3 ms·

Yes, stalling auditors and engaging in a coverup to hide information from auditors tends to draw some harsh findings. It’s 9M that’s known to be missing, it cou

Yes, stalling auditors and engaging in a coverup to hide information from auditors tends to draw some harsh findings. It’s 9M that’s known to be missing, it could be much larger (or smaller). But generally deceiving your customers isn’t the best way to keep them coming back.

HenryBemis 6y ago
Assuming that the amount they "lost" can be covered with a couple of months' profits. What thet just did, is forced every bank they work with to enforce their "right to audit". I believe that on the next contract updates, EVERY client, will make sure for the two following things: 1) right to audit (in case they don't already have one), and 2) 4h notice (or something equally small/ridiculous. The 4h is a minimum in order to ensure that names/passport numbers, photos, etc are exchanged to ensure security. EDIT: extra point: 3) I believe (since in the banking internal audits everyone knows everyone else)(especially on the Director/CAE level), some banks will ahen coordinate their audits and give them a group visit.. I want to see GW showcasing the same bag of coins to 10 clients at the same hour..
Spooky23 6y ago
The customers are part of the grift. I have a friend who used to run cash operations for a midsize bank. When they outsourced the operation, she basically laid out her idea where the money savings came from, which boiled down to eliminating internal controls necessary to operate... if you’re a bank. Compartmentalized physical security operations don’t scale up quickly. End of the day, it’s the usual story of corporate incompetence and regulators looking the other way. At the end of the day, FDIC is insuring all of this bullshit.
- simplicio 6y ago
  According to the article, in previous cases the Courts have found the banks responsible for losses held in 3rd party vaults, presumably to discourage exactly this kind of effort to dodge liability.
  - gruez 6y ago
    The banks might be ultimately responsible, but if they go under the FDIC is still responsible for repaying the depositors. What else are you going to tell them? "Sorry grandma, FDIC deposit insurance doesn't cover losses held in 3rd party vaults so all your life savings are lost" would be political suicide.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Oh of course. But someone made the business decision anyway. Storing money is probably the single oldest operating practice in history of banking. If you time travelled a banker from 1920 to 2020, he’d adapt pretty quickly. An incompetent company like Garda shouldn’t be able to get away with fraud at this scale. The regulations and internal controls are fubar.
- spydum 6y ago
  FFIEC could revoke your status as a TSP though, and poof, watch your revenue dry up as wells fargo, boa and all the other big banks suddenly can't use your services.

HenryBemis 6y ago

Assuming that the amount they "lost" can be covered with a couple of months' profits. What thet just did, is forced every bank they work with to enforce their "right to audit". I believe that on the next contract updates, EVERY client, will make sure for the two following things: 1) right to audit (in case they don't already have one), and 2) 4h notice (or something equally small/ridiculous. The 4h is a minimum in order to ensure that names/passport numbers, photos, etc are exchanged to ensure security. EDIT: extra point: 3) I believe (since in the banking internal audits everyone knows everyone else)(especially on the Director/CAE level), some banks will ahen coordinate their audits and give them a group visit.. I want to see GW showcasing the same bag of coins to 10 clients at the same hour..

Spooky23 6y ago

The customers are part of the grift. I have a friend who used to run cash operations for a midsize bank. When they outsourced the operation, she basically laid out her idea where the money savings came from, which boiled down to eliminating internal controls necessary to operate... if you’re a bank. Compartmentalized physical security operations don’t scale up quickly. End of the day, it’s the usual story of corporate incompetence and regulators looking the other way. At the end of the day, FDIC is insuring all of this bullshit.

simplicio 6y ago
According to the article, in previous cases the Courts have found the banks responsible for losses held in 3rd party vaults, presumably to discourage exactly this kind of effort to dodge liability.
- gruez 6y ago
  The banks might be ultimately responsible, but if they go under the FDIC is still responsible for repaying the depositors. What else are you going to tell them? "Sorry grandma, FDIC deposit insurance doesn't cover losses held in 3rd party vaults so all your life savings are lost" would be political suicide.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Oh of course. But someone made the business decision anyway. Storing money is probably the single oldest operating practice in history of banking. If you time travelled a banker from 1920 to 2020, he’d adapt pretty quickly. An incompetent company like Garda shouldn’t be able to get away with fraud at this scale. The regulations and internal controls are fubar.
spydum 6y ago
FFIEC could revoke your status as a TSP though, and poof, watch your revenue dry up as wells fargo, boa and all the other big banks suddenly can't use your services.