4 ms·
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
by 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 agoHSBC 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 agoI 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 agoI'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.