Governance
- Anthony Peccia

- Oct 9
- 5 min read
Updated: 51 minutes ago
Did they blow up by accident?
In 2024, TD Bank pled guilty in the U.S. to conspiracy to commit money-laundering and paid about $1.8 billion in penalties. The 'Too Dependable' bank turned money-laundering mule — $1.8 billion lesson in oversight. Criminal cash cruised through compliance — the watchdog was asleep. Needed a babysitter for its controls — regulators installed a hall monitor.
In 2020, Citi’s loan ops team checked the wrong boxes, sending $893 million instead of $7.8 million in interest. One wrong checkbox sent $893 million flying — full principal instead of pocket change. Three reviewers signed it off anyway — process obedience beat common sense. Regulators called time on autopilot governance — $400 million for ignoring the obvious. Four years under consent order, same problems, new fine — governance by memo, not execution.
In 2023, UBS finalized its emergency takeover of failing Credit Suisse, orchestrated by Swiss regulators to avert a banking crisis. In 2007, traders pleaded guilty to mismarking securities, inflating values to boost profits and bonuses. In 2019, the bank hired private investigators to surveil a departing executive, triggering a global 'spy-gate' scandal. In 2021, Credit Suisse lost about $5.5 billion on Archegos after failing to act on internal warnings. During Chair Urs Rohner’s decade-long tenure, scandals piled up; his successor António Horta-Osório (ex-Lloyds) resigned months later for breaching conduct rules.
No! They blew up because of multiple failures in Governance!
Governance and what it achieves
Governance in ECRG (Exposure, Controls, Resilience, Governance Risk Management Framework) has one purpose and one purpose only: to ensure that each of Exposure, Controls, and Resilience are properly done.

Governance is the system that defines who must do what, by when, and what happens when they don’t — and ensures that the rules people follow on paper are also the behaviors they follow in practice. It works through three mechanisms.
Roles — who does what and when.
Accountability — what happens when things go wrong or right.
Culture — what people actually do. When the expected and actual behaviors diverge, governance breaks down.
Everything else — frameworks, committees, reports — is a sublevel of this simple MECE.
ROLES
ACCOUNTABILITY
CULTURE
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Governance’s single purpose is to ensure each of E, C, and R are properly done — designed right, executed right, and corrected when they drift.
2. Roles define who does what; Accountability defines what happens next; Culture determines what people actually do.
3. Governance begins with written rules but survives only through consistent behaviors.
4. Accountability converts expectations into consequences — it’s the link between rules and results.
5. Policies and committees don’t fix behavior gaps; incentives, transparency, and escalation do.
6. Behavior drift — when actual actions deviate from expected ones — is the earliest sign of governance decay.
7. Effective governance makes doing the right thing easier, safer, and faster than hiding the truth.
What impressed me most about this article is how it turns “governance” from a set of rules into something about real behavior. It’s not just about reports or committees, it’s about what people actually do when things get hard or uncomfortable. Good governance means making the right action easier and safer than hiding the truth. The big scandals like TD Bank or Credit Suisse didn’t happen overnight; they happened because small behavior drifts were ignored until it was too late. So I was wondering, in a company where performance and short-term results matter most, how can leaders design incentives that make speaking up about problems feel safer than staying silent?
This piece powerfully captures why governance failures — not accidents — are the true cause of institutional breakdowns. The examples of TD Bank, Citi, and Credit Suisse show that even massive organizations with sophisticated systems can implode when governance becomes performative instead of functional. Each case demonstrates a collapse of behavioral governance — roles blurred, accountability diluted, and culture rewarded the wrong things. The framework here makes governance practical rather than abstract: it’s not about more policies or committees but about ensuring Exposure, Controls, and Resilience (E·C·R) actually work as intended. Governance is described as a living system that links roles (who does what), accountability (what happens when they don’t), and culture (what people truly do). When any of these…
The slides and the video said escalation only works when people feel safe raising bad news early. But in most banks, raising problems can still hurt your career. How do you actually build a culture where telling the truth feels safer than staying quiet? Is it realistic in a high pressure environment where results matter more than process?
The examples show that culture is where governance often fails, not in documentation, but in mindset. The ECRG model reframes governance as the element that makes Exposure, Controls, and Resilience work right. I wonder whether governance should be treated not as the fourth pillar but as the glue. If without it, even well-designed controls and resilience plans fail. Should governance therefore be evaluated not by presence, but by effectiveness of coordination?
After learning more about governance, especially the section on building culture, I found it interesting how much emphasis is placed on critical thinking and challenge behaviour. Encouraging people to question and test decisions sounds ideal, but I think in practice it can lead to inconsistency or slow down execution. So I wonder how can organizations achieve a balance between designing a culture where employees feel safe to challenge ideas and raise concern without creating additional confusion or inefficiency across teams?