« Finovate Europe and Asia - save 20% now | Main | Things worth reading: 28th August 2013 »

August 27, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01053620481c970b019104fe7f43970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bank systems are not safe (anymore):

Comments

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

Sytaylor

Somewhere along the line uptime and availability got less sexy. Probably at that same point where retail banking was only useful as a way to fund the investment banking division...

Infrastructure which is utterly critical started to get out sourced and cost effective (ignored).

There are exceptions and you're right that complexity has made things much harder. Ultimately though it comes down to fundamentals. Keeping the lights on is expensive but not nearly as expensive as if they go out.

Vendors who excel in uptime still have a huge advantage in supplying banks. Banks infrastructure has evolved slowly and is so complex I doubt anyone understands it all.

What we need is to take the approach the tech sector has. Separate out the stack. Build a tcp ip protocol for banking. Let the protocols manage the basics and build out a programmable top layer for developers.

Of course it's a pipe dream to think banks would ever collaborate in such a forward thinking, long term investment that won't show on the balance sheet in any obvious way for years, if at all.

Still. I think there is a competitive advantage to be had for those who get it right.

Iang

I think there are some interesting juxtapositions here that confuse the issue. When people say banks are safe, to me it means that the money is there. Issues of bank safety arise when we talk about depositor guarantees, Cyprus, etc.

When downtime happens, that's an issue of access. It is a marketing concern to the banks, of course. But only when we get to the point of, for example, the ATMs shutting down, as was feared in the post-Lehman failure, is there a real issue of interest to the public.

Also, when a trade goes haywire, the trader can lose a bundle. E.g., GS. But again this is not an issue of bank safety, but of banks being involved in trading.

As long as depositor funds are safe, who cares? As long as banks aren't trading with those funds, no problem. And as long as banks aren't doing securitization, then banking remains banking. Right?

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