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.

I admit you're dedicated. Deluded, but dedicated. Given that we're on the edge of a massive crash which is only delayed slightly due to the Greece thing I find your defence of the neotard system worrying. It doesn't work for most of us and will fuck the economy. In fact it already has. Your friend Gidiot is killing the Uk economy with his 'austerity' measures for the poor and largesse for the rich, forgetting that the 'wealth creators' are the people who make the things companies sell. Not the people who own those companies. Even the bloke who owns the place I spent the last 7 months at as a temp realises this, and treats his employees properly. He knows they create his wealth and treats them accordingly.

If the Troika stiffs the Greek people then a crash is imminent. If they don't they just kick the can down the road.

And Phoenix Capital Marketing are not part of teotwawki. Even Warren Buffet is not buying.

TwosDoctor ….. you say that I am “dedicated and deluded” yet it is you, ‘long’ on failed socialist ideology, ‘short’ of facts, trying to rewrite recent UK history. Lol

Since 2010 the Conservatives/Osbourne actions have been to correct Labour/Brown’s economic incompetence, including the cutting of the £157 billion annual budget deficit/overspend they inherited, deluded people call “austerity”.

The “austerity” needed, is basic UK withdrawal symptoms of a Labour Administration’s SHARP RISE IN ANNUAL ‘real’ terms government spending, far larger than any other European nation, from £400 billion (2009 prices) to £618 billion – financed by new government debt, tax rises, and the tax receipts from Labour’s financial bubble – all to cause financial problems at the first UK recession, never mind the worst in over 80-years.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389284/The-80-tax-rises-Labour.html

You say ‘austerity’ measures to the poor and largesse for the rich, but once again you refuse to acknowledge the facts; what happened under Labour when Brown was bribing the electorate with benefits/welfare spending at unsustainable (recession & national debt) levels far higher than anywhere else, and under the Conservative’s when the rich are paying far more taxes than under Labour.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11411790/Britains-highest-earners-pay-a-quarter-of-nations-income-tax.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245080/Embarrassment-Brown-major-report-reveals-inequality-increased-Labour.html

You say that Osbourne is “killing the economy”, yet Labour were incapable of running an economy; the financial crash was their baby and Manufacturing dropped from 23% of our economy in 1997 to 12% in 2010, with 1 million manufacturing jobs lost by 2005 (2-years before the financial crash) – as they can’t ‘build’ anything, they just ‘fiddle’ with stuff like taxes, as evidenced by the UK Trolleys Tax Guide, by 2011 16,200 pages very long, having DOUBLED in size from 1997.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

And what was Labour’s great plan to reflate the UK economy by 2010, looking to not only replace the manufacturing jobs they lost PRIOR to the crash, but the near 1 million Private Sector jobs they lost from the crash onwards?

Labour having already put UP taxes for several years, unable to give companies/citizens tax breaks to cushion against some affects of the Great Recession (like other countries), as supporting an expensive, bloated UK State – would had to have put UK taxes up substantially for all after the election to maintain that fat State – as evidenced by Labour’s ‘jobs tax’, they KNEW would COST jobs.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7539343/Labours-planned-National-Insurance-increase-will-cost-jobs-Alistair-Darling-admits.html

So with the Conservatives having done the OPPOSITE to Labour, reducing the size of that Labour massively increased £££ State, and funnelling in back to the Private Sector and citizens to REBALANCE the economy while REDUCING the annual budget deficit – please do not lecture me on WHAT IS, versus the disaster for ALL under a Labour administration who had no idea what to do.

Cont’d

More.

So you have nothing more to say on my explanation of why the ‘gold bug’ explanation for why Brown sold our gold as it is basically complete market rationale rollocks, so back to the “massive crash”, when much of the banks problems became their national government problems, who were able to borrow then (and in the future) at low interest rates should any shite hit the fan again – as banks balance sheets were shrunk and cleaned up.

That Zero Hedge website/contributors kept saying for years JP Morgan was going to go under as ‘short’ gold (denied by JPM as they were a custodian for others gold positions) and they came out the other end of the crash as one of the strongest banks in the world. Guffaw.

… and “Warren Buffet isn’t buying” what, equities?

Equities having been in a bull market since early 2009 (from the crash lows) are arguably fully priced, but from January alone, if held a Global Equity fund, the UK is up over 10%, Hong Kong up over 20%, Japan is up over 30% and the U.S. hitting new highs – while gold has gone down in price.

In fact gold over the past 52-weeks, with no interest/dividends, has traded between $1,135 and $1,349 – which is the market equivalent of watching paint dry. IMO

Gold has traded at that level, true, but whenever it gets to $1350 the Fed, or another govt dept, no individual can afford to do it, releases hundreds of tonnes of EFTs, causing a stop moment and crashing the price.

If calling for capitalism for the banks, ie they should be allowed to fail, is socialism then yes, the cap fits. The banks you lionize are employing short termists who will, in the long run, always lose. Their high wages and bonuses are explained away by saying that they have to pay that much to get the best. Just look at the economy; it's in the shitter and a hand is about to flush...

So Labour, a neoliberal party, ran a structural deficit. So fucking what? In the past 100 or so years there have been about 7 years where the budget has been in surplus. A Tory writes for The Huffington Post.

Gidiot's plan won't work unless he does things that go against his principal objective of transferring public money to private hands.

Warren Buffett and many others are staying out of bonds. And shares. Putting most of their funds into cash and tangibles. Share prices are now mainly dictated by buy backs. The majority of S&P company shares are now owned by S&P companies, effectively taking them private. Which isn't capitalism, it's a combination of corporatism and socialism, so I'm surprised you approve.

Carl Icahn says This is a bubble. Of course it is, it's designed that way.

Ha ha.. more predictable ‘gold bug’ clichés from the Twos Doctor e.g. the U.S. Federal Reserve, the largest holder by far with 8,133 thousand tons of the stuff, for some reason wants to see the price of gold depressed, when just one commodity out of many.

Prior to the crash, the price of EVERY asset class was going up; bonds, equities, commodities, housing, art, fecking vintage cars, you name it – so how would a rising gold price now, nearly $600 below it all time highs derail anything – you seriously should stop reading this ‘gold bug’ shite and think it through for yourself.

Gold is in a bear market, it was in a bear market from 1980 to 2000, over such periods a housing brick will go up far more in price than a gold one, but the gold industry has people writing this ‘research’ about crashes, plots, and price objectives that would make King Midas blush – are/were those people using dim witted minions to spread $3,000, $5,000 and even $10,000 targets regulated?

Re Equities they trade in economic, intra equity market, and valuation cycles, and while currently fully valued with limited increased earnings potentials, companies merge, taking the weakest out, increasing market share and future earnings. Based on your 'survival' banking view, I’m surprised that you don’t approve. lol

There will be equity price downward corrections, but they will be seen as buying opportunities, and unlike holding gold, there are many global equity market stories to choose from each time.

The big question is, as interest rates rise (so bond prices go down), where will the money from the sellers of currently low interest bearing bonds go, gold?

Once the bond correction is nearly over and bond interest rates are back at 3,4, 5% plus, with the global economy e.g. EU getting stronger, will people being buying gold?

The answer to both is surely no, which validates the historically long gold bear market – which leaves you and all the ‘gold bugs’ winding up yourselves with plot and 'short' theories. Bless.

More

Continued

As for Labour, So what if in 100-years there have only been 7-years UK in surplus, how much do you think wars e.g. two World Wars, and recessions cost?

In 1997 when Brown took over, the National Debt was £403 billion, up from £190 billion in 1990/1, before the previous early 1990’s recession – and Brown not only inherited from the Conservatives a budgeted economy to go into a surplus (and start paying the National Debt down) in 2001/2 – he had promised the electorate, concerned about ‘Old Labour’s’ high income taxes/over spending, that he would keep to those plans.

Which he largely did, but also raided UK pensions and put up Home Stamp Tax from a flat 1% rate to start funding his fat State.

It was after 2001/2 that instead of using the budget surplus to start down the National Debt (that had more than doubled from 1991), despite significant increases in UK financial bubble forming tax receipts, Labour would not only borrow £30 billion plus each year more (increasing the National Debt still further) – but also commit government departments to excessive borrowing/costs for up to 30-years via the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8779598/Private-Finance-Initiative-where-did-all-go-wrong.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9356942/Blair-defends-PFI-as-NHS-trusts-face-bankruptcy.html

As to your ”Gidiot's plan won't work unless he does things that go against his principal objective of transferring public money to private hands.” was the above NOT transferring Public Money into private hands?

And if we had a National Debt of £190 billion in 1991 and £1.5 trillion in 2015, who the hell do you think is FINANCING our government if not the Private Sector – and based on the last election, which party was the ONLY party saying they look to go into SURPLUS again during this parliament, Labour? Guffaw.

The Facts are; everything you blame Osbourne for, a Labour Party with a stonking majority and bad policies handed him, and he is looking to reverse it – as the debt/finances shit stack the Conservative coalition inherited in 2010, bore no resemblance to what the Conservative’s passé to Labour in 1997.

I can't believe what leftie eejits we have on MN.

I'm sure the 8,000 about to lose their jobs are raising the rafters with their cheers.

And I'm sure the leftie eejits will love shopping at the new charity shop which moves in once the bank closes (and here I'm not being sarcastic!)

NorahDentressangle .... sadly too many confuse High Street banking with Investment Banking, which often colours their judgement, red.

High Street banking clearly did lose too many names as banks/building societies either closed or merged, which cannot be good for banking competition purposes, never mind potentially leaving some communities without a bank.

I see at the RBS Shareholder Meeting yesterday, branch closures at a later date would follow, as 'our banking needs go more on-line' etc. Hmmm.

Unfortunately the obligatory over reaction by governments after a crisis to try show they are now on top of a problem, currently making the cost of providing banking services more expensive, could mean yet more bank name closures to follow as they look to trim costs.

As cost is an issue, it does not bode well for new banking names or recently established banking names, taking over those closing branches - which is bad news for High Street Bank staff you allude to, as well as the consumer/economy.

The way I like to define the differences between investment (ha) banks and retail banks is simple. The investment banks fraudulently traded CDOs and CDSs that were ranked triple a and had to be bailed out with endless QE (you can't taper a Ponzi scheme) and the retail banks are those that launder money for Mexican drug cartels and Hamas.

Btw, my employer has just offered me the option of being paid with crypto. I'm seriously considering getting an Android phone just to get a bitcoin wallet.

DoctorDoctor.... FYI the Investment banks don't 'rate' securities, they have agencies called R-a-t-i-n-g Agencies for that, but hey, when has financial market ignorance stopped you having an opinion, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Your employer offering payment in "crypto" must think that you are a sandwich short of a picnic, isn't that the stuff that fecks up Superman? lol

P.S. No doubt you also have your underground bunker stacked with provisions with your mate Billy-Bob.

Oh dear yesitsyouitalwaysis, the banks mixed up good loans with bad and fraudulently labelled them all as 'triple a'.

At least when the shit hits the fan my crypto will belong to me, unlike the contents of my bank account which belongs to the bank.

good they are bunch of cunts anyway, let them leave.

DoctorTwo ... re your "Oh dear yesitsyouitalwaysis, the banks mixed up good loans with bad and fraudulently labelled them all as 'triple a'."

Can you be specific, as what you appear to be saying (if mortgages), the U.S. banks that securitized their own mortgages into bond issues - that has an investor 'put option' BACK to the banks if the individual default levels reach a certain percentage, which CAUSED the Sub Prime contagion fears - was done on purpose?

Every Mortgage Backed bond issue of say $1 billion, made up of numerous repackaged mortgages, will have a pre-set percentages of mortgages that if MORE than that pre set level go tits up - investor 'put' it back on the issuing banks balance sheet - so what is the point of a bank selling dodgy mortgages to their own clients, when will come back on their books?

The way I last heard it, the FBI were investigating the brokers/intermediaries that unknown to the main banks, had lowered the credit criteria when selling mortgages on behalf of those banks.

The thing is, you can cite individual cases over the past decade or so mainly perpetrated by individuals within, but Investment Banking has brought billions out of poverty over the past 35-years - and without it, as we saw after the financial crash - there would be mass unemployment, governments going bankrupt, leading to no benefits/welfare/pensions.

Now I know that floats your silly little 'gold bug' boat, but not very practical.

But the cutbacks are dire already. All the tax we don't get, will not get, from big companies means less day centres for the elderly and disabled.

Typical leftwing thinking - Everyone deserves everything Yeah! How will we pay for it? Take it from the rich - oh dear, they've all left!

The drop in takings from the North Sea oil has yet to hit us - again everyone cheering low oil prices - errrr that means lower millions in tax from oil company's profits. And if oil from the north sea is not profitable those companies will be offski too.

The public servants pensions are what we should worry about, that bill is going to grow and grow and grow. No gov will cut that as the pensionsers vote them in. Remember, many retired at 50 and 55 so how much is that over 30+ years.