UBS has a bit of a reputation for this. Same thing happened with their US Equities tech in the mid 2000s: 1) Bring in new blood to improve a legacy platform 2) The new blood decides to throw out everything and do a complete rewrite 3) The new system is super successful because it can focus on a much smaller subset of problems 4) The bank runs into profitability issues and can no longer pay developers well 5) The good…
6a) .. because instead of using a language designed in part to address turnover and difficulty of keeping avant garde coders in banal and soul sucking jobs, the management passed the business decision of "what tools do we use?" to the said workers.
Management has choices here, including simply making the best business will stay good enough, or even if it doesn't, prioritizing keeping an essential core of its technology people short of anything but completely closing down the unit.
One thing I've noticed that's very common in the long term success or failure of high tech companies is whether they kept their core technologists. Compare Microsoft to Lotus and perhaps Ashton-Tate (dBase). Companies like banks may not appear to be "high tech companies", but their "production" is done with computer systems so....