Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to axe 8'000 uk jobs and more threats to leave Uk

[pettywitchinlondon]

I just wish they would leave the uk. Bye!

Hopefully my local branch will shut and be used for something useful. Its open 12-3pm and closed all weekend.

The City of London is corrupt and in a civilised country would be run out of town. They were all angling for a Tory win as they knew they can get away with anything now, and the few remaining nationalised institutions will be sold to them at knock down prices so they can then turn their miniscule investment into millions via public money.

If it's leftist to want a society that is fair and allows failing businesses to fail and thinking criminals should go to jail then yes, I'm a leftist. I prefer to call myself a capitalist though, as those are the things capitalists endorse. What we have now is rampant corporatism and it will definitely end in riots. Even Nick Hanauer (multi billionaire) and the boss of Cartier think so, so your system is fucked.

And while I'm here, Nick says the rich are not 'wealth creators'. He's right, and he's right about businesses paying taxes as they all use tax funded services, like roads, phones, airports etc. whilst not wanting to pay tax for those services. Any billionaire that says they got there with no public assistance is therefore a liar.

And HSBC bosses should be in jail for all the fraud they've pulled. If I claimed JSA fraudulently I'd be thrown in jail but they steal billions from the public purse and get bonuses...

DoctorTwo ….. apart from your point that large businesses across the world should pay their taxes due (which is currently being addressed by the OECD), the rest of your post are just uninformed financial rants.

To start with, under Labour, with Brown hiring so many City advisors, courting of the Hedge Fund as donors and his deregulation of banks - the City banks in balance sheet and bonus growth, had never had it so good – and many of the frauds BY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES (of Investment Banks without their bosses knowing) were instigated/masked due to the resulting financial crash, distorting the pricing/transparency of markets.

Next, and without going into boring detail, without Investment Banks the world will go back to the barter system, with the UK using the Groat as a currency, so ‘running’ Investment Banks in London with thousands of employees out of town like some demented Sheriff, for the actions of a few employees, goes beyond dumb, whether we missed the £65 billion plus annual tax revenues or not.

As to “my system” (and I can’t wait to hear about ‘your system’ with example nations over the past 30-40 years that worked), just reflecting on the neurosis of a Cartier multibillionaire who can’t sleep at night worried about the potential of the great unwashed Swatch wearers rising up, as a testament to the whole system, is lame at best.

Now I have no idea (or cares) on how much your Nick Hanauer example ‘gives back’ to society, but it appears that being “leftish” or even communist, doesn’t automatically make their rich ‘better eggs’.

Philanthropy.
“Last year, China's top 100 philanthropists donated a mere $890 million, according to the Hurun Report. America's top 50 donors, by contrast, gave away $7.7 billion last year.”
www.cnbc.com/id/101560198

We're always being told that we'll be paid better when productivity goes up. We,, the latter has improved by 240% since WW2, the former by 108%. Until the USA did away with the gold standard in 1970 wages kept up with productivity. Since then wages have stagnated for the ordinary worker and raced ahead for the bosses, so yes, your system works for a tiny minority.

As for those 'individuals' who crashed the economy, they did it mainly with the knowledge of those in charge. These were not rogue traders in the eyes of the banks, even Jamie Dimon and Bob Diamond have said so. The bosses fail to see what they've done wrong, they were only 'making markets' is how they see it.

The reason why so many banks have their global HQs in London is that standards are so low and they can get away with far dodgier dealing than they can in their home countries.

So, if tightening up laws forces banks out of the City because they make 'trading' ie theft and fraud more difficult then good.

So the UK/Western economies has not changed since WW2, as the likes of Japan, Taiwan and China started mass production?

If you think individuals crashed the financial system from late 2007, once again, you are showing complete financial ignorance.

The Investment Banks and Fund Management companies based in the European time zone are based in London due to UK Financial Law, our first language and flexible work/regulatory system put in place decades ago, other still aspire to i.e. France and Italy, and refuse to adopt despite what their European Central Bank tells them, as will make them more competitive and reduce unemployment rates twice ours.

The UK under Brown should never have relaxed Bank REulation, tightening up penalties for those individuals that do wrong, with criminal charges, will sort that out.

and many of the frauds BY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES (of Investment Banks without their bosses knowing) were instigated/masked due to the resulting financial crash

Arguing with yourself is never pretty. This bloke blows your neoliberal policies to bits :o John Paulsen predicted the crash of 2008 and was the first to hedge against it, making billions of dollars whilst your banks got public money which is tantamount to socialism. hahahahahahahaha etc.

DoctorTwos … I neither ‘have banks’ or understand the micro point you are trying to make.

But if you want to listen to ‘blokes’, may I suggest what our then ex Chancellor/PM ‘bloke’ said about the pre crash times in the link below - and specifically what Brown’s new regulator said about what happened to RBS in the link below that – is more relevant/informative.
metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

“Labour's lax regulation of the City contributed to RBS collapse – watchdog”
www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

FYI on the 22nd May within the thread below I explain how the financial crash happened, ending with the three paragraphs below; if you have your own views qualified with facts, I’d be happy to debate them.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2384314-BANKERS-have-they-been-naughty-boys-and-girls-yet-again

”So the facts are; the problem began in the U.S., the threat of inter bank western contagion closed the interbank 'artery' market, which buggered every bank especially those that grew too large due to loans e.g. the UK, even though they thought their risks were being hedged - but even risk hedges can go wrong, if markets shut for the first time in living memory for more than hours, which became months.”

”Banks especially in the U.S. and U.K were guilty of lending too much to us as they thought the combination of a global consumption 'boom', ever higher asset prices, lower interest rates, and risk hedges to reduced banking risks were in place to protect their banks as fees/profits were being generated - while being encouraged by their respective governments to do so.”

”Generally speaking individual heads of banks, individually, did nothing wrong other than lend to much too much, which collectively became a huge problem when a (hopefully) once-in-a century financial 'stuff' happened.”

Funny how HSBC were widely reported during the election campaign as leaving Britain if Labour got in... and are now reported to be leaving anyway.

It's almost as if the people were deliberately having the wool pulled over their eyes.

HugoBear ... what I find is "funny" is that disappointed voters need to distort the truth and look for plots on shopping lists to explain why Labour lost the election.

The following pre election link explains exactly why the subject comes up before the election e.g. shareholders asked in HongKong, that HSBC in the past has reviewed it's Headquarters every 3-years, that increased regulation from both governments ESPECIALLY the Conservative led coalition, was causing banks major anxiety on the raising the cost for getting business done, in particular the Bank Levy explained further above.

April 2015; ”HSBC could move headquarters away from UK, hints bank's chairman”
www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/20/hsbc-could-move-headquarters-banks-chairman

”In Hong Kong, investors asked about the location of HSBC, which has been in based in London since 1993, after its acquisition of Midland Bank. It was founded in Hong Hong in 1865 and still has extensive operations there.”

”The bank has traditionally reviewed its head office location every three years but has delayed the next review indefinitely in the face of regulatory changes being introduced by the UK’s coalition government. But Douglas Flint, HSBC’s chairman, told the Hong Kong meeting that the moment may be approaching for the postponed assessment to take place.”

“We are beginning to see the final shape of regulation, the final shape of structural reform and as soon as that mist lifts sufficiently, we will once again start to look at where the best place for HSBC is,” said Flint, in remarks reported by Bloomberg.”

”The bank – along with others based in the UK – is being required to ringfence its high street business from its investment banking operations to comply with the reforms set out by Sir John Vickers in his review of banking.”

” The bank’s shareholders are said to be questioning its London headquarters in Canary Wharf because of George Osborne’s bank levy, which cost HSBC £750m last year.”

But since you brought it up, clearly another Labour 'tax high, spend badly' administration telling voters pre election that they will add FURTHER reforms 'as banks aren't working for the people', would have increased that anxiety even further.

Can you tell us isitmebut what the Gidiot has to show for the more than £750Bn that he added to the national debt in the last five years? More than any chancellor in history, and nothing to show for it. Unless of course you count giving more of our national publically owned business to your rich mates/family...

And yes, it is a matter of record that the national debt has gone up from £747Bn to £1.5Trn between 2010 and 2015 and the Tories refuse to acknowledge it, indeed they tell us they are 'paying down the debt'. 'Giving away the country' is more like it.

Back to HSBC, they are, like all the major banks, proven crooks, and well rid. They'll get a warm welcome in China. No, wait, they won't, they'll get a well deserved bullet in the head.

DoctorTwos …. How have you managed to get everything so arse about face, and which Conservatives fail to acknowledge that the UK National debt went up from 2010 and 2015? Provide qualified links.

Firstly the UK National Debt was £403 billion in 1997, just under £1.1 trillion in 2010, and as you say, £1.5 trillion in 2015.

Secondly are you aware that if a country runs an annual budget deficit, the national debt accumulates, like a personal credit card when spending more than paying off?

So as the Conservative coalition inherited a £157 billion annual budget deficit/overspend, unless they cut all £157 billion from day one, the accumulating budget deficit means the national debt will go up every year.

Now who in this country wanted to the Conservative coalition to slash £157 billion of public spending, in Day One, after the May 2010 General Election, so the accumulating annual budget deficit, around £87 billion now, clearly increases the National Debt until we go into an annual SURPLUS – which then starts to pay down the National Debt.

So are you now clear about the shit stack the Conservatives inherited from Labour (based on what they passed over in 1997), and that the Conservatives were the only party in the 2015 election planning to get the annual overspend under control and starting to pay off the National Debt, by 2020 – with the Labour and SNP Party wanting us to be borrowing even more, into 2021 and beyond?

So re your ideological “rich mates/family and sell offs” brain fuck, which clearly have nothing to do with our annual government overspend on public services - are you talking about the Royal Mail, that with a near £10 billion pension fund deficit, was technically bankrupt?

P.S. This has nothing to do with HSBC, who have never said they are intending to HQ "in China", but clearly China/Hong Kong is an option of many, in Europe where they do only 3% of their business and the whole Far East they both do the majority of their business now and see future stronger growth.

As much as it pains me I agree with Isit. On the one hand people slate the Tories for austerity and on the other hand they say "Ah yes but what about all the money they borrowed over the last five years"

They came to power with a HUGE deficit of Greece like proportions. Cuts had to happen and in reality they slashed less than they wanted to due to reality and coalition politics. Despite that there were wails of protests. Yet now people are slating them for still running a deficit. Talk about wanting moon on a stick!

As for HSBC, I for one will fear for the UK economy if they leave. The loss of such a huge bank means far less white collar jobs. It means proportionally a bigger dent in tax revenues, a shortfall that either we must cut further to plug or raise taxes.

The bank levy was a political stunt that continues to punish banks to the point they are going to upsticks and leave. At which point we're all poorer.

isitmebut -
Interesting how you post a link to The Guardian to deny any pre-election media bias about HSBC's review and conveniently neglect to post links to the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph etc.

But that's you all over, isn't it? A constant slurry of partisan schtick.

HugoBear ... A bit of a bear with a sore head, because your "partisan schtick" was shown to be rollocks - as I qualify what I have been saying?

You do realise that I am a Conservative voter, and that to the Daily Mirror readers on here that won't read anything negative about Labour, and so I'm told I'm not 'allowed' to post the Daily Mail articles? lol

The timeline of pre and post election HSBC shareholder events/concerns, the every 3-year 'shall we move' review and the over bearing regulation, are key to whichever newspaper it was all printed within - I'm sorry they weren't the 'bear necessities' for your little plot theory.

"As much as it pains me I agree with Isit."

Easy Shere Khan.

May I as what happened to the original 'nice guy', would he have appreciated me? lol

They came to power with a HUGE deficit of Greece like proportions

Simply not true. In fact it's nowhere near the truth. A Tory writes the facts. It's really interesting that a trusted economist completely skewers Gidiots entire economic 'plan'.

See also here

Not only that, but his plan to run a surplus is derided by a group of leading economists.

I made a mistake. Debt wasn't at £747Bn in 2010, it was £803Bn. Apologies for that, but the last government inherited an economy that had grown 1.3% in the quarter before the election and crashed it because it suited their ideology.

I think HSBC is using the threat to leave the UK to get the government to climb down on the levy.

Firstly it would take years for them to move their HQs to HK and it would be a massive disruption to their business, secondly the reason they moved from HK to UK post HK handover in 1997 was because they feared interference from an unpredictable communist Chinese government.

Now if I was a massive business such as HSBC would I rather have my HQ's in a politically stable country which might make me pay a higher levy for being here or shall I go to a politically unstable country whose government and policies can never be held to account and there is always a fear of an uprising by its population (think Tianmen Square, the HK umbrella demonstration)?

BlossomTang .... re your opening point, I agree, but surely any government that penalises its domestic business for doing business more than the global competition, has a domestic commercial competition problem of their own making?

Moreover, any commercial company that only does about 3% of its business in Europe, shouldn't really have its HQ in Europe, never mind London?

If the HSBC banking activity 'cake' is currently in the Far East, and they say they feel that region will have the strongest growth going forward, why not HQ out there i.e. Malaysia or Singapore, which might also be cheaper with enterprise zone type discounts?

DoctorTwo .... please tell me any other country in Europe that had a £157 bil annual budget deficit/overspend?

The first example you use talks about UK debt to GDP; this is the GDP formula, notice how much it relies on Government Spending (which had rocketed to 53% of UK GDP from high 30's in 1997) and Consumption (fueled by a huge debt boom).
Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).
www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

Labour LOST nearly 7% of GDP/output from 2008 to 2009, so why did it bounce to 1.3% the quarter before the 2010 General Election, unbridled government spending/debt looking to head north from a £157 bil deficit/overspend - or the private sector Business Capital Spending which had plummeted, or Exports which had halved under Labour from 23% of the UK economy in 1997, to 12% in 2010??????

Go figure if Ed Ballsian pre election 'growf' was ever going to be sustainable without serious adjustments to the size of the public sector and annual overspend, the trade unions, funding their 2010 election campaign, would never have allowed them to do

The fact is Labour totally unbalanced our economy by using the tax receipts of a bigger UK banking/credit boom than elsewhere AND new annual budget deficits to fund increased public sector spending from 2001 onward, but never cut the public sector back when the great recession hit - so were unable like other countries to give tax cuts to businesses and the masses to both help cushion and help us out of the recession.

Don't take my word for it.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

“During the years 2001-2007, there was a sharp rise in government spending. In real terms, government spending increased from just over £400bn (2009 prices) to £618bn in 2008-09.”

“This increase in government spending contributed to budget deficits and higher public sector debt.”

”However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. When the credit crunch hit, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances.”

• “If the government had entered the credit crunch with a budget surplus and lower public sector debt, the government would have had much more room to pursue a real and sustained economic stimulus.”

• “A great failure of spending decisions of the 2000s, was to allow budget deficits during rapid economic expansion. A budget deficit of 3% of GDP may have sounded relatively low. But, in hindsight, this exaggerated the underlying deficit because tax revenues were boosted by tax revenues which evaporated during the credit crunch.”

P.S. Many economists back in 2010, like the IMF, thought Osbourne was wrong, as thought 'any current government spending was good spending', which I hope was because they didn't realise how unbalanced the UK economy had become - and ALL have had to eat shit and apologize, as those in Europe that didn't adapt, are still struggling.

As to trying to get to an annual UK budget SURPLUS, how else will we start to pay down our national debt.

DoctorTwos ..... Re the total National Debt in May 2010, I say it was under £1.1 billion, you say it was £803 billion, but according to the Budget that year the headline figure was £890 billion - but that I believe did not include the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deals Labour signed us up to;

“Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt”
www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/crippling-pfi-deals-leave-britain-222bn-in-debt-10170214.html

If you want the full list in 2010, including UK taxpayer pension liabilities, it looks something like this;

• The official public sector debt quoted in the budget – £890 billion (£0.89 trillion)

• Unfunded public sector pensions – estimated at £1,283 billion (£1.28 trillion)

• Unfunded state pensions – estimated at £2,717 billion (£2.7 trillion)

• Other – including the Local Government Pension deficit, PFI, and nuclear decommissioning – £398 billion (£0.4 trillion)

The economy has been unbalanced since mass manufacturers were allowed to transfer their businesses overseas to where the cheapest labour is, and councils were forced to put services out to tender and accept the cheapest bid. That was in the 80s, as was the so called Big Bang deregulising of The City, giving the thieves more freedom to steal.

Back on topic, a legal expert who used to advise HSBC writes.

DoctorTwo or more like TwosDoctor ….. using ignorant socialist mantras; we “allowed” businesses to transfer overseas, a fat overmanned State is the answer to everything (even with the unfunded Public Sector pension liability a few posts above) - and blame ‘bloody Thatcher’ and the banks in the 1980’s, for the high inflation/interest rate and strikes closing factories in the 1970’s – is typical.

Basically not accepting global business/product/manufacturing cycles moving up ‘the value chain’ as economies mature that then happened in Japan, Taiwan and slowly happening to China, is economic ignorance. FYI as those countries become less competitive in high volume manufacturing (as their wages and taxes rise) they can come back to the West, which is why the UK needs to remain competitive in order to be a ‘onshoring’ country chosen when bringing manufacturing jobs back to the West.

Also rewriting a historic timeline and pathetically assuming there was a conscience effort in the 1980’s to allow industry to go tits up, and concentrate on global banking – yet the FACTS show that is exactly what Labour/Brown did - when he even called the strategic policy to unleash the City and high street banking to tax receipt fund an ever larger UK State, “the end of boom and bust”.

All the while losing 1 million manufacturing jobs by 2005, due to higher taxes, ever increasing regulation/red tape and failing to understand the effect a very strong Sterling was having on them e.g. exporters.

Re HSBC what do you have there, a “legal expert” criticising HSBC?

Other posters shouldn’t have to trawl through often dubious websites/opinions to somehow get to the point another poster is (lazily) trying to make. IMO.

The fact is as late as a few years ago, there was a lending log jam, and politicians, businesses and home buyers were saying that banks were not lending enough (as regulators were bringing in measures to STOP excessive bank lending) – so the last thing we need is to lose the bank lending capacity of the largest bank in Europe, never mind the UK.

To fund UK private sector economic investment/jobs/growth to new levels, the last thing we need is socialist ‘cut nose to spite face’ anti capitalist ignorance, especially as they never accept the responsibility/blame for making the wrong decisions, defaulting back to ‘bloody Thatcher’ as above.

Again to clarify my view; I don't think we should do HSBC any favours for having the HQ here, I just think it commercially stupid for our government to penalize them for doing so.