Hacker News

points by hypercube33 1 day ago | 0 comments

Why would banks be motivated to care? People just give them money as a business model. Up until recently, Wells Fargo didnt have case sensitive passwords even, because no pressure to do anything about that.

To bring it around - the Non-Google android user base is small enough right now that there is no motivation for them to spend money to make their verification/validation stuff work on any non-mainstream platforms.

[–] Betelbuddy 1 day ago

>> People just give them money as a business model.

You dont actually give them money...you loan them money when you do a deposit. That is why they pay you interest, and that comes with the risk of loans to another party.

A little detail they are happy to omit and they are happy to let people talk about: "I have money in the bank", that you of course ...dont have.

[–] zdragnar 1 day ago

At least in the US most banks are FDIC insured so your first $250k or so in deposits are secured by the government.

There's no real risk involved.

[–] drknownuffin 1 day ago

Incorrect-ish. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(f)(1) states that payment shall be made by the FDIC "as soon as possible," but as my sister-the-lawyer has always been at pains to point out to me, the most up-to-date specific language is from 2016's 81 Federal Register 87734, 87735, section B, which explicitly states that they "[do] not specify a time period for paying insured depositors." In other words, if it's a tiny bank failure you might get lucky and get made whole in a few business days, but if it's something larger, they can choose to meet their regulatory obligations over the course of decades - which is very much real risk.

[–] zdragnar 1 day ago

Most banks also don't have cash on hand if you want to go in and walk back out the door with a large life savings. The fact that large sums are not instantly liquid isn't especially worrysome.

It'll be a hardship if a bank does liquidate and the FDIC takes some time to reimburse everyone involved, but that's better than not getting anything at all.

[–] wing-_-nuts 1 day ago

I mean, I get it, but that would destroy any credibility of the insurance, and would undermine the whole point of the system.

I trust the FDIC to be far more johnny on the spot to resolve a liquidity issue than I do any private entity

[–] Betelbuddy 1 day ago

The existence of the FDIC is in itself, the proof there is risk involved :-)

As of June 2026, the FDIC had approximately $161 billion in its insurance fund against...drum roll... $10.8 trillion in insured deposits.

Good luck calling on your insurance on a systemic bank crisis....

[–] zdragnar 1 day ago

Even when the current funds available are insufficient, it can borrow from the federal government or issue debt to cover the insured deposits.

A situation which calls that borrowing capability into question would mean the economy is so bad the dollar is worthless.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

This particular insurer is unlike others because it can ultimately edit entries in a database whenever it wants. As long as you are part of the group that is considered worth editing the database for, such as a depositor at one of the too-big-to-fail banks, then you have nothing to worry about.

[–] throw0101c 1 day ago

> At least in the US most banks are FDIC insured so your first $250k

More if you're in Silicon Valley… semi-/s

[–] elictronic 1 day ago

Ehhhh, I'll take a law over begging and praying.

[–] throw0101c 1 day ago

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Ban...

[–] cowlevel 1 day ago

The interest rate banks pay you has been 0% since before covid

[–] jagraff 1 day ago

That's definitely not universally true; my US bank pays 3.2% interest on savings

[–] abighamb 1 day ago

And what is inflation?

[–] ImPostingOnHN 1 day ago

A general, continuous increase in the overall price level of goods and services in an economy over time.

Not really related to the discussion here though, since we were determining whether the interest rate is zero.

[–] xp84 1 day ago

But if they pay you roughly the inflation rate as interest, doesn’t that mean the use of your money is roughly free to them?

[–] ImPostingOnHN 1 day ago

Yes, and alternatively you could invest your money in whatever they'd invest it in, and capture more of your money's value. You could even invest in risky things like stocks with your money, whereas they can't (with your money).

[–] jachee 1 day ago

Any interest rate that is equal to or less than inflation is functionally zero (or less).

[–] ImPostingOnHN 1 day ago

That is also true.

[–] TFNA 1 day ago

This is a thread about a EU bank, and banks in the EU both have some standard interest rate on savings accounts, and moreover might offer time-restricted savings accounts with an even higher rate. That said, they track poorly with inflation compared to actual investment.

[–] louthy 1 day ago

I get 4% (instant access savings account with Revolut, UK)

[–] wtch98 1 day ago

My bank in the uk pays me 3%

[–] Betelbuddy 1 day ago

Zero is also a number, although not all Mathematicians accept that. 0% interest does not change the essence of the monetary relationship with your bank, or the risk profile.

[–] tekla 1 day ago

Ally has been 2% from before Covid and currently is at 3.2%

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

I have been able to easily find a US bank that pays roughly SOFR minus 25 basis points for FDIC insured savings accounts, even before 2020.

[–] sidewndr46 1 day ago

isnt it the opposite in parts of the EU? you pay interest on the deposit

[–] cowsandmilk 1 day ago

I don’t know of any bank that hides the fact they lend out money. Most pretty actively advertise it.

[–] tharkun__ 1 day ago

Technically true I suppose. But go ask the average person on the street where the bank gets the money they lend people for mortgages and cars and such and I guarantee you the number of people that make that connection is going to be much much smaller than you seem to want to suggest.

[–] drdec 1 day ago

It doesn't actually work the way it's portrayed in It's a Wonderful Life. The banks don't use depositor money to make loans. I suspect you will think what they actually do is even worse. Look into fractional reserve banking.

[–] tharkun__ 1 day ago

Never seen that movie but did watch a documentary ages ago about fractional reserve banking yes.

The bank still uses the deposit money in that system. You are right to point out those same people on the street I mentioned would freak out even more if they knew that banks essentially lend out more than we deposited and also that they might sell your debt and all that jazz (I bet most people either never understood what happened in 2008 or forgot already other than a vague "yeah mortgage crisis")

[–] Betelbuddy 1 day ago

>> I don’t know of any bank that hides the fact they lend out money.

Absolutely true. They question here is how many announce they are borrowing from you :-)

[–] BobaFloutist 1 day ago

Why else would they be paying us interest for the privilege of providing us with banking services? I know that the real answer is because the government tells them they have to (do both, provide banking services and pay interest) because we've decided it's a social good to provide people with savings accounts and incentivize them to use them, but anyone that knows that knows how banks work.

Why do people who don't know how banks work think they get paid interest on their savings?

[–] parineum 1 day ago

This is like those articles that say, "[entity] quietly [doing totally normal thing]" to frame it like it's some devious thing.

That's what banks do. It's not a secret. Any cursory understanding of banking gives you that information.

[–] msla 1 day ago

Well, you're probably going to be very disappointed when you learn how money works in general these days.

Hint: Gold has no more to do with it than any other commodity does. Ditto with petroleum.

[–] doikor 1 day ago

> Why would banks be motivated to care?

Because courts have made them pay the curtomer their losses when the customer (not the bank) was scammed/hacked/etc.

[–] pc86 1 day ago

And you don't think that plays some part in all these arcane security requirements that basically amount to "you're doing something a little weird so we're just going to block you rather than support it"?

[–] mschuster91 1 day ago

> Why would banks be motivated to care?

Unfortunately, banks can be held liable for customers getting scammed. Even if they win in the end, they have to make the customer whole first no matter what [1].

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/verbraucher/eugh-konto-...

[–] 6510 1 day ago

They are breaking the law, that should be motivation enough. That the number of non android non ios users is small shouldn't be relevant. The locked down android and apple devices are like virtual US soil. The obligation should be to service all EU citizens rather than a sub set.

[–] mixdup 1 day ago

Banks are motivated to care, but in the direction they currently do. They can be on the hook for making up losses. Whether you as an ultra leet hax0r can run rooted/jailbroken devices without getting owned, they are worried about your non-leet parents doing the same and having their retirement accounts drained by North Korea. I know it sounds far fetched, but it is a plausible scenario that I heard recently

[–] xp84 1 day ago

The same banks that typically embrace the 3 biggest signs of security stupidity:

- max length of passwords (not talking about lengths that would pose a DoS threat, talking limits like 20 characters)

- incredibly constrained character set for passwords (“your password can’t contain a quotation mark, only alphanumeric and these specific 10 punctuation marks”)

- “security” questions (can we just ban these already? Knowing that my childhood dog’s name was Bingo should NOT give you the ability to change my brokerage password.)