Agreed. I'm guessing is the "we can be trusted" service that comes only with longevity and size, and a track record that shows ability to protect data and mana

Agreed. I'm guessing is the "we can be trusted" service that comes only with longevity and size, and a track record that shows ability to protect data and manage things in the customer's interest, which not many organizations have been able to maintain. Trust is earned by behavior over time, and easily lost. More rambling: I am far from an expert on the current details, but I think that when it comes to taking care of one's savings, and the data closely tied to it, that can be used for identity theft, where we might perceive a worsening track record in institutions in general), trust is a big deal. Trust is given subconsciously sometimes, and ideally earned by things like: behavior over time (not promotions), and institutional size and inertia (why Wells Fargo still has customers, I guess), and/or observed behavior patterns relative to current events, proper staffing (competence, honesty, Golden Rule), and other indicators that suggest it is likely to remain so, to the extent of being a mental shorthand for "It's probably stupid (or not) to put my money there and let them take care of things that are really important to me". Will Rogers I think said, and to varying degrees many have thought similarly, something like: "I'm more interested in the return of my money, than the return on my money." And data, now? maybe there have always been more of people willing to manage others' money, than there is of confidence in trying someone new like a revolving door of trust without track record. And data closely tied to money -- same thing? (various clarifying/fixing edits)