Keep Two Bank Accounts To Beat Cyber Attacks, Says Bank of England Adviser (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Everyone should keep two bank accounts so they can still access their money if one bank is hit by a cyber attack, a former Bank of England adviser has warned. "I'd certainly rather have two [accounts] in case my bank was attacked. I would want to know I could still get money out of the other one," banking expert Peter Hahn said in an interview with BBC's Today, ahead of the Bank of England's latest Financial Stability Report. According to the report, cyber risk is one of the five greatest dangers facing the UK banking industry.

Comments

Wrong

[Chrisq]

According to the report, cyber risk is one of the five greatest dangers facing the UK banking industry.

The others:

1) Bankers
2) Banking
3) Lying
4) Cheating

Those aren't dangers - they're just business as usual

Re:Make it three

[AmiMoJo]

This advice is actually supposed to protect the banks, not the customers. If a bank is hacked it has to repay any losses you suffer. Say a business has its account locked and can't pay wages, or someone moving house can't pay for their new home and the sale falls through. The knock-on financial losses could be huge. Hundreds of employees having regular payments fail, black marks on their credit records that they have to get removed, a whole chain of house buyers falling apart, fees for late payments etc.

So if you have two accounts you can use the other one to make payments, thus lessening the bank's financial liability.

Re:standard

[jellomizer]

The US has FDIC which works simularly where in case of robbery or bank closing up to 100k USD will be covered.
Now most people I know including multi-millionaires don't keep over 100k in the bank. The bank is only good for holding money for high liquidity.

But for most people having multiple accounts will not make their money any safer as it will just be insured.

However on the government/insurers point of view having multiple bank accounts means less of a payout on the odd bank collapse.

The five big fears of banks

[Opportunist]

1. Getting bank regulation that deserves that name
2. Not getting bailed out next time the gambling backfires
3. A country being able to pay back its debts and thus free to make a move on them
4. People catching on how things worked out for Iceland and Iceland becoming a role model
5. Anyone with some clout declaring "this bank is bankrupt". Because that can bankrupt any bank. No matter the size.

Requires Money

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to have two bank accounts, one needs to have money. So, Peter Hahn, where do I get all this magic money you speak of? Working full time does not do it. Maybe you could give us all some so we can open multiple bank accounts?

Re:Requires Money

[Anonymous Coward]

The core principle of capitalism is laziness: rather than working, you make money by investing money. Surprisingly, it works better than one might expect, but it's far from perfect.

This contrasts socialism, which has the core principle that one gets what one needs by actively working. A good dose of socialist principle helps a country, but pure socialism tends to invite corruption.

(Oddly, the right-wing press swap the two around, and claim that socialism is for the lazy. The point in socialism - which is in its traditional form merely cooperative ownership of business - isn't to support laziness, but to make sure nobody has to work too hard to feed the laziness of others.)

To answer your question, then - getting rich requires capital. There are three sorts of capital, all of which must be combined with good health (over which most people have some influence, but many people have no influence) and less-than-awful fortune:

1) Material - having cash in the first place. You can't really start here unless you've earned it. Most people who start here are too oblivious to realise that not everyone is in the same situation;

2) Social - knowing the right people. Some people start from this position, but usually only those who already have 1). Schmoozing will help. You may find it hard to sleep at night. Most people who get rich via this method are socially cunning, so are hardly going to tell you how effective it is;

3) Intellectual - being smart enough that people will pay you handsomely for a skill. This is the hardest method, and not really open to anyone who isn't naturally talented. Most people who take this route wrongly assume that they have got there through "hard work" and fail to see that an equivalent or greater effort from the average person will not product the same outcome.

tl;dr life isn't fair and the answer for most people is "You can't get it". A good society is one where not everyone has to be rich to be able to live a fulfilling and secure life. For the past 36 years, Great Britain has crept away from this post-war dream to something rather backwardly Victorian. (And I say this not as a bitter poor person, but as someone born into money who knows just how fucking lucky I am.)

I have a better idea

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Keep zero bank account and invest in a good safe.
"Cyber attacks" might be among the biggest threats to the banking system, but the banking system is the biggest threat to people's worth.

Re:standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Dollars in the bank, euros in your paypal, pesos under the mattress, and rubles in the coffee tin.

Let them eat cake

[devnullkac]

Typical advice from an out-of-touch banker. This is impractical for those most at risk of serious consequences if their bank closes for a few days. It's not like getting an extra hard drive and copying your money to the backup bank. You have to split your limited assets and make sure you meet the minimum requirements of two institutions. And heaven help you if each requires you to have direct deposit in order to avoid monthly fees.