HSBC Move To Hong Kong 'Likely'

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Did HSBC take loans of this nature?

The normal ones? I'd put a pound on them taking them...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so the tax cuts are working then?

What tax cuts?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

Probably.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

Since when was it the state's job to make demands of private corporations beyond ensuring their compliance with the law?

That's a tad authoritarian don't you think?

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

<Snip>

That on the other hand is just plain scary.

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The normal ones? I'd put a pound on them taking them...

Good - find some evidence they did so and we can proceed with that line of discussion.

[Chrysalis]

you misunderstood me, I meant corp's giving demands to government and been to big for the government to ginore the demands.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you misunderstood me, I meant corp's giving demands to government and been to big for the government to ginore the demands.

That happens all over the world, it's cheaper for governments to offer incentives to companies to come and generate jobs than it is to pay welfare to the people that would be working for them so governments compete for multinational presences.

Welcome to globalisation.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

That happens all over the world, it's cheaper for governments to offer incentives to companies to come and generate jobs than it is to pay welfare to the people that would be working for them so governments compete for multinational presences.

Welcome to globalisation.

Correct and what those who cry 'get rid of them all', 'let them go elsewhere' ought to be thinking is who'll make up for the jobs and revenue that are lost as a result. It's not a pleasant thought but there we are, that's the reality of the world we're in. We have no divine right to an economy successful enough to meet all our demands, we have to create a commercial environment in which businesses want to operate here and can be profitable doing so.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

That happens all over the world, it's cheaper for governments to offer incentives to companies to come and generate jobs than it is to pay welfare to the people that would be working for them so governments compete for multinational presences.

Welcome to globalisation.

It may happen but its not democratic and its wrong.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Correct and what those who cry 'get rid of them all', 'let them go elsewhere' ought to be thinking is who'll make up for the jobs and revenue that are lost as a result. It's not a pleasant thought but there we are, that's the reality of the world we're in. We have no divine right to an economy successful enough to meet all our demands, we have to create a commercial environment in which businesses want to operate here and can be profitable doing so.

Whats wrong with 11billion profit then?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Good - find some evidence they did so and we can proceed with that line of discussion.

Hmm I thought I did...

we estimate the value of this subsidy to UK banks to be around £30bn a year.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

It may happen but its not democratic and its wrong.

Why isn't it democratic?

By that definition we either need a referendum on everything or for it to be in the manifesto to be considered democratic.

---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Why isn't it democratic?

By that definition we either need a referendum on everything or for it to be in the manifesto to be considered democratic.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Hmm I thought I did...

we estimate the value of this subsidy to UK banks to be around £30bn a year.

This would be the theoretical value of the banks being guaranteed by the UK government and therefore having access to cheaper wholesale funds.

Not exactly the same thing as HSBC being loaned money by the BoE at subsidised rates, so where are HSBC's subsidised loans?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

It may happen but its not democratic and its wrong.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------



Whats wrong with 11billion profit then?

Nothing at all. They're not moaning about their profits are they? There's concern about the future and the regulatory framework which will be in place however. If that changes and they believe their profits will be significantly affected then why wouldn't they go elsewhere and take those profits and jobs with them? I'd prefer HSBC to stay here, be profitable and be subject to effective regulatory control what I cannot understand is the attitude of those I referred to in my previous post who'd rather see the likes of HSBC leave these shores and take their business with them. My question to these people is in what way would UK PLC benefit if that happened? I'm still awaiting their answer.....

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

This would be the theoretical value of the banks being guaranteed by the UK government and therefore having access to cheaper wholesale funds.

Not exactly the same thing as HSBC being loaned money by the BoE at subsidised rates, so where are HSBC's subsidised loans?

You don't think this "insurance scheme" free and how do they repay us for getting them this cheap money, by charging us a much higher interest rate than they borrowed it at and paying relativly begger all tax on the profits.

[Chrysalis]

Ignition come on, you dont see a problem of a corporate having a bigger say in policy than small companies and individuals? it is anti democratic.

If they can threat then threat in return.

eg. new law.

if based in uk 0% tax on transactions.
if move 25% tax on transactions.

make it save them money by not moving.

the big problem I see is shareholders unwilling to accept a drop in profits in a recession. That is the real problem. A corporate who manages to post 11billion profits at a time as damien said when social services are suffering and then claims its suffering is just petty.

[Ignitionnet]

Why should shareholders take a drop in profits to satisfy the public's hunger for banker's blood? It's absolutely right that the company looks at ways to maximise its shareholders' returns, it is their fiduciary duty to do so.

With the current sentiment that any company with an HQ in Britain should be paying tax on all its profits worldwide to the UK wherever they are made along with some extra and shouldn't be making profit anyway because it's clearly unfair for them to be making money when state spending is being reduced to sustainable levels it's a wonder any multinational would want to operate from here.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You don't think this "insurance scheme" free and how do they repay us for getting them this cheap money, by charging us a much higher interest rate than they borrowed it at and paying relativly begger all tax on the profits.

HSBC paid tax on its profits made in the UK, as is right. These form a small part of its profits and will be mostly erased by these regulations if they remain here.

Contrary to the opinion of UKUncut companies pay tax where they make the profits.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

I'm not some hardcore capitalist, I just think HSBC have every right to consider changing their domicile and to seek concessions to make them reconsider, and am somewhat surprised they haven't already moved.

[Chrysalis]

nothing to do with satisfying need for blood.

As far as I am concerned they can make what profit they want as long as its not too risky and causing bailouts, because of this regulation is needed, if hsbc dont like it, its a case of tough deal with it. The rest of us have to deal with laws and regulations and work round it.

I think anyone should accept a drop in profits during recessions and in fact be thankful they even still making a profit, these guys need a reality check as for some people its much worse as losing jobs or going bankrupt.

One could argue why should spending be cut to increase profits for banking shareholders? Hurt the many to satisfy a few.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

One could argue why should spending be cut to increase profits for banking shareholders? Hurt the many to satisfy a few.

Spending needs to be cut because between current debt, off the books debt and unfunded liabilities we're the most insolvent of the major first world nations. Thanks to the wonders of PAYG pensions rather than saving schemes and PFI we're in the poop to the tune of 3 - 5 times GDP. We don't have the concept of the 401K or other savings accounts and the majority of the populace don't make significant provisions for their retirement, we've a huge generation in the process of retiring and said generation's government spent all the windfall from North Sea oil reserves, privatisations and housing stock sell offs.

I am somewhat surprised you're naive enough to think that all the financial issues would magically have gone away without the banking crisis, the UK was in deep excrement according to reports from 2005.

The previous generation urinated all the money away and expect us to pay their pensions, sorry to say you'll have to get used to either not having all the services they took for granted or paying some truly nasty taxes.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think anyone should accept a drop in profits during recessions and in fact be thankful they even still making a profit, these guys need a reality check as for some people its much worse as losing jobs or going bankrupt.

If every company were happy to accept underperformance during a recession the economy would never leave it.

No they don't have to be thankful for anything. We're not all homogenised, faceless entities diving towards mediocrity, some companies are doing better than others and they performed below expectations. My own company is performing superbly but if we don't hit our numbers each quarter we'll take a pummelling and our shareholders will be upset.

The corporate world is, necessarily, quite selfish. There are nearly always some people who are doing much worse, doesn't require any company to be grateful they aren't them, they all have their targets to hit and will be punished accordingly if they fail to do so.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

nothing to do with satisfying need for blood.

It's everything to do with a need for blood. If you would take some time to actually look at these regulations you'll see that they don't really address the fundamental issues they just give the public their pound of flesh and make the politicians look like they have testicles.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

As far as I am concerned they can make what profit they want as long as its not too risky and causing bailouts, because of this regulation is needed, if hsbc dont like it, its a case of tough deal with it. The rest of us have to deal with laws and regulations and work round it.

This is rather at odds with the rest of your posts. I would suggest that working around the regulations would be moving to Hong Kong where the burdens are considerably lighter.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

One could argue why should spending be cut to increase profits for banking shareholders? Hurt the many to satisfy a few.

You're a banking shareholder indirectly via HMG's stake in Lloyds and RBS and probably via your work or personal pension if you have one. So you have a direct personal interest in their success like it or not. Having seen your tax money go in to save some of them why wouldn't you want them to be successful in the UK so that money can be recouped for the taxpayer? Profits are at least taxable, losses aren't. I'd have thought the UK taxpayer had the biggest interest of all in wanting a successful banking sector, albeit an effectively regulated one. Let's face it, it's not as though multinational businesses are just queueing up waiting to take their place and provide new jobs for us all is it.