3 ms·

I'm guessing we'll start seeing more competetion for similar services from Hong Kong, Singapore, and some of the newer Easter European banks with pretty innovat

I'm guessing we'll start seeing more competetion for similar services from Hong Kong, Singapore, and some of the newer Easter European banks with pretty innovative and low-cost financial services. I'm not sure this bodes well for the American banking system in the long term; today's migrant workers are the parents of tomorrow's entrepreneurial children.

ddeck 12y ago
Foreign banks operating in the US are still going to be subject to the same restrictions, but I'm surprised this isn't already handled by non-bank remittance services. Here in Hong Kong where around 1 in 20 people is foreign domestic helper, there are are an enormous number of services competing for the remittance business [1]. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26284493 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26284493
fauigerzigerk 12y ago
That's unlikely. U.S regulations are enforced worldwide when in comes to "national security".
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  They're not particularly. But if a bank deals in dollars, then they'll often be routed through New York, exposing the bank to US regulation, as BNP recently learnt. It's not a case of the US going after foreign banks so much as it is the US banking system being so big that it is hard to avoid if you are an international bank.
  - fauigerzigerk 12y ago
    It's not the size of the U.S banking system at all. It's the role of the dollar as the world's reserve and trade currency that gives U.S authorities a special gatekeeper role as most of these transactions have to technically touch New York. Linking national security to this role and levying completely disproportionate fines as in the BNP case is clearly an abuse of the special powers the U.S has.
    - lclarkmichalek 12y ago
      The role of the dollar is a function of the size of the US banking system. And the BNP fine is kinda light for funding genocide, if you ask me.
      - mike_hearn 12y ago
        There are double standards at work here. If BNP is guilty of funding genocide, then what happens when Somalians stop being able to afford food because the last banks stop routing money there? This is already about to happen in the UK where the last bank is trying to lose their Somalian remittance business and being blocked by a lawsuit filed by immigrants. Not to mention that the government handing out these fines is responsible for far more devastation than any bank.
      - fauigerzigerk 12y ago
        The role of the dollar is not simply a function of the size of the U.S banking system. It has many historical and structural reasons. But be that as it may, my point is that the U.S has that special role and shouldn't abuse it for political purposes. And about genocide: I think we both know that the set of countries against which the U.S has imposed sanctions is not equivalent to the set of countries that have committed genocide. It's a list of political enemies of the U.S. Not all countries on the list have comitted genocide and there are quite a few U.S allies and trading partners that have committed genocide or other brutal human rights violations. They are not on the list because it's politically convenient or very lucrative.
crdoconnor 12y ago
I live in Singapore. Innovative and low cost is not exactly how I'd describe the services available to me. I can do money transfers but they're very expensive using the regular banks. Currencyfair.com, which is innovative (and cheap!), is also prohibited in Singapore for outbound transactions, but it's available in the US.

ddeck 12y ago

Foreign banks operating in the US are still going to be subject to the same restrictions, but I'm surprised this isn't already handled by non-bank remittance services. Here in Hong Kong where around 1 in 20 people is foreign domestic helper, there are are an enormous number of services competing for the remittance business [1]. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26284493 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26284493

fauigerzigerk 12y ago

That's unlikely. U.S regulations are enforced worldwide when in comes to "national security".

lclarkmichalek 12y ago
They're not particularly. But if a bank deals in dollars, then they'll often be routed through New York, exposing the bank to US regulation, as BNP recently learnt. It's not a case of the US going after foreign banks so much as it is the US banking system being so big that it is hard to avoid if you are an international bank.
- fauigerzigerk 12y ago
  It's not the size of the U.S banking system at all. It's the role of the dollar as the world's reserve and trade currency that gives U.S authorities a special gatekeeper role as most of these transactions have to technically touch New York. Linking national security to this role and levying completely disproportionate fines as in the BNP case is clearly an abuse of the special powers the U.S has.
  - lclarkmichalek 12y ago
    The role of the dollar is a function of the size of the US banking system. And the BNP fine is kinda light for funding genocide, if you ask me.
    - mike_hearn 12y ago
      There are double standards at work here. If BNP is guilty of funding genocide, then what happens when Somalians stop being able to afford food because the last banks stop routing money there? This is already about to happen in the UK where the last bank is trying to lose their Somalian remittance business and being blocked by a lawsuit filed by immigrants. Not to mention that the government handing out these fines is responsible for far more devastation than any bank.
    - fauigerzigerk 12y ago
      The role of the dollar is not simply a function of the size of the U.S banking system. It has many historical and structural reasons. But be that as it may, my point is that the U.S has that special role and shouldn't abuse it for political purposes. And about genocide: I think we both know that the set of countries against which the U.S has imposed sanctions is not equivalent to the set of countries that have committed genocide. It's a list of political enemies of the U.S. Not all countries on the list have comitted genocide and there are quite a few U.S allies and trading partners that have committed genocide or other brutal human rights violations. They are not on the list because it's politically convenient or very lucrative.

crdoconnor 12y ago

I live in Singapore. Innovative and low cost is not exactly how I'd describe the services available to me. I can do money transfers but they're very expensive using the regular banks. Currencyfair.com, which is innovative (and cheap!), is also prohibited in Singapore for outbound transactions, but it's available in the US.