I know plenty of people with a net worth below 10 million and unethical

I think we should be clear what we mean by unethical. I see it as encompassing fraud, slandering the competition, etc...basically stuff that would be illegal, but it difficult to prosecute. I don't think these people are very common at high levels of income, at least in my experience.

Things like outsourcing, cutting benefits, reducing quality/cost-cutting, and aggressively pursuing contracts are not unethical in my mind, but necessary. The market punishes non-competitive firm. If your competitor puts out a product for less $, he will drive you out of business.

^ hahaha

Draw a line in your head between focused effort and criminal behavior. I've watched people mercilessly cut down their competition and/or aggressively pursue theIr goals while remaining ethical. Surviving is priority #1: details may get fudged, strings are pulled, and often we see the darker side of humanity, but this is a very bad time in the history of this industry to attempt flagrantly criminal behavior. We're the whipping boy for another few years, and even if all was well with the world I would choose to be a less wealthy Jamie Dimon as opposed to a more wealthy Raj. Once your bills are paid and there are legitimate ways to get ahead, you have to realize that prison is a scary place. Risking prison to go from $5Mm to 10 is a bad move in the larger sense.

Hmm, sounds like you work at an inter-dealer broker.

I think there's a slightly positive correlation. Most people can have 50% more by taking a 5% chance they go to jail. Most people choose not to take that risk- ~50-60% of them because they're genuinely honest, 40% because they are dishonest but hate risk, but a small percentage do.

Also, calling Wall Street a successful business scheme is like calling US automakers successful during the Chrysler bailout.

Some of this starts to get philosophical, religious, and down to worldviews. My view is that the world is terribly screwed up. Our political, economic, and diplomatic systems all work in opposition to values like honesty, integrity, and compassion. So at some level, a very good person is going to make a poor CEO or political leader.

^^^ So why do you claim there is no correlation when you also claim that the money is stolen?

I'll go Tocqueville and say the world is getting better and worse at the same time, so I agree w/ IP and UFO that we're inherently flawed. I am glad to see this conversation is still taking place and people actually care enough to ask.

I think there are a lot of talented assholes who want to be wealthy, and if they're willing to bend some rules here and there to increase the odds in their favor, it's that much tougher for the ethical person. But that's true of any competition.

....you said that, not me

Heres a real question for ethical people. Can we punish a person with no ethics for being unethical?

smart crooks always win.

A few comments:

- Using your edge is not unethical: Finance is often an adversarial business even at the junior/mid levels. People on either side of a trade, the agency problem and such. Being able to look after your own interest & the interest of your firm is key for longevity & success. This is very different form being unethical. If you are being a fool with your or your employers money, someone is going to take advantage of you, because you usually have a counter-party with opposing interests. All of this is both ethical and legal (no, they aren't the same thing). If you don't have the competitive streak or you are lax about protecting yourself you won't last no matter how ethical you are.

- Principal Vs. Agent success: I think there is a difference between what is necessary for success as a principal (e.g. entrepreneur, equity partner in a financial advisory or investing firm) or success as an career Executive / CEO. I've never met a career CEO who hasn't lied to me. However, it was just the normal business BS that people can cut through if they are prudent and shrewd about looking after their own/their firm's interest. In cases where I've seen unethical behaviour in terms of misleading people in a material way, it only worked because the counter-party was not doing their job. They were negligent. When unethical people get caught out and receive some kind of censure or legal action, they will revise their assessment of the cost/benefits.

- Risks: I think on a long enough timeline and in industries & businesses where reputation is important, unethical behaviour is not an advisable strategy. You basically bet your whole career every time for a small amount of profit... on a long enough time horizon the risk you blow your reputation up is very high. However if you're a hit & run CEO, the incentives are there for you to go for it.

Lessons:
- If you're on the buy side, don't tolerate lies and people BSing you. If you can't tell when this happens, learn or find a new career.
- Make sure your advisor is aligned with you. If you keep screwing them, they'll do the same to you.
- Work with people with integrity.

You may think so, but the 90% of the country that doesn't work in finance thinks it's cheating. They don't want to play the game if that goes on, and part of the terms of THEIR participation is that insider trading is not allowed. They play by our rules by allowing stuff like unlimited upside; we play by theirs by not engaging in insider trading.

If you don't like that, that's fine, but then you're going to jail.

I don't think Raj needed to cheat to survive. He had plenty of money and could have retired. Instead he chose to cheat. It's not like someone stuck a gun to his head or even like he was trying to pay for baby formula let alone his mortgage. I guess the fact that he would have lost investors and his position- resigning to be merely upper middle class- makes me just a little sympathetic, but we can't rationalize bad behavior.

If you knowingly sell someone a house infested with termites or a car that falls apart three miles later, you lose your licenses and often go to jail. Same deal with insider trading.

Insider trading is not a victimless crime, who ever thinks so is wrong. Insider trading can trigger sell offs that hurt non insiders.

"Stolen" is open to interpretation.

Some people think they earn that money, others think that it's thief.

Stolen is not my personal qualification of what went down on Wall Street with the bail out because you cannot use one set of event to characterize the lifetime of an industry. Has WS always lived on bail out money?

a victimless crime is when you punch someone in the dark.

where's the victim?

What a joke post.

j'en suis certain qu'il a blanchi de l'argent :) en sois un crime eh

I can not understand the words comming out of your keyboard.

Come to a dark room and Ill punch you in the face, then you tell me where the victim is. Dumbass.

if no victim can be identified, there is no victim.

Do you know the meaning of "dark room?" You must be quite dense.

Jeez, you really are hopeless. In a dark room, there is no light. If there is no light, you can't see what's what. And you certainly can't see the victim, and so there is no victim. Come on!

just because i referred to a dark room. your racist!

Selon les rumeurs, les anciennes fortunes de l'Amerique (Vanderbilt, Rotshild, Bush) sont couvertes de sang. Si c'est vraie donc l'adage de Collector est valide.

Cependant, je suis d'accord avec toi qu'ici aux Etats Unis, il est possible de gagner une fortune au lieu sans commettre de crimes.

Controller a dit blanchissement d'argent pour Mitt Romney. C'est bien possible, donc c'est un crime.

Et le mal que Bain Capital a cause en ruinant la vie des gens qui on travailles pour les entreprises que la compagnie a achete ou les services qui ont ete transpose outre mer?