dwy000

It's somewhat moot. The CRO reports to the CEO. So if they didn't do their job or got overridden by CEO or committee it's ultimately CEO responsibility. And she was CRO for the UK which for SIVB was a tiny sub (and first to get acquired). Its not her responsibility to manage the risk of the parent (thats why you have a CRO at the parent). She is many levels removed. You really can't blame that person for the failure of the parent. That is really scraping the bottom of the wokeness barrel.

Being the CRO is a somewhat thankless and useless job. It satisfies regulators but has no real function. Real risk management happens at the entire exec level. Jamie Dimon is the best, most effective risk manager at JPM. You want to get fired as a CEO or business head, just underperformed all your peers. As Chuck Prince said, as long as the music is playing, you have to keep dancing. The CRO likely raised multiple red flags that would have hurt profitability to deal with so the CEO/Risk Committee would acknowledge it and override them. I've never ever once heard on a quarterly call "we missed our numbers because our risk managers pulled us back because we were taking too much risk for the payoff" If you're a CRO, you generally raise issues, collect a big paycheck as the sacrificial lamb and hope like hell for the best.

This completely contradicts your own argument. If god decides what we "ought" and "ought not" to do how can you just decide to go religion shopping and pick which one you feel like following? How do you know you picked the right one? And how do you know the morals of that one are right but the others are wrong? Sounds like you're picking and choosing your morals more than the atheists here.

No. God is not the source of moral goodness because its a made up premise. And "god" hasn't really opined on the subject in thousands of years. It's only people in robes telling you their version. If god had one version of right/wrong and allah had a different version and budda had another version, which one gets to be correct?

The quality of his background and educational centers neither make him correct nor prove anything about consciousness surviving the body or death. It's all science and neurons firing. In fact, that seems to be what he measures - neurons firing.

Um, that's been our point the whole time. There's no "magic morality", no definitive black and white version of right vs wrong, just what society and our moral compass tells us (although things like murder are very far at the end of the bell curve and generally agreed by all). And "god" doesn't dictate what's right or wrong.

they would be as correct in their time and society as we are today in ours.

Yeah, I'm not reading a random book that describes itself as offering an alternative theory as evidence of something that, if it had any credibility, would not be buried deep in the annals of the Amazon religious section.

This doesn't suggest life after death. This suggests our medical definition of death (the heart stopping) may be too early and the brain still has synapses firing. A chicken with it's head cut off will run around for a while but nobody suggests its still alive. And what this certainly doesn't do is suggest there is consciousness outside of the brain and body that moves on to other places.

Again, you making a huge leap that there is a definitive "good" and "bad" independent of opinions and society. We are saying that good and bad IS what society and opinions at the time and in that place dictate. We may look back on past generations actions and say "that's bad" but we are doing it in the context of today's opinions and today's society. 200 years from now society (and opinions) might have morphed to say that what we consider good today might not be so good tomorrow.

No, once again. No there's not. There's a hope and desire because people are scared and don't want death to be the end game so they make up all kinds of ideas about what goes on after because it makes them feel better. But there is absolutely zero evidence or proof that there is anything after death.

Both. Everyone thinks they are morally correct - or they wouldn't have those views. It's just a matter of what broader society thinks relative to your views. And that changes over time.

+1 that's really well put

Ask the dead kids' parents if god was ignoring them. I find it disturbing that people rationalize and allow god to ignore the massacre of innocent children and then sit at the dinner table and ask god to help cure their minor ailment or let their football team win. Cuz that's important but dead kids will just even out in the end. We are sacks of skin and bones that think and have opinions. That's it, and there's nothing wrong with that. When we die, it's all over - there's no part of us that carries on. Just kapoot. The views on what is "good" or "wrong" are personal but overall reflect what broader society thinks is right or wrong. The Taliban thinks what they are doing is absolutely right in the eyes of god. We don't. The Inquisition thought they were absolutely right at the time. I'm sure in both cases there were people who thought "this can't be the right thing to do" but still did it because broader society allowed it. Over time good seems to always prevail over evil.

No. Just....no. I trust my thoughts because that is all anyone has. Nothing else. While there is an element of randomness there is also experience, upbringing, teaching etc. Nazis are not correct and not morally good. But I'm sure they thought they were correct when they did what they did. Or many did. Others followed along because the consequences of standing up to it would have been worse than going along. Just ask the women standing up to the Taliban.

This is just plain wrong. You do not have free will that can override the synapse firing. Those synapse firing ARE your free will. Are you actually arguing that it's okay for a god with infinite love to ignore the massacre of innocent children because "hey, it will all even out in the end"? Seriously, is that your argument?

This is true. Just look at religion. There aren't a lot of atheist suicide bombers.

They are correct because we believe them to be correct! There is no definitive "correct" view. Yours are just opinions as well. The difference is I came about mine through independent thought and yours were dictated to you by followers of an imaginary thing.

Everyone feels their values are the right ones. They wouldn't be your values otherwise. Are you serious? You look at abortion, gay marriage, drag shows, divorce, etc etc etc and it is the religious ones trying to get people to adhere to their arbitrary rules!!! Tell the women in Iran that religion doesn't impact their freedom. Pot meet the world's biggest kettle!

Ultimately everyone IS tap dancing to chemicals in our brains. That's how our brains work. It's science - synapses firing. That's it. There's no independent consciousness separate from the synapses. If it was god-created why are there people who do get high off of murder? He could just make everyone think exactly what he wants. Why did the Uvalde shooter do what he did while god sat by and either couldn't stop or (worse) could but chose not to? Is that a moral god?

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion, but no, absolutely not - as long as they own the business it's their right to make that decision. If you're an employee, you do lots of things you don't necessarily agree with all the time because that's part of the job.

"the right thing to do" is obviously an opinion - regardless of whether it comes from an atheist or religion. Replace it by saying it's the "nice thing to do" which is how it's intended almost every time. We demand evidence of god because religious people want us to adhere to their rules based on something we don't believe in.

Why did you pick $BRO over AJG or AON or Marsh?

Buffett sells stocks. A lot. I get being a long term investor but if the business changes, the price gets too high or management changes for the worse, there's no point holding on and risking losses for no reason.

Thanks. I read the Brass Ring a long time ago when, as a jr banking analyst, we supported Cockwell/Eyton at Brascan. And went to school with a couple of the Bronfman kids (from the liquor side). It was a good read but a bit aged now.