HSBC Move To Hong Kong 'Likely'

[Mick Fisher]

So now we have a Bank threatening to throw it's toys out of the pram if it don't get it's way.

Why bother voting in a Government when it's really businesses that run the country.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

So now we have a Bank threatening to throw it's toys out of the pram if it don't get it's way.

Why bother voting in a Government when it's really businesses that run the country.

like i said it's blackmail

[Osem]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

ALL banks benefited financially from the bail out as all borrowed money from the Bank of England for next to nothing and lent it at considerably higher rate, Bob Diamond himself agreed and I suspect access to those funds doesn't just happen in bail out years.

True but that's not the same as being recipients of taxpayers money to save their skins. As I said before, the money's been spent, the mistakes have been made and, like it or not, if the taxpayer is to get his/her money back a sensible balance has to be struck to ensure the banks can be profitable in the UK without exposing us to the sort on nonsense which was allowed to happen right under the noses of the previous administration and the FSA.

----------

As for the 'blackmail' idea - well that's big business for you and we're not the only country in that position. Major corporations are often beneficiaries of 'sweetners' from governments keen to secure their business and there have been massive movements of businesses to other countries whose commercial environments have been viewed more favourably than our own for one reason or another. We've done our fair share of offering businesses 'grants' to relocate here in the past and E. Europe has been a major beneficiary in more recent years. This will continue to be so unless we can make it more favourable for business to operate here. Like it or not, that's the real world.

Originally Posted by martyh

like i said it's blackmail

They could say the same about the government, who are saying "if you want to be based in this country, you must do this".

The banks have the right to say "no, thanks".

Originally Posted by Hugh

They could say the same about the government, who are saying "if you want to be based in this country, you must do this".

The banks have the right to say "no, thanks".

well yes you can ,i can see a lot more posturing and dummy throwing from both parties before they come to some sort of agreement

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

well yes you can ,i can see a lot more posturing and dummy throwing from both parties before they come to some sort of agreement

Well let's hope they do come to some sort of mutually acceptable agreement because right now we probably need them more than they need us.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The BoE's loans are nothing, at all, to do with bailouts. The BoE has long been the lender of last resort and its loans are most certainly not done for 'next to nothing' the rate is quite punitive compared with the wholesale markets as far as I'm aware.

The emergency loan rate if punative, normal loans aren't as they are guaranteed by the government

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...xpayer-subsidy

---------- Post added at 06:43 ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

True but that's not the same as being recipients of taxpayers money to save their skins. As I said before, the money's been spent, the mistakes have been made and, like it or not, if the taxpayer is to get his/her money back a sensible balance has to be struck to ensure the banks can be profitable in the UK without exposing us to the sort on nonsense which was allowed to happen right under the noses of the previous administration and the FSA.

Do you think the current administration would do anything different. In fact did the previous to last do anything different?

[papa smurf]

its worthless sabre rattling - ignore them and they'll fall into line .

[Osem]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Do you think the current administration would do anything different. In fact did the previous to last do anything different?

With hindsight of course yes, without it probably not a lot, although their spending would never have mushroomed out of control in the same way as New Labour's so the pressure to turn a blind eye to what the banks were up to would've been siginifcantly less.

IMHO the main problem with the last lot wrt the banks is a) they created an ineffectual system of oversight, the FSA and b) the money the banks were generating was essential to their lavish spending plans hence they were unlikely to want to see that tap turned off prematurely and have to suffer the political consequences.

The problems we face are not the fault of this government or the one before last, they're the result of 13 years of myopic Viv Nicholson 'government' in which the main aim was to buy popularity and thereby power. That's just my opinion though....

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

... And it would leave those institutions with all the headaches that come with a major international move, such as loss of expertise and the hard cost of moving. They all say they could do it, and they talk up the mobility of their top people, but if it were that easy they would be actually doing it, and not petulantly mumbling about it.

It would be very short sighted to think that any company (banking or otherwise) are tied to this country because it would be a logistical "headache" to ship out.

If the numbers stack up, they will move and that is the bottom line.

It's accountants that run all companies nowadays and they only see numbers - nothing else.

---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

its worthless sabre rattling - ignore them and they'll fall into line .

Blind faith, I really hope the government don't take that line.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The emergency loan rate if punative, normal loans aren't as they are guaranteed by the government

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...xpayer-subsidy

Did HSBC take loans of this nature?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It would be very short sighted to think that any company (banking or otherwise) are tied to this country because it would be a logistical "headache" to ship out.

If the numbers stack up, they will move and that is the bottom line.

It's accountants that run all companies nowadays and they only see numbers - nothing else

Don't forget the shareholders - if there's enough pressure from major sharholders to relocate then it'll happen.

[Mick Fisher]

I guess Cameron&Co better get their wallets out and get 'LOBBYING HSBC' to stay in the Country.

Oh wait.......they ain't got no money have they.

Guess it'll be down to brown nosing then, they will be good at that.

Seriously we have a policy of not giving in to Terrorist's demands so I don't see that this is any different.

A Company that has grown so big it can hold a Country to ransome should be broken up.

In the short term the loss of HSBC might be a shock. In the long term I think we will be better off without them if they don't want to play with OUR ball.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I guess Cameron&Co better get their wallets out and get 'LOBBYING HSBC' to stay in the Country.

Oh wait.......they ain't got no money have they.

Guess it'll be down to brown nosing then, they will be good at that.

Seriously we have a policy of not giving in to Terrorist's demands so I don't see that this is any different.

A Company that has grown so big it can hold a Country to ransome should be broken up.

In the short term the loss of HSBC might be a shock. In the long term I think we will be better off without them if they don't want to play with OUR ball.

HMG can't just 'break up' a business it doesn't own where there are no monopoly considerations. If it tried to can you imagine the likely implications for other major businesses, especially those which are largely foreign owned and therefore answerable to foreign shareholders? With all due respect I don't think UK PLC is sufficiently robust or productive to run the risk of a large scale exodus of business, especially when there are other countries not a million miles away who'd be more than willing to embrace them and their taxes whilst allowing them to carry on as usual.

Whether we'd be better off with or without the likes of HSBC is one argument but a more important one is what sort of message would HMG dictating to big business in such a manner send out to foreign investors in the UK? Like it or not, it's them we rely on not only for creating actual business but for buying our government's bonds and funding our debt so we're really in no position to dictate to them.

We can condemn the banks until the cows come home but if you check what your pension fund's invested in you'll almost certainly find banks like HSBC so their profitability, share value and dividend payments impact directly on your pension pot.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...Hong-Kong.html

HSBC didn't take funding from the tax payer but are being driven away by increased regulation in terms of capital requirements and taxation.

Prize to the first person to say 'Good riddance.' without thinking it through.

EDIT: As a note the BBC report that HSBC say they've no plans to do so, could just be a bit of a PR exercise.

so the tax cuts are working then?

I think they wont move its more they trying to lean on osbourne for some policy changes.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

The only people who would say good riddance are those who do not really know how much of UK GDP is dependent on banking activity. OK so they screwed up big time by getting involved with USA inspired exotic loan instruments but the massive tax take from the banking sector under-pinned Labour's spend, spend policies.

The banks will recover as will global finance but if via the politics of envy and the animosity generated by the media feeding frenzy we are sidelined as that recovery takes place, we as a country will be a lot poorer if HSBC is just the first of many to leave.

The banks in the City are involved in a very big way with currency transactions involving trillions. Huge money is made through being in the money flow as fees are charged which although are tiny, a little of trillions soon becomes billions. We cannot afford to lose the status of a one of the major clearers of mega financial transactions and as they are electronic, that world is truly a global village with the players able to go wherever suits.

The finger pointing at the banks and politically inspired bank bashing may prove to be a pyrrhic victory leaving the UK severely injured.

This leaves a very concerning question tho. Why have democracy when we have corporations that are too big to ignore their demands.