When it comes to increased transparency, you will not find a bank executive who says he is against it--not in public anyway. In this climate, you can no more oppose transparency than you can oppose apple pie and baseball.

So, it is with great interest people are viewing the case of Kevin Connors, the Goldman Sachs forex partner who was sacked recently, just a few days before bonuses were to be disclosed to employees. The company specified an internal breach but little more, leaving people to speculate.

One of CNBC's sources said Connors was likely "let go for holding outside investments that he hadn't disclosed to the firm. Holding the investments was a violation of firm policy. Of course, that explanation gives rise to even more questions. What were the investments? Why would someone in Connors' elevated position risk everything on outside investments?"

I have no idea how common such double-dipping is on Wall Street. In any case, the bank would be wise to disclose more information, if only to assure customers the breach was not one that affected them and they have strong controls in place.

The lack of information just might backfire, as more reporters look into the situation and Connors himself. That's already starting, as Business Insider has dug up some information on him from more than a decade ago.

For more:
- here's the CNBC article
- here's an article from The Telegraph

Related Articles:
Who should the Goldman Sachs board fire?
Forex market volume soars
Bank employee fired for blogging
Time to guard against fired employees?