5 ms·

The worst thing that can happen for any bank is to have its customers' money taken away. No one will ever do business with that bank again. You can screw up eve

The worst thing that can happen for any bank is to have its customers' money taken away. No one will ever do business with that bank again. You can screw up everything else but lose people's money is unforgivable.

kylebenzle 10y ago
More like "misplaced", customers will get their money back, no question.
elcct 10y ago
People have short memory and they don't care. Offer like £50 sign up bonus and they'll be flocking like crazy sheep.
- Pitarou 10y ago
  TalkTalk's recruitment drive is a good example. I would consider taking the £50, but I would make damn sure not to put ALL my funds in there.
joosters 10y ago
I don't think this is at all true. Customers at just about every bank are hit by fraud, a lot of it through no fault of the customer, and yet banks don't seem to spend much time tracking down the criminals. It must be far cheaper for the banks to reimburse customers rather than to patch all the security weaknesses of their financial systems. This strongly suggests that the reputational cost of hacking and fraud just isn't that big.
- mcherm 10y ago
  > banks don't seem to spend much time tracking down the criminals I am curious how you come to this conclusion, given that banks are extremely reticent to discuss what security measure they take and to avoid any publicity about security breaches (even publicity about how they caught someone brings the problem back to the public's mind). So if they WERE being effective in tracking down the criminals, how would you know?
  - joosters 10y ago
    There are plenty of reports of people who, after getting refunded for a fraudulent transaction, get told that the bank won't investigate it, and that they should report it to the police themselves if they want to get someone to investigate. That doesn't strike me as banks caring too much. I'm not saying the banks care nothing for security, and I am sure that they don't want to lose money if they had a choice, but their actions often give an outward impression of not being too bothered about individual losses.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    For small amounts, things absolutely go un-tracked. There's just too much fraud to go after smaller actors. And often when you do, you just find a hapless mule that was used to relay the money. Something like this, where it's 10M pounds and a severe internal breech is different.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kylebenzle 10y ago

More like "misplaced", customers will get their money back, no question.

elcct 10y ago

People have short memory and they don't care. Offer like £50 sign up bonus and they'll be flocking like crazy sheep.

Pitarou 10y ago
TalkTalk's recruitment drive is a good example. I would consider taking the £50, but I would make damn sure not to put ALL my funds in there.

joosters 10y ago

I don't think this is at all true. Customers at just about every bank are hit by fraud, a lot of it through no fault of the customer, and yet banks don't seem to spend much time tracking down the criminals. It must be far cheaper for the banks to reimburse customers rather than to patch all the security weaknesses of their financial systems. This strongly suggests that the reputational cost of hacking and fraud just isn't that big.

mcherm 10y ago
> banks don't seem to spend much time tracking down the criminals I am curious how you come to this conclusion, given that banks are extremely reticent to discuss what security measure they take and to avoid any publicity about security breaches (even publicity about how they caught someone brings the problem back to the public's mind). So if they WERE being effective in tracking down the criminals, how would you know?
- joosters 10y ago
  There are plenty of reports of people who, after getting refunded for a fraudulent transaction, get told that the bank won't investigate it, and that they should report it to the police themselves if they want to get someone to investigate. That doesn't strike me as banks caring too much. I'm not saying the banks care nothing for security, and I am sure that they don't want to lose money if they had a choice, but their actions often give an outward impression of not being too bothered about individual losses.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  For small amounts, things absolutely go un-tracked. There's just too much fraud to go after smaller actors. And often when you do, you just find a hapless mule that was used to relay the money. Something like this, where it's 10M pounds and a severe internal breech is different.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]