Skip to main content

Morals and Ethics

"He who dies with the most toys wins!" - unknown

I remember hearing that expression as a young man and thinking that it was silly but still made a lot of sense. Thinking back to that now, I can justify my agreement by saying how men are "goal oriented" and other such drivel, but in the end it was basically a vocalization of my own selfishness and greed.

One has to wonder if that is / was the motto for the financial services companies. In recent days news articles have been published in the New York Times and elsewhere about reprehensible behavior at both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Essentially, they were promoting Credit Default Swaps as good investments when they were secretly betting against those same investments since they knew the truth of the matter: they weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

When I read these articles, I was aghast. How could any company maliciously trick another when they are the ones to which many others look at the reference source of information? Specifically, instruments such as CDS, CDO, MBS, and others are very complicated so we expect the financial services companies to provide us with sound advice regarding any potential investment involving these instruments. I'm not suggesting that "sound advice" should be equated with "advice that is never wrong," for everyone makes mistakes. But it's one thing to make a mistake and another thing entirely to intentionally mislead so that you can make a profit.

In fact, I believe there's a term for that: fiduciary malfeasance.

A good friend of mine who was rather religious was also the CFO of a small company in Manhattan several years ago. I found these two aspects of his life to be somewhat contradictory, so I asked him about it. He said to me (paraphrased) that being honorable does not mean you have to be a floor mat for everyone. That expression left an indelible impression upon me, because it illustrated that it is still possible to succeed at what you do without losing your morals in the process.

Adopting the position that honor is greater than money has its benefits, albeit intangible ones. Specifically, knowing that you've never needed to use any underhanded tactics to further your own career does provide a degree of job satisfaction that no promotion or pay raise will ever duplicate. I have found this to be true and, while it does not pay the bills, it certainly helps me sleep well at night.

Popular posts from this blog

"Ni jiang yi yang de hua ma?"

Last week, I wrote about the necessity of having a clear message . Because this topic is so important I decided to follow-up with another entry on this general subject. This week we will approach it from another angle. (For the curious, the title says " Do you speak the same language? " in pinyin, which is a transliterated Mandarin Chinese.) Recently, a good friend of mine (who is Chinese, ironically) and I were playing pool. He had to bank the 8-ball in the pocket to win the game, and since it was an informal game and bank shots are my area of expertise, he asked me for advice. I told him, "you just need to strike the cue ball with medium speed so that it hits the 8-ball right in the middle." He didn't believe me so we marked the positions of the balls, and then he took his shot only to watch the 8-ball sail past the pocket. "A-ha!" he exclaimed. "I told you it wasn't that easy." But when we reset the positions and I made an attemp

It's Easier to Fail at DevOps than it is to Succeed

Slippery when wet Since the term DevOps was coined in Belgium back in 2009, it is impossible to avoid the term whether in discussions with colleagues or in professional trade magazines.  And during the years while this movement has gained momentum, many things have been written to describe what elements of a DevOps strategy are required for it to be successful. Yet in spite of this, there is an interesting data point worth noting: not many organizations feel there is a need for DevOps.  In a Gartner report entitled DevOps Adoption Survey Results (published in September 2015),  40%  of respondents said they had no plans to implement DevOps and 31% of respondents said they hadn't implemented it but planned to start in the 12 months after the survey was conducted. That left only 29% who had implemented DevOps in a pilot project or in production systems, which isn't a lot. "Maybe it's because there truly isn't a need for DevOps," you say.  While that

Is No/Low-Code the Key to IT Nirvana?

 Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past year or so, you've seen the phrases low-code  and no-code  bandied about quite frequently everywhere you look.  You've probably wondered if this is something new that's here to stay or just a "flash in the pan."  Although the terms have been in the fore of the IT trade publications recently, Low Code Development Platforms (LCDP) (and the corresponding No Code Development Platforms) have been in existence since 2011.  Their roots can be traced to the 90's with 4th generation programming languages and GUI-assisted programming paradigms, e.g. IBM VisualAge for Basic, which was discontinued in 1998. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, the premise is that these platforms allow someone to quickly build applications using a WYSIWYG interface and a "click and configure" paradigm to Isn't this the source code to Roblox? rapidly build full applications with little or no coding requ