I work for banks, and I can tell you that when you are doing devops with their "own cloud", you are miles away from a real cloud experience : no os choice, no hardware choice, slow provisioning, no access to repo, low and inconstant virtual disk (EBS) speed... I guess that you get what your paied for, and maybe the 2B saved on cloud are spend on IT service that suffer from such a poor own cloud experience. If they have 50 000 IT employees payed 100k, that's 5b a year. Including professional services and you are maybe at 10b. Just increase the productivity of this 10b by 20% and the money "saved" is not such a good deal...
Probably more than half of the engineers writing the code for their cloud are either based out of india, making 40k a year, or in the USA, making 50% of the market rate.
If you work at a bank that uses real cloud services (AWS and Azure in my case), they still lock down most of the options. They want control, ease of maintenance, and most of all: auditability. More options creates more overhead. Simple is good.
I did recently wonder if it made sense for banks to put all their stuff on other people's computers, instead of maintaining their own, but for the bank I work at, the old on-premise systems are maintained by IBM and ridiculously restrictive, so either AWS or Azure is already a massive improvement.
A lot of them are managers, analysts, or people who work with tech, but aren't all trained software engineers. A scrum master is considered an engineer. They had a blanket update to a lot of their role titles a couple years back where everyone in tech suddenly became a Software Engineer as their title (without much meaning behind it).