Bank Robbing a Terrible Business, Statistically

isoloisti writes "Three UK economists got access to national data on bank robberies. The conclusion is that robbing banks pays, but not very much. Average take is about $19k per person per robbery. But, there's a 20% chance of being caught per raid. To make an average income, a robber needs to do two jobs per year, and has greater than 50% chance to be in the slammer after 2 years."

Comments

Stupid thieves

[MRe_nl]

Banking, on the other hand...

Re:Stupid thieves

[jxander]

Give a person a gun, and the can rob a bank

Give a person a bank, and the can rob a country.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Svippy]

You're twice the the he ever was!

Re:Stupid thieves

[Shivetya]

Give them a political office and they can rob both.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Give a person a bank, and the can rob a country.

Absolutely, when there is no one watching what you are doing and the regulations are off the rails...it makes robbing a countryand its people so easy.

Just loan on the front and bet against those loans on the back...then ask for a bailout when things come crashing down (which banks knew would happen) and reward your board with big bonuses courtesy of the tax payers you already robbed...isn't double dipping great...especially against the middle class and poor.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Bigby]

Give them a political office, and they can accept money from the bank ...so the bank can legally rob a country

Re:Stupid thieves

[Z00L00K]

Realize that today a lot of banks don't handle the physical money - they only handle digital money, so being a bank robber is soon futile.

To get cash you need to stand in the ATM queue.

The downside is that robbing a supermarket can give a better payoff.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Ellis D. Tripp]

"Which is the greater crime, to rob a bank or to own one?" --Bertold Brecht

Re:Stupid thieves

[bananaquackmoo]

whoosh!

Re:Stupid thieves

[lcam]

>> Give a person a bank, and the can rob a country.

If you look at the USC 1-201 (4) a bank is "means any person engaged in the business of Banking."

If you understand banking as the holding and trading of notes or other instruments, we are all banks. And since we most often trade notes or instruments that are issued or backed by the Federal Reserve Bank, our banks are technically all subsidiaries of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Has anyone here ever tried exchanging notes or instruments that are of your own creation? Most of you have, though you might not have noticed. I am not talking about mocking something up to appear as something it is not, that is fraud.

The point being, the power a bank has is mostly just our faith that their is something of real value the banks have that we want. The real power is in the ability to reach out and connect with people.

Re:Stupid thieves

[FatdogHaiku]

Give them a political office and they can rob both.

And get paid to do it...
and get medical benefits...
and retirement!

Re:Stupid thieves

[spazdor]

this is too earnestly true to read as proper sarcasm.

i need a drink.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Mister Whirly]

And where do you think the cash in ATMs come from? Hint:the bank. Banks still handle plenty of physical money, just not the amounts they used to. They may not have hundreds of thousands in cash on hand, but will certainly have more than a supermarket. How many customers at a supermarket pay cash?

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

The answer is to rob a bank of-course.

Owning a bank is a business, like any other, except when government gets involved, guarantees the debt that is taken (FDIC), guarantees the credit and loans that are given out (FHA, F&F), creates environment where giving out fake loans is profitable (Fed, IRS, FHA, F&F, FDIC, HUD, all of this).

Banks are businesses, saying that a business is 'crime' is strange at least, since people use them voluntarily (until again, gov't makes it impossible not to use one).

The true questions should be: "which is a greater crime, to rob a bank or to rob the country to subsidise a bank?"

Re:Stupid thieves

[dmt0]

except when government gets involved...

You mean this government???

Re:Stupid thieves

[CSMoran]

saying that a business is 'crime' is strange at least, since people use them voluntarily

People get into Ponzi schemes voluntarily too. I don't think this is a good argument.

Re:Stupid thieves

[dmt0]

Or here, even better:
What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

Re:Stupid thieves

[aaarrrgggh]

No, the cash in an ATM does not come from the bank. It comes from a cash vault at a central depository in secured canisters via an armored car. Nobody at the branch (including the armored car delivery guy) physically touches any of the cash that goes into the ATM. The people at the depository are guarded by guns; robbing a depository would be a bit more difficult than robbing the cash from a drawer at a branch bank.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Ponzi schemes are FRAUD. Nice try.

Re:Stupid thieves

[sveinb]

> they only handle digital money, so being a bank robber is soon futile.

If only there was a way to rob digital money...

Re:Stupid thieves

[thomthom]

Here in Norway it's getting more and more common to have checkout-points where the machine dispenses the money, no human got access to it except the security guard that refills the machine when the time-lock allows it. If you want to rob somebody it better be their gold fillings.

Re:Stupid thieves

[SlippyToad]

Owning a bank is a business, like any other

No, it is not. A bank has power over an economy that no other institution can match.

saying that a business is 'crime' is strange at least,

LOL. Tell that to the drug dealers, oh, everywhere.

You are getting confused about "criminal" versus "illegal." Criminal is criminal, no matter the law. Illegal is when the law recognizes that something is criminal. But many businesses are actively criminal in that they steal from their customers, and actively harm their communities. The law has simply been bought to permit them to behave this way. Doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

No, it is not. A bank has power over an economy that no other institution can match.

- not in a free market economy. In a gov't controlled fake money, fake credit, fake insurance economy, with huge impossible to service debts - yes.

In a free market economy? Absolutely not, a bank is just another business - storing people's deposits that are not to be loaned out and making loans with deposits that can be loaned out, where the client of the bank is informed that his deposit is partially loaned out but he is making some interest on it. And of-course in case of making loans without gov't involvement, banks do require sufficient collateral.

My point is that a business that satisfies consumer demand (and I did put the word VOLUNTARY there, by the way), is not a crime.

Of-course I am not saying that a business of murdering people for example is not a crime, that is a criminal offence, I thought people don't need me to spell things out that precisely, but given this gem:

LOL. Tell that to the drug dealers, oh, everywhere.

, apparently they do.

And by the way, I don't see anything wrong with drug dealers, it's not the drug dealers that are the problem, it's the government there as well, because the government is stealing one of the fundamental rights of people - property right, by declaring drugs illegal.

How is that a property right? Well, first of all growing and possessing drugs is like any other property.

Secondly, property includes your body, your eyes, your kidneys, your brain, etc. Either you own them or you don't, and when gov't tells you that you can't put something into your body yourself voluntarily, they are also stealing your property rights.

It's the government that is immoral in all of these cases, banking or drugs, and it's the government that causes the criminality surrounding these activities.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the bankers doing the "inside jobs" where Obama
pays them to do it, instead of putting them in jail?

Re:Stupid thieves

[Hatta]

My point is that a business that satisfies consumer demand (and I did put the word VOLUNTARY there, by the way), is not a crime.

What consumer demanded securities based on loans that were known to be over 90% fraudulent?

Banking doesn't have to be a criminal enterprise, but as long as they're allowed to get away with stuff like that, it will be.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Hatta]

Also, there's nothing voluntary about losing your job because your employer can't get a short term loan to cover your paycheck because their bank didn't have enough cash in reserve.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on I'm sure if you just ask nicely the people at the depository will give you that money.

Why does society always have the reflex of resorting to violence to get why they need? Seriously, try asking, you might be surprised!

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

Didn't you read what I wrote?

It's a gov't system that created this problem. Gov't provides fake banking insurance - FDIC. There are no assets there, it's all 'guaranteed' with printed money or at best with taxes (which is also ridiculous, it's redistribution of wealth from some people to others because why? Gov't isn't supposed to backstop bad business behaviour, a bank loses money, a car company goes bust, whatever, it's a private matter).

Gov't destroys the currency by printing the shit out of it, its value drops, savings are destroyed, investments are moved out and nobody knows where to park their money and how to have any return on them, and this creates the bubbles in assets, like the one that was created by the Fed before the 1921 depression, the one that was created by the Fed starting from 1925, buying bad UK debt and propping up UK pound (combined with Hoover's and FDR's actions, this caused the Great Depression, which only ended as the war ended and gov't again, cut spending by near 70% and taxes by 30%).

The dollar and credit bubble that was inflated by the Fed through the fifties and the sixties and thus Nixon defaulting on the gold dollar, causing the stagflation of 1970s, which only ended as Paul Volcker set interest rates at 21.5%, finally beating inflation rate enough so people moved their value from gold to bonds and markets again, so gold went up from 35 to about 300, getting all the way up to 800 in the way.

Greenspan and his 'put', that propped up the stock market and created the bubble there, while Clinton and Rubin put all the deficits onto the debt tab (so many believe that Clinton had no deficits, they are blind to the fact that he increased the debt year to year, having no deficits means being able to decrease the debts or at least not to grow them). Then Bernanke pushed rates even lower, all the way down to 0 actually, while FHA and F&F were guaranteeing ridiculously terrible mortgages left right and centre.

You think anything changed from the time that F&F and Fed created this bubble to the current time? Yeah, it's not F&F today, it's mostly FHA that guarantees the bad debts and Treasury today guarantees the Fed!!!!! Yeah, Fed can't go broke, all of their liabilities are YOURS through the Treasury, that little gem was pushed through last year, did you know?

The gov't created one asset bubble after another, while using inflation to grow and to increase everything, from taxes and regulations to every department and to creating so many new departments and laws, that USA has completely overshadowed the former USSR and China together in terms of how many laws exist in everything.

The entire system is set up to create bubbles in assets and destroy savings and investment, while the Fed prints the money (gives out credit at fake interest rate), buys all new Treasuries, uses the banks as a proxy to buy Treasuries, does the 'currency swaps' so other central banks would buy Treasuries.

I didn't even get technical yet. Basically what I am saying is that this is done not by the banks, this is done by the government system and the banks are no more free market businesses than for example the FDA or SS or Medicare or dep't of energy or education are.

It's not that the banks are 'allowed to get away with stuff like that', it's that the system is set up in a way that it turns legitimate businesses into an extension of government criminal enterprise.

Re:Stupid thieves

[istartedi]

Give them a political office, and they can accept money from the bank ...so the bank can legally rob a country

Rob a country, and the cities fall into ruins, leaving the people with no hope, no education, and driving them to desperate acts such as robbing banks. The cycle is complete.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

"a cash vault at a central depository"

Sounds like a pretty fancy description of a "bank". Not all "banks" are branch offices open to the public. The main ones are where they keep the cash, but the vault is inside a "bank".

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

Again, there is nothing 'free market' about the banks today. They are no more free market businesses than military contractors or TSA.

The reasons for why banks have no money to give out as loans is because banks are used as proxies by the Fed to purchase Treasury debt, this is a giant ponzi scheme that the gov't is running, and the Fed pushes interest rates down by buying up Treasury debt. The interest rates that the MARKET would set today are very high, they are probably in triple digits actually, definitely in high double digits.

It took Paul Volcker with this 21.5% interest rates hike to stop stagflation of the seventies, and that was at the time when USA still had production capacity and was not such a huge debtor as today. Today to stop the inflation and start giving proper return on the loans the interest rates would be at least double that, but I think they'd be even higher, which means that NO BUSINESS can get a legitimate loan.

--

Now to explain what a loan is, because I have a feeling you don't know (sorry). A loan is a way for somebody with some savings to make some money by investing into some form of business that will be able not only to pay the loan back, but also to give some return on top that beats the inflation and then something for profit.

There are properties of loans that need to be understood:

Loans are always risky, so there is a question always how much risk does a creditor take, will he get his money back? Will there be any money made? Will there be a loss? High risk requires high premium.

Loans can crowd each other out. Today almost all loans that banks make go towards government debt! Gov't crowds out all enterprise, gov't gets loans, that's because gov't is seeing as risk free, that's again, because there is a strong feeling that gov't WILL monetise the debt so it will return the nominal paper.

What business can compete with that type of a promise today, given that the banks are getting so much money basically free from the Fed and the real rate of inflation is 11 to 15% easily?

Almost no business can get a loan (if any at all), and the consumer loans are again, propped up by the fake government guarantee (fake, because it's not backed up by anything except the printing press).

In order for a legitimate loan to exist, somebody must save, somebody must under-consume and overproduce and save the difference. But in this high inflation environment nobody can save, all real investments and savings are elsewhere, either in productive economies of the world or are parked in commodities and real money (gold).

So how can a business get a loan - those are NOT government guaranteed, not even with fake money, and those HAVE to return something that is MUCH higher than the fake inflation numbers that are presented by the gov't. In fact the real interest rate has to be so huge, that no legitimate business can pay it in this environment, where people can only consume as long as they are given fake and or borrowed money.

Your employer cannot get a loan and if he needs it for the purposes you have describe, he is likely to go out of business within the next year or so.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Hatta]

Yes, because banks never collapsed before the FDIC. There were never any bubbles before the creation of the Fed.

If you actually look at history, the period between the great depression and the 1980s were among the least financially turbulent in history. We learned our lessons after the great depression, and that served us well for 50 years until "free market" types like yourself decided banks didn't need to be regulated.

Were there bubbles in the meantime? Yes, but they were far milder than they would have been otherwise.

Re:Stupid thieves

[scary_jeff]

Thanks for these interesting posts. Is there a book you would recommend that covers these issues in more detail? And perhaps a book that makes a reasonable attempt to counter some of these points? Cheers.

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

The period between 1947 and 1980? Well, there were about 15 years of monopoly on labour and capital that USA enjoyed, as the rest of the world was rebuilding their productive capacity and infrastructure, USA was selling into that market and collecting gold.

However you must have missed the 1970 to 1981 period, which was the result of the excesses that happened in the fifties and the sixties, with the space race and cold war and other wars, etc.

It's at the very least strange to hear that you are considering the lost decade of stagflation that USA suffered through 1970 to 1981 to be the 'least financially turbulent in history', given that USA actually DEFAULTED on the dollar in 1971 and had STAGFLATION - rising inflation and unemployment simultaneously, which must give Krugman a case of diarrhoea and constipation at the same time, as he tries to reconcile that problem in his Keynesian brain.

Looks like you are actually factually unfamiliar with the history, so what do you think you are going to accomplish making stupid comments?

As to bubbles that bursts that happened before - sure, because government was trying all sorts of tricks then too. Ever heard of the Continental? Ever heard of the "not worth a Continental"? Do you even know what that means?

In any case, a local bank run can't compare to the global collapse caused by the central banking and global type of government, and local bank runs only create a stronger banking system, because bad businesses do fail, but in case of central banking and global governments no monopoly is allowed to fail, and thus the entire system will fail.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Hatta]

Stagflation isn't a depression. Relative to the great depression, and the crisis we're in today, the 1970s were a speedbump. I'm not ignorant of our history, I just view it in context.

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

sure, I can recommend some stuff

(here is a video you can watch, a little example of what you can learn through online videos, it comes from this site, there is a good radio show that discusses economic situation daily here).

As to books, yeah, I have a list, here is some of the newer stuff:

How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes

The Real Crash

The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America

A Return to Common Sense

A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World's Greatest Market

GREENSPAN'S BUBBLES: THE AGE OF IGNORANCE AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

The Revolution: A Manifesto

Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes

Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets: Surviving the Public Spectacle in Finance and Politics

Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis

The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences, Cures , Revised and Updated

At the Crest of the Tidal Wave: A Forecast for the Great Bear Market

Conquer the Crash: You Can Survive and Prosper in a Deflationary Depression, Expanded and Updated Edition

Investme

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

Context? CONTEXT?

Saying this:

'least financially turbulent in history'

about the decade when the world has gone through the shock of Nixon's dollar default?

Context indeed.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Hatta]

Again, small potatoes compared to the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the numerous recessions that occured in the 1800s.

Re:Stupid thieves

[khallow]

Stagflation isn't a depression. Relative to the great depression, and the crisis we're in today, the 1970s were a speedbump.

There's no real definition of a depression. The 70s weren't even the worst recession of the post-war era prior to our current recession. That honor belongs to the 1957-1958 recession which probably would have been nearly as bad as the current one, but it had great leadership (particularly in the US). That's probably the biggest difference with current times.

What the 70s are notable for is being the high water mark for so much of the US economy. You can argue over whether stagflation is or isn't recession or depression, but it remains that the 70s mark the point at which the US economy was exposed to competitive economies elsewhere in the world and was to some degree found wanting. I consider the current mess just another feeble attempt to prop up US wages and economy without actually providing anything concrete to justify those goals.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Give them a political office, and they can accept money from the bank ...so the bank can legally rob a country

Rob a country, and the cities fall into ruins, leaving the people with no hope, no education, and driving them to desperate acts such as robbing banks. The cycle is complete.

Just like in the USA!!!

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

How many customers at a supermarket pay cash?

about 70%

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

I love suicidal individualist right-wing libertarians. Warms my heart.

Re:Stupid thieves

[chrismcb]

Bah... Just takes a couple of muscle cars and a big chain.

Re:Stupid thieves

[chrismcb]

You are getting confused about "criminal" versus "illegal." Criminal is criminal, no matter the law.

Sure, anyone can make up definition of words, and proclaim that is what the word means, but it doesn't. Criminal in fact means "a person who commits a crime" or 'relating to a crime". And a crime is an act punishable by law. While illegal is "forbidden by law." Both criminal and illegal have similar meanings. If something is criminal, it is illegal. Sure some people talk about crimes against humanity, that isn't against the law. But that is pushing the definition and talking about some sort of natural law (as opposed to the government law)
If a business are actively criminal, and you can prove it, then you can get them shut down. If they are stealing from their customers, they are doing something illegal. If they are harming the community, and it isn't illegal, well they aren't criminal. It may be wrong, it may be unethical. But it isn't criminal.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you say a good amount of stuff with which I disagree, but damned if we don't agree 100% on the bank situation, as well as the economic issues plaguing America. (And the fact that Krugman is a charlatan of the highest order. Reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb taught me that).

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Would like to exchange Lakota Dollars for USD.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Stormthirst]

And you think what the banks did wasn't fraud?

Re:Stupid thieves

[catmistake]

Secondly, property includes your body, your eyes, your kidneys, your brain, etc. Either you own them or you don't, and when gov't tells you that you can't put something into your body yourself voluntarily, they are also stealing your property rights.

Not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to point out that you are your body. You are your own possession, unless you subscribe to dualism. The seat of perception, the eyes, generally, is where people feel themselves being, but from the perspective of realism, your arms and hands, your legs, even your toes, are you (unless or until they, unfortunately I expect, become separate).

Re:Stupid thieves

[complete loony]

storing people's deposits that are not to be loaned out and making loans with deposits that can be loaned out, where the client of the bank is informed that his deposit is partially loaned out but he is making some interest on it

If banks actually worked that way, sure. But they really don't. Banks create a loan and a deposit *at the same time* through the magic of double entry book-keeping.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Give a person a gun, and the can rob a bank

Give a person a bank, and the can rob a country.

Best comment I've read all day!

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anne Thwacks]

Maybe in the USA, but here in London, I doubt it is even 7%

Re:Stupid thieves

[roman_mir]

As I repeated multiple times - there is no free market today, the banks are not normal businesses operating by the rules of free market, there are government regulations, fake insurances, etc., all of this maintains monopolies, prevents competition, prevents bad businesses from suffering normal market consequences, gives bank officials power to set the rules actually, that favour them, gives them free money from the Fed and a way to make nominal growth numbers by 'lending' back to the Treasury, etc.etc.

None of this is the free market in action, all of this is government criminality.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Sique]

And this is wrong exactly why?
If I take money here and put it there, then here there is less money than before and there is more money than before. That's why it is called a transaction.
Double bookkeeping tracks this, nothing more, nothing less. Your argument would be akin to a train time table, where it is bad if for every train not only the time it leaves is recorded, but also the time it arrives somewhere else.

I guess some people can't make a difference between money stored and money transferred, because both are called "money". But you shouldn't conflate them. It's analogous to energy and power. Power is energy transferred per time. They are not the same. There are systems with high power and low energy (say, lightning) and systems with high energy and low power (say an artificial lake).

Re:Stupid thieves

[flappinbooger]

Realize that today a lot of banks don't handle the physical money - they only handle digital money, so being a bank robber is soon futile.

To get cash you need to stand in the ATM queue.

The downside is that robbing a supermarket can give a better payoff.

You talking robbing the food or robbing the money?

Nowdays, it could go either way WRT "better payoff."

"This is a stickup - gimme all your doritos! NOW! And don't scrunch the bags or I'll shoot!"

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

...and thee shall rob thine country.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

Please be specific about the regulation that was "deregulated" that caused the financial crisis.

You can't, because your whole story is bullshit. Please keep the Elizabeth Warren nonsense off /.

Re:Stupid thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the cash in an ATM does not come from the bank. It comes from a cash vault at a central depository in secured canisters via an armored car. Nobody at the branch (including the armored car delivery guy) physically touches any of the cash that goes into the ATM. The people at the depository are guarded by guns; robbing a depository would be a bit more difficult than robbing the cash from a drawer at a branch bank.

I guess you never worked at a bank...I did for two years about 8 years ago and when we got a cash delivery (didn't matter if it was for the branch or for the ATM) we ran everything through a money counter to verify the amount before stocking the vault or ATM...and this was standard operating procedure for all of our branches in the Colorado region (the bank currently has over 9000 branches in the US according to Wikipedia, so not a small chain).

Give me all your money!

[realilskater]

I'm first does that mean I get more than $19k for this stick up?

Re:Give me all your money!

[zidium]

Looks like you missed being first by a few seconds, haus.

Re:Give me all your money!

[Anonymous Coward]

I give him credit for trying though. At least it's not one of those "clean my pc" adverts that have been trashing the comments.

Intelligence not a factor?

[garcia]

I RTFA but I didn't see any reference to the general intelligence of the robbers. From what I've always understood, intelligent bank robbers are generally not caught while those who just wandering into a bank with a paper sank and a finger gun end up getting busted quickly. You know, because they make it obvious who they are.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[couchslug]

Intelligent bank robbers get government bailouts, and don't go to PMITA prison.

Silly bank robbers use a mask and a gun, and have much worse outcomes.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real criminals use the force.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

They can't just slap a single probability on a type of crime like this.
There are so many varying factors in getting caught, intelligence being a huge game changer.

There are so many ways you could probably successively rob a bank, if even only some of it, that it goes without saying.
The reason most smart people don't is they are usually better than this and go legit.
Fear of being caught, in this case, is actually the stop sign for the rest of these people.
Then there is the small group, the ones that might actually go over the figures and say "okay, I have less than a 6% chance of being caught if I do this right, let's do this!"
Some might just laugh at the thought and go on with their day at the office.
Most robberies are morons who watched too many films and thought it was that easy.
Robbing is a dodgy business and stupidly stressful, more so than an office job at a high position.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

>intelligence

>paper sank
>sank

hahah what?

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Chris Burke]

They can't just slap a single probability on a type of crime like this.
There are so many varying factors in getting caught, intelligence being a huge game changer.

Of course you can, just like you can slap a single probability on the chances of getting cancer, even though there are many factors that affect and even dominate an individual's chances.

That's the way statistics work. They tell you the average, but any individual trial (whether in the sense of a bank robber's take or a roll of the dice) may fall far outside of the average.

Of course when talking human behavior you the individual have control over some of the factors so you shouldn't just go with the statistics like you would at Vegas. Which is what most criminals seeing this statistic will do -- tell themselves that they are above average and can make bank robbery pay off. Of course they aren't going to get caught. They're too smart.

And then 20% of them do and become another statistic.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Presence2]

My suspicion is that the white collar or "intelligent" robberies are not included in the statistical sampling the authors were allowed to draw upon. Things like electronic fraud, employee skimming, loan fraud, etc - which net the culprits millions and are not made public because they impune upon the bank's integrity far more then some guy with a gun in his pocket.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[HapSlappy_2222]

This is why including a standard deviation is just as important as a mean when quoting a statistic. It's also nice to know specific outliers, for reference purposes.

In this case, the stats say the average robber is caught 19% of the time. Does this mean that all robbers get caught 19% of the time? Maybe it means that the vast majority of robbers people are caught 99% if the time, and there's one really slick cat (I'm thinking the cat burglar guy from the Simpsons; that guy was a shifty shifter, f'reals) who's still rollin along, taking ass and kicking bank, that brings the average down?

No way to know with just the mean, so it's kind of a worthless number all by itself. The mode, you say? That's a delicious way to have a la pie.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[spazdor]

This comment is such delicious transpositionbeep.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[icebike]

Most robberies are morons who watched too many films and thought it was that easy.

Unfortunately it is in fact pretty easy. Probably easier in the US than in the UK. (small fish, bigger pond). But the take is much smaller.

With 20% chance of getting caught (in the UIK), and only two robberies needed per year to make a living wage, it would seem that anyone taking half a year to plan a job would stand nearly zero percent chance of getting caught, and would be able to time it such that their average take would be substantially higher than 19k. Parlay your experience into one robbery per calendar quarter and you might be able to live fairly well, as long as you move around the country.

In the US, oddly, the take per robbery is much smaller than the 19K mentioned in the British study. The average haul, $7,732 in 2009 and $7,663 in 2010.

Further, the chance of getting caught is much higher in the US. In fact, the clearance rate for bank robbery is among the highest of all crimes—nearly 60 percent.

However, it also appears that in the US only in 22% of cases is there actually any money recovered (see first link). This suggests that every robber they catch "clears" multiple bank robberies, but only after significant amounts of money is spent, which implies the average robber may well get away with it for some time before getting sloppy enough to get caught.

A lot of interesting info is at the Center for Problem Oriented Policing site: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_banks/print/

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[HapSlappy_2222]

I really hope you mean my "taking ass and kicking bank" phrase instead of that I got my statistical terms backwards. The former was intentional; the latter would just be embarrassing. I'll also assume there's a swear behind your beep, because I'm feeling pretty down today. I'm very glad you agree that Pie a la Mode is tasty though!

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[spazdor]

I WILL PIE ALL OF YOUR EATS, GOOD SIR.

And my beep was a beep of delight. Ain't no profanity up in here.

Feel up instead! You're clever and you deserve it. :D

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[aaarrrgggh]

From what I have seen, it all comes down to the frequency with which you attempt to do it. There was someone in LA that was hitting a bank or two every week that wasn't caught until their 9th attempt.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

One out of two humans has a uterus. Therefore any man has a 50% probability of having a uterus.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[BForrester]

You know why else averages are deceptive? With an average $19K take per person, it would appear that a mastermind could enormously increase the haul by bringing more underlings.

1000 of my friends and associates are going to knock off the corner bank tonight. I'm organizing the party, and will take a modest 10% administrative cut of the net instead of my regular share. That's nearly two million. More if I can make some additional friends by tonight.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[briniel]

Best way to rob a bank? Get a job at one and slack. If you pick a large enough one you can easily go years without doing a thing and sitting in a cube is slightly better than jail since you get to go home at night. Say you last 2 yrs @ 50k per year... that's 100k before taxes, robbing a bank of a similar amount by force will get you more than 2 yrs and there won't be internet in your cell.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Chris Burke]

And my beep was a beep of delight. Ain't no profanity up in here.

Feel up instead! You're clever and you deserve it. :D

I'm not sure what to make of this. All I can think of is that HapSlappy is being propositioned by a robot.

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Chris Burke]

See, this is why conditional probability is important. The odds are conditional on what you know. Odds a random human has a uterus? 50%. Odds a random human has a uterus given that they are a male? 15%

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[spazdor]

*EXPERMINATE*
*EXPERMINATE*

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[jackbird]

Say what now?

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Roachie]

+5 Genius

Re:Intelligence not a factor?

[Chris Burke]

Hold on, let me check my notes.

Everyone already knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're doing any bank robbing it only pays if you're working for the bank.

If you're going to steal, steal big. The punishment is often nonexistent, and at worst you end up in a nice minimum security facility.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Sav1or]

Or pull an office space style robbery. I've always wanted to do that.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean Superman 3 style?

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[v1]

If you're going to steal, steal big. The punishment is often nonexistent, and at worst you end up in a nice minimum security facility.

Yep. I recall a TV interview with I believe an ex-FBI agent discussing the "does crime pay?" topic. His answer was short and simple. "If you're going to do it, do it once and do it big." The smart criminals that do one and only one big job that sets them for life or years are rarely caught. It's the smaller-time ones that keep going back for more that end up getting caught.

Even at 20% odds, it probably makes sense. If you have a 80% chance of being set for life, vs a 20% chance of being locked up for a few years, it's easy to see where those with an obviously poor future consider crime.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[mfnickster]

Not if you're stealing a red stapler.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Millennium]

Some generations hence, people will tell stories to children where the mean, greedy third little pig is the villain because he did not build houses for the other two little pigs and the wolf.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[PCM2]

Some generations hence, people will tell stories to children where the mean, greedy third little pig is the villain because he did not build houses for the other two little pigs and the wolf.

I think Ayn Rand already wrote that fairy tale. The difference was that when she tried it, it was over 1,000 pages long.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, robbing a bank doesn't get you much.

If you want cash, the money is in an end-of-day armored car robbery. There's a high risk, and a good chance you're going to have to kill a few people, but the payoff can be millions. You're going to need a lot of surveillance time to find the routes, a biggish truck with a Faraday cage in case there's any tracking devices (and the same thing in your warehouse when you unload), and a good way to launder large quantities of cash. Wouldn't hurt to have several good radio jammers positioned, both for the armored car frequencies and the police frequencies, and that won't jam whatever you're using to talk to your partners. Might even have a few timed charges on the local police antenna towers. Probably need a crew of 4-5, at least 2 to deal with the driver and guard, one getaway driver and at least one surveillance guy. Remember, they're probably wearing body armor, so go for the headshot or if you're a great shot and don't want to kill, take out their shooting arm and legs, in that order.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[HapSlappy_2222]

Even if you get caught, if it's a considered high-value white-collar you get a long term country club visit. It's still not recommended as I'd rather be able to go places, but there's definitely a disparity in minimum and maximum security sentences.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Freddybear]

That's the gist of what they taught in security class when I was a programmer for a bank, way back when. We called it "Bank Robbery 101" because it mostly just talked about ways in which banks had been robbed and how they fixed their procedures so that they wouldn't be robbed the same way again.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[HapSlappy_2222]

850 pages of railroad references, 100 pages of John galt repeating the same idea over the radio using all the biggest words Rand could come up with, and 50 pages of Dagny getting banged by Hank, Francisco, or good old Johnny. The movie version would be 10 minutes of moderate porn, but you'd have to get through 90 minutes of the cable guy stompin around the living room first.

I was an A is A objectivist for a while; I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged the first time around. When I started seeing some personal success, I saw that hard work does not always equal success; many of the brightest and talented hard workers I knew got fucked, not rewarded, and it's often a crapshoot or who you know more than talent and hard work. You get up and try again if you're good at it and enjoy what you do, so that part is true, but talent doesn't rise simply because it's talented. Objectivism is an ideal, just like sharing the communist wealth means everybody gets a fair shake is an ideal.

It was a nice life lesson; I know now that anybody advocating the extreme is pushing an ideal on you, not a true way to live your life. Hard work, living a happy life, and helping others when you are both able and willing to do so is the way to go; and if you get some sort of crazy good benefits offered to you along the way, pounce like a puma.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sounds almost like the plot to the movie Heat. That movie also had the most accurate depiction of an automatic weapons battle I have ever seen with the bullets basically going everywhere in the general direction they were firing but not the super typical action hero movie where they all miss the heros and all hit the bad guys (roles reversed for the movie).

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, they're probably wearing body armor, so go for the headshot or if you're a great shot and don't want to kill, take out their shooting arm and legs, in that order.

Real life doesn't have V.A.T.S.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[swillden]

The fact that hard work and talent often don't equal success on the first try doesn't mean they don't equal success. It just means that there's a large element of randomness in play at all times, and even hard work and talent don't necessarily give you high odds of success in any one endeavor. However, hard work and talent do tilt the odds in your favor, so -- except for people who get extraordinarily unlucky -- hard work, talent and persistence do equal success. On balance, I'd say that persistence is the most important of those traits, followed by hard work, with talent coming in a distant third. Which isn't to say talent isn't valuable -- in many cases it's essential. But it's almost never enough.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[stridebird]

Yep, robbing a bank doesn't get you much.

If you want cash, the money is in an end-of-day armored car robbery. There's a high risk, and a good chance you're going to have to kill a few people, but the payoff can be millions. You're going to need a lot of surveillance time to find the routes, a biggish truck with a Faraday cage in case there's any tracking devices (and the same thing in your warehouse when you unload), and a good way to launder large quantities of cash. Wouldn't hurt to have several good radio jammers positioned, both for the armored car frequencies and the police frequencies, and that won't jam whatever you're using to talk to your partners. Might even have a few timed charges on the local police antenna towers. Probably need a crew of 4-5, at least 2 to deal with the driver and guard, one getaway driver and at least one surveillance guy. Remember, they're probably wearing body armor, so go for the headshot or if you're a great shot and don't want to kill, take out their shooting arm and legs, in that order.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

sweaty palms much?

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[stridebird]

chapeau

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Burning1]

It was a nice life lesson; I know now that anybody advocating the extreme is pushing an ideal on you, not a true way to live your life. Hard work, living a happy life, and helping others when you are both able and willing to do so is the way to go; and if you get some sort of crazy good benefits offered to you along the way, pounce like a puma.

Extremes are easy... So people tend to like them. Toeing the objectivist line gives a really defined set of values, clear set of right and wrong. It doesn't take much intelligence to live up to, and doesn't leave a person with many stressful and unclear decision. It's great so long as you totally believe and are totally invested in the outcome.

In the real world, the word of the day is equilibrium. The world is made up of opposing ideals and forces butting heads against each other. Most of the ideal solutions have already been discovered, and what's left is attempting to find a point of least pain between multiple opposing ideals, each pushing their way to what will ultimately be a non-ideal outcome.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[HapSlappy_2222]

Oh, I agree completely. There are many elements of A is A philosophy that are spot on. Persistence IS how you succeed in the life-show, most definitely.

The disingenuous part of Atlas Shrugged, though, is how the protagonists' typical setbacks (or rather, plot vehicles to illustrate their persistence) were caused by the no-talent leechers. Dagny spent a TON of time wrestling with her brother's stupid decisions, holding back the tide through talent, persistence, and hard work. The real world is simply not always like that. Often, you get other talented or otherwise gifted people that will toss you under the bus to get ahead. We've all seen very talented, very smart people make very, very sneaky decisions that led to the complete downfall of the other talent that supported them; not from incompetence, but from coldly calculated greed. Talent, hard work, and persistence can put you in a place where power corrupts you, and then with the stroke of a pen you can trade other people's financial lives for your own golden parachute. Stuff like that makes Francisco's intentional self-destruction look like a game of CandyLand. Persistence in the face of crap like that is easily the most difficult character trait to sustain.

Incidentally: The best example of tossing a monkey wrench into all of Rand's philosophy? Having kids. "Rational selfishness" gets tossed right out the window for children. The best you can do is try to take care of yourself first so you're in a better position to take care of them, too, but when you have to make in-the-moment decisions, they'll come up in their favor over yours every single time. There are times when it really is a good thing for your hard work to benefit others more than yourself, or even at your detriment.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[HapSlappy_2222]

You cannot fool me, monsieur. That word is a french hat. I wore one last Halloween, when I was a Fray'-nsh Doosh'-baug. It was a pretty successful endeavor, other than when we went to the hipster party, where I was frowned upon for not wearing a costume.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[oxdas]

I don't know how many white collar prisons are still around (at least in the US). Former Gov Blagojevich is in the same prison that once housed Timothy McVeigh for instance (in the middle of suburban Denver with a nice view of the mountains).

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[LordLucless]

I quite liked Atlas Shrugged too, and it's one of those books that I think everyone should read once in their life (though I do recommend skipping the radio speech - that was the one part of the book I found unremittingly dull). I don't really think Ayn Rand's solution stands up, but her critique of communism is pretty spot-on - which, after all, is what she had experience with. What I wanted to see was how Galt's Gulch was working after a generation, and what happened to the money all the first generation had earned after they died off. She pretty much rigged the game by making all her heroes noble and good, and all the communists greedy and selfish. It didn't really address how her "ideal society" would handle it if a greedy, selfish person was born into wealth and took advantage of the system.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[antifoidulus]

Human nature also dictates that you are more likely to get caught on a repeat offense than a first one(ie your probability of getting caught on event n is not independent of the other n-1 events, its closer to a markov chain). This is largely because after a string of successes we humans tend to get sloppy and make mistakes because we think we are invincible....

Its not just bank robbers, its pretty much any crime. Back in my salad(read stupid) days, I got caught shoplifting, it wasnt the first time I had done it and looking back, I was much more careful the first 5 times I had done it than the time I got caught, because I had convinced myself I wouldnt get caught. In lieu of facing charges I had to attend a class about shoplifting, and they gave us the official stats that basically said the same thing. First time shoplifters rarely get caught because they are just so damn careful, and the stores dont want to admit it but they just arent very good at catching shoplifters who arent stupid about it(ie not stealing incredibly high value items, really good about hiding them etc)..... However they are counting on the fact that eventually most people DO get stupid about it and get caught eventually.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah! You have nothing useful to say of extremes as you have so clearly gone from one to the other.

Goldwater said it best: Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality that hard work doesn't often equal success is like the first treatise of Ayn Rand's work. That corruption, good ol' boy systems, and bailouts for failures are what actually keep the world from being a meritocracy. This isn't a failure of Objectivism, but the failure of society that Objectivism is trying to point out.

Re:Everyone already knew this.

[PsychoKiller]

Weird, I just read this new article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/06/15/edmonton-university-school-shooting.html?cmp=rss

And then I came to /. to read this.

The US Wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet the average bank robber in the US does even worse. Then again we do have people in the US who can not get medical care and pull pseudo robberies and wait at the curb to be arrested. In America crime can be the only way to get health care.

Re:The US Wins

[Creepy]

Usually when I hear about bank robbers getting caught in the US, they were doing it to pay for their meth addiction. People on meth are extremely erratic - the tenant I had tore apart a giant teddy bear and tried to flush its head down the toilet and then ran around throwing bear innards everywhere. She lied that she had a job, didn't pay her rent until evicted, and left the place a mess. She also refused rehab (according to her mom, a coworker of my wife). Last I heard she was arrested for shoplifting.

The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Hatta]

The best way to rob a bank is to own one. And it's only gotten better for the robber barons over the past 30 years.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Hatta]

Investing is how the idle class siphons wealth from the productive class without actually doing anything of value.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Freddybear]

Investment itself is a thing of value, by making capital available for productive uses.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Hatta]

The capital would be available for productive uses if it were not hoarded by the idle classes.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Freddybear]

They're not hoarding it. They're investing it.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Hatta]

Only if enables them to live without working. It would be more productive over all to make the capital available for the most useful purpose, and to make the capitalist do productive work for a living.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[nedlohs]

So you don't know what investing is then.

Which is fine, but it seems a bit foolish to comment on it.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Freddybear]

Deciding how to invest one's money is productive work. If you think the government can do better I have a word for you: Solyndra.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Hatta]

Deciding how to invest one's money is productive work.

Sure, it produces wealth for the investor. If it produces anything of value for anyone else, it's at best a happy accident. More often we'd get a better value for the capital without rent seeking capitalists.

If you think the government can do better I have a word for you: Solyndra.

If you think the private sector can do better than the government, I have a bunch of words for you. The NIH, NASA, the US Armed Forces, the national interstate system, your public library system, the US postal service, etc., etc., etc.

And let's not forget our friends in the private investement banking system. Compare the fraud and waste that happened in Solyndra and the fraud and waste that happened in the 2008 financial crisis. Ask yourself why you care more about Solyndra. Could it be because you get your political opinions from Rush Limbaugh?

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Freddybear]

Those "happy accidents" are actually carefully planned and executed business operations.
And yes, I think the private sector can do better than the government. Ben Franklin established libraries and postal services long before there was any government to subsidize them. Come to think of it, private industrialists built roads and railroads without government subsidies too.

Space/X and a number of other private space ventures are proving you wrong about NASA.

As for the armed services, I will agree with you and with Machiavelli that a national armed service is superior to mercenaries.

And with regards to the private investment banking system, I give you John Corzine, Obama fundraiser, bundler, and investment swindler extraordinaire.

Re:The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

[Hatta]

Those "happy accidents" are actually carefully planned and executed business operations.

Carefully planned to maximize returns to the shareholder, not to society as a whole.

Space/X and a number of other private space ventures are proving you wrong about NASA.

Only by building on decades of government research.

And with regards to the private investment banking system, I give you John Corzine, Obama fundraiser, bundler, and investment swindler extraordinaire.

True enough. Corzine should be in federal PMITA prison right next to Blankfein.

Terrible Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's where the money is!

Re:Terrible Business??

[oxdas]

If he lived today, Willie Sutton would be on Wall Street.

Just Like the AppStore

[Anonymous Coward]

A very few successful practitioners make a fortune; but most just waste their time building skills that will end up doing their career no favors, or perhaps even end up with major legal hassles.

Just like the AppStore.

Try Banking instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Or managing or consulting or exchange poker.

Because the legal crime does pay.

Doing The Math...

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's 4 jobs in two years, netting 80K, then flip a coin for jail. ...for your average robber.

Thus if you honestly believe your above average, aim a little higher, and stay in a little longer.

Re:Doing The Math...

[Bigby]

Actually, if you are robbing 4 banks a year, then you have 3 month prep time for each job. If you spend even part of that time for prep work, then you are WAY above average for a bank robber. In fact, the stats around a significant number of robberies are probably around people that did VERY little preperation. On top of that, there are probably people who did back-to-back robberies like idiots.

That "economists" need to be better statisticians. How much does it pay to rob a bank that you do at least a month's prep work for?

Re:Doing The Math...

[gnasher719]

That "economists" need to be better statisticians. How much does it pay to rob a bank that you do at least a month's prep work for?

There's no problem with the statistics. £19,000 per person is the total average. If well-prepared bank robbers make more than average, then badly prepared bank robbers will make less than average.

Only 20%?

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems kinda low in my opinion. Are they basing these stats off the video game "Payday"?

Re:Only 20%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grand Theft Auto. As long as you keep running the police will never catch you.

Yes, but look at the benefits.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free healthcare. Free room and board.

Oh wait, in the UK you don't have to go to jail to get that sort of thing.

Successful Bank Robbers...

[Herkum01]

Know what you are doing.

In the US there are very few large scale organizations that are not businesses, and violence is bad for business; there is not that much of it. A good example of this kidnapping, extortion, protection rackets, are usually small-scale. There are other occupations that are safer and easier to gouge people out of money so it never reaches the scales that it does like in Mexico.

If the poverty line gets low enough combined with severe cuts in local services, it would not surprise me to see this trend be reversed.

Re:Successful Bank Robbers...

[Hatta]

In the US there are very few large scale organizations that are not businesses, and violence is bad for business; there is not that much of it. A good example of this kidnapping, extortion, protection rackets, are usually small-scale.

Then explain the government's War on Drug Users. It turns out kidnapping and extorting harmless pot smokers is very good for business.

Use hacking skills

[bhlowe]

Read How to rob a bank: A social engineering walkthrough, the more modern way. (Maybe this was on slashdot?)

Talent

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a talented back robber can make you filthy rich. I'm a theft under a thousand kinda guy though ricky...

They are forgetting about the payout when caught

[Anonymous Coward]

But once caught, they get free room and board for a good long while. How much is that worth to them?

Better be a con artist

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a french DA on TV saying something like "if bank robbers were intelligent they'd go into the confidence trick business: more reward, less violence, less jail time if you're caught".

Re:Better be a con artist

[Overzeetop]

What, exactly, do you think everyone on Wall Street is actually doing? Of course it's a con game.

Finally, something to deter people from robbing ba

[Blue Stone]

I feel certain all persons considering robbing banks will study this statistical data and after due and sober consideration, be dissuaded from such high-risk, low-reward enterprise.

More bad economic math

[LasVeganLucy]

How many British bank robbers declare the money they steal as income and pay income tax and insurance tax on it? 19K tax free is worth more than 19K before taxes.

Credit Cards and ATM's

[gurps_npc]

Willie Sutton once famously said he robbed banks "Because that's where the money is."

Not any more.

Credit cards mean banks no longer have the money.

ATM machines mean most of the money is locked away in safes - and spread out over many branches, convenience stores, etc.

Re:Credit Cards and ATM's

[Overzeetop]

The money is in retirement and institutional accounts. That's why there are so many people who are filthy rich from "working" Wall Street.

Re:Credit Cards and ATM's

[Anonymous Coward]

ATM machines mean most of the money is locked away in safes - and spread out over many branches, convenience stores, etc.

ATM machines? Those things you use your PIN number on? OMG God!

Re:Credit Cards and ATM's

[dissy]

ATM machines mean most of the money is locked away in safes - and spread out over many branches, convenience stores, etc.

This is an ATM.
This is an ATM machine!

So you won't find any money inside of an ATM machine. ATM machines only build ATMs, so they are full of ATM parts. If you are after money, you should more likely go after the ATM itself.

And knowing is half of the battle!

Re:Credit Cards and ATM's

[idontgno]

I don't see anywhere to type in my PIN number on that ATM machine. Hell, I don't even see an LCD Display, so where are my menus? Terrible HMI interface.

Re:Credit Cards and ATM's

[l00sr]

Yes, but is it an automatic automatic teller machine machine?

Obvious solution to make it more lucrative

[jimicus]

I've always maintained that the biggest risk - once you've robbed the bank - comes from the evidence.

You're carrying around an enormous amount of cash; if the police come knocking, search your house and find it - you're going to have a lot of trouble explaining why exactly you keep £10,000 in used £20's in a cardboard box in the bottom of your wardrobe.

Solution? Rob a branch of your own bank - and once you've taken the money, deposit it directly into your account.

Re:Obvious solution to make it more lucrative

[Overzeetop]

Just tell them you're working for Senator Bob Dole. He takes out that much cash every couple of weeks so that nobody can track what or how he spends his money.

found my future job..

[Anonymous Coward]

now i found my future profession, thanks slashdot!...

assuming jail is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom in the UK is overrated, and jail underrated. As long as land is privately owned, it's all a big prison, and it's just a matter of how high and how far the walls lie.

I've been to a category B prison. It's really not that bad. You do your time; you get out; you carry on. Is it worth the risk? If you can cope with it, of course it is. And there's nothing honourable about obeying the law for its own sake - indeed, robbing from one of the clearing banks is the moral option.

On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're just looking for some quick cash, you'll have much better odds of getting away with a few thousand dollars than if you, say, buy a lottery ticket or go to a casino.

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're just looking for some quick cash, you'll have much better odds of getting away with a few thousand dollars than if you, say, buy a lottery ticket or go to a casino.

I'm not sure. I guess in a casino, you'll find more cash to rob. :-)

Lack Of Professionalism

[cmholm]

The vast majority of bank robbers are unlikely to have developed a career plan, and sufficient training and study to buttress it. Rather, they tend to be running on desperation. When someone(s) go on a bank robbing spree, it's usually a sign they've reached some sort of crisis in their lives, and aren't really thinking things through.

Pervasive video surveillance makes life difficult for the modern retail robber, just as it would for traders making heavily leveraged bets at trading desks in the CBD offices. But, who'll hit the silent alarm when they see someone make a trade that's almost certain to lose a couple billion (your unit of currency here)?

Successful robbers don't go in through the front door, that's amateur hour. The pros put in the work to tunnel in.

Ignores who is robbing the bank

[DarkOx]

The trouble is many criminals are criminals because they haven't got the good upstairs to support more gainful employment. Has anyone done a study to determine how the intelligence of those convicted of bank robbery and related crimes compares with society as a whole?

My guess they are below average. So its no surprise they are not terribly successful at it. Its not likely they'd be terribly at anything that requires deep analysis. Its sorta like how robbers always love guns that use clips. If you going rob a bank for heaven's sake load up your belt with revolvers. You don't want be leaving cartridges behind everywhere.

Effectiveness over time

[halfkoreanamerican]

I wonder if this study takes into account the robbers increasing in efficiency and effectiveness with each successive robbery. I know they have a 1 in 5 chance of being caught, but is their 10th robbery as sloppy as the previous 9? I tend to get better at my job, but does this apply to bank robbers? This is likely assuming they don't raise the stakes with each successive robbery, which they tend to do.

Re:Effectiveness over time

[gnasher719]

I wonder if this study takes into account the robbers increasing in efficiency and effectiveness with each successive robbery. I know they have a 1 in 5 chance of being caught, but is their 10th robbery as sloppy as the previous 9? I tend to get better at my job, but does this apply to bank robbers? This is likely assuming they don't raise the stakes with each successive robbery, which they tend to do.

If the average bank robber in the average bank robbery has a 20% chance of being caught, and if bank robbers get better and less likely to be caught with experience, then it follows that your chances at getting caught in your first robbery are much higher than 20%.

Re:Effectiveness over time

[mosb1000]

But as a potential career, it doesn't really make sense unless you can find a successful bank robber who you can trust to show you how to do it without getting caught. If you were starting out on your own, you chances would be better than 20% of getting caught on your first try. Also, if you develop a particularly effective method, it's only a matter of time before the banks catch on, so you'd have to be an innovative thinker to stay ahead of them.

There are better, more dishonest unskilled ways to make a living. You could become a chiropractor, or an auto mechanic, or something like that. And if you can go to college, there are all kinds of better ways to make a dishonest buck.

still better odd than

[hackingbear]

Three UK economists got access to national data on bank robberies... Average take is about $19k per person per robbery.

... getting paid off with a degree in Economy

Crime pays.

[mosb1000]

Of course, it pays the banks more than the bank robbers. Same basic principle though.

Re:Doing The Math...Not intelligence

[Jeng]

And remember it is not whether or not you are above average intelligence, you have to be an above average criminal to hopefully not get caught.

If I were going to turn criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd deal pot before robbing a bank. Here in California it's quasi-legal via the "medical" weed. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody who can get you started growing. It's a bit messy though.

If you're just talking pure money crime, counterfeiting paper money at the train ticket vending machines is tempting; but you have to realize the station is under surveillance and the vending machine probably timestamps ticket sales. Walking around a train station in a ski mask is suspicious. They would catch you eventually. Passing counterfeits to clerks takes nerves of steel, and it's a Federal crime so I think I'll pass.

Purse snatching. People that do that are real low-lifes; I think I'd rather panhandle. Fake a mental illness if you have to, but never fake veteran status. The real homeless vets will chew your face off.

unskilled labor

[fermion]

Robbery to me is largely an unskilled profession. Skilled persons can scam and get cash in a much less risky manner. When I was younger I took scrap metal that was not absolutely mine, though did not steal it, and sold it. My friends in retail had many strategies. Of course some bankers are the ultimate skilled thieves, billions in the US savings and loans scandal of the 90's, continuing theft by the general financial industry in the US and worldwide. All legal enough that few are prosecuted. If one thinks that college does not pay, ask Madoff. He had to take the fall, but his family is better off than many of the clients.

So the question is bank robbery good for unskilled labor. Lets say that you pull five jobs in a year, get convicted for the last one, and get five years in prison. The robber is in jail, room and board taken care of, but the family might have 80K in unreported funds. If they are somewhat smart, they will get government assistance as well as the 13K a year average. OTOH, if the robber is less responsible they have had a lifestyle for a year that few unskilled people can have. And only worked a few weeks at most.

Sure for those of us with jobs and skills it seems a bit silly, but there a lot of people for whom 20K seems like a fortune. This is why I think that such analysis are not very useful. It does not speak to the basic root fo the crime.

Re:unskilled labor

[Anonymous Coward]

What crap on this site, does anyone back up anything with real facts? Or do we just jump to the "I'm a hillbilly and banksters are evil yeah" argument for just about everything?

Take your money out of the banks and stock markets you bitches, I think the big hero BO gave your favorite banks a bailout as well as Bush? Right? wah wah wah

This site is so childish and predictable now.

Who did the math?

[hobarrera]

Did the same banker who calculates interests calculate the changes of getting caugh.
One raid, 20% change of getting caught, you need two raids a year, and that increases changes to over 50%, WTF!?

Re:Who did the math?

[Experiment 626]

One raid, 20% change of getting caught, you need two raids a year, and that increases changes to over 50%, WTF!?

TFA claims that doing two raids a year gives you a greater than 50% chance of getting caught within 2 years (i.e., 4 raids). Let's check the math...
After 1 raid you have a 100% - 20% = 80% chance of eluding capture.
After 2 raids, it's 80% ^ 2 = 64%
After 3 raids, it's 80% ^ 3 = 51.2%
After 4 raids, it's 80% ^ 4 = 40.96%
100% - 40.96% chance of not getting caught = 59.04% chance of getting caught, which is in fact over 50%.

Re:Who did the math?

[osu-neko]

Not sure if you're really bad at math, or just really bad at reading, but the math works. 20% chance per robbery, two robberies per year, does indeed lead to a greater than 50% chance of being incarcerated in just two years, as the summary correctly states.

Re:Who did the math?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, they aren't individual events. A second bank robbery should increase your chances of getting caught by a greater % than the first one raised it too. And the third more than the second, and so on. For example if the odds of getting caught are 20% for your first robbery, the odds of getting caught for your second + your first should be >40%. Maybe a lot greater. No crime is perfect enough to A) not have a chance of getting caught B) not leave any information behind. Once you start leaving information multiple times your developing a pattern... well you know where this is going.

Re:Who did the math?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and that is of course assuming that the probability of getting caught is independent of the number of raids you've done. Evidence gathered from the scene of the first raid will probably make it harder to successfully pull off the second.

Re:Doing The Math...Not intelligence

[DriedClexler]

To do a variation on the old joke: "What? Are you crazy? Even if you plan extra hard, you can't outsmart the police!"

"No, but I can outsmart you."

Three Hots and a Cot

[Ichijo]

Average take is about $19k per person per robbery. But, there's a 20% chance of being caught per raid.

$19k per job plus a 20% chance of winning free room and board for a few years doesn't sound so bad. Sign me up!

Re:Three Hots and a Cot

[timeOday]

If it's so great, sign yourself up; what's stopping you?

There is a reason for that

[DaveV1.0]

According to the FBI, most bank robberies are not planned and most of the planned robberies are poorly planned. Most bank robbers get away with little and are caught quickly. Basically, there are two kinds of bank robbers, smart bank robbers who get away with a lot of money and rob many banks and the stupid bank robbers who need money and decide to rob a bank because that is where the money is.

Re:There is a reason for that

[TechHSV]

Do you really think the FBI would say anything different? They don't want to encourage anyone by saying it is a profitable activity and they can't catch anyone.

Re:Doing The Math...Not intelligence

[Jeng]

Doesn't quite work.

A bear will quit once it has caught the slow person, while the cops will try to arrest every single person who is even remotely associated with a robbery. And those who they do catch will help the cops catch you so that they will get a shorter sentence for co-operating.

I'm Confused....

[3seas]

...if bank robbing is such a terrible business then why do the banks continue doing it?

Quality of Life?

[sdguero]

I'd argue that the quality of life for bank robber is FAR better than the average office drone. They only have to work a few hours a year for their pay check...

Re:Quality of Life?

[somarilnos]

I'm going to daresay that the ones who only work a few hours a year are going to be the ones who are well above the median chance of 20% as far as getting caught goes. Doing it right takes a little preparation.

Doing it WRONG !!

[RobertLTux]

what you should do if you want to rob a bank is get hired as an exec at one and then get paid way to much.

Rob a Bank and the SS will be chatting with you Rob a Bank Company and .....

Re:Doing The Math...Not intelligence

[DriedClexler]

Right, but a criminal can be "smart" enough to betray his accomplice and pin the crime on him.

They don't do it for the money.

[busyqth]

They do it for the lulz.

Damn!

[Brandano]

There goes my retirement plan!

Re:Doing The Math...Not intelligence

[Jeng]

Having anyone who knows you committed the crime is a liability, whether they are in jail or not.

And if you did set up your accomplice it might not just be the cops you have to look out for.

If going the pin the crime on him route do it in a way that the accomplice ends up dead, it will be harder for him to defend himself in court that way.

Re:Three Hots and a Cot + healthcare

[bussdriver]

Don't forget healthcare. What happened to that man who wasn't given prison after purposely robbing a back to get healthcare? He said he'd do it again.

Re:Heat the movie

[davide marney]

Another extraordinary thing abt that sequence was the sound effects of the gunfire. Most movie gunfire sounds way too obviously souped-up, especially in the lower registers. The gunfire in Heat is enormously loud and cracking, echoing all over the buildings, and completely disorienting. The weapons also have a great deal of kick back, very realistic. I think what the FX guys did was load full blank charges in real guns, and let the actors have at it. Best gun sequence ever.

In Soviet Russia

[Roachie]

Bank robs YOU!

simply put, don't do hands-on jobs

[k6mfw]

You can make lotsa money at fast food joints, don't be the one flipping burgers (be the franchise owner or up)
You can make lotsa money at gas stations, don't be the one behind the counter (be an executive in one of their high rise offices)
You can make lotsa money stealing cash, don't be the one handling the cash (be one of them Wall St businessmen that lie, cheat, and steal from people everyday).

Re:Three Hots and a Cot + healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a UK analysis. They have healthcare regardless.

First rule of bank robbery

[Anonymous Coward]

Own the bank

Obligatory comic link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2207

Hah, NOT xckd. Got you there.

That's Not Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the 20% chance of getting caught reflect on the fact that there are possibly more stupid people trying to rob banks than smart people skewing the statistic? Maybe there aren't, but maybe there are. All this really shows (unless there's more info in the article) is that you're 20% likely to get caught each time if you do an average job each time.

All of this has happened before

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Rob a country, and the cities fall into ruins, leaving the people with no hope, no education, and driving them to desperate acts such as robbing banks. The cycle is complete.

All of this has happened before, and and all of this will happen again...

The most successful pirates

[Taco Cowboy]

... and I am not talking about "pirates" as defined by the MAFIAA ...

The most successful pirates do not live near the Somalia coast

They live in big western cosmopolitans, and are earning much more than their counterparts in Somalia

How they made their killings?

They purchase old ships, - very very very old ships, 30+ year old ships, rust buckets, really - that barely can float

They gave those ship a fresh coat of paint

Re-register the ships

And set them a-sail, as merchant ships

These ships that barely floats, will ply in waters of Africa, or South America, or in Asia

And then sink

Of course, people die when ships sank - mainly those poorly paid sailors

But that does not matter to those pirates

What really matters to those successful pirates is the insurance claim - they bought big insurance on their rust buckets, and reap the rewards when their ships sink

Of course, the bank robbers are stupid

They are not the one really robbing the banks

It's the stripes who are doing the real robbing

Just like the most successful pirates, who do not rob even a single ship
 

Re:The most successful pirates

[TapeCutter]

What really matters to those successful pirates is the insurance claim - they bought big insurance on their rust buckets, and reap the rewards when their ships sink

If you really believe that is how it works, you have obviously never tried to insure a car.

Re:The most successful pirates

[Roachie]

I'm reminded of my stint as an internet marketeer. I took a bad check once. It turns out that it was the most profitable sale I ever made, once the collection agent got thru with them.

There is big money in failure.

Re:The most successful pirates

[RockDoctor]

And just how are you going to get your insurance without your ship having been passed as fit-to-insure by one of the accreditation agencies? You know, the ones composed of marine surveyors and engineers with decades of experience in the shipbuilding, repair and salvage industries, who write reports of the form "Ship X is worth no more than Y and is/ is not fit to leave harbour." They're also often the people hired by harbour masters who say "This ship is not fit to enter our harbour. Go away!" (Harbours really get upset if ships sink at the quay, or take fire - it damages their harbour, can damage other shipping customers, and it occupies a berth with a wreck that will cost a lot of money to remove, owned by a shell company who probably can't afford to pay the normal harbour charges, let alone the salvage costs, the harbour's repair costs ...)

So, apart from knowing almost nothing about the shipping or insurance industries, your plan for making profit from shipping insurance fraud is lining you up for some jail time. Do you have a song-and-dance act too? It had better be good.

Re:Give a person a bank

[TaoPhoenix]

Or Goldman Sachs.

After all, they didn't do anything. Only "Some of the activities they undertook contributed to the prevailing mood of the time." (Shout out to the Gregory Brothers!)

But what they are saying is...

[Nyder]

... if you need money fast, rob a bank. 1/5 chances of getting caught, as long as you don't do it again.

Bankrobber tip

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to The Netherlands. Chance of being arrested is less than 5%. And if you get caught, sentences are low. Lower your sentence even more by making sure you get a lot of press. The judges will then reduce your sentence "because you have already been sentenced by the media attention". This works especially well if you originate from a "culture of shame", which in The Netherlands equals North African descent (about 50% of the prison population, versus less than 5% of general population). Then, when you have to show up to commence your stay in jail (chances are big you will be released to await your trial), don't show up. Finding you will be a very low priority for police, as setting speed traps and writing tickets for cyclists without light are way more important. This way, you can commit your next robbery and make it a profitable and safe job.

Brecht & Banks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious, I assume you're American due to the FDIC and IRS references, do you know who Brecht was?

If you don't know him, it would be useful to know that he was an East-German playwright influenced by Marxism. It is very likely he had a different view of both banks and their legitimacy than you do...

Re:Brecht & Banks

[roman_mir]

and why would it be interesting to me? What do I care what a Marxist or somebody influenced by Marxism had to say?

Re:Brecht & Banks

[Anonymous Coward]

No the same AC,but you know what they say:

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
And knowing is half the battle (G. I. JOOOOOEEEEE)

Re:Heat the movie

[Bob the Super Hamste]

True to that even if it wasn't the showiest but sometimes that just doesn't fit. It has been a while since I have watched it I think I may need to watch it again now. All in all I thought it was a great movie when I watched it last which was about 10 years ago.

Ponzi/Pyramid scam on global scale

[NewYork]

There is only about ~900 billion paper and coin dollars.
There is about ~14 trillion dollars worth of credit supplied by banks.
There is about ~55 trillion dollars in total debt, again, supplied by banks.
What backs the dollar is the faith that the 14 trillion dollars will some day pay the 55 trillion dollars off.

Doesn't it sound like Ponzi/Pyramid scam on global scale?

Obligatory

[NewYork]

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." --Rothschild

the way to rob a bank...

[Anonymous Coward]

is undoubtedly to become a bank executive. *They* call them bonuses, and they get away with them, even when banks fail. Because they handle large amounts of money, they seem to think siphoning some off for themselves is OK.