´óÏó´«Ã½

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

When are they moving their head office back to the far east? Isn't this the unspoken back story?

My guess is that the new chaps will be the ones that are prepared to move!!!

Hi Robert,

just wanted to mention that I really enjoy your posts and the comments / disucssions that result.

I'm a little concerned thought that

"They are both respected bankers."

may be a bit of an oxymoron ;-)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Cant keep up with the rate you are turning out blogs these days - well almost. Replacement of Stephen Green? - where is the grit in the oyster. Bob Diamond at Barclays now possibly Stuart Gulliver at HSBC running banks from a background of what is euphemistically called investment banking. Two fingers to the regulators and the government?

Ludicrous - a straight talking non PC boss that steered HSBC through the worst banking crisis in a 'while' without having to take tax payers money. And now getting shafted by his own board ? You have to wonder what these slime balls are up to. And to be honest, what normal thinking board would want Goldman Sachs employees running the show ?

Sorry, but why should we care? When are we going to get it through our heads that these people are not "masters of the universe"? They are not "financial gods". They do not have powers beyond those of mere mortals. They are clever people - though not hugely more clever than most - doing a job with significant responsibility. That puts them somewhere around the level of Chief Executive of a large council.

If they all resigned tomorrow and left our shores for good, we would replace them in days. No one is indispensable. It's time we started to see these folks in those terms

OK, it's a farce.... but the point is.....we still don't trust bankers, period!!!

So, what difference will this make?

Answer....?

None whatsoever, if proper reform of the UK banking system takes place.

This needs to include:

- transparent separation of retail and 'investment' banking. Robert... it's about time you analysed the arguments... you haven't done so properly yet..... viz. Has anyone ever given you any coherent substantive reason why this is not a good thing? Forget about the threats of 'we'll move our HQ abroad' etc.... please look at the benefits/costs from the point of view of the 'man on the Clapham Omnibus'... whether it's the 295 to Shepherd's Bush, or frankly the 319 to Sloane Square.

- withdrawal of tax relief on debt interest (.... please ask Andy Haldane what he thinks about this one... or Paul Mills of the IMF... or even boy George of HMG)

- more accounts details into the public domain (again.... simple question....is there any downside at all in forcing banks to disclose more info?)

- a minute transaction tax to snuff out HF trading and the facility with which a small number of players can skew the market and create all these 'dark pools'.... again Andy Haldane has kind of addressed this problem too by implying that a system with no 'damping' mechanisms (no friction, or losses, at all anywhere... i.e. the 'perfect market') will be subject to catastrophic instability from small numbers of individuals going hell for leather for short term advantage, having no regard at all to the long term consequences... i.e. as you say, having no patience.

These are the four key reform elements required which will put our UK monetary system back in the hands of the 'people'... and removed from the hands of the 'bankers'!

The increased capital ratios devised by a small group of bankers in Switzerland (i.e...the Basle III Secret Police), as far as the general public are concerned, should not be trusted.... just like the bankers themselves!!!

Banking is all 'pistols at dawn'.

The HSBC fight for the leader position would do the Monarch of the Glen proud. No farce here. This is life.

1. The short list screams same old club of nutters.
2. If markets are all about confidence then what does this mean. Perhaps a smooth change over would indicate a fix that certainly would not improve confidence.

The PA of the previous occupant will do. All you need is to know how to work the phone and have the phone book. PAs are flies on the wall. Golfing skill is not essential.

But even better would be the guy running the risk assessment? Is there still one there?

Which is not to cast aspersions against Mr Flint or Mr Gulliver. They are both respected bankers.

Is that an oxymoron ?

By the way the economy is still failing.

The zombies more considering more QE at the same time as massive spending cuts. Brilliant !

Lets buy more of our gilts to stimulate the economy and lets take tens of billions of spending power away from it at the same time because we must finance out deficit spending. Madness

Zombieland Arizona here we come.

"First of all, it's not at all clear that the Financial Services Authority has given its approval for the changes. In fact, I am informed that the FSA has not yet given permission."

Am I the only person here who thinks that it is strange that I private business has to seek permission from government for internal changes?

If internal appointments mean more of the same and as you say they are successful, what is the problem?

If they decamp to Australia again what is the problem? Governments have droned on and on about the financial services driving the prosperity of the country for years.......................
Back to today! When they go can I be there to wave them off?

Just to think, fifty years ago banking was thought of as dull.

So then, the shouty CEO who threatened to walk if he wasn't elevated to Chairman - a practice which you allude to as being frowned upon by the majority of big investors - walks when he's not made Chairman. Delicious indeed!
The same CEO on whose watch the bank was forced to write down around fifty billion of 'assets', although they did manage to avoid relying too heavily on taxpayers when the brown stuff splattered all over the financial fan, so kudos there.
They seem to be making hay right now however on the back of those same taxpayers through interest rates whilst simultaneously preparing to move offshore. Nice

And a bank with a history of promoting within is planning to promote from within - as before, delicious!

Not sure which you'd make a worse job of Robert - gossip columnist or restaurant critic.

As many have alluded to, there are plenty of big ticket questions out there we want asked. As we can't rely on the elected representatives of the people for much interrogation, could we please have some tangible effort to move the real debates on from you Robert, also employee of the people

I very much trust that the musical chairs at the top of HSBC, that truly exposes the egos and limited inter-personal skills who inhabit this part of the bank will be noted by the remuneration commitee.

Indeed the actions of a few individuals is prejudicial to shareholder value and they need to be held fully account. As a result I would expect all bonuses to be withheld as a penalty for the dis-service done to the name of the bank and the reputation of its senior management cadre.

If this is not the case all shareholders should write the new Chairman indicating their displeasure and the expectation that senior salaries of the new staff and bonuses will be less than before and that bosues of these senior ingrates will be witheld.

17. At 08:25am on 24 Sep 2010, DibbySpot wrote:
I very much trust that the musical chairs at the top of HSBC, that truly exposes the egos and limited inter-personal skills who inhabit this part of the bank will be noted by the remuneration commitee.

Indeed the actions of a few individuals is prejudicial to shareholder value and they need to be held fully account. As a result I would expect all bonuses to be withheld as a penalty for the dis-service done to the name of the bank and the reputation of its senior management cadre.
================
Why do you think that middle and low grade staff should be penalised because you disapprove of the perceived behaviour of the people at the top?

I think the change of position at the top table has more to do with outside influence. HSBC is not normally known for taking rushed or unplanned decisions. I suspect there is far more behind the scenes that we will never found out about. If new blood or influence had been allowed into the boardroom, they may even have changed their attitudes for the better. As it is we will probably be left with a UK version of UBS.

7. At 00:25am on 24 Sep 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sorry, but why should we care? When are we going to get it through our heads that these people are not "masters of the universe"? They are not "financial gods". They do not have powers beyond those of mere mortals. They are clever people - though not hugely more clever than most - doing a job with significant responsibility. That puts them somewhere around the level of Chief Executive of a large council.
------------------

You do Council CEO's a disservice. Whilst the level of financial responsibility is insignificant compared to that of a banking chief's, they are far more accountable, have a far more complex operational portfolio often across specialisms that are only united by their funding source, with a set of political masters whose goals are so diverse that the strings are pulled in far too many directions at the same time, and a set of products that many don't want to pay for, and a load of others don't want to work for, and the rest don't give a horse's about.

So a Council CEO is either a complete fool to want the job, or hopelessly naive, or hopeless or should be in banking making a mint cos they have mastered their masters better than any banker.

Post 3, bravo!

Love the comment re respected bankers as an oxymoron.

So are these two gentlemen rats leaving the sinking ship or jumping before the double dip?

I'm stunned that people are rushing to criticise HSBC here. HSBC were the first bank to point to the sub-prime issue in the US, despite other banks at that time stating that there was no issue. HSBC's leadership led them through the recent turmoil in financial markets, during which time they took no government money, continued to make profit and continued to pay huge amounts of tax into the UK coffers. Yes they pay bonuses but not at the same level as the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan et al.

HSBC, Barclays and Standard Chartered should be held in high regard in this respect as great British businesses that have succesfully got through a global recession without help from the taxpayer.

Some banks undoubtedly deserve criticism but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Don't see any problem with new Chairman being either Mike Geoghegan or Douglas Flint. Mr Goeghegan would be a good choice since HSBC have thrived by traditionally promoting executive directors who are career bankers to the Chairman's role. On the other hand, particularly if the board wishes to be a bit more prudent in the aftermath of the global financial cris, Mr Flint is not a traditional career banker [unlike Mr Goeghehan, Mr Gulliver and Mr Flockhart (HSBC's Asia head, who wasn't mentioned in the article]having previously been a partner in a major accountancy firm. His financial conservatism would ensure, as Chairman, an effective check and balance on the "bankers".

The organisation is bigger than the individuals so this is a bit of a yawn.

2. At 10:37pm on 23 Sep 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
When are they moving their head office back to the far east? Isn't this the unspoken back story?

My guess is that the new chaps will be the ones that are prepared to move!!!

==========================

Since Geoghean has already very publicly moved to HK then the inference is perhaps the complete opposite.

That there is boardroom discussion and that the movers are not winning the argument hence why promote who obviously has moved and might therefore be expected to support and offshoring shift.

It could of course be that Mr Geoghegan has committed the fatal mistake of thinking he was indispensible and threatening the board would get him his own way - the inference is apparently that they rightly think someone who is prepared to act in this childish fashion is completely unsuited to the Chairmans position.
Give me what I want or I walk is a childish attitude - perhaps the board can now proceed to take such a hardline with some of it's other allegedly indispensible bankers who won't work for less than 7 figure sums and fat bonus checks or they will walk.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Very likely that the Bank is positioning itself for moving back to the Far East. If things develop to the point of forced break up they would be wise to move.
The breakup of Banks such as Barclays will seriously damage the country and merely achieve further charges for retail customers. Free banking for those of us who keep in credit will be a thing of the past.

How many start-ups, spin-outs or early stage high value adding manufacturing type companied have HSBC invested in throughout the UK?

If as I suspect the answer is none then let them go. They're no use to the new rebalanced UK economy we've been promised.

The Bank has a lot going for it, but obviously managerial capacities is not one of them. As it advertises itself to be a "local" bank, and very secretive, it is clear from this brief glimpse that succession planning is not within its capacities; this is a good example of parochial, if not local or provincial factional backbiting. Perhaps they avoided the meltdowm because of luck, rather than good management.

Mr. Geoghegan is a no-nonsense banker who clearly understood the issues at hand during the meltdown. For the Board to have taken the decision that it did, must mean they do not like the way he tints or parts his hair, or that he suffers fools lightly: and the Board has many of those.

This is the right answer from within and without HSBC. MG not a very popular man for some years. DF and SG = dream ticket I have read. And I agree.

Robert,

Oh yes, farce indeed, and the Telegraph wonderfully sent itself right up along with HSBC in yesterday's business editorial.

The main part of Mr Reece's piece was a fairly witless attack on Vincent Cable (you know, the well thought out epithet the minister for anti-business was flourished with pride). Part of the message was that Mr cable should stop referring to murky practices in the boardroom because, essentially, UK board rooms were by and large in great shape.

.....and on the next piece was a shorter article attacking HSBC (not a boardroom you can easily miss), berating them for the 'right to office' practice whereby the CEO moves upstairs to the Chairman's pad.

You really, really couldn't make it up.

Sent-up, mixed-up, washed-up board rooms. They need to be paid-up before we all become totally fed-up.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I would agree with the comments expressed by Leopold. When are we going to stop denigrating those of our companies which perform robustly? It is a great British malaise, seeking to find fault instead of the positive. The fact that there is competition to head up HSBC, speaks volumes about its standing at home and abroad. Say something constructive for a change RB instead of poking holes.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I thought that HSBC Chairman, Stephen Green was going on to bigger and better things i.e. UK Trade Minister.
Of course what is interesting about Green (and I hope has everything to do with his job performance) is that he is an ordained priest in the Church of England and an advocate for responsible bank behaviour.
Green hass been Chairman HSBC since 2006; previously he was the Chief Executive. He joined HSBC in 1982.
The Green move sort of suggested to me that HSBC may well be serious about relocating to Hong Kong. Last year, Geoghegan (one prospect to replace Green) moved to Hong Kong to perform his executive duties.
I look upon the appointment of Green as UK Trade Minister as a positive occurence; export and trade will be a major contributor to the revival of Britain's fragile economy.
Let's face it, The Coalition Government's plans for trade have been handicapped by the inability to find a prominent & extremely capable business leader to take on the role.

any idea who is going to succeed Eric Daniels at LLoyds?

Bankers agree to embark on massive job creation progueram



-----------------------------------------------------------


1000 Bank staff to be laid off in order to create one massive new job

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ reported this week that:

"Hundreds of wealthy UK taxpayers have been sent letters by HM Revenue & Customs over possible large-scale tax evasion, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has learned.

It is understood HMRC has acquired a list of high net-worth individuals with accounts at the Swiss division of HSBC.

The list was stolen by an employee and passed to the taxman by the French authorities. The bank is not accused of any wrongdoing.

The campaign comes after the government announced a crackdown on tax avoidance."

In case people are not aware, the Rev Stephen Green is not only chairman of HSBC but also chair of HSBC Private Banking Holdings (Suisse). He is also due to be made Trade Minister in the ConDem government. Could this be a conflict of interests I wonder ?

On a more serious note, the tax system we have created is patently overcomplicated. I came across a website which has thousands of job adverts for tax professionals across Europe. There is one listed today for a head of wealth management in Switzerland paying a salary of up to EUR 1.2 million:

What sort of madness is this. All I can say is "Lord help us" (and I mean the deity, not Rev Green, soon to be Lord Green)