[Sloper]

This is far too reasoned a debate, when can we start abusing each other?

Google the breakdown of where HSBC generates funding.

I'll wear a vote Labour badge if the swiss prvate banking arm generated more than .5% of HSBC turnover.

[Oldmanmatt]

This is far too reasoned a debate, when can we start abusing each other?

Google the breakdown of where HSBC generates funding.

I'll wear a vote Labour badge if the swiss prvate banking arm generated more than .5% of HSBC turnover.

Or
1/200th

Comparable to a 200 store chain.

Where the MD/CEO would most certainly be expected to know what was going on at branch level, if not duty rotas...

I did look at it's worth.
Somewhat cloudy there, the private banking is split into several entities; each headquartered in different jurisdictions around the globe. My brief foray didn't turn up a figure...

Busy half term with 25 foreign language students to boot.
I try harder later.

That is a significant figure though.
A 1/2% drop in revenue, for example, would most certainly be noticed...

[petekitso]

Sloper

Contrary to appearances, I don't look on here just to fact check your posts but . . .

Turnover is a little difficult in the context of banking but looking at total assets, HSBC had assets of $2.67tr in 2013. During the period covered by the leaked information (2005 – 2007), the relevant accounts held assets of $120bn, or $0.12tr. Based on the reasonable assumption that the total assets in 2007 would not have been more than $2.67tr, that means that the assets held in the relevant accounts were at least 4.49% of the total assets held at the time.

If my maths are right – not a certainty – I look forward to pictures of an appropriate badge being worn. . .

For what it's worth, I am not sure that the value of the assets under management really changes the position very much. The facts appear to be that Lord Green presided over the bank during a period when part of the business was aggressively, or at least proactively, recommending tax avoidance measures which pushed at the boundaries of the legislation. Other than the enthusiasm with which that was being done, I very much doubt that HSBC is unique in that respect. What has happened subsequently though is that some of those measures are believed to have amounted to tax fraud at the time they were being recommended and implemented and not simply in retrospect. Contrary to what you say above, most tax offences in Europe require either a positive intention or recklessness as to potential fraud/evasion and the French and Belgian authorities have already begun proceedings against HSBC on that basis.

Whether it would be honourable to do so or not, Green doesn't have to resign his position and I doubt very much that the government will remove it given that he has already survived being demonstrably complicit in money laundering for Mexican drug cartels* (* according to the US Senate committee). What other people seem to be suggesting is that it does the government no favours to be seen to be defending and even rewarding a man who repeatedly finds himself implicated in or connected to potentially criminal malpractice – that seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.

Sources for the numbers are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/11/the-hsbc-files-what-we-know-so-far

[Oldmanmatt]

Too late to edit out that decimal point, I'm afraid...

[Sloper]

Sloper

Contrary to appearances, I don't look on here just to fact check your posts but . . .

Turnover is a little difficult in the context of banking but looking at total assets, HSBC had assets of $2.67tr in 2013. During the period covered by the leaked information (2005 – 2007), the relevant accounts held assets of $120bn, or $0.12tr. Based on the reasonable assumption that the total assets in 2007 would not have been more than $2.67tr, that means that the assets held in the relevant accounts were at least 4.49% of the total assets held at the time.

If my maths are right – not a certainty – I look forward to pictures of an appropriate badge being worn. . .

For what it's worth, I am not sure that the value of the assets under management really changes the position very much. The facts appear to be that Lord Green presided over the bank during a period when part of the business was aggressively, or at least proactively, recommending tax avoidance measures which pushed at the boundaries of the legislation. Other than the enthusiasm with which that was being done, I very much doubt that HSBC is unique in that respect. What has happened subsequently though is that some of those measures are believed to have amounted to tax fraud at the time they were being recommended and implemented and not simply in retrospect. Contrary to what you say above, most tax offences in Europe require either a positive intention or recklessness as to potential fraud/evasion and the French and Belgian authorities have already begun proceedings against HSBC on that basis.

Whether it would be honourable to do so or not, Green doesn't have to resign his position and I doubt very much that the government will remove it given that he has already survived being demonstrably complicit in money laundering for Mexican drug cartels* (* according to the US Senate committee). What other people seem to be suggesting is that it does the government no favours to be seen to be defending and even rewarding a man who repeatedly finds himself implicated in or connected to potentially criminal malpractice – that seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.

Sources for the numbers are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/11/the-hsbc-files-what-we-know-so-far

Your fundamental assumption that the banks assets in 2007 were not greater than 2013 is fundamentally flawed. There was a rather large global event in 2008 which knocked rather a large slice off both equities and gilts.

Assets for the year 2007 were £9.4Tn.  I can't see the data in respect of the assets held in CH, but would question whether this is a cumulative sum or average. If it is average we get 1.1% and if sum .035%. (of assets)  I would also imagine that these assets were also substantially less fee generating than other assets so I would suggest my projection was fairly accurate.

As you say HSBC has been involved in more than its fair share of scandals and it is the failure of rgulation there that should be the scandal rather than this vety minor and parochial issue.

[Sloper]

Sloper

Contrary to appearances, I don't look on here just to fact check your posts but . . .

Turnover is a little difficult in the context of banking but looking at total assets, HSBC had assets of $2.67tr in 2013. During the period covered by the leaked information (2005 – 2007), the relevant accounts held assets of $120bn, or $0.12tr. Based on the reasonable assumption that the total assets in 2007 would not have been more than $2.67tr, that means that the assets held in the relevant accounts were at least 4.49% of the total assets held at the time.

If my maths are right – not a certainty – I look forward to pictures of an appropriate badge being worn. . .

For what it's worth, I am not sure that the value of the assets under management really changes the position very much. The facts appear to be that Lord Green presided over the bank during a period when part of the business was aggressively, or at least proactively, recommending tax avoidance measures which pushed at the boundaries of the legislation. Other than the enthusiasm with which that was being done, I very much doubt that HSBC is unique in that respect. What has happened subsequently though is that some of those measures are believed to have amounted to tax fraud at the time they were being recommended and implemented and not simply in retrospect. Contrary to what you say above, most tax offences in Europe require either a positive intention or recklessness as to potential fraud/evasion and the French and Belgian authorities have already begun proceedings against HSBC on that basis.

Whether it would be honourable to do so or not, Green doesn't have to resign his position and I doubt very much that the government will remove it given that he has already survived being demonstrably complicit in money laundering for Mexican drug cartels* (* according to the US Senate committee). What other people seem to be suggesting is that it does the government no favours to be seen to be defending and even rewarding a man who repeatedly finds himself implicated in or connected to potentially criminal malpractice – that seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.

Sources for the numbers are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/11/the-hsbc-files-what-we-know-so-far

Pete, just a quick question did you used to climb at Nottingham wall 1997-2002 ish?

[Johnny Brown]

Stop stalling, just get the fucking badge on Sloper.

[Sloper]

I'll be sure someone can lend me some proper lefty attire for my next trip to the Sheaf.

[petekitso]

I am not sure where you're getting your figures but £9.4tr would have been about $14tr in 2007. The source cited below gives the 2007 figure at $2.35tr which I think pushes us to just over 5%, maths permitting. Interesting to see that the events of 2008 appear to have had very little impact on total assets.

Not sure why you would suggest that these assets drive less revenue than others. I don't think we have any way of knowing for sure but banks tend to push tax strategy on the basis that the some part of the saving is payable as a fee. Once invested, the assets are going to be available to the bank for investment in the usual way.

I  don't agree that this is an unimportant sideshow. I think that it is damaging for the government to be seen to endorse an individual deeply implicated in a series of scandals. Bank regulation is also an important issue but I think the two are separate. After all, money laundering and tax evasion (as opposed to avoidance) have always been prohibited. My understanding is that the failures to regulate banking are more in relation to financial instruments and risk exposure.

Source here:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/224808/total-assets-of-the-hsbc/

[Sloper]

I took the figures from the HSBC annual report. 

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_esf-ca-app-content/content/uk/pdfs/en/annual_results2008_full.pdf

The assets in 2010 for total assets were £7.98tn so a significant reduction
http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_esf-ca-app-content/content/uk/pdfs/en/annual_results2010_full.pdf

[petekitso]

Possibly neither of us is entirely comfortable with banks' accounts but we are discussing the group business - HSBC Holdings PLC rather than HSBC Bank Plc (which is a European subsidiary).

The 2007 accounts can be found  at the link below and you will see that the total assets quoted are $2.35tr as I suggested earlier ( figures on page 393). There is a statement from Lord Green - as Group Chairman - at pages 6 to 9.

It has just dawned on me that I have spent five minutes looking at those accounts . . . are you wearing this badge or not?

Also, I wasn't at Nottingham wall in the 90s. I lived there as a skinny youth but sadly didn't start climbing until I was significantly older and heavier.

http://reports.investis.com/reports/hsbc_ar_2007_en/report.php?type=1&page=395

[petejh]

Make sure you take a selfie and post it on here Sloper

[Sloper]

Those look like the US results rather than the group results, as you say I'm not a regular reader of bank financial reports, from the scale of the operation in CH to suggest that this is 4.5% of the whole on the face of it is an order of magnitude out and more consisent with the figures I've quoted: Shark/Hairbrich this is more your bag can you arbitrate?

PeterJH, a selfie, god no, but if GraemeA can wear a Newcastle Top I can pose with a Labour party badge.

PeterK I must be thinking of a different Pete with a polish sounding surname then,

[petekitso]

I'm always happy to defer to accountants but the Holding company is the global group including the Swiss and US operations. It's that global operation which is involved in the money laundering and tax evading . . . allegedly

[Sloper]

OK I think I get the disparity, I'm comparing the whole of HSBC with the CH arm and you're comparing the CH arm with the holding company (which is part of the whole)?

Anyway it now seems like Labour are taking indirect funding from PWC, good work folks!

[Fultonius]

Another way of thinking about it is with regard to heath and safety.  If it was an engineering company and an employee was killed,  an excuse of "but I didn't know this was happening" would not save his assessment,  no?

[petekitso]

No. I am comparing the assets in the whole of HSBC with those held in The relevant Swiss accounts. You are comparing the Swiss accounts with the uk business. Your asset figures are higher than mine because I think you are looking at a trillion as being one hundred billion and I am treating them as one thousand billion.

[Sloper]

No. I am comparing the assets in the whole of HSBC with those held in The relevant Swiss accounts. You are comparing the Swiss accounts with the uk business. Your asset figures are higher than mine because I think you are looking at a trillion as being one hundred billion and I am treating them as one thousand billion.

No, the accounts I'm looking at have the total assets of HSBC as £924,000,000,000.

More than happy to be corrected when I'm wrong but I don't think I am in this case.

Habrich, the question is what is the % of assets held by HSBC in their private Swiss arem vs the whole of HSBC

[petekitso]

Isn't that 0.9tr rather than 9?

The holding co figures are more, even bearing in mind the exchange rate, which is what we would expect isn't it?

Too many zeros  . . .

[Sloper]

I think we use a trillion as 100 Bn, although wikipedia suggests that a tn is 1mx1m.

Anyway, we've moved a long way from the subject.

[Oldmanmatt]

One trillion is one million x one million, or one thousand x one billion.

The number you have written in your post is Nine hundred Billion, or 0.9 Trillion.

This is from the OED of Mathematics.


In fact a Trillion used to be more in British parlance.

[Oldmanmatt]

Incidentally, using your very well researched figure of 0.92 tr total assets and Pete's CH asset figure of 0.12 tr; the Swiss arm appears to account for a little over 10% of total assets....

[drdeath]

 

Matt, you've worked at management level, you know that senior management don't have the detailed knowledge of what's going on on the shop floor etc and to think that there were reports delivered to the senior board that said, 'guys have I told you about our money laundering and tax evasion, christ some of the clients are dodgy but you should see the fees, now where's my bonus you fuckers' you've lost it.

Too true...

The idea that the board would know about the activities of dodgy clients in the Swiss branch is just laughable ...

Oh, wait a minute ?!

WHOOPS!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/22/swiss-account-secret-of-hsbc-chief-stuart-gulliver-revealed


Despite their pretensions to world-weariness, I think 'wilfully naive' is the most charitable description for some folk...

D

[Sloper]

Christ don' these idiots ever learn?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31580374

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

'Nutella jar house blaze' kills Twickenham family's dog