Why robbing banks is stupid (at least, financially)

It's high risk / low reward,
this profession

I've said this multiple times in this blog - bank robbery is a bad idea.

Now it's been proven by economists from the Royal Statistical Society and the American Statistical Association. They were asked by a banking trade organization to analyze the economics of adding security measures to banks. So they wrote a paper on the finances of bank robberies, from the financial perspective of the bank robbers.

Their conclusion? Robbing banks is a bad idea.

Of course they used statistics.

The average UK bank robbery only nets £20,330 (about $31,613).

But most robberies had more than one person, so the take per person was less: £12,706 (about $19,985).

They figure that gives a robber a modest English lifestyle for six months.

Except that some robbers did better, and some worse. And over a third of robberies completely failed.

Thieves in the U.S. did much worse. In the U.S. the FBI says the average take per robbery was only $4,300.

- Found via Boing Boing: Robbing banks is a crappy way to earn a living>>
- Economists demonstrate exactly why bank robbery is a bad idea. The typical return on a bank holdup is, "frankly, rubbish." Ars Technica>>

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts with Thumbnails