5 ms·
Seems like an amount the banks would have no problem sweeping under the rug. 7.5k should be a no-issue. A bank's existence is based on trust after all and if th
by sigmoid10 3y ago
Seems like an amount the banks would have no problem sweeping under the rug. 7.5k should be a no-issue. A bank's existence is based on trust after all and if the public hears of this, the loss of trust will cost them a lot more in revenue than that puny amount. They might not even report it to insurance, because in the long run that could also end up costing them more due to increased premiums.
- kortilla 3y agoWhat? I don’t give a shit if my bank is robbed. FDIC insurance makes that a non-issue for the vast majority of the country.
- wannacboatmovie 3y agoWhat a silly, immature statement. Sounds like the typical reaction I hear to organized retail theft and the rioting and destruction of property back in 2020: "They have insurance." As if the lack of consequences for perpetrators doesn't have consequences of its own. Insurance is not free money.
- trelane 3y agoI am pretty sure they were responding to the "lack of trust" point raised by the parent, not the crime itself. Their point was that they aren't worried / don't lose trust in the bank if it gets robbed. Rather, the money is guaranteed, so they retain confidence in the bank even if it loses a lot of many due to a particularly successful robbery. Because they'll still get their deposit back. This is 100% what the FDIC and NCUA are about: ensuring continued consumer confidence in their banks.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Libcat99 3y agoThat's not trust in the bank though, that's trust in the system/fdic. I think many would lose trust in their bank if they heard it was being robbed with abnormal regularity.
- kortilla 3y agoRead the fucking thread. I’m responding to banks trying to hide being robbed from their customers. In no way do I condone robbery.
- missedthecue 3y agoInsurance is not a free money generator though. Most homes are insured. Should we therefore not care about burglaries and break-ins?
- saagarjha 3y agoHomes are somewhat different because it is a personal annoyance to replace what was lost, and there’s a sentimental value attached to most things which insurance wouldn’t cover. If I show up at the bank tomorrow and make a withdrawal and the money comes from insurance rather than the actual dollars I put in, who am I to care?
- argiopetech 3y agoWhen you use your insurance, your rates tend to go up. When costs go up, the bank passes those on to the customer. Now you pay more for banking, or receive less interest, or get worse service, or however they cover that cost. Perhaps it doesn't effect you (an individual) directly, but they increase the cost for commercial customers and those companies pass the cost on to you. Now, if you don't care about that kind of creeping cost increase, I have a cloud architecture to sell you.
- thfuran 3y agoThat has nothing whatsoever to do with trusting the bank.
- Libcat99 3y agoWould you trust a person who drove their car into the same pothole every day to make responsible decisions with driving when not near that pothole? Why would you trust a bank, showing lax security in one aspect, to be stable overall?
- kortilla 3y agoWe should care. Banks shouldn’t hide robberies.
- wavemode 3y agoThat's being rather generous re: the average consumer. You can try to explain to people that their money is safe by law but it doesn't mean public trust doesn't somewhat erode. Grandma with her retirement savings doesn't want to hear that her bank got robbed.
- kortilla 3y agoIt’s not, it’s the only reason a huge chunk of the population that lived through the financial crisis trusts banks at all.
- onetokeoverthe 3y ago[dead]
- rvba 3y agoYou realize that as a client you pay for this? My bank (outside of USA) offers interest lower than inflation.
- coldtea 3y ago>My bank (outside of USA) offers interest lower than inflation It does, but absolutely not because of robberies