Don't be fooled by cunning con artists

agrinnall

You really have a very low opinion of people on this forum don't you? For example, just from your post #20:

How many posters here understand what I mean by combination of telephone and digital?

I had a discussion in the last few days in the case of my elderly friend about 3D-Secure, which will probably mean the most only to knowledgable bankers or eBanking specialists here in the forum.

I doubt there are more than one or two MSE members with the knowledge to be able to argue the probabilities of that case all the way from from data science first principles, and even if there were, they are probably too busy elsewhere.

If you were a newly joined member that might be an excuse for not comprehending the vast amount of knowledge and experience there is on here, and on this board in particular, but as someone who has been here for 15 years you don't have that excuse.



Many of us either work in banking or have done so in the past, often in highly skilled and responsible positions. But that doesn't mean other people aren't just as capable of understanding the type of things that you seem to think are the domain of a select few, and those of us who have regularly responded on this board for many years understand that perfectly well.

EssexExile

peterbaker wrote: »

It is quite interesting how fast some of the younger more unfortunate over 60s decline cognitively,

Ah, that explains your recent posts!

Skippy13

What a patronising, ageist post! I must tell my husband not to answer the phone if I'm not there, I mean, he's over 60 and may be scammed!

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

eskbanker you and others have several times referred to the carelessness of customers. I honestly do not think you have scoped how very little carelessness is required to facilitate some of these attacks.

I honestly don't see the degree of carelessness as relevant - I'm not blaming customers for being fooled by fraudsters but am simply challenging the apparent contention that banks should be expected to pick up the tab.

peterbaker wrote: »

Try this for size:

• Be prepared to suffer reduced profits as an industry to fund much more investment in countering fraud that employs digital, and in offering re-opened senior-staffed local branches offering the alternative of full basic non-digital customer services
• slow the headlong leap into launching half-baked competitive ideas of market-leading innovation and constant churning of customers aided unfortunately by switch ideas here on MSE!
• work together toward social purpose and making sure their staff do not question it as was ostensibly their affirmation in the 2010 letter

You're using similarly vague terms as the 2010 letter writers did - what exactly do you actually mean by 'social purpose' and how do you believe that translates into meaningful business terms?

What 'headlong leap into launching half-baked competitive ideas of market-leading innovation'?

The ability for customers to switch easily, as an expression of market choice, is generally seen as a positive development (although it inevitably weakens the relationship between bank and customer from what it was in the Captain Mainwaring days), but do you feel that banks should be reintroducing impediments to this?

Flobberchops

Eskbanker beat me to it. Aside from wishing for bricks and mortar branches to be re-opened (unprofitable), you don't make any concrete, actionable suggestions.

Also a worrying proportion of your arguments seem to revolve around how clueless the layperson (including present company) is, so I'm not convinced you're entering the discussion in the spirit of having your mind changed.

I completely sympathise with you, or your friend, or whoever else has had their finances put in limbo as a result of fraud. It's frustrating, a painfully slow process, and often lacking in transparency or even so much as a guaranteed timescale. In some respects this could undoubtedly be improved. Some of this is an inescapable result of the sheer volume of digital fraud that is happening, and also the banks' obligation to not make promises or to provide what could be tipping-off.

oldagetraveller

"maybe to over 60s"
That's me then. I find that remark slightly patronising and ageist!

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

Try this for size:

• Be prepared to suffer reduced profits as an industry to fund much more investment in countering fraud that employs digital, and in offering re-opened senior-staffed local branches offering the alternative of full basic non-digital customer services
• slow the headlong leap into launching half-baked competitive ideas of market-leading innovation and constant churning of customers aided unfortunately by switch ideas here on MSE!
• work together toward social purpose and making sure their staff do not question it as was ostensibly their affirmation in the 2010 letter

Now, when we spoke on Friday, you said you were going to instigate some changes. How is that going?
Great.
Good. What have you done?
Changed many things, really. In a global sense, streamlining, the whole ongoing enterprise of it.
I'm sorry, David, that sounds like management-speak. You hate that.
Yeah, I do.
So Well, can you give me, say, five practical changes that you've made?
Five changes? - Mmm. I'll give you three, then another two if you need them.
OK.
Efficiency. Turnover. Profitability.
That still sounds like management-speak....

peterbaker

Flobberchops wrote:

Some of this is an inescapable result of the sheer volume of digital fraud that is happening,...

You got that right, but why is it not headlined as much as the sheer scale of the cockup which is Brexit, for example?

...and also the banks' obligation to not make promises or to provide what could be tipping-off.

Obligation to not make promises?? That's a new one. Tipping off as in AML legislation, yes I get that, but you can't use that as an excuse for not refunding promptly and giving no explanation other than "we must complete our investigations". I thought modern society was built on promises - even to the bloody silly levels Brexiteers go (like lemmings to the cliff) to remind us that promises have to be kept!

I always have an open mind, but it is also a mind which constantly questions and does not accept loose arguments as very likely to change it, unless I have taken an obviously mistaken wrong turn, which I have already admitted my mind is as prone to do as any other otherwise very well trained and experienced XX year old mind (sorry oldagetraveller - you are excused for feeling patronised - and I hope I am too - I should have listed the exceptions - I know you will be on the list of sharp as nails into their nineties:p)

Clearly many who oppose my views aren't satisfied with my arguments either, but I do sometimes feel that if I said cigarettes kill, there'd still be plenty of naysayers piling in here saying show us the evidence.

Oh and eskbanker, thanks for the humour, but you really don't want to be any part of any bank that gives up profits to ensure good social care do you? You'd rather your bank divest itself of all that risk back onto the anonymous customers, right? And maybe the more anonymous the better, so you can just concentrate on the numbers?

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

Oh and eskbanker, thanks for the humour, but you really don't want to be any part of any bank that gives up profits to ensure good social care do you?

I'm quite content to use banks that offer me decent products that they feel able to subsidise from their profitability, yes. That's not to say that large organisations shouldn't have some sort of social conscience, in the same generic way that most will support charities and aim to be environmentally conscious and so on, but if a bank holding my money chose to absorb the cost of all fraudulent activity then I would indeed move my funds elsewhere.

peterbaker wrote: »

You'd rather your bank divest itself of all that risk back onto the anonymous customers, right?

As above, I don't see it as the bank's risk in the first place so don't see it as the bank divesting it back to customers, it's with the customers in the first place and the bank isn't taking it on.

peterbaker wrote: »

I always have an open mind

Er....

peterbaker wrote: »

the sheer scale of the cockup which is Brexit

[...]

the bloody silly levels Brexiteers go (like lemmings to the cliff) to remind us that promises have to be kept!

:rotfl:

Shakin_Steve

The irresistible force meets the immovable object.