Please see The Reg's article about this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/31/kerviel/). The WSJ's article is nothing but parroting of SG's press releases. They are hard at work trying to save their asses, and everybody in the industry agrees that JKE could not have done what he did without his managers knowing, and furthermore, that he is now made into a scapegoat. WSJ is right about one thing: they are full of hubris.
If he hacked the system to make 7 billion dollars, let's say by betting badly and having a friend take the opposite bet, maybe he would have been a hacker, in the criminal sense.
But as it stands, he was just addicted to gambling with someone else's money. The whole situation is just kind of sad.
He failed. Misleading title. He essentially took huge, undeducated gambles. Does anyone remember the name of the strategy that involves doubling your bet at every step, so that you could always with a single win end up "positive"? (assuming infinite money supply of course)
Well, hacker is part of the issue. I guess he hacked the check system, but not the market in any meaningful way. Like I said, he followed his gut, which is a strategy employed by millions, with comparable results.
The misleading part of the title (to which "hacker" contributed) is that it looks like he succeeded, and thus that one could learn from reading the article. It's a very debatable point, I guess... No offense intended to the submitter.
He was up 500 million Euros in late 2007 and never thought of going legit? That is serious delusional reality. I think he's as much as a hacker as a script kiddie
