|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Where did the money go?
- 2 Jerome Kerviel and libel
- 3 I'm missing info about the 1976 robbery in Nice
- 4 CDS Payouts
- 5 $11 billion bailout from United States taxpayers
- 6 $11 billion?
- 7 New article supplementations/concatenations but very few citations
- 8 Merger proposal
- 9 1864–1893
- 10 File:Towers Alicante Chassagne Granite.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 11 Translation badge
- 12 Société Générale makes cuts on the back of its lowest paid and most vulnerable employees
- 13 Sale of NSGB (Egypt)
- 14 outdated
Where did the money go?
Well, they say the markets are a "zero sum game". So if SocGen lost big, someone was on the other side of the transaction, perhaps George Soros or SAC capital.EdwardLovette (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The transactions (the real ones) were made on an organized futures market. The only counterpart you know in this situation is the market itself (say, Euronext). Anyone who was short futures when Kerviel was long (and conversely) could have profited. Also, releasing who the counterparties really were would give the impression they somehow knew what was going on at SG, while they were really randomly matched by the market's systems. --Pdoucy (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Jerome Kerviel and libel
I've started a thread on the Village Pump about the libel issue, which can serve as a centralized place for discussion of the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing info about the 1976 robbery in Nice
I'm new to the talk part so i hope i do it right. Anyway, while i was reading the updates about the latest scandal in the bank Société Générale i was surprised that there was'nt a word mentioned about the robbery that took place in 1976 and which allegedly was masterminded by Albert Spaggiari. I'm not so good at the details but maybe someone with more info could insert a note about this event in the history part of Société Générale.
Here is the article about Albert Spaggiari 
I added (in what I hope is a fairly neutral manner) info about SocGen's CDS payouts from AIG. I encourage anyone more expert in financial terminology to correct, revise, or expand as appropriate. shultzc (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
$11 billion bailout from United States taxpayers
The title is misleading. SG was never specifically supposed to receive money from US taxpayers, and never did. SG received money from AIG as part of the enforcement of contracts that linked the two entities. As far as SG is concerned, the fact that AIG needed to be bailed out by the federal reserve and/or the US government is irrelevant (although it shows questionable counterparty risk management from SG...). --Pdoucy (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
$11 billion bailout from United States taxpayers
This paragraph is not neutral but states a personal opinion. On top of that it is technically wrong, Societe Generale received money from AIG in accordance with the sum AIG was owing them. The Bailout maybe enabled AIG to pay Soc.Gen the money they owed them, but they did not hand out government cash: Government gave AIG Equity (tier 1), whereas AIG paid Soc.G money from their accrual account, which is either tier 2 or 3. The accrual account had been raised to a higher volume once the event of a increased payment to Soc.G. had become likely, thereby reducing equity. Björn Wolf (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
CNN has 16.5 billion with the "Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program" as its source. http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/10/news/economy/TARP_hearing/index.htm Why the different numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxtreme (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
New article supplementations/concatenations but very few citations
Many recent additions to this article have been uncited and hence unverifiable. We need an editor(s) with the patience to comb through the article statements and add valid citations or remove content that have no support for its claims. Furthermore, new article additions should come with references. Kjmonkey (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Lyxor Asset Management currently cites one source, an announcement from Société Générale discussing the launch of Lyxor. To stand alone, the article clearly needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find substantial coverage. I suggest we merge it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"1864–1893 The bank was founded by a group of industrialists and financiers during..."
Need a list of these 'industrialists' and 'financiers' names w links to bios. Most pertinent info!
File:Towers Alicante Chassagne Granite.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Towers Alicante Chassagne Granite.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
As the historical part of this article wasn't updated since 2009, I had a translation from the last french version, for the historical part starting 2010. The governance of the company wasn't describe as well, I had a translation too.
How does it work to get a "translation badge" and respect copyrights?
Société Générale makes cuts on the back of its lowest paid and most vulnerable employees
Section moved to the talk part of the Page because there is no legitimate source to this content (only a link to an online petition) and this section describes a conflict between a supplier of Societe Generale London and a trade union and is not directly related to the topic of this article.
September 2012, Société Générale makes cuts on the back of its lowest paid and most vulnerable employees: the cleaners
In September 2012 Members of the union Industrial Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) who clean the London branch in Tower Hill of Société Générale (the bank), have had their hours slashed by 50% effective as of Monday 24th September 2012. This is despite the bank making a smidgen under £2 billion in profits in 2011, and boasting of its “resilience” to the current economic crisis.
The bank predictably claims these cuts are solely to “improve efficiency”, denying that they are cost-cutting. However, a cursory look at their proposals shows otherwise.
These cuts also come on the back of the cleaners recently securing the London Living Wage (LLW) of £8.30 per hour.
The cleaner’s were previously on poverty wages as defined by the Greater London Authority.
Meanwhile, the Chairman and CEO of the bank, Frédéric Oudéa, makes over £1 million a year and claims “to be a responsible employer, conscious of the well-being and professional development of our employees”.
Furthermore, the bank has established the Société Générale UK Group Charitable Trust Fund aimed at “working to tackle any kind of disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups”, although when it comes to those that clean their offices the bank is single-handedly exacerbating the disadvantages suffered by individuals and groups.
In fact, as a result of these cuts the cleaners will be forced from an existence of subsistence to one of terrifying scarcity, poor health, substandard housing and crippling debt. Their salaries will no longer even suffice for certain staple food items.
The cleaners objected to the proposals during every step of the “consultation” process run by Initial Facilities, the subcontractor hired by the bank. However, their objections were ignored.
The cleaner’s then took to the streets staging regular, large scale protests over the course of a month supported by students, activist groups such as Movimiento Ecuador en el Reino Unido (Ecuadorian Movement in the United Kingdom), MPs, and other branches of the labour movement including the rank and file of UNITE, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS).
As a result of these protests all the cleaners who are members of the IWGB have been suspended.
This contravenes basic employment law and shows Societe Generale's utter contempt for the most vulnerable workers on its premises, the cleaners.
IWGB sources say that the protests will continue until Societe Generale gives the cleaner's back their hours. Public pressure and awareness is also increasing including petitions, national media coverage of Societe Generale's rank hypocrisy, growing support from dozens of members of parliament and increased solidarity from many other trade unions and activist groups disgusted by Soc