Online Parliamentary Information Office 2012: For a lot of banks, "change" meant outsourcing operations or moving them to cheaper locations, cutting back on some of the boring less profitable (traditional) services and using marketing to change the "profile" only of the risky stuff that made them all those lovely bonuses... Most people in senior roles in banking are relationship people, not people who understand money at all.
Online Parliamentary Information Office 2012: "Banks still 'not fully prepared' for collapse"
I wonder exactly what they think "fuly prepared" means?
I look at this in the same way I consider those comments from people who say "why can't we be prepared for the worst snowfalls in 50 years.If Norway can do it why can't we"
The reasoning is simple.There is a cost to being "prepared" 24/7. That cost must be evaluated on the basis of probability that the event might occur.In the snow event Norway can be prepared because their climate means the probability of disruptive snowfall is high. In the UK much less so hence we should not expect to spend the same money trying to prerpare.Back to "preparing" banks for collapse. Exactly what cost should we be incurring for an event that to date has never happened in the sense this warning means? Yes,we've been well on the way to it,but it has not actually happened.
I think people are psychologically unable to let go of their fear on this issue and we are still paying heavily for that collectively.
Read other important Parliamentary Information Office articles
Online Parliamentary Information Office 2012: "Banks still 'not fully prepared' for collapse"
I wonder exactly what they think "fuly prepared" means?
I look at this in the same way I consider those comments from people who say "why can't we be prepared for the worst snowfalls in 50 years.If Norway can do it why can't we"
The reasoning is simple.There is a cost to being "prepared" 24/7. That cost must be evaluated on the basis of probability that the event might occur.In the snow event Norway can be prepared because their climate means the probability of disruptive snowfall is high. In the UK much less so hence we should not expect to spend the same money trying to prerpare.Back to "preparing" banks for collapse. Exactly what cost should we be incurring for an event that to date has never happened in the sense this warning means? Yes,we've been well on the way to it,but it has not actually happened.
I think people are psychologically unable to let go of their fear on this issue and we are still paying heavily for that collectively.
Read other important Parliamentary Information Office articles
No comments:
Post a Comment