British MPs: Banks Need Better IT Knowledge in the Board Room
-
After some big banking outages in the UK, government officials are thinking that banks need to take IT a little bit more seriously.
-
Until it becomes a regulated requirement, I suspect not much will change.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Until it becomes a regulated requirement, I suspect not much will change.
You'd think that profits would fix it. But if the shareholders don't care...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Until it becomes a regulated requirement, I suspect not much will change.
You'd think that profits would fix it. But if the shareholders don't care...
So the question is.. why aren't profits affected by this?
-
@Dashrender said:
So the question is.. why aren't profits affected by this?
They are. The real question is, why aren't boards being held accountable to profit losses caused by their bad decisions?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So the question is.. why aren't profits affected by this?
They are. The real question is, why aren't boards being held accountable to profit losses caused by their bad decisions?
well you'd have to think that they (the banks) aren't loosing profits, or else the board would be making changes.
Do you know the banks are loosing profits?
Who is picking up those profits?
And perhaps even if they are loosing profits, the board considered the lose of profits versus the costs of updating the IT and considered it a wash or a win in not spending the money on IT.
This seems like like a worry about profits and more about security and privacy, things that should trump profits.
-
@Dashrender said:
well you'd have to think that they (the banks) aren't loosing profits, or else the board would be making changes.
It's the board being blamed.
-
@Dashrender said:
Who is picking up those profits?
No one, it is lost global revenue. Economics is not zero sum.
-
@Dashrender said:
This seems like like a worry about profits and more about security and privacy, things that should trump profits.
Security would never trump profits in a business, that's not just reckless, it's actually illegal in the US at least.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Who is picking up those profits?
No one, it is lost global revenue. Economics is not zero sum.
This is a concept that still breaks my brain.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
This seems like like a worry about profits and more about security and privacy, things that should trump profits.
Security would never trump profits in a business, that's not just reckless, it's actually illegal in the US at least.
I knew you were going to say that .... lol I just didn't have a better way to phrase it. And yes I did say trump profits (heated statement) I realize that you have to weight things financially to make the best decisions.
Though the courts often find that a company choosing not to perform a recall because paying out the lawsuits from deaths will cost less than the recall - how do you account for that in a business? Roulette wheel? lol
-
There's a chap I know well who would unleash upon this thread with the most vile and cutting commentary.
He was employed by banks in London for over a decade until outsourced.
-
@Dashrender said:
Though the courts often find that a company choosing not to perform a recall because paying out the lawsuits from deaths will cost less than the recall - how do you account for that in a business? Roulette wheel? lol
Sort of. It's generally a call for the lawyers to make. The business side figures out the cost of a recall, the lawyers figure out the cost of the lawsuit.
However, we are talking security, NOT safety. A company is ALWAYS allowed to protect lives and obey the law, neither of those must be compromised for profits.
