| > What would "modern" bring to a bank except even more pain & suffering? In the most simple term, a future. Except if your bank is literally too big to fail, at some point you have to either move on from 80s technology or at least bring in an adaptation layer, because your profit center have also moved on or you're facing harder competition. A typical example is banks getting merged: there will be a fight to see which system stays and which one disappears. If you froze your technology 4 decades ago it won't be your stack winning. [0] Another is the evolution legal frameworks: EU countries passed laws requiring interoperable APIs to perform standard banking operations. Being a customer of a decent bank or a fossilized one made a huge difference and the market grew a lot more competitive. People would start hedging their bets when legacy banks looked too far behind. [0] The most interesting and recent example of this is Mizuho bank just miserably failing at that task to the point the gov. intervened and anyone not married to them probably moved out. https://www.mizuhogroup.com/news/2021/06/20210615_2release_e... |
In my experience (small/mid-size US banks), the institution with more assets or branches usually wins. It rarely has anything to do with technology. If a 6 region, 200 branch monster comes in and wants to buy some 4 branch relic in the West Texas desert, it doesn't matter if the smaller institution has achieved AGI and an intergalactic core platform. They're almost inevitably gonna be merging their records into some old boring IBM system.