Forum menu
HSBC chief executive Stuart Gulliver said“Activities specifically covered by EU legislation [b]will move[/b], and looking at our own numbers, that’s about 20 per cent of revenue,” Gulliver said in a Bloomberg Television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, with John Micklethwait. The bank confirmed that he was referring to the lender’s global banking and markets operations in the UK capital.
direct quote. Will move
We get that TJ it's been posted many times and proves that some staff may/will move if required and disproves the argument that all banks are planning to leave. Simple
Perspective at last.
Now FOM...
Also following up on meft's comments about "politcal viper's nests" I worked closely with CEO/Communications office on "messaging" around important events (Greek/eurozone crises, large loan losses inc fraud, M&A activity, strategic business reviews) and there is huge scrutiny of public statements which are very carefully managed. Of course banks are tryi g to put pressure on the Government. Right now they have full aceess to the EU at ZERO cost to them whilst operating out of a low personal and corporate tax country, easy hire/fire location where the working language is English. None of fhe alternatives are as attractive. All alternatives involve spending more money and lots of it access to weak economies.
No raw nerves here but tired muscles and ribs from laughing? Sadly no answers to my letters yet.
Just build that credibility by trying to patronise, you poor little souls. As I said, your posts were read with interest until you started you chewkw impression and just became a ranty little shout box. Now, unfortunately your opinion carries as much weight as chewkw, which we generally know is the square root of jack all.
Chao!
[quote=captainsasquatch ]No raw nerves here but tired muscles and ribs from laughing? Sadly no answers to my letters yet.
Just build that credibility by trying to patronise, you poor little souls. As I said, your posts were read with interest until you started you chewkw impression and just became a ranty little shout box. Now, unfortunately your opinion carries as much weight as chewkw, which we generally know is the square root of jack all.
Chao!
+1
There's an unbelievable air of smugness that seems to have overcome THM, and it does him no favours.
Captain / Bob
Its what happens when you are deluded and your delusions are at complete odds with the facts. You retreat into a fantasy world
Anyway - lovely sunny day here so its bike ride time.
It's clear who's is lying and who is getting ranty
[b]Truth and reality[/b]
All banks are planning to leave
FOM rules out FTA
Santander UK is a minority business interest
[b]Lies and delusions [/b]
banks are planing to move some staff as required
Only EEA requires FOM
Santandar UK and Brazil,are the groups biggest sources of income (20% and 21%) versus Spain (12%)
Welcome to the post truth world!
What's next for click bait
Now you're just inventing things, no one said Santander view UK as a minority interest. 😆
Where've I seen that before?
I'm off to see La La Land this evening.
Where equivalence falls short of actual passporting for dummies…
[i]"Some but not all EU financial legislation accepts the principle of equivalence. There is, for instance, no such provision for commercial banking or primary insurance."[/i]
https://www.ft.com/content/61221dd4-d8c4-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
A longer better read for those that care:
Only EEA requires FOM
Tell that to Switzerland.
I'll ignore your strawmen, and suggest others do as well.
Of course banks are tryi g to put pressure on the Government. Right now they have full aceess to the EU at ZERO cost to them whilst operating out of a low personal and corporate tax country, easy hire/fire location where the working language is English. None of fhe alternatives are as attractive. All alternatives involve spending more money and lots of it access to weak economies.
A gratuitous quote. I enjoyed reading it so I thought I'd quote it. Maybe I should open a Twi**** account. 💡
Kelvin, fell free, you have a habit of ignoring the facts behind the singe market.
There is no need to have a conversation with any of the Swiss. The facts relating to the various options and FOM are clear and well documented. They are not as described above.
Capn, hard to know what you said. You suggested that it would be more interesting to consider what banks like SAN were going to do and then simply dismissed the answer on the basis that the CEO and her family were all untrustworthy fraudsters an that you would be a sucker to believe what they said, Odd to have asked what they were going to do in the first place eapecially, as mefty noted, that their UK retail banking operations are not directly affected. Scaremongering perhaps? But at least like the rest of the banks BS that is cleared up,now.
We can move on to scaremongering over FoM
THM, can you point me to the examples of "access" to the single market that don't involve FoM? I'd like to see what has been offered previously by the EU. There have been many statements about the indivisibility of the 4 freedoms.
Capn, hard to know what you said. You suggested that it would be more interesting to consider what banks like SAN were going to do and [b]then simply dismissed the answer on the basis that the CEO and her family were all untrustworthy fraudsters an that you would be a sucker to believe what they said, [/b]Odd to have asked what they were going to do in the first place eapecially, as mefty noted, that their UK retail banking operations are not directly affected. Scaremongering perhaps? But at least like the rest of the banks BS that is cleared up,now.
You have obviously forgotten that it was you who were putting faith in the words of a woman who comes from a background of fraud, hence my reply.
If you wish to see it as scaremongering, go for it, it's not the first time you've imagined something.
As for affecting their UK operations, I'm sure there won't be any problem. The question was in regard to how the UK operation will affect the Spanish side. You didn't want to see that. Obvs.
Yoiu clearly now have your own agenda that you're going to shout anyone down with with snide comments and hyberbole, it's not worth responding to you any more. Your view is worthless.
Indeed I was, its a criminal offence to deliberately mislead financial markets and Ms Botin is no fool. Indeed she is very bright. I agree there is unlikely to be a problem which was my original answer. All circles get squared in the end. Well done, that was only about three pages.
It's quicker to point you in the direction of the one that does - EEA. I have provided the links that explain this before. Feel free to read them and then dismiss them of course since they don't suit your narrative.
You are correct, the truth is worthless. You have proved that. BTW I forget to add that Brexshit means we'll leave the ECHR to the list of new truths. It's great this make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff.
The captain - you can get "access" by making agreements with the EU - however this will not be on the same terms as those who are members of the single market. Normally tariffs are involved.
Its another leaver bit of nonsense to confuse equating "access" with "membership"
China can sell steel in the EU for example - they have "access" to the market but its not free trade without quotas or tariffs. so china has "access" to the single market to sell steel but has to pay significant tariffs on it.
This is the situation the UK will be in after we leave - we will have "access" but not tariff free as the EU will not allow us to undercut them
as mefty noted, that their UK retail banking operations are not directly affected.
I don't know what proportion of the pound selling in the run up to and post Brexit is people like myself removing money from UK high street banks but to claim that UK retail banking is not directly affected is simply no true.
Oh good more progress, distinctions between "membership of" and "access to" even if the rest of the post above contains inaccurate conclusions
IIRC China has access to EU steel markets via WTO, something that we are trying to avoid. But lets not let this get in the way.
Very little Edukator unless you are George Soros in disguise. If you have £assets and £liabilities you are not directly affected by moves in the FX rate. There are indirect effects true, hence my use of the term "direct"
>sigh<
For so many industries, not just the financial sector, the least damaging option is to continue to be in the Single Market even after we are no longer full members. Both EEA members and Switzerland have achieved this, to various degrees and in various sectors, and have to accept FoM and transnational court jurisdiction.
Why do some of us try and avoid "access" as a term, despite it being how the various treaties describe the status of non-members operating in the Single Market? Because Leave campaigners continuallly used it to refer to all sorts of ways of trading with the Single Market, but not being in it. I for one would like us to be "in the Single Market" not just a third country with an FTA like distant countries have, and May has ruled this out.
ECHR… May wants out of this as well… and, of course it is linked to us leaving the EU and the Single Market, as both require ECHR, something we Brits insisted on.
THM, can you define 'access to' single market for us please?
As discussed before, "IN" the term you prefer is simple misleading. It is fundamental to understand the key distinction between "membership of" and "access to". I have provided the links that explain this.
Re the different options you cannot simply say one is better than the other. They lie along a spectrum of liberalising and facilitating trade at one end (EEA) to maximising the level of sovereignty at the other (WTO). The options in between involve compromises along that spectrum together with other complexities. So it depends on your own individual priorities as to which is better or worse.
I agree with you - I would, as I am a supporter of full FoM - that are interests are better served towards the EEA end of the spectrum than the other end. I am strongly opposed to the WTO option.
Where I disagree is the notion that things have been ruled out. Both sides have stated their opening positions broadly and both are incompatible with reality. No surprise, they are simply starting points in the negotiation. Interestingly apparent hard liners on both sides have ALREADY made conciliatory noises DESPITE the fact that A50 has yet to be triggered and that negotiations have yet to start.
So we may agree on a preferred end position but disagree on the likelihood of reaching it. In the end, we are most likely to have a compromise deal which will involve considerable and enduring complexity for business ( 🙁 ) along with significant compromise on both sides. None of this requires the exagerated claims and BS made over the past few pages.
Of course, the ultimate irony in all of this is that the EU is unlikely to be in its current form at the end if this tortuous process but that is the elephant in the room that I noted at the start of this thread,
The whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, effort and money.
MOl, this is the best summary that I am aware of:
From the outset, it is important that the Government, Parliament and the public are clear about the distinction between ‘access to’ and ‘membership of’ the Single Market.Many countries have ‘access to’ the EU’s Single Market, either through agreed tariffs at the WTO or via a FTA.
However, the only countries which have full membership of the Single Market—which entails the liberalised movement of goods, services, people and capital (the ‘Four Freedoms’), secured through common rules interpreted by the European Court of Justice (CJEU)— are EU Member States.
The EEA states only enjoy partial membership, because the EEA agreement does not include a customs union. On the other hand, Turkey’s inclusion in a customs union with the EU does not entail the free movement of services, people or capital. Fundamentally, full membership of the Single Market is predicated upon acceptance of all Four Freedoms.
HTH - precision is key. "In" does not provide it.
Kelvin again we need to be clear esp when talking about the EEA (as you were ^):
The EEA gives full membership of the single market for services but only partial access for the market in goods
In contrast, the CU gives ALMOST full membership of the single market for goods, but no access to the single market for services
In the case of FTA, that depends on the depth of the FTA itself. No one has tried to achieve anything as complex as this before. Its unknown territory.
of course it is linked to us leaving the EU and the Single Market, as both require ECHR,
?
More good news.........
Good to see further realism from the City in past 24 hours. Latest indications from MS is that they are considering plans to move 300 of their 6000 LDN employees not the 1000 originally stated - so that's a whopping 5% of total staff under consideration.
In the meantime, read an interesting piece from my old pals at Oliver Wyman which outlines the different scenarios and their impacts
One end: minimal, poss 2% decline in rev's <1% job losses and <1% in tax revenues
T'other end: 9% decline in revenues, 28% job losses, @10% loss in tax revenues
Most likely outcome: somewhere * between the two
* but also noting that
EU businesses have an interest in retaining access to the UK as an international financial centre, not only for the services provided directly but also as a conduit for global investment into the EU. The best outcome would recognise these dynamics and deliver mutually beneficial results for the UK, the EU and the rest of the world.
In other words, pursuing a win/lose is more likely to produce a lose/lose
So likely outcome more likely towards "better" end of the range.
Don't panic Mr Mainwaring!!!
In other news, I've been out on my bike - very pleasant below the snow line 🙂
Just to add into the additional work small businesses will have to deal with over the next few years:
And how long before they move the Apprentice Levy 'downwards' to smaller payrolls.
All cost, cost, cost.
Cost, cost, cost
plus
Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty
Had lunch with investor yesterday who is preparing direct investment into Scottish company. Like me a firm remainer, but now wants to get on with things. His single biggest concern (excluding the obvious) is not econ downside but simply the fact that uncertainty is going to endure for a considerable time. Like me, he wants clarity ASAP but knows that this is not going to happen. So we potter (*) along at sub-trend growth for some time
* Mr Nuttall excluded IGMC
THM
Yep, using s STW analogy; light, strong, cheap. Pick two.
Currently feels like. Pick one.
But it's ok you saying to get on with it, but we still won't know really the plan is until March 2019, so we still have to plan expecting the worst.
And our Govts have got too use to the rest of us picking up the pieces from their inability to plan.
Agreed, as before, my motto is plan for the worst and hope for the best. But it is the responsibility for business to lead not to expect to be led, That wont happen. By leading and getting on with things you can shape Gov behaviour.
More back and frorward on banking this afternoon, with the Bundesbank adding their 2p worth. Even wth their warnings of no silly games, they expect the effect in terms of staf numbers to be relatively small.
Still what do they know....?
[I]By leading and getting on with things you can shape Gov behaviour.[/I]
Only if you're of a size/noise that they care, the rest of us just have to hope that we're 'lucky' in our decision-making processes outcomes 🙂
That's a good report Kelvin.
[url= http://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0627_Digital_Pages-Open_Europe_Intel-Thriving_after_Brexit-V1.pdf ]Here is the link to full one.[/url]
Whilst I would prefer a bit more detail, it is difficult to get hold of. The numbers that don't surprise me at all but do illustrate a point I have made in the the past is as follows. The number of passports applied for by UK based banks for wholesale activities in all 27 EU countries - 102, EU banks passports to operate in London - 552. More than five times as many for one financial centre, it shows how important the wholesale market in London is for EU Banks, they come here to fund themselves and that need won't disappear. They will be as keen for a sensible deal to be done as we will.
For sure
More wishful thinking mefty? Once we are out of the EU then passporting rights will not apply and london banks will no be able to do business in the EU in the same way - this is why the banks are all moving their EU investment operations to Frankfurt and Paris as per all those links I posted.
Any evidence for your wishful thinking? Its completely at odds with what the banks are saying, with what the european central bank is saying, with what the EU politicians are saying ad the reality is the jobs are moving.
so any evidence to back it up? I've provided plenty to support my position.
They will be as keen for a sensible deal to be done as we will.
And there lies the problem, initially, at least in the German media, there was a wish to find a practical mutually beneficial solution. But May and teams tub thumping appeals to populist hatred has made that much more difficult. Now the EU governments have to sell any deal to their own electorates that they haven't backed down to a UK government that spits venom on the ideals that they promote.
Evidence? MS likely to need to move 5%, let's assume 10% to be safe, from LDN work force
Perspective please (however unlikely)
DD already indicated compromises on payments and FoM - hardly hard line stuff and we haven't started yet
Where did DD indicate any compromise on FoM? I thought he merely said that we would need lots of immigrants. May has repeatedly said that FoM is a red line for the govt.
correct the captain. Davis has said we will still need immigrants from the EU for a few years but no movement whatsoever on freedom of movement. May has made that 100% clear
Mefty - no evidence for your wishful thinking that the EU will continue to allow the city of london to dominate even outside the EU. funny you can't . Is it because all the evidence is the other way?
TJ with the greatest respect you seem to know very little about how global finance actually works, either that or you've simply dug yourself into a hole trying to exaggerate the Brexit impact on London as a global financial centre.
Interesting piece on how and why Vote Leave spent a whopping £3m plus with a small Canadian digital marketing company
Jamba - I fully accept Iknow little about the detail hence I read what the experts have to say and what the companies involved have to say. I do understand the politics of it tho and I can read. All the evidence points to the banks having to relocate their investment bits that deal with the EU into the EU once we leave. All the main players are saying they are going to. All the press say they are going to. All the economists / experts I ave read say they are going to. The European central bank states passporting is not going to be allowed for a UK out of the EU.
All I hear from you and mefty is wishful thinking and a complete absence of anything resembling evidence.
If you are so sure of your ground then lets see something to counter the large number of quotes I posted. Some proper evidence please.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, (Jake was lying low, cos somebody had sawn the legs off his bed)
RBS announce,...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/28/rbs-reports-469m-loss-for-the-third-quarter
(I have no idea if this has anything to do with anything) 8)
Any evidence Jamba / Mefty? Anything to support your position? I have provided plenty to support mine