insurance

guys with machine guns and maybe special locks on the door to prevent anyone entering with a gun?

My guess is that you could hire 20 guys and pay them well for what it costs for insurance.

And don't forget, banks have sissy hours - you only have to pay these guards to work 6 hours a day, just like the tellers.

Someone is getting ripped off very badly with this insurance crap.

Can you find a hole in my logic?

6 hours a day?!?!?!? Where in the world do you live?

I work at a bank that is open from 7:15 a.m. to 6 p.m.

and there is one bank around here that is open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Not all banks have guards and the ones that do, have them more for a deterrent. Plus, no matter what, banks HAVE to pay insurance. YOU aren't the on paying for it.

The major hole is that most bank robbery is inside jobs. Embezzlement, reckless investment, nepotism, and occasionally just bad luck (which is technically not robbery). That is what the insurance is mainly to cover. The insurance was established after the banking collapse of 1929 where banks were engaging in all sorts of corrupt and irresponsible practices like buying their own stock on margin to inflate the price of their own stock. That is why the insurance always comes with a lot of regulation.

People who steal with guns get away with tiny amounts of money tens of thousands to at most a couple hundred thousand. This is noithing compared top the operating budgets of most banks. Also, it is hard to get qualified trustworthy people to work short hours because it screws with your life.

Still, you are thinking. Your logic is sound. You are just missing some of the facts.

The robbery insurance is much, much less.

First of all, the machine guns bit is illegal. Second, it's not just payroll for those guys, it's ALSO benefits, payroll taxes, workers compensation, and unemployment taxes. You'd probably be paying $40 per hour, per guy, after adding in all the taxes.

I've insured banks. The robbery portion is the cheapest part of the insurance. Workers comp, liability, and property coverages ALL cost more than the robbery.

So, your logic is flawed, because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE ROBBERY IS COSTING THE BANK. But regardless, it's probably less than $5,000 per year, per branch. Meanwhile, using MY banks open hours (50 hours a week, 8-5 M-F, and 8-1 Sunday) and TWO armed guys, minus 10 holiday closings, your two guys are going to cost $200,000 a year just in payroll, NOT counting workers comp, unemployment, health insurance, etc.

Run the numbers before you start "saving money".

You would need guards there 24/7. Eight hours per shift, three guards per shift (one or two guards is not a deterent, three is barely sufficient) for a total of nine guards plus three more to rotate in so people can have a day off/vacation. Twelve guards, and that's just for one location. If a bank had 100 locations that's 1200 people. You might get away with $40,000/year salary if they were non-unionized, which means $48 million in salary alone, never mind the cost of benefits and employee costs, which could easily double that figure. Plus this is still no guarantee the bank won't be robbed. Yeah I can see a big gaping hole in your logic.