Bank bashing?

@siasl - I don't claim to know how HSBC makes its money; would be very interested to know more. If you would like to explain all those other things that investment banks do I will listen with interest.

What is a market-making thing?

But please don't think I am completely anti-capitalist: I don't think profit is a dirty word and I certainly don't think HSBC or anyone else should do things for free (although it is an interesting idea - the Big Society Bank??? Hang on it's called a credit union)

I do think big multinationals should pay tax on their profits at the same rate as everybody else.

I thought the multimillion pound remuneration for investment bankers was based on those individuals' success in speculative trading. If not, what exactly is it that they do that nobody else could do?

I am very good at what I do; I am well qualified and very experienced. These folk earn more in a day than I earn in a year. Calling it obscene was enough until their mistakes caused this global recession. And to see the snouts back in the trough so soon.

Paul88

How much of HSBC's investment banking profits do you think came from speculatively trading? Given that HSBC doesn't have a proprietary trading desk, where is all this spec trading happening?

Are you completely sure these profits didn't come from things like M&A deals, capital raising, custodianship, settlements/clearing, and market-making things like FX, bonds, equities etc. These activities aren't speculative. Why shouldn't HSBC charge for these activites?

Sorry but your view that HSBC makes it's money from speculative activites is a complete fiction. It's not at all supported by the actual reality.

The question should be why can banks like HSBC charge so much for the (non-speculative) services they provide. There is clearly not enough competition in investment banking.

www.truth-out.org/michael-moore-america-is-not-broke68265

This pertains to the subject I feel.

I am not naive enough to think that I will change the minds of certain individuals here. But I will continue to make the arguments even if just to let off steam.

I do believe in fairness as do most if not all nice people.

@goodnightmoon - do you have any idea why the shareholders are happy? It is not as if the share prices are doing well. I suppose they get their share of these massive profits through dividend payments.

You are wrong about the bread and butter - the UK retail arm made £1.3billion; the investment bank made £5.7billion.

Stop and think where that money is coming from. Did they make something? Dig something up? Give of their time? The speculative trading takes money away from businesses that actually do things by inflating commodity prices. Every thing you buy, some of that money ends up in the pockets of the bankers. And they complain about having to pay tax on it - they are taxing all of us.

I don't claim that we can abolish money but we desparately need more regulation of the markets. If labour were too weak to do it even with a stonking majority I can't see the tories doing it. Unless we all make enough noise that they have to to survive politically.

Please, all of you, keep up the banker bashing! Don't forget that they caused this recession.

SWC, please tell me how countries like Sweden,Norway, Finland etc manage to have a good economy without being major financial centres. We have a bigger financial industry than Germany but they have a stronger economy.

Seems strange to me.

Paul88

A voice of reason amongst the Tory stooges, thank you.

The banks are not "evil" just run by people who put their self interest above that of the customers/society/the national interest/small businesses, People like Diamond are coin operated, money appears to be their God.

NG2 the blah blah goes to show that you are unable to put together a coherent argument.

Yes yes, heard it all. Evil banks blah, tax them more blah. Criminals blah blah.

The thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that these evil banks can and will simply upsticks and move. You've seen HSBC hint at this already and although you may think its an idle threat, the impact of them doing so is huge to us.

So the fact remains.....what is there to gain by continually bank bashing? Fairness? Oh please don't be so naive!

Barclays and others have deferred tax credits from their years of losses.

There is no relief on the new levy that will raise £2.5B and cost HSBC and RBS alone as much as GBP800M-£1B/year.

Diamond's pay is a matter for shareholders. For better or worse, they seem pretty happy with the job he's doing though.

re: gambling, it's actually getting more expensive for them to do a lot of so-called speculative activities.

Regardless, their bread and butter business is always going to be lending to people and businesses, which is of benefit to us all.

This is the same witch-hunt that Oakeshott talks of is it? The one where the banks get off incredibly lightly and then go to the press with mock tears about how bad it is? And Diamond still gets total remuneration of about £9million - one day of his time is worth one and a half average annual salaries?

The financial crisis and ensuing global recession was caused by macho blokes gambling with ordinary people's money for these ridiculous incentives. It should be stopped NOW. And the tories not renewing labour's bonus tax is CRIMINAL - the banks expected this, budgeted for it and were let off the hook.

@smallwhitecat - Barclays paid 2.4% of its profits in corporation tax when the headline rate is 28%. Asking it to pay its share is not punitive it is just fair.

The reason banks aren't lending to real businesses (i.e. the ones that make things or provide real services to human beings) is because you can make money quicker gambling it on shares / foreign exchange / bond markets / commodities - never mind that this very gambling inflates prices and decreases growth. It is the bonus culture that makes banks go for these short term gains instead of supporting companies that need longer term loans to develop and start giving a return.

No I didn't Paul. I said they had to take some responsibility for their purposely lax regulation.

And whilst I accept we now need tighter controls (which I suspect even the banks would), we need them to be sensible and pro-business rather than the witch-hunt which seems to be going on trying to burn bankers at the stake.

And its not about Kowtowing. It's about not biting the hand that feeds by forcing them into a position with stupid policies where the good banks feel they want to leave, leaving us with a huge hole in our national finances and the weak banks which we needed to support.

Lastly, I do hope you are right that they don't leave and its just a timely reminder to people that in fact, there's very little to keep them in the UK.

No they won't move it is an idle threat but they have to complain or the tories won't have an excuse not to tax them properly and increase regulation.

NG - in another thread you said the financial crisis was all labour's fault because they didn't regulate the banks and now you say if a bank complains about regulation (not tax - capital requirements are new regulations) and threatens to move we should all kowtow and let them have their own way.

Oakeshott is the one telling the truth here, not the bankers.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/09/lord-oakeshott-quits-banking-deal

It also serves to explain to shareholders why profits were lower than expected, even though analysts must have already factored in the cost of the banking levy

"Pre-tax profits of just £11.7bn ? £615m down on predictions - led to a 4.7 per cent drop in the share price. "

My guess is that this is just trying to put pressure on the government to lower the banking levy.

"HSBC chairman, Douglas Flint, last month told the Commons Treasury Select Committee that it was 'not trying to leave London' but warned that the bank had to face up to relevant questions from investors about the benefits of remaining in the UK, and described the bank levy a 'tax on being headquartered in London'.

A spokesman for HSBC said: 'London is ideally positioned as an international financial centre and we have been clear that it is our preference to remain headquartered here.

'However, we are routinely asked by institutional investors about the costs of being headquartered in the UK and it's clear that the City's competitive position needs protection.'

The Basel regulations will tighten up the regulatory system in an attempt to avoid another banking disaster. What should we do? Scrap tighter regulations and let bankers have free rein until the day we have to bail them out again?

Before 1992 they weren't headquartered in London. They will still have to have offices here, with traders operating out of this timezone. How many of their "high-fliers" will be prepared to move to Hong Kong rather than stay in London?

For those who are still wedded to the idea of banker bashing and think that taxing banks to high heaven is the best way forward.

Well it looks like HSBC will move from London to Hong Kong. Telegraph and Mail

"Britain's capital requirements for the UK's leading banks are now the toughest in the world......HSBC explained to shareholders that the more relaxed capital requirements in Hong Kong would cost less and generate more profit by allowing it to make greater use of its balance sheet"

"Yet the introduction of a bonus tax was blamed directly by HSBC's finance director Iain Mackay as a contributor to pushing up costs and driving down profit."

So can someone explain to me how this will help our economy for one of our major employers who didn't need any banking bailouts and managed their own affairs to be effectively taxed out of the UK. Not to mention all the jobs we will lose as a result and loss in both income tax receipts & corporation tax.

Right so you were joking, what a relief. I will sleep easier now.

'I don't think I have ever heard anyone say anything good about the Daily Mail before.'

Do you have no discerning friends and acquaintances at all?

As I've mentioned elsewhere we don't have tories where I live.

I am just coming to terms with somebody saying the Daily Mail is great. When I first read it I assumed it was ironic but I think she really means it.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say anything good about the Daily Mail before.

considers with wide eyes that big wide world out there

Coming back to the topic - siasl - surely the whole point of the Robin Hood / Tobin tax is that it would remove the incentive for speculative trading?

How is it in anyone's interest to have a bunch of overpaid gamblers sitting watching the markets and shifting money from one currency to another then back again to make a paper profit?

Yes it will add a charge to genuine transactions too - but at 0.05% that is a very small amount - imported food would go up by 1p for every £20 spent.

This tax seems to me the best idea that is out there to both control money markets and raise a bit extra for governments. The only difficulty is that it needs to be international so it will take some effort to get everybody on board: but I wish it would happen.

I will pay my 0.05% gladly in the knowledge that every stock market gambler is paying it too.

I have a sixth sense. It is that sixth sense that leads me to seek out the truth, which I have discovered can be found within the pages of the Daily Mail.

You should claig. And how DO you do that? Pop up every time your name's mentioned? Do you have special powers as well as great alliteration?

Is that because of the sense that I speak?
I am not a professional politician and am not able to claim for my duck house and moat. The Daily Mail is great, but I don't write for it.

You sure there are no professional politicians on here Gabby? That claig could pass muster as a tory minister I feel. Or a Daily Mail leader writer.

She'll probably take all that as a compliment!

It is better to have nice instincts instead of "nasty Tory party" instincts.

After all, non of us here are professional politicians . There are some good speilers on politics here; which is not the same thing.

Dont put your daughter into politics Mrts Worthington.

Politics is like FAME; leave it to the people who really need it. cheers "Gabby"

Not only naive enough, but rich enough not to be too bothered about the extra cost.