Increasing scepticism about the bankers’ exodus

I haven’t had time to read the Vickers report properly yet but it expresses some scepticism about the bankers’ threats to leave London. There are a number of practical obstacles and it might do the banks more harm than good, was the gist of Sir John’s assessment.

The Wall Street Journal agrees, noting that, due to their size and the risk of another banking failure, some of the countries the banks are threatening to leave for might not actually want them:

Just as individuals have no unilateral right to move to the U.S. or Singapore, neither do banks.

Does the Federal Reserve want to take on responsibility for Barclays, whose balance sheet of $2.4 trillion is bigger than that of Citigroup and JP Morgan, and only a shade smaller than Bank of America’s?

Will the US authorities welcome with open arms a bank that makes 75% of its revenues overseas? Does Singapore want to take on the whole of Standard Chartered, whose $517billion balance sheet is almost as big as the combined $577bn of the three largest Singaporean banks (DBS, OCBC and United Overseas Bank)?

And would Hong Kong really be comfortable looking after HSBC, whose balance sheet of $2.5 trillion is more than seven times Hong Kong’s GDP?

Furthermore, bank regulation may end up being just as tight, albeit in different ways, in some of these other jurisdictions. Guess what? American bankers are complaining about regulation and threatening to move abroad too:

[T]hese banks should not assume that the grass is always greener. If the U.S. is such a benign climate for banking and capital markets, why are its banking chieftains—most notably Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan Chase—complaining about the threat of American banks, bankers and business migrating overseas?

Are banks sure they want to be exposed to the fiscal and regulatory isolationism of US policy? Do they want to be branded as “American” in some of the countries in which they operate?

Then there are the eye-wateringly complex legal processes involved in bank relocation and the heat and humidity of Hong Kong and Singapore to contend with.

A report by Reuters draws similar conclusions, concluding that, even if British banks moved their headquarters abroad, most of their operations would stay in London and would, therefore, continue to contribute to the public coffers. It also notes that some foreign banks are considering a move to London.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, banking activity in the City is increasing and, despite all the rhetoric, when bankers talk among themselves they seem to have a lot of faith in London

No doubt, over the next few days, we will hear more dire warnings about a bankers’ exodus in reaction to the fairly mild proposals in the ICB report. We are still a long way from anything that would make them quit the country though. When the UK regulation gets so tough that it is worth dealing with the legal relocation nightmare, negotiating with foreign regulators, learning about new tax regimes, moving to boring or extremely hot and crowded places, leaving the family and taking the kids out of school, then the banks just might move abroad. But we are nowhere near that yet.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Increasing scepticism about the bankers’ exodus

  1. Pingback: Increasing scepticism about the bankers’ exodus - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s