allow them to pass any of this loss on to their customers by drawing funds from their accounts.

    1. Re:I don't see the point of a $12M fine. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Just make sure they suffer all the pain caused by the $450 Million loss

      They did. It was their own money they lost. The summary and TFA gloss over that fact in some circuitous attempt to grind a non-relevant axe. Fining them makes about as much sense as charging someone who fails at committing suicide with attempted murder.

    2. Re:I don't see the point of a $12M fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite what you might have heard from some politicians, corporations aren't people.

      It was Knight's shareholders that ultimately lost the money, as the stock price plunged following the debacle.

    3. Re:I don't see the point of a $12M fine. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It was Knight's shareholders that ultimately lost the money, as the stock price plunged following the debacle.

      And it's the shareholders who will be paying the fines too.

      Who are the fines supposed to help?

    4. Re:I don't see the point of a $12M fine. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They did. It was their own money they lost.

      DEAR HOMEOWNER,

      We regret to inform you, that the burglary of your house, due to you having left the front door unlocked, with a missplaced "FREE STUFF, HELP YOURSELF" sign observed hanging from your front door, after seeing a suspicious character in the front yard constitutes WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE on your part as a homeowner.

      In addition to the loss of the $300,000 in personal property stolen from your house, which will not be covered by insurance;

      We have determined to assess you with a $120,000 fine for homeowner negligence. This assessment will be due immediately, and if not paid, you will be subject to possible prison time and seizure of the residence.

      Let this be a stern reminder to you, to not leave your front door open in the future, while you are not at home, after observing suspicious characters in the vicinity.
      Regards,
      Sincerely,

      THE HOME SECURITY COMMISSION

  20. Wimp by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Install Windows on it. Total annihilation. No survivors.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Wimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you must be really crap at administering computers!

  21. Wall St systems in general are bad by Andover+Chick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most all Wall St firm's systems are bloody awful. There are many reasons for this. First, the true business is sales/brokerage so the engineering side, though it is a strategic asset, is often neglected. This includes putting clueless business side people in charge of IT system. Second, the boom and bust cycles of tech investment are a bad way of building tech systems. It's like not watering your garden all summer except for one day when you use a high-pressure fire hose on it. Third, as part of the boom/bust cost cutting they have no employee longevity in tech so no one understands how the mind-bogglingly complex and obscure layers of technology work. Fourth, and more recently for cost cutting, they've dispersed their dev teams around the globe so communication and teamwork are seriously compromised. Fifth, when there is a boom they try to build their systems so quickly that they take all sorts of dangerous engineering short cuts. All this adds up to engineering disaster.

    1. Re:Wall St systems in general are bad by oik · · Score: 1

      > Most all Wall St firm's systems are bloody awful
      >
      I think that is generally true of all software (and music, and laws, and books, and food, and ...), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law

  22. Be thankful they are fined. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Given the cronyism masquerading as capitalism in USA, you should be glad this behavior is considered bad enough to be punished. Be glad they did not get the contract to "improve" healthcare.gov

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  23. Re:What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will the other traders get their bad trades annulled and suffer only a minor slap? Are they too big to fail or something? What the hell is going on?

  24. Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that when a company like Knight screws up and costs $460M they are penalized but when the government spends more on a useless site (heathcare.gov) nothing happens? Considering that the SEC fined them for not "having adequate safeguards in place" this should apply to other debacles. I guess we should have lower expectations for our elected officials and we can all be friends and sing kumbaya.

  25. Chilling by mfh · · Score: 1

    Apart from the exact victims here, there is a huge chilling effect.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophersteiner/2012/08/02/knight-capitals-algorithmic-fiasco-wont-be-the-last-of-its-kind/

    Knight Capital is a trading company so the money they used belonged to other people.

    FTA: "Such an episode would take down not only the traders, but likely the brokerage house that gives them access to electronic markets and perhaps even other clients of that brokerage. It could completely subvert the little amount of trust the public still has in our stock markets."

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  26. Re:What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence by ausekilis · · Score: 1

    I'm going to quote a bumpersticker that I think is fitting here: "I'll beleive corporations are people when Texas executes one"

  27. Fine the board members? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you can't fine them. You have to reward them: their paychecks are a hundredfold that of hoi polloi because of the large responsibility they bear. And no responsibility is greater than that of fscking up cool half a billion dollars in less than an hour.

    That kind of responsibility comes at a price the shareholders should be happy to pay. Would you want to be responsible for that kind of loss? Certainly not. But those guys are pissing responsibility through every hole in their Armani suits.

  28. Re:Good to Be A Software Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who cares? Nobody died. This isn't the Tacoma friggin' Narrows Bridge, or even Therac-25. Hell, the mistake was cheaper than the Mars Climate Impactor. Total impact in the real world outside of Wall Street was zero, unless you were directly related to Knight Capital in some way.

  29. Better URL (Re:compensation) by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

    Doh! I should have stripped off the parameters:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html [In Prison for Taking a 'Liar Loan' - Joe Nocera - NY Times; may require registration, or try reaching it through a search engine.]

    and there is a follow-up:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/nocera-the-mortgage-fraud-fraud.html

  30. So what about the fines for Obamacare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    millions of people are losing their insurance and being forced to buy from the exchange which is non-existent?

      Are we going to see articles about the lack of oversight on Slashdot and populists with torches demanding the White House do something about it?

    I think not.

    1. Re:So what about the fines for Obamacare? by Andover+Chick · · Score: 1

      The Obamacare website fiasco should be featured on the next episode of Modern Marvel's "Engineering Disasters" on the History Channel.

  31. Re:What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Criminal negligence"? Care to explain that or did you just rely on the fact that other angry people would mod you up for it?

    "Out of greed"? Of course it was out of greed. Everything a for-profit business does is out of greed (self-interest). What exactly is the problem? Do you want to outlaw profit-making so that the only organization left doing it is government?

    Moderators, please stop voting up these worthless "anger" posts. There is absolutely nothing of value in them, unless you see some kind of value in anger. Hell, this one doesn't even offer the slightest explanation or rationale for the anger. Nothing to learn, no knowledge to gain, no insight, nothing but fist-pumping and chest-beating. I guess that makes some people feel good, but for the grownups among us, it's useless noise.

  32. Software engineers licensed by the same body by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying sets the standards for licensing engineers.
    Their certification tests include:
    Architectural
    Chemical
    Civil: Structural
    Civil: Transportation
    Electrical and Computer: Computer Engineering
    Electrical and Computer: Electrical and Electronics
    Nuclear
    Petroleum
    SOFTWARE
    Structural

  33. Re:Good to Be A Software Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "cheaper than the Mars Climate" (I assume you meant "Orbiter")

    Are you seriously comparing a website and a collection of databases to a spacecraft with rocket science? Even with hundreds of thousands of parts (on the ground and in space) and probably obscene amounts of code a single issue (spacecraft using metric, Ground controllers using English units) was all that went wrong. By all reports the Healthcare website is nothing but issues, bad code, poor implementation, incomplete databases, the list goes on.

  34. Their own money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a proprietary trading firm, they were working entirely with their own money.

    High frequency traders are not working with their own money. They are siphoning money off from the actions of actually serious buyers and sellers. Basically one expects them to act as medicinal leeches keeping the blood flowing. Not like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Even though most of the blood in the water afterwards will be from the sharks themselves, it tends to frighten the tourists.

  35. Measly 12 Mil? by Linsaran · · Score: 1

    Tell you what, if 12 Mil is measly to you, then I'm sure you wouldn't even notice if half a mil went missing. And I sure could use half a million dollars . . .

    --
    In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
  36. Piper Alpha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piper Alpha was a cascade of multiple design and procedural failures. However, while it's true the gas feeds from other rigs were not shut off, the lines were so highly pressurized that it would have taken hours for them to bleed off anyway, and the entire disaster unfolded in less than half an hour. So that aspect had very little to do with the final death toll.

    1. Re:Piper Alpha by locofungus · · Score: 1

      It's not 100% certain what happened when but my understanding was that the original fire continued to burn and, eventually, melted those high pressure gas lines. Only at that point was total destruction of the rig inevitable.

      Had the original fire burned itself out due to lack of fuel (and I was wrong, it was oil that continued to be pumped into the initial fire that kept it burning, not gas) then the high pressure gas lines would not have melted and there would not have been the second explosion that destroyed the rig.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  37. No, there wasn't even bad code there by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Seriously, there *was* no bad code. What happened was that one of their systems didn't get upgraded and they re-used a variable that was previously used to make systems to keep buying until they were told to stop by a master system. When the server that didn't get upgraded got that variable switched, it just started buying and nobody told it to stop. They knew something was wrong for 45 minutes and kept on letting it buy stuff, didn't just switch it off because there was nobody authoritative that could make that decision available. This was not caused by the code at all, purely procedure and bad organizational design.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  38. Slashdot software glitch = same story reposted by TheMadTopher · · Score: 1

    The SEC (Slashdot Effeciency Committee) have released their findings and conclude that:

    Slashdot pushed their new code to all but one app server. That one app server reposted the same Knight story as yesterday. Slashdot has been fined 12 karma.

  39. Re:What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence by ranton · · Score: 1

    Texas will not only terminate a corporation, they charge a $40 fee for the paperwork processing. Such inhumane treatment. Next they will start charging the inmate's estate for the injections.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  40. Elementary software mistakes by kbg · · Score: 1

    These are all elementary software mistakes:
    1) You never reuse a flag for a working code, because it makes it impossible to revert back to older deployment.
    2) You always double check deployments to make sure it actually succeeded.

  41. Why any fine at all? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    I don't get what's the purpose of these "remedial sanctions," especially coming from the SEC.

    If the SEC is doing this to deter Knight's management from being un-diligent with Knight's owners' assets, then it ought be a fine or prison time for the people who were responsible, not the company (the owners, who were also the victims). That's like punishing someone for the crime of being raped, while talking about how irresponsible the rapist was.

    If the SEC is doing this to deter Knight's owners (who worked through their agents, the management) from making poor decisions that will cost them money, then (like everyone else is posting) it seems like the loss itself, is punishment enough. That's like punishing someone for the crime of suicide.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  42. Re:Good to Be A Software Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, NASA meant "orbiter", and ended up with "impactor" when Conway's Law kicked in.

    And who's talking about the health care website? You seem to have a one-track mind. We're talking about a relatively small error in Knight Capital's algo trading setup that caused them to buy high and sell low. Lots of moving parts in a chaotic system when you're dealing with the stock market, and a slipup can cause money to burn shockingly fast. But it's not like anyone got killed because of it; most people wouldn't even notice if it wasn't for the media highlighting a little schadenfreude for the rest of us.

  43. Re:Good to Be A Software Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical attitude of the software "engineer"...oops! we f*cked up, we can fix this in the next service pack. Send the widow a copy of the fixed version. We can name a variable after the folks savings we threw away.

    Quote: Who cares? Nobody died. This isn't the Tacoma friggin' Narrows Bridge, or even Therac-25. Hell, the mistake was cheaper than the Mars Climate Impactor. Total impact in the real world outside of Wall Street was zero, unless you were directly related to Knight Capital in some way.

  44. What do you expect by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    After all, they needed more money to continue funding KITT and that damn trailer that drives it around.
    Michael Knight doesn't come cheap, either.

  45. Re:Good to Be A Software Engineer by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    [The Software "Engineers"] can proceed straight into their next engineering field, sanitation engineering.

    Contrary to popular opinion, sanitation engineering is a real thing, and is not the same as throwing bags of trash into a garbage truck. Sanitation engineers are civil engineers who design landfills (and/or sewage treatment plants, but those are more often called "hydraulic engineers" these days). They are most likely required to be licensed.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  46. Re:What, nobody going to jail for gross negligence by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    In theory, any managers or executives who cost their company half a billion dollars would never be hired by anyone else, since they've clearly demonstrated that they aren't competent at their jobs.

    In theory.

  47. too bad they aren't goldman sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because then they could have called a take-backsies:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/goldman-says-exchanges-working-to-resolve-options-order-mishap.html

    hell, the SEC would probably have GIVEN them money as an apology for the inconvenience

  48. Re:Failures in Large Software Systems Seem the Nor by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    The question: What overview system of principles of software design are going to be needed to properly organize a major software program from day one to prevent, at least, the obvious failure modes?

    Going to be needed? Those principles have been needed for 50 years, and they've been known for nearly that long. The Mythical Man-Month by Frederick Brooks, Jr. discusses a great many of those principles, lessons learned from the design and implementation of OS/360 by IBM. It was first published in 1975. There are others.

    The solutions cost money and take time. The losses for failing to spend money and time are suffered by other people, not the companies that own the failing systems. Therefore there is no incentive to solve the problem beyond the barest of band-aide patches. Nothing will be done as long as "government regulation" is a bad word, and it will remain a bad word for as long as lobbyists are paid to maintain it. And lobbyists will be paid to maintain it because there's plenty of money available to spend on lobbyists. Engineers? Nah. They're a cost center, and must be eliminated at every turn.

  49. Re:Failures in Large Software Systems Seem the Nor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The incentives in terms of cost versus benefit do not always favour doing a thorough job when a half-ass job gets done quicker as well as cheaper, and this has tangible benefits when pursuing the all-important quarterly-earnings-targets. Futher, a lot of business opportunities are time-sensitive to the degree that trying too carefully and diligently will lose your window.
    Of course there's also something to be said for the fact that rich organizations generally have premium access to legal services and politicians to cover their problems if they do fuck up badly....

  50. Re:Good to Be A Software Engineer by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Sanitation engineers may also have exciting newer duties: designing recycling centers, and reversing effects of contamination and pollution from soil and water.