HSBC reviews future of UK HQ

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/265619cc-e...#axzz3YDPB1zvD

HSBC has ordered an immediate review of whether it should continue to be headquartered in the UK, citing the impact of regulatory and structural reforms in a move that comes less than two weeks ahead of the UK general election.

Douglas Flint, HSBC chairman, is due to say at the bank’s annual general meeting on Friday that the decision was part of a “broader strategic review taking place” at the bank.

Pretty big business to lose.

---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

Non-paywall linky: http://news.sky.com/story/1471309/hs...iew-of-uk-base

[richard s]

Yep the rich want to get richer yet again, with the loss if they did move of millions in tax revenue for this country... I suppose this might put a dent in all the political partys financial plans!

Originally Posted by richard s

Yep the rich want to get richer yet again, with the loss if they did move of millions in tax revenue for this country... I suppose this might put a dent in all the political partys financial plans!

How dare they seek to fulfil their legal obligations to their shareholders.

This is why mule-headed, knee-jerk regulation and over-taxation does not work. The very people you're trying to screw over, are the very people most able to up sticks and do business elsewhere.

Obviously the banks can't be allowed to get away with just anything, but clearly using them as a political punch bag carries its own risks.

Originally Posted by Chris

How dare they seek to fulfil their legal obligations to their shareholders.

This is why mule-headed, knee-jerk regulation and over-taxation does not work. The very people you're trying to screw over, are the very people most able to up sticks and do business elsewhere.

Obviously the banks can't be allowed to get away with just anything, but clearly using them as a political punch bag carries its own risks.

I'd say HSBC pretty much have got away with a lot more than they have been punished for..

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'd say HSBC pretty much have got away with a lot more than they have been punished for..

I don't think prosecuting individuals for wrongdoing would result in HSBC or any other bank upping and moving elsewhere. More of that could, and should have been done.

But prosecuting wrongdoers is not the same as creating a hostile regulatory and tax framework. Doing that, over time, encourages businesses that can move, to do so.

[Ignitionnet]

The Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation only moved to the UK after its acquisition of Midland in 1993 and periodically reconsiders where it is domiciled. It informed after its most recent review in 2010 that it would review again this year.

Not ideal losing them but would perhaps focus minds on diversifying the UK economy away from financial services somewhat and changing London's image as a centre of money laundering, tax avoidance and a financial cesspit where the unscrupulous can execute the dodgy deals they couldn't in the US for fear of being prosecuted both at a company and personal level, or Hong Kong for fear of worse still.

Worth taking a minute to look at positives as well as negatives. No-one wants to lose HSBC but politicians of all colours consistently whore themselves out to the financial services industry because they like spending the tax revenues and crowing about the GDP figures. This must stop. Kissing banker backside has and continues to have some quite severe effects for the wider economy and society.

[nomadking]

How much of any wrongdoing happened or was controlled in the UK? Whichever global company owned the Mexican or Swiss branches, they would still have happened.

[Ignitionnet]

If this is anything like correct I'm fine with getting shot of them.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101344158

[mrmistoffelees]

A bank born of the opium trade that now apparently funds mexican drug cartels

I highly doubt that this will happen the costs involved are far more than the increased taxes they will be subject to (and no doubt try to avoid)

Posturing that's all

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

How dare they seek to fulfil their legal obligations to their shareholders.

This is why mule-headed, knee-jerk regulation and over-taxation does not work. The very people you're trying to screw over, are the very people most able to up sticks and do business elsewhere.

Obviously the banks can't be allowed to get away with just anything, but clearly using them as a political punch bag carries its own risks.

Bosses pay row shakes up HSBC as almost a third of shareholders refuse to back lavish awards handed to top staff

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...#ixzz3YKS3d7SK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Ignitionnet]

Indeed. The EU thing is a smokescreen too.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...eferendum.html

[Tezcatlipoca]

I've seen two alternative locations suggested...

HSBC in talks with Somalia’s pirate king

HSBC to move HQ to lair under volcano

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Matt D

HSBC to move HQ to lair under volcano

[ianch99]

With a 17% fall in profits to £12.3 billion last year, I don't think we are taxing them enough

[Horizon]

I say let them sod off and they can take their money laundering for drug cartels and industrial tax evasion with them. And no I am not a socialist, quite the opposite. But there is nothing conservative with the way this organisation works.

Who knows perhaps they'll move to Saudi Arabia or Qata and become Islamic States' official banker.

Good riddance to them, hope they feel at home in communist China.