The revelation that yet another rogue trader has been pulling the levers at a major bank, this time costing UBS $2 billion, makes me wonder about all the rogue traders we're not hearing about -- the ones who aren't big, stupid or aggressive enough to get caught. It raises serious concerns about the level of risk management and controls at these banks, and who can claim that an institution unable to police itself is worthy of a government's "too big to fail" stamp?
Perhaps banks should start reporting "income from rogue trading" in their financial statements. It would seem naive to presume that it isn't contributing to the bottom line. I wonder, once disclosed, would it be a non-recurring charge?
Is it even extraordinary?