4 ms·

Large financial organisations can be surprisingly criminal and incompetent when it comes to IT - you don't have to look far. Knight Capital, NatWest, HSBC... ju

by dtf 13y ago

Large financial organisations can be surprisingly criminal and incompetent when it comes to IT - you don't have to look far. Knight Capital, NatWest, HSBC... just a few names that pop into my head. The big guys spend large amounts of time and money convincing regulators and the public that they're clean and clever. It's public confidence that counts.

bananas 13y ago
They're pretty fine to be honest. They have mitigation and FCA oversight which means you're not in the shit as a customer (usually). Knight capital was a cock up in a high risk trading env. They paid for that. HSBC was money laundering which is basically the entire purpose of a bank. NatWest was a process cock up. However no money went "oops we lost it" and was never seen again. At most, even with HSBC consumer withdrawal limits it's a minor inconvenience for a couple of days. Much like mobile phone networks, people expect 100% uptime but that's unrealistic in practice. Always keep £200 rolled up in your mattress.
- CaptainZapp 13y ago
  HSBC was money laundering which is basically the entire purpose of a bank. This is a very strong statement. Do you mind backing it up, or is this just meant as a glib throwaway quip?
  - bananas 13y ago
    I suppose that was a throwaway quip directed at HSBC who seems to have managed to get away with laundering on a large scale with some slapped wrists.
  - andrewaylett 13y ago
    I'm not the OP, but I think I can see what he means, and I think he means it in a non-pejorative way too. One of the functions of banks is indeed to hide the source and destination of your money. My grocer doesn't get to know who employs me; my employer doesn't see where I spend my money. Yes, you can achieve that with cash, without directly involving a bank. But the money is still issued by a bank. I'm not saying that it's impossible to achieve this level of information hiding without banks, but I can see where the GP is coming from in his argument.
simonh 13y ago
Sure, but the regulations worked. NatWest and HSBC were brought to book. Nobody is saying that traditional financial institutions are perfect, but at least they are regulated and at least there are checks and balances in place. By and large the examples people roll out of these institutions behaving badly are examples of the regulators and legal frameworks working the way they are supposed to. Knight capital were in a risky business and they blew it. It happens. But they're the exception, not the rule. In the wonderful world of Bitcoin, the goings on at MtGox looks like the rule, not the exception.
- petit_robert 13y ago
  "But they're the exception, not the rule." Excuse me, you must have forgotten about a certain global financial meltdown in 2008?

by dtf 13y ago

bananas 13y ago

They're pretty fine to be honest. They have mitigation and FCA oversight which means you're not in the shit as a customer (usually). Knight capital was a cock up in a high risk trading env. They paid for that. HSBC was money laundering which is basically the entire purpose of a bank. NatWest was a process cock up. However no money went "oops we lost it" and was never seen again. At most, even with HSBC consumer withdrawal limits it's a minor inconvenience for a couple of days. Much like mobile phone networks, people expect 100% uptime but that's unrealistic in practice. Always keep £200 rolled up in your mattress.

CaptainZapp 13y ago
HSBC was money laundering which is basically the entire purpose of a bank. This is a very strong statement. Do you mind backing it up, or is this just meant as a glib throwaway quip?
- bananas 13y ago
  I suppose that was a throwaway quip directed at HSBC who seems to have managed to get away with laundering on a large scale with some slapped wrists.
- andrewaylett 13y ago
  I'm not the OP, but I think I can see what he means, and I think he means it in a non-pejorative way too. One of the functions of banks is indeed to hide the source and destination of your money. My grocer doesn't get to know who employs me; my employer doesn't see where I spend my money. Yes, you can achieve that with cash, without directly involving a bank. But the money is still issued by a bank. I'm not saying that it's impossible to achieve this level of information hiding without banks, but I can see where the GP is coming from in his argument.

simonh 13y ago

Sure, but the regulations worked. NatWest and HSBC were brought to book. Nobody is saying that traditional financial institutions are perfect, but at least they are regulated and at least there are checks and balances in place. By and large the examples people roll out of these institutions behaving badly are examples of the regulators and legal frameworks working the way they are supposed to. Knight capital were in a risky business and they blew it. It happens. But they're the exception, not the rule. In the wonderful world of Bitcoin, the goings on at MtGox looks like the rule, not the exception.

petit_robert 13y ago
"But they're the exception, not the rule." Excuse me, you must have forgotten about a certain global financial meltdown in 2008?