I don't understand. Are we really talking about personal savings? Why are banks having anything to say on what an individual can or can't do with his/her own money?
If they intend to do anything in the crypto world, any employees who invest prior are acting on insider information. Even suspicion will lead to investigations which will be really bad PR. They can't go out and say "you can't invest because that makes you insiders" because then they jump the gun. But they can simply add cryptos to the existing list of investments you are barred from due to your position.
Jobs have requirements, like showing up, not burning down the place, and sometimes not investing in certain assets. You sign the contract and can stop at any time if you feel like investing in crypto, not showing up or burning the place down. Though that last one you'll still get in trouble with the authorities. But if you quit first you won't be in breach of contract.
For example, if this Finnish bank were planning to open its own cryptocoin exchange, the employees would have advance knowledge. They could buy or short impacted securities before the announcement/opening.
Also, why is it even legal? Companies shouldn't have the power to decide what its employees can or can't do with their own time or money.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/nordea-ba...
“It is widespread practice across the banking industry to restrict the personal account dealing of staff to prevent them taking positions in speculative investments, or which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing,” Kellberg said. “Nordea therefore, like all banks, has the right to set out policies in this area that apply to its staff.”
What tipped me off was this statement:
> which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing
The question isn't whether they can (they just did) but "why"? Their reasoning (unless article is cutting this out) doesn't go into insider trading.
> “The risks are seen as too high and the protection is insufficient for both the co-workers and the bank,” a Nordea spokeswoman told Reuters in an e-mail, adding that employees who currently own cryptocurrencies will not be forced to sell them, although recommended to do so.
They don't seem to say anything about Nordea workers having any privy information. By their rationale, I don't understand why they wouldn't be unable to declare any instrument off the table. I'm kind of surprised that this kind of unilateral change of workers' rights is allowed in Sweden.
There is a huge and pervasive belief in the bitcoin community that they really need to talk up bitcoin, nothing that can happen to bitcoin is really bad, it's destined to climb higher, etc. Even on this board I've read stuff like 'if the top 1% only put 1% of their portfolios in bitcoin it would be worth a gajillion times more.' I can understand wanting to make sure your employees aren't feeling that same way when they're making investment decisions with other peoples money.
This is to prevent insider trading, among other things. Compliance issues with individual traders can result in massive fines for their employers.
Conflict of interest. You can do whatever you want with your own money, but some of those things are incompatible with working for the bank.