My point was that their transformation from a regional bank into an international bank wasn't just a power grab or kingdom building but a very natural progression, that lots of their competitors, to keep their existing customers.
it then turned out that one of their new areas, derivatives desk, was minting money like crazy so it became tougher for them to reign in that team, and as a side effect the risk that team generated, until it was painfully clear that they'd gone too far.
Their problem wasn't in the idea of growing and transforming the bank but in the implementation, and I believe I laid out in pretty easy to follow detail, why they went the way they did.
I reread your original message and the underlying theme seems to be the inevitability of ending up more or less in a situation similar to the one of today.
I don't believe the natural progression theory fully explains what happened and I was trying to emphasise that the article contradicts your theory in several places.
In particular:
* their failure to learn the lessons of 2008, which most other banks did learn.
* several power struggles for key leadership positions
* outright incompetence in risk management.
To summarise: your analysis about the forces at play is likely correct. However one needs to mix in incompetence and greed to get today's result, something which you explicitly excluded in your first sentence.
I am outraged at what happened (I am a Deutsche customer) and some of that slipped into my message. I do apologize for that.
I mean you completely failed in any way to give my note the principle of charity. Have a look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
I really don't know how to respond to that:(
My point was that their transformation from a regional bank into an international bank wasn't just a power grab or kingdom building but a very natural progression, that lots of their competitors, to keep their existing customers.
it then turned out that one of their new areas, derivatives desk, was minting money like crazy so it became tougher for them to reign in that team, and as a side effect the risk that team generated, until it was painfully clear that they'd gone too far.
Their problem wasn't in the idea of growing and transforming the bank but in the implementation, and I believe I laid out in pretty easy to follow detail, why they went the way they did.