• Severity One (cs)

    Ah, the take-over of ABN AMRO by Barclays. £14m was definitely the least of their problems.

  • Stefan den Hartog (unregistered)

    Yet another Access story...

    Captcha: vindico - must be Italian for vertigo

  • Captain Derp (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    Ah, the take-over of ABN AMRO by Barclays. £14m was definitely the least of their problems.

    It was actually RBS. Their IT is legendary for being a trainwreck.

    Barclays ran away from the deal because Fred Goodwin's cavalier attitude scared them, then look how well that turned out for RBS :-)

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    Ah, the good old days, before proof-of-work public ledgers.

  • ubersoldat (cs)

    I've worked in two banks already and... Is there any sane one out there? Actually, I don't care, I'll never work in a bank again (unless they pay me a shit load of money of course).

  • JC (unregistered) in reply to ubersoldat
    ubersoldat:
    I've worked in two banks already and... Is there any sane one out there? Actually, I don't care, I'll never work in a bank again (unless they pay me a shit load of money of course).

    That's why banks pay lots of money, because they're all crazy.

  • Doug (unregistered)

    Was Karel a robot?

  • RBSEscapee (unregistered)

    As veteran of quite a few tours of duty on the RBS it systems and having had to deal with fallout from the ABN AMRO 'merge', i'm just surprised that there isn't any mention of Excel in this story. Access would have been a welcome upgrade to some of those 'systems'.

    Captcha: appellatio - Suckjob from a mac fanboi

  • Mo6eB (cs) in reply to JC
    JC:
    ubersoldat:
    I've worked in two banks already and... Is there any sane one out there? Actually, I don't care, I'll never work in a bank again (unless they pay me a shit load of money of course).

    That's why banks pay lots of money, because they're all crazy.

    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.

  • Quango (cs)

    The old management adage about mergers applies:

    "You don't stick two turkeys together and make an eagle"

  • pebkac (unregistered)

    I've worked for another Dutch bank on both a merger and a split, and I can't imagine this happening there. Though we did have a dedicated MS Access programmer on staff...

    Captcha: Consequat, I shudder to think of them.

  • trololo (unregistered)

    Been there, Done that.

    Unicredit for the win.

    Captcha: tation (TEMPtation to work in a bank? Not anymore)

  • lucidfox (cs) in reply to Mo6eB
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.
  • toon (cs)

    This, my friends, is what we call a "Classic WTF".

  • trololo (unregistered) in reply to toon
    toon:
    This, my friends, is what we call a "Classic WTF".

    Programmers don't have friends.....

  • lucidfox (cs)

    TRWTF is Access, isn't it? Well, and BizTalk.

    TRRWTF is comments in Dutch. Bijna alle Nederlanders kunnen Engels spreken, geloof ik?

  • Severity One (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    TRRWTF is comments in Dutch. Bijna alle Nederlanders kunnen Engels spreken, geloof ik?
    You'd be surprised how many people there are in the world whose first language isn't English.

    In the end, it comes down to be understandable. Banks are a bit more traditional, and would more likely stick to Dutch. Dutch is already replete with English expressions (which the German ironically call 'Neudeutsch').

  • xaade (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.

    So if a woman made that comment about men, (Because I've heard something of the like.) then it's what? A regular comment?

    Women say they don't need men. So men say, why have a relationship for anything more than sex.

  • lucidfox (cs) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    Women say [who?] they don't need men. [citation needed]
    Fixed
  • Severity One (cs) in reply to Captain Derp
    Captain Derp:
    Severity One:
    Ah, the take-over of ABN AMRO by Barclays. £14m was definitely the least of their problems.

    It was actually RBS.

    Yes, I thought it was, but I spotted 'Barclays' when scanning the Wikipedia article and thought my memory was failing me. Which happens more and more often as I grow older...

    I still have a Belgian (Flemish) magazine somewhere, which was gloating over the "successful" takeover of ABN AMRO by the Belgian-Dutch Fortis group (plus RBS and Santander). The current situation is that Fortis Netherlands has been absorbed into ABM AMRO, that the Dutch state has bought that bank, and that the Belgian part met a similar fate, but then with BNP Paribas as the owner.

  • Pete (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that the banks have IT this bad, and I trust them with my money.

    Time to stuff the mattress, methinks!

  • Fredegar (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox

    It may be sexist, but it's true. In 3 out of 3 instances I've tried, the crazy woman sex was so good that it was worth the risk. Be kind and be honest (just like you should in all relationships) but also hide the sharps before you go to sleep.

  • Anom nom nom (unregistered) in reply to Captain Derp

    Same happened here, but it was Santander who acquired ABN.

    Since then, each hour they run a random() to decide if the home banking is gonna be available or not.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Did you know that "Reservekopie" is Dutch for unicorns?

  • It's Pat (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.
    It says "crazy women". It does not say all women are crazy, which would be sexist.
  • operagost (cs) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    lucidfox:
    TRRWTF is comments in Dutch. Bijna alle Nederlanders kunnen Engels spreken, geloof ik?
    You'd be surprised how many people there are in the world whose first language isn't English.
    You'd be surprised at how many people there are in the world who don't get jokes, nor do they think logically.
  • Smitty (cs) in reply to Fredegar
    Fredegar:
    It may be sexist, but it's true. In 3 out of 3 instances I've tried, the crazy woman sex was so good that it was worth the risk. Be kind and be honest (just like you should in all relationships) but also hide the sharps before you go to sleep.

    QFT.

  • operagost (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    xaade:
    Women say [1] they don't need men.
    Fixed
    [1] "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." - Irina Dunn, oft quoted by Gloria Steinem Uber-fixed
  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.

    Random, maybe, but sexist? How?

  • Robin (unregistered)

    What were dey schmoking dere in de Nedderlands?

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.

    So if a woman made that comment about men, (Because I've heard something of the like.) then it's what? A regular comment?

    Women say they don't need men. So men say, why have a relationship for anything more than sex.

    A sexist comment about men would still be a sexist comment. Same rules apply to all.

  • xaade (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    Comment held for moderation.
  • xaade (unregistered) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    xaade:
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.

    So if a woman made that comment about men, (Because I've heard something of the like.) then it's what? A regular comment?

    Women say they don't need men. So men say, why have a relationship for anything more than sex.

    A sexist comment about men would still be a sexist comment. Same rules apply to all.

    Geez. So, in order to justify PC sexism (and I'm not talking about being sexually harassed at work), you're going to suggest that such a statement as above, if reversed to apply to men, should be offensive to men to the point where they feel unequally treated and deserve an apology.

    What the hell happened to men?

  • xaade (unregistered) in reply to It's Pat
    It's Pat:
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.
    It says "crazy women". It does not say all women are crazy, which would be sexist.

    The PC comment would be: It's like crazy people. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.

    But to place in context. I'm a man who is sexually attracted only to men (otherwise known as a male heterosexual). So, my only experience with this statement is with women.

    So fair warning, if you are a woman seeking a crazy man due the above statement, I have no experience and you may put yourself in jeopardy, but probably not since sexes are equal, you have a 50-50 chance in defeating said crazy male in combat should the situation turn for the worst.

    So, as far as crazy males go, YMMV.

  • xaade (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    ... I'm a man who is sexually attracted only to women (otherwise known as a male heterosexual)...
    Error
  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    Geez. So, in order to justify PC sexism (and I'm not talking about being sexually harassed at work), you're going to suggest that such a statement as above, if reversed to apply to men, should be offensive to men to the point where they feel unequally treated and deserve an apology.

    What the hell happened to men?

    "you're going to suggest...should be offensive to men to the point that..."? I don't recall suggesting anything like that! Who said anything about justifying anything?

    Cease this frivolous rant! And give me moar examples of failing financial systems!

    End Transmission

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    A sexist comment about men would still be a sexist comment. Same rules apply to all.

    Sure, fine, but where's the sexist comment?

  • Matt (unregistered) in reply to Doug

    Nope. Japanese Superman.

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to Pete
    Pete:
    TRWTF is that the banks have IT this bad, and I trust them with my money.

    Time to stuff the mattress, methinks!

    As someone who worked for banks and brokerages for more than 20 years, I can personally vouch for this being more typical than atypical. Program trading run amok. People entering trades with actual numbers of shares, instead of entering the quantity in millions. Somebody configuring a trade router incorrectly and your executions get credited to my account (multiplied across millions of customers).

    It all gets straightened out in the end; it just comes off the top (profits).

  • katastrofa (unregistered) in reply to trololo
    trololo:
    Been there, Done that.

    Unicredit for the win.

    Captcha: tation (TEMPtation to work in a bank? Not anymore)

    Unicredit is in its own special league of crazy. It's not one bank, it's not two banks, it's give or take FIVE banks sharing a CEO and precious little else.

  • katastrofa (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    xaade:
    ... I'm a man who is sexually attracted only to women (otherwise known as a male heterosexual)...
    Error

    AKA Freudians slip.

  • rabid capitalist (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    It all gets straightened out in the end; bankers get the profits, taxpayers get the bill.
    FTFY.
  • cellocgw (cs) in reply to Pete
    Pete:
    TRWTF is that the banks have IT this bad, and I trust them with my money.

    Time to stuff the mattress, methinks!

    TRWTF is that banks quite deliberately steal a hundred times that puny 14million and nobody lifts a finger to stop them. They've been collaborating to fix the interbank loan rates, for example; or you could look up the "too big to prosecute" clusterfuck from the current administration's Justice Dept in just the last year.

  • Steve The Cynic (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Pete:
    TRWTF is that the banks have IT this bad, and I trust them with my money.

    Time to stuff the mattress, methinks!

    As someone who worked for banks and brokerages for more than 20 years, I can personally vouch for this being more typical than atypical. Program trading run amok. People entering trades with actual numbers of shares, instead of entering the quantity in millions. Somebody configuring a trade router incorrectly and your executions get credited to my account (multiplied across millions of customers).

    It all gets straightened out in the end; it just comes off the top (profits).

    Don't forget the mess when a trader in Tokyo swapped number of shares and price in yen on a sell order.

    So instead of selling one share for 646,000 yen ($6460 or a number of similar size), he tried to sell 646,000 shares at one yen each. There was then a cascading series of WTFs that nearly broke the brokerage where the fumble-fingered trader worked:

    1. The brokerage's own systems allowed an order to be sent for a price that far away from the true price.
    2. The exchange accepted the order with a price that far away from the true price.
    3. The exchange accepted an order that was trying to sell 646 thousand shares in a company that had only issued 42 thousand.

    Yes, folks, the order represented about 15 times as many shares as existed, for a trivial price, and all the systems accepted it.(*)

    (*) I may have the 15 and the 42 backwards.

    And there was the day that a Chinese bank IPOed. Nothing remarkable there, you might say. The Chinese had set the price so that it would be feasible for the typical man on the street to buy some, which meant there were a lot of shares issued. So many, in fact, that you could tell which information systems world-wide used 32 bit integers for daily trading volume. (At the end of the day, the total volume traded topped out at around 14 billion shares.)

    And the trader in Taipei who added enough zeroes to the quantities a basket order that she moved, with just one click of the "Send Order" button, the Taipei index by one percent, all by herself.

    ** All this during a time when I worked in the London office of a major financial information provider.

  • chubertdev (cs)

    Worse things could happen, such as typing a 'b' instead of an 'm'

  • neminem (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Tom (unregistered) in reply to ubersoldat
    ubersoldat:
    I've worked in two banks already and... Is there any sane one out there? Actually, I don't care, I'll never work in a bank again (unless they pay me a shit load of money of course).

    In various guises I've worked in two, and with government regulators, and with real estate entities in various forms (from sales to insurance to mortgages to recordation), and with a couple investment houses.

    They're all cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

  • Soviut (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    Mo6eB:
    It's like crazy women. The crazy-awesome sex makes the temporary relationship worth it.
    Ah, it just isn't TDWTF without a random sexist comment.

    So you're saying that temporary relationships or relationships of convenience are sexist? Or stating that relationships with unstable people are prone to failure is sexist? Or that finding a positive aspect of said relationships is sexist?

  • Joe Privacy (unregistered) in reply to Quango

    Best quote ever.

  • You're mom (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    Ah, the good old days, before proof-of-work public ledgers.
    Ah, the bad old proof-of-work days before proof-of-stake was invented.

Leave a comment on “The Accounts were Pounded”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article