5 ms·
I know right. Banks are so risk adverse now, the biggest thing people are worried about is breaking things and downtime. Running on 10 year old platforms isn't
by x87678r 6y ago
I know right. Banks are so risk adverse now, the biggest thing people are worried about is breaking things and downtime. Running on 10 year old platforms isn't a problem as long as there is no outage. No wonder they're getting killed by Citadel.
- lol768 6y ago> I know right. Banks are so risk adverse now, the biggest thing people are worried about is breaking things and downtime. Yeah, it's funny though that the ones who've stuck to their aging mainframe systems and haven't invested in maintenance and reducing technical debt have the worst uptime. https://github.com/openbankingspace/tpp-issues/issues?q=is%3Aissue https://github.com/openbankingspace/tpp-issues/issues?q=is%3... https://twitter.com/nickrw/status/1141058572547215360 https://twitter.com/nickrw/status/1141058572547215360 https://twitter.com/kieranmch/status/1188118150757224449 https://twitter.com/kieranmch/status/1188118150757224449 It's okay though, because they generally don't even tell the customers when it's broken. I get status updates, good quality technical post-mortems and generally very good uptime from my modern bank.
- elcomet 6y agoBut there's a reason for this. No one wants to be unable to pay for something when they really need it (gas,.. ). So downtime for banks is very bad for business and for people's lives.
- derriz 6y agoNo bank is getting killed by Citadel. The numbers are on a different scale completely. JP Morgan makes over $40B a year. The entire proprietary HFT industry globally makes a fraction of that. Citadel almost certainly less than 5% of that number in a typical year.