« Things worth reading: 21st August 2012 | Main | Things worth reading: 22nd August 2012 »

August 21, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01053620481c970b01774440db64970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In whom do we trust?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

tonyw

Of course south park have a take on this

http://youtu.be/15W9jYkr7IQ

business insurance

I do not need to see the bank in order to trust it. Trust is based on more than that, meaning sight. I trust my bank because I am given good advise upon request, an interesting loan upon need. That's it.

Iang

As always, we conflate two things - payments and money. Separate these two things out and the question of trust likewise bifurcates, and clarity surfaces.

We of course can trust Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, indeed any big tech firm, to process our payments. Someone said banks are 70% IT firms these days. Hint hint. The techniques to do secure payments in digital form have been laid out for over a decade. I sometimes call it financial cryptography but there are plenty of weaker alternatives that have survived (e.g., the beginner mistake is to use single-entry accounting, and it doesn't not work...).

Trust in payments is an entirely separate question as to whether we can trust these same people to manage our money. Frankly, that question makes no sense - tech firms don't understand much or anything about money, which is why Apple, Google and the like are sitting on huge warchests. Even the term "warchest" indicates we (the media) and they don't know what to do...

It is that issue - trust in managing money - which is the core of banking, the creed. Nothing to do with payments. It is precisely that issue which will be tested in the coming months or year or two, if the doomsayers are on the money, as Eurorot spreads outwards. Pun intended.

And, there isn't much banks can do about it at this stage. The normal trick of banks is to change nothing, and advertise the preferred message. But that won't work this time. Even banks that are clean and safe and have their balance sheet able to withstand the failures of some national treasuries ... will catch the untrust from the ones who fall around them.

Whatever a bank does in strategy terms - it should not base its plan on winning back the trust of the people. That's a dead loss for the foreseeable future.

Ian Sutherland

I too have blogged many times about trust and it's loss in financial services, albeit from more of an operational and team perspective (http://talesofanactivemind.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/can-you-be-trusted-is-this-limiting.html).

I was once shown a model formula that described the components of trust and all the things that have been mentioned here are there. Credibility, reliability and intimacy (in terms of knowing the other party) are on the top line, ie the numerator, and are a product ie if any is absent or near absent trust is hard to find. More importantly self interest is the bottom line or denominator. This is how much theother party will put their interests ahead of yours or shared interests.

This denominator is powerful and what is killing trust in financial services right now.

Coming back to this blog.....in payments the opportunity for self interest to triumph is less than in managing money, where in many parts of the system it has been rife. The old adage to follow the money is so true, or at least it has been, in locating self interest.

Lynn Wheeler

we were tangentially involved in the cal. state data breach notification act ... having been brought in to help wordsmith the cal. state electronic signature act. Many of the participants were heavily involved in privacy issues and had done detailed public surveys. The found the #1 issue was identity theft, primarily the form of account fraud from fraudulent financial transactions involving information from breaches. There was little or nothing seemed to be done about breaches and it was hoped that the publicity from the breaches would motivate corrective action. The issue is that security issues are normally prompted by effort for *self* security. Most of the institutions with the breaches had little at risk, the fraudulent financial transactions would be against the public (and therefor had little motivation to prevent the breaches).

other issues about making the information useless to crooks (rather than trying to prevent the breaches) are found in Ian's blog in discussions about "naked payments".

Lynn's 'Naked and Vulnerable' series (posted by Iang)

It's pretty clear that if banks wanted to be trusted they could be.

Hit the link below for Lynn's essays on Naked Payments.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Twitter FSClub

    follow me on Twitter

    Your email address:


    Powered by FeedBlitz

    Search blog


    Amazon Digital Bank

    Financial Brand Editor's Choice

    Alex: The Finanser BlogAlex at the Financial Services Club
    Gaping Void: The Finanser BlogGaping Void's Hugh MacLeod worked with the Finanser
    Wordle: The Finanser Blog

    The Financial Brand

    NetBanker

    Payments News - from Glenbrook Partners

    Payments RSS

    Tomorrow's Transactions blog

    Analytics