3 ms·

>>> who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market? How about every regional and national banks? You realize thous

>>> who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market? How about every regional and national banks? You realize thousands of banks provide their local markets and have little dealings with the US? The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them. US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them.

mthoms 6y ago
>How about every regional and national banks? You realize thousands of banks provide their local markets and have little dealings with the US? When I wrote "who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?" it was obviously done to illustrate what a massive effect withdrawal from the US market would be. Of course there are alternatives. Of course there are many entities that don't need access to the US market. Don't be ridiculous. You know what I meant. How about I rephrase it as "which of HSBC largest, most profitable customers would stick with it, without access to the US market". Happy now? >The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them. I strongly disagree, based on the reasons I already mentioned, and for the additional reason is that it presents a massive untapped market opportunity. Oh and, HSBC's actual slogan is "The World's Local Bank". Being "global" is literally part of their value proposition. But again, I'll humor you. Let's says their stock would "only" take a 10-20% hit. The point I'm making still stands: Legal entities aside, HSBC Holdings is duty-bound to comply with US regulations as much as possible in order to satisfy it's investors. >US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them. That seems to support my point. What point (in the context of the thread you joined), are you making exactly? You seem to be suggesting that the legality of actions (as perceived by the U.S.) of HSBC elsewhere in the world have little to no effect on HSBC USA. The facts suggest otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies

mthoms 6y ago

>How about every regional and national banks? You realize thousands of banks provide their local markets and have little dealings with the US? When I wrote "who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?" it was obviously done to illustrate what a massive effect withdrawal from the US market would be. Of course there are alternatives. Of course there are many entities that don't need access to the US market. Don't be ridiculous. You know what I meant. How about I rephrase it as "which of HSBC largest, most profitable customers would stick with it, without access to the US market". Happy now? >The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them. I strongly disagree, based on the reasons I already mentioned, and for the additional reason is that it presents a massive untapped market opportunity. Oh and, HSBC's actual slogan is "The World's Local Bank". Being "global" is literally part of their value proposition. But again, I'll humor you. Let's says their stock would "only" take a 10-20% hit. The point I'm making still stands: Legal entities aside, HSBC Holdings is duty-bound to comply with US regulations as much as possible in order to satisfy it's investors. >US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them. That seems to support my point. What point (in the context of the thread you joined), are you making exactly? You seem to be suggesting that the legality of actions (as perceived by the U.S.) of HSBC elsewhere in the world have little to no effect on HSBC USA. The facts suggest otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies