[baq]

> Notably, this is not a situation where the business and risk personnel engaged in fraudulent or illegal conduct or acted with ill intent. Nor is it one where the architecture of risk controls and processes was lacking or the existing risk systems failed to operate sufficiently to identify critical risks and related concerns. The Archegos risks were identified and were conspicuous. The persistent failure of he business and risk to manage and remediate the risks, and pervasive issues of business competence and resourcing adequacy, described in detail in this Report, require CS’s urgent attention.

wow. this reads like 'culprits have been found and let go with their bonus packages'.

[satellite2]

This is common practice in post mortem analysis to try to determine the root cause in a blameless manner.

On the next iteration of this issue the eventual culprits of the first probably won't be there to remember what went wrong.

What might survive until then though is the set of procedures and guidelines put in place following the investigation recommendations.

So it's more effective to determine what process were insufficient than which person had the capacity to avoid something.

[mannykannot]

In cases like this, I doubt you can determine which process were insufficient without noticing which people had the capacity to avoid the problem, yet did not exercise it.

[satellite2]

That's correct, but unless the investigation determined they acted with malice, they should not be explicitly mentioned.

[mannykannot]

Good point.

[qeternity]

They’ve clawed back nearly $100m of bonuses…