The reality is that decreasing costs is a far easier lever to pull than increasing revenue so managers will be heavily incentivised to do this if you give them profit-based incentives. This happens every few years with listed companies in the UK now, no-one ever changes their behaviour (retail, in particular, is ground zero for bluffers in the UK, managers are exceptionally bad, and even worse are comp committees that set targets that cannot be achieved without damaging long-term value).

There is no efficient market here. It is as simple as managers understanding the world we now live in, and that is unlikely because all these companies view IT as a cost and their managers are people who rotate through executive roles and politics despite leaving a flaming wreck in their wake. Things will stay the same.

... be replaced by more competent companies

If the impact is large enough, they do.

This not a case where binary thinking works for most situations, though. The costs associated with the attack will hurt them by damaging their balance sheets a little bit, taking capital away from more productive opportunities, and distracting their employees from more fruitful tasks.

There’s always a public thirst for immediate blood in these situations, but the damage is more subtle and manifests more as opportunity cost than a sudden collapse of the company. The demand for sudden stock market collapse of companies is ironic, given all of the criticisms thrown at companies for putting too much emphasis on short term stock results.