Talk:HSBC/Archive 1

Intro
Keifer Sunderlandhjhh is listed as one of the founders of HSBC in the 1800's? It even links to the actor. I don't think this is correct. I also don't think that the logo is derived from the angular cross that St Andrew was crucified on. I don't think St Andrew was crucified. --Sparkz 27-06-05 11:05 GMT

What does Beijing/Peking have to do with the Shanghai entry? --Xanadu 02:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you ask HSBC, they deny any association with the phrase "Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation" although this is what a lot UK staff believed when they became associated with each other. They say it's just some letters which make up their name 195.137.95.81 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When corporations decide to rebrand under their commonly accepted acronym, they seem strangely unwilling to refer back to their original long name through public relations departments. The following text is copied directly from HSBC's global website, under About HSBC > Group History > 1865-1899: "The HSBC Group is named after its founding member, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, which was established in 1865 to finance the growing trade between Europe, India and China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.22.189 (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As an HSBC employee I can say that whilst the 'Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation' was the bank's former name, it is now simply HSBC. The letters are no longer an acroymn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.71.66.243 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph said that "As of August 2010, it was the largest company listed on the London Stock Exchange, with a market capitalisation of £115.8 billion". As of now (according to the linked source), it is the second most highly capitalised. This is not the same thing as largest. Companies can be 'large' in terms of revenue or gross assets. Market cap is a valuation of the equity in the company. Equity + Liabilities = Assets. I could theoretically have a company with £1 of equity, £999,999,999 of debt and £1,000,000,000 of assets. This would be a big company. I've updated the paragraph. HJW (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Forbes List of "largest companies" has questionable methodology. They use 4 measurements (Revenues, Market Value, Assets and Profits) and the alleged 2 largest companies (JP Morgan Chase & HSBC) only appear once in the list top 10 of each of these areas (HBSC is 4th in terms of assets). How they claim JP Morgan is the largest and HSBC the 2nd largest, is beyond any logic. I think it's worth _not_ quoting this list at all. iehuiah (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a number of these "largest" listings and they often contradict each other or make conflicting claims; the problem is the sheer complexity of modern multinationals, which makes it hard to define precisely what their "value" is or how to put a figure on that value using the various methods available. It probably would be better to have a central discussion about which two are the most creditable (I would go for the ones the Economist does above the Fortune ones for example - they are more "scientific" - Forbes I would disregard) and then put those values into the infoboxes in a standard way, rather than just arguing about it at individual corporation articles like this one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a mistake - bank was opened in 1991 :D False information!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.1.85 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Headquarters
To quote from User:Instantnood, "Please stop edits based on ignorance. HSBC's corporate headquarters is in London, while it's global headquarters is in Hong Kong"

I would challenge that statement as being factually inaccurate. This article is on HSBC Group, which is a holding company headquatered in London. The Hongkong and Shanghai Bangking Corporation, a subsidiary of HSBC Group, is headquatered in Hong Kong. Both are actually different entities, and should not be confused to refer to the same thing here. The above can be verified simply by refering to HSBC's websites....I do not see any claims over there that HSBC Groups' "global headquaters is in Hong Kong"?--Huaiwei 21:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * HSBC Holdings plc is incorporated in England, with head office in London, but Hong Kong remains the headquarters of many, if not most, of the operations of the group. &mdash; Instantnood 13:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * HSBC Holdings has one HQ, and that is in London. You know that full well. Issues over whether it has most of its subsidiary operations outside of London or not is not going to change the fact that its HQ is indeed in London.--Huaiwei 14:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. You're always correct and I'm always wrong. &mdash; Instantnood 15:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You sound like you seem to be taking things rather personally? Let the facts prevail. This is an encyclopedia. Not a soup opera.--Huaiwei 15:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing the responsibility. It was you who said " You know that full well  ". &mdash; Instantnood 15:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh?--Huaiwei 15:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this page needs to update - HK is now the Global & Corporate HQ again. TimesOnline FT TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion deals with the dispute over whether Hong Kong is headquarters of HSBC, and whether the article should be categorised under category:Transnational corporations headquartered in Hong Kong. Click here to see the difference between the two versions. &mdash; Instantnood 15:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Building Photos
Anyone in Buffalo or Manhattan who could take a GNU photo of the respective HSBC towers? I'm in Syracuse and there's one here, but it's noting special. newkai 07:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image request: HongkongBank
Has anyone got a picture of a branch of HSBC with the sign "HongkongBank" (like this one ), before its rebranding as HSBC? Thanks. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 19:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Asia Pac office photos
The current photo of a green building on the left edge of the page in the Asia Pac offices section is in fact of Infosys Technologies Ltd. Pune, India office. It has to be removed from this page as the building is not at all related to HSBC by any means. Vikasapte (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on This week's improvement drive. Support this article with your vote.--Fenice 17:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Geographical Division
Does anyone else agree that the geographical organisation is a bit odd? eg Mexico is the 4th biggest part of the group.

It would probably make sense to organise the page in the same way as HSBC organise themselves, with 4 regional HQs, ie Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and Middle East and Africa. http://www.hsbc.com/hsbc/about_hsbc/international-networks

Also a bit of a regig might help to underline that the banks HSBC have bought are HSBC rather than what they used to be. eg i recon main articles as eg Demirbank or CCF imply thats how things are now, whereas its just HSBC Turkey or HSBC France.

Local Operations
Just wondered what people's thoughts were on this article, and which way is forwards... had been looking particularly at the local operations section which seems to have got a bit out of control - there are plenty of other things we could put in - a proper corporate governance section for starters... especially considering the firm deviates from the accepted practice by having its chairman from within - due to change at results this year too. In terms of the local parts of I've been sketching out some ideas in a more summary style User:Ian3055/HSBC table draft, the text and links and so on probably arn't 100% yet (nor am I any good at tables - but it shows the idea - feel free to amend), I'm erring towards option (b), but I'm not completely sold yet... Ian3055 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lost this in the Local Ops edit. Ought to go back in if someone can see a reasonable place to put it In 2003 HSBC completed its controversial acquisition of Household International, after Household settled on charges of predatory lending. The deal is now seen as in a much more positive light, The | Banker suggests that "when banking historians look back, they may conclude that [it] was the deal of the first decade of the 21st century". HSBC is expanding the Household International consumer financial model to Brazil, India and elsewhere. Ian3055 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Announcement of annual results
Where did John Bond and Stephen Green announce the 2005 final results of the HSBC Holdings plc on March 6, 2006? London or Hong Kong? &mdash; Instantnood 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The first and main announcement was by John Bond and Douglas Flint in London, however Stephen Green and Michael Geoghegan repeated the exercise in Hong Kong. Hasnt been officially said but the second pairing represents the new Chairman and CEO combination so perhaps it was to be a kind of dry run, chance for the markets to see them together. Ian3055 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What was announced, respectively, in London and Hong Kong? Are the announcement sessions held simultaneously, and if not, when were they held? Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured??
How come this article is in the featured articles category, but there is no template at the top saying it was featured? 203.218.37.8 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Besides, the English is terrible. It doesn't deserve to be featured at this point.

Hong Kong
There seemed to be a large duplicate within the article, which I removed and given that HSBC's website describes themselves as "Hongkong" and not "Hong Kong", I made all references refer to the former. --Despair 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Offshore call centre fraud report
I've added a brief note regarding this - it seems to be a fairly unremarkable staff fraud story, but given the UK media attention / controversy surrounding offshore call centres (and some of the previous scare stories about non-HSBC leaks of confidential info from them) it seems worth a mention. Mrph 00:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is now dated and the size of the fraud is quite small...therefore the reference should be removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.91.3.33 (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bank Size
Paragraph 2 says HSBC is the largest bank in the world in terms of assets. My understanding is that Mitsubishi Tokyo UFJ is the largest, bigger than both HSBC and Citigroup. I cannot verify. Can someone investigate? co94 Nov 10, 2006

HSBC Bank International
I attempted to expand the information regarding HSBC Bank International yesterday, as the details were a bit sparten for what is a major part of the group's make-up. Alas, somebody else vandalised it by adding 'hello', and now the ammendment has been removed entirely. The page needs to be more structured, reflecting the group's structure and organisation. For example, HSBC Bank International is a uniquely registered company, yet it does not appear on the 'subsidiaries' section at the header of the page. Also, attention seems to be focused oddly toward the most 'hot' topics. Global call centres get a higher positioning and five paragraphs of text. HSBC Premier (at the TOP of its global development strategy)... gets three lines. 81.20.184.51 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Luke Thomas

Nicknames
I searched in vain for "Honkers and Shankers". DCDuring (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

UBS 80.000.000.000.00 Dollarcent

 * www.de.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idDEKOE42778620080624 - 30k -

194.66.226.95 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HSBC Algeria
HSBC Algeria is hardly one of the 20 largest subsidaries of HSBC, so should be moved to the other subsidaries page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Private Banking
I just added a paragraph to the "Private Banking" sub-section on recent developments in that area, as I thought it was relevant enough to feature in the entry. I've provided the source (a press clipping), but I'm uncertain as to whether it really constitutes "public domain". I'd be grateful if anyone could confirm or advise.

"In September 2008, HSBC announced that it would combine its two Swiss private banks under one brand name in 2009, with HSBC Guyerzeller and HSBC Private Bank to be merged into one legal entity, under the newly appointed CEO of HSBC Private bank, Alexandre Zeller."

Many thanks. 83.76.230.220 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance
For balance to the controversies section a good cause / charity work by the bank section may be an idea. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety
From this article, I get a feel that this bank is a "safe" and prudent one (which is very important currently in late 2008), with conservative investments. However, I've read some web sites -- this bank is of interest to me as I'm a depositor -- which give this bank a rating of D+, pretty much the same as WaMu and Wachovia which have gone under. Maybe these sites (such as street dot com and money and markets) are geared toward the US, but the numbers they quote are the same as the numbers quoted in the article for the worldwide operation of HSBC. Anyway, these sites claim that HSBC has a huge exposure to the toxic mortgage securies risk (about as much exposure, percentagewise, or more, as the banks that have gone under and even more than Chase and BoA which are being helped by the govt). Interestingly, HSBC is NOT mentioned as part of the recent Treasury deals with other similarly sized banks such as Chase and Bank of America -- namely injection of tens of billions into such banks to help the current crisis. I don't know what to make of that -- maybe HSBC was conservative, as the article claims, and the above sites are wrong; maybe they are being bailed out by the British or the Europeans; or maybe they are beyond help. It would help if this article shed some light on this, as well.24.58.175.197 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)john wilkinson
 * Quick answer - yes, it probably should be added to the article. HSBC is a British bank (since the late 1990s; prior to that it was a Hong Kong bank), but has announced it does not need UK Treasury funding, unlike some of its competitors.  HSBC is huge - I believe its the largest "something" (bank? company?) in the world and CDS rates for it are relatively low, suggesting that the Credit Default Swap markets regards HSBC as quite safe.  I'll try and dig out references etc after work today.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick update: the article does mention HSBC's commanding position in global banking in the lede section; I think adding some commentary on HSBC stability could be useful but I don't feel qualified doing it myself so I'll bow out at this point. (My concern is how to do it without succumbing to recentism).
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   08:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

'it is both the world's largest banking group and the world's 6th largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine'
Really? In both sources given it names it as the first. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevancy of 'Controversies'
These controversies are either dated or highly subjective (who cares about a decision to possibly withdraw overdrafts for students two years ago?) and in my view are not relevant for an informative page on a given firm - unless the controversy is something like mass fraud the relevancy of these to the general public is limited.

More significantly, they are all strongly related to the UK - when this is multinational banking group with large businesses everywhere from Mexico to France. HSBC is not only a UK high street bank and this section seems to distort that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.52.5 (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree. As an aside, can I encourage you to use edit summaries, particularly when removing cited text? I thought you were vandalising and reverted you. It was only later that I noticed you had posted here (and I then reverted myself, so the page is now back to your version). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry yes will do - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.52.5 (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see a consensus here that would warrant removing so much of the article.VegKilla (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would this section not be better suited being added to HSBC Bank (Europe), since it seems - at this time - to be entirely devoted to HSBC in the UK? We can always re-add a "Controversies" section if there are any controversies involving HSBC as a global entity in the future. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know enough about his article to have an opinion on this. I am sorry I reverted the edit.  I was patrolling for vandalism and saw what seemed to be an anon ip removing a large and well written part of an article without an extremely clear consensus on the talk page.  I realize I was not part of this discussion, and I apologize if I interfered or slowed you down in any way.  Thank-you flag for pointing out my mistake.  I will take my time from now on, and will work slower and more deliberately as I continue to patrol for vandalism.VegKilla (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem - large deletions tend to ring my alarm bells too! I'm going to post over at Talk:HSBC Bank (Europe), suggesting that the section be relocated there. Thanks for dealing with this so promptly (and good luck with the vandal-fighting - it's sadly a task that never seems to end)! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As the person who added some of this section, I obviously don't agree with it's complete removal. If there are objections to parts of it then why weren't just those parts removed? If some of it is too UK-centric, then why not edit the section to highlight this, or put it a special 'UK' section? I find it suspicious that such a large section can be removed like this when it happens to paint HSBC in a bad light.Templetongore (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because - rather than create a specific "UK" section - there's an entire article devoted to HSBC's operations in Europe, where the controversies section is better situated. I moved the controversies there earlier, following a note on the talk page there. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Charterhouse Bank
Why does Charterhouse Bank redirect here? It seems not to be mentioned in the article, nor in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Ian Spackman (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * CCF (which HSBC bought), bought Charterhouse some years ago. I would like to see the redirect removed, and instead have a small article on Charterhouse that has links to HSBC. I would be willing to do the article, I just don't know how to remove the redirect.Acad Ronin (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that quick reply. You can change the redirect into an article by editing it (click this link), deleting its current contents and putting in whatever you want. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have prepared a short article on Charterhouse Bank. Dormskirk (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What did HSBC originally stand for?
H_______ S__________ Bank of Commerce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.156 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Veritiel (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

HQ Info needs update
The Global & Corporate HQs For HSBC are now in Hong Kong. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/china/article7005286.ece http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dccd0394-0a19-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone want to set this talk page up for archiving
The talk page is very long and would be a good idea to archive every 6 months to a year or so. -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of Flags?
Am I the only one that finds the massive amount of country flags in this article to be extremely annoying? Isn't there a WP:flags or something like that says use country flags sparingly? Not to mention half of them are either Original research or unsourced factiods.-Tracer9999 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What does HSBC stand for?
the HSBC stands for Hongkong Shanghai Bank of Canada, No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.172.44 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The answer is NO. HSBC stands for The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which was founded in 1865 by the British to facilitate commercial banking in Asia in support of international trade. With regard to the head office debate, HSBC has always been a British-controlled bank (now multinational with HQ in London UK), but prior to the establishment of HSBC Holdings plc in 1991, the HQ was at times located in Hong Kong, and at other times (i.e. during WWII), the head office was located in London.


 * In Canada, the subsidiary is now known as HSBC Bank Canada, formerly HBC, which is the seventh largest bank operating in Canada and the largest foreign controlled bank operating here. HSBC first came to Canada in 1979 when it acquired a Vancouver acceptance company and in 1981 the Hongkong Bank of Canada (HBC), was incorporated with one location in Vancouver. The later and primary acquisitions which led to the establishment of HSBC Bank Canada as we now know it included the Bank of British Columbia, and the Canadian operations of British banks such as Midland, Lloyds, and Barclays. Read the HSBC Bank Canada article to learn more if you are so inclined. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

check processing fines
if the fine was small i could agree that it is 'recent' ism (WP:RECENT). however, since there were 1. eleven banks involved in collusion and 2. the fine was several hundred million euros, imho it is a historically important event. Decora (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * HSBC's share of the fine was actually €9m (compared to €100m for Credit Agricole, €91m for BPCE and €63.3m for BNP Paribas), tiny in the context of its overall business. Even in the short term, the reputational and financial impact of this fine on HSBC's overall business is miniscule, in the context of its overall history, which this article covers, it is not worthy of mention. I doubt it is even worthy of mention in the article for HSBC France.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Decora, A fine by a governmental body for collusion / anti trust.. no matter how "miniscule" is certainly worthy of inclusion. Please get concensus before removing sourced factual information. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The fine was for just €9m. It had no effect on the share price or on senior management and will be of no impact on even this year's financials. Banks of the scale of HSBC are frequently fined - just look on Google. Just because something can be cited does not make it worthy of inclusion. The issue is not whether the fine happened and is citable, but whether, in the context of the HSBC group, the span of its activities worldwide and its history this fine is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. It patently is not, and you have provided no reasons to justify notability, you have merely said that it is notable for inclusion because it is notable for inclusion.


 * Why don't we include all of the awards that HSBC has won during the last few years in the article? There are many, and good citations can be provided. Articles should not simply be collections of any ephemera relating to a topic which can be cited, discretion and judgement must be used to establish whether something is worthy of inclusion in the context of a relatively short encyclopedic article. Im sure that a whole book could be written on HSBC which was entirely glowing using only information cited from reputable sources on the internet. Equally Im sure that a whole book could be written which was entirely negative using only such sources.


 * Consensus does not simply need to be won for deletion, consensus has never been won for inclusion of reference to this fine.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a fine for the corporation breaking the law... its that simple.. not only breaking the law but colluding with other banks to break the law at the expense of consumers. If you look at other articles, they certainly do have references to price fixing and other law breaking activities, heck check out samsung. The amount of the fine does not make it notable, the fact they were fined by a governmental body for collusion with other banks certainly does. You point that it is "only" 9 million euros is just that, your point of view, what is the arbitrary number that makes it large enough to include? It makes no difference what the effect on share price is, What it does show is that the bank engages in activities that harm the consumer, and has been fined in the past for that. regardless of what that fine was. collusion is very important and certainly belongs here in the article about the companies operations. -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Orchard Bank
"Orchard Bank" links to this article, but the words don't appear in it anywhere. What's the relationship between Orchard Bank and HSBC? Is Orchard a company that was subsequently bought out by HSBC? Is it a subsidiary? A brand used in certain markets? The name of the CEO's dog? -- pne (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

-There's a FAQs section on the Orchard Bank website, which may serve. 212.243.44.4 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

More branches/operation centres than you've listed.
http://www.hsbc.co.nz/1/2/  HSBC also operates out of New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.120.201.251 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Money Laundering Practices, Avoid Edit War
No less institute than the US senate found it necessary to conduct investigations on HSBC anti money laundering practices. The findings are unequivocal that HSBC broke the law by having severe deficiencies in anti money laundering practices and evading US laws for monitoring transactions with Iran, North Korea and Sudan. Among other things, the senate report also documents HSBC shipping $7 billion in banknotes from Mexico to the US with essentially no anti money laundering measures taken, and keeping business relations with a Saoudi bank which was known to be an early financier of Al Quaeda. See the original US senate report and the press release. HSBC has settled for a record $1.92 billion because of these anti money laundering practices, but has not been convicted by the DOJ. It may well turn out to be a turning point in the relation between governments and the financial sector in general.

I have paraphrased the Senate report inside what was then called the Money Laundering section and added a reference to the hearings and settlement in the introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSBC&oldid=529720889. Rangoon11 reverted this edit immediately as over the top and an attack. He also renamed the money laundering section to "controversies", conveniently placed at the very end after the HSBC sponsoring. No mention was made of the senate hearings and the settlement was conveniently tugged in between accusations of financing Malayan timber companies and reports that HSBC has set up suspicious accounts on Jersey. After respectfully noting that I was paraphrasing a US senate report on his talk page, l reverted the revert and edited the introduction to only mention of the existence of senate  hearings and the settlement  as part of the history section to show good faith (see link). This revert, Rangoon11 reverted within half an hour, asking me not to start an edit war but discussing it on the talk as I do here. I do not want to start an edit war either and assume that Rangoon11 is acting in good faith, hence this talk. Whatever the merits of my own presentation, I strongly feel that the findings of the senate and the settlement are important on the HSBC page and should not be indiscriminately deleted.

RogierBrussee (talk)


 * Thanks for starting this discussion. Firstly I agree that this sequence of events justifies some mention in the article. It currently has three lines in the "Controversies" section. I think that another couple of lines of detail might be helpful. I can also see a case for the content being in the History section; personally I am neutral on whether the incident is mentioned in the History or Controversies section (I'm not a big fan of Controversies section in general which tend to be a magnet for trivial attack content and POV-pushing).
 * However I don't think that this incident is sufficiently important to HSBC to justify the very large chunks of text which you have sought to add in, in my view this incident warrants a few lines in the article rather than multiple lengthy paragraphs. I also don't think that close paraphrasing of a Senate report is good style or appropriate. Neither do I think that this incident warrants mention in the lead. In the overall context of the topic (which is HSBC in its entirety) I am firmly of the view that including this in the lead would be US-centric, recentist and undue. Even were the article just about HSBC USA I am dubious as to whether a lead mention would be appropriate, but a better case could certainly be made. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is quite possibly the biggest scandal in the history of international banking, and is certainly the most significant part of HSBC's history. Your desire to minimize it is baffling. 69.73.47.181 (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RogierBrussee (talk)
 * First I am glad we agree on the principle that these events warrant more extensive exposition so we can move forward. I can see some merit in your argument that the content is too long. I therefore propose to move the long content to a seperate page, and have a shorter version under a seperate heading under the history section with the usual link to this longer version. It will be longer than "a few lines" however, and I do propose to keep a reference in the history section in the introduction (see 69.73.47.181' s remark). I would appreciate if you donot pull the rug under me while doing the rework.
 * I cannot agree at all with your arguments for a minimal mention, however.
 * This so called "incident", was practice over a 10 year period involving knowledge of senior staff. It involved billions of dollars in drugs money, illicit trade with rogue countries, business with terrorist financers and clearing hundreds of millions in phoney traveller checques.
 * The US senate found this "incident" worthy of investigation, subpoenad, asked for 1.4 million documents, interrogated senior staff under oath, and produced a 330 page report. My insistence that a US senate report cannot be put aside has nothing to do with US centrism (I am a Dutch citizen living in Holland), but with the clout, judicial powers and resources the senate has at its disposal. The report is therefore an excellent source and I see plenty of reason to paraphrase it. It is a very small paraphrase at that.
 * The Senate enquiries, are very much about HSBC as a global bank even though the the US affiliate HBUS obviously has a special role. For example the senate report describes in detail why HSBC Mexico (HBMX) was attractive for laundering billions of dollars in bank notes by drug criminals because, through HBUS it could route the money back to the US. It also documents how the global HSBC organisation pressed HBUS into reinstating connections with the Saudi Al Rajhi Bank despite links with Al Queada, because teh Saudi's threatened to cut ties with its Middle East affiliate HBME if it could not provide financial access to the US.
 * Even putting forward criminal charges would have severe financial consequences for HSBC, to the point that it might have gone bankrupt, as many large investors would have to cut ties with HSBC.
 * The $1.92 billion settlement is much larger than any settlement for money laundering ever. It is almost as large as all settlements with all other banks combined, and the only one that involves drug money and terrorist financing and it comes with many strings attached.
 * Settling rather than pushing for criminal charges raises important questions on the rule of law and the relation between democratic governments and the financial sector. It certainly sets a precedent, and may well turn out be as influential as the decission to use tax money to save AIG in many years to come.
 * It may be true that the illegal practices make up only a small fraction of HSBC's total business and that businesses regularly get fines. I am sure some people will argue that HSBC can just write off the settlement and go on with business as usual, so the settlement is a mere "incident". I strongly doubt there is consensus on Wikipedia to take that POV in this case.

RogierBrussee (talk) 12:20, December 26 2012 (UTC)


 * This has neither had much impact on HSBC's share price, even in the short term, nor received much press coverage in the UK. In the context of HSBC as an overall topic it is a pretty trivial event. The settlement amounts to a small amount of one year's profits, rather less than HSBC will receive for the sale of its stake in Ping An (which is also a pretty minor event for the company). There is no evidence it will have any significant effect on HSBC's strategy or operations, apart from in the very narrow and specific area of internal money laundering controls, which will no doubt be overhauled further (although I believe the bank has already made significant changes and spent about $300 million on systems and controls updates in this area since issues first were identified).
 * Big events in HSBC's history are things such as the takeover of Midland, the move of the HQ and domicile to London, the takeover of Household, the takeover of Republic, the global financial crisis since 2008, the adoption of the global HSBC brand and Hexagon logo, the return to mainland China, expansion into South America, and the sub prime crisis. For me this would not be in the top 20 most important events in the history of the company.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are free to have a different opinion on what is important and to take share prices and corporate strategy as the defining measure for importance. It is a documented fact that banks pay a premium for mergers that bring them "too big to fail" status, so for all I know, manifest proof of "too big to jail" status might actually raise share prices and vindicate corporate strategy. Other people, especially outside the financial sector, have different opinions on what is important, however, and I think I made amply clear that there is reason for such a different opinion. Nobody is talking about deleting content about takeovers and logos, so insisting on deleting content on this money laundering case is a case of pressing your POV. I will go ahead with the plan I outlined.


 * RogierBrussee (talk) 16:08, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * No please do not go ahead with your "plan", which I personally firmly oppose and does not currently have a consensus here. Let's wait for other editors to give their opinions. An RfC may also be needed. In the meantime please do not attempt to re add this incident to the article lead or add anything more than a couple of extra lines on this incident to either the existing Controversies section or the History section.
 * And in no way have you demonstarted how this is one of the most important events in HSBC's history, you have merely given your opinion that it is. I see absolutely no evidence which supports that opinion.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever you end up doing, there is no way that this warrants mention in the introduction. Incidentally, the fact that RogierBrussee states "This is quite possibly the biggest scandal in the history of international banking, and is certainly the most significant part of HSBC's history" exhibits a clear lack of understanding with regards to the overall significance of the offence and its context within the firm's history and operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.86.226 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I never once stated this is the biggest event in the history of the bank. User 69.73.47.181 did in a comment on Rangoon11's stance in this talk section, however (see above), and I thanked him for his support. I obviously do think the issue is more than a mere "incident" and, in particular in relation to the settlement, may prove to be of historic importance for the reasons I outlined above. I would gladly be proved utterly wrong in this belief in the years to come.
 * RogierBrussee (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree that this is not significant enough to justify a mention in the lead. I agree with Rangoon11 that it is noteworthy and mention in history section and controversy makes sense and could be expanded a bit, but when viewed in historical context I would say this is not nearly the biggest events for HSBC as a bank.  Given that AML and CFT legislation and its enforcement is a relatively modern phenomena and a number of other banks have also been fined recently for similar practices, any major discussion would make more sense in general articles associated with money laundering and financing of terrorism. Sargdub (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will then merely expand a bit, link to the seperate wiki page I made of this issue and make a reference to the Senate Committee's report.
 * RogierBrussee (talk)11:03 december 27, 2012
 * I've been following this discussion, but have not yet contributed. I think that what RogierBrussee is now suggesting, taking into account the good advice from Rangoon11 and Sargdub looks about right. This is a significant event, but not that important in the long-term history of such a major bank, and not significant enough to be in the lead. I also expect other banks will be involved in this money laundering, and it might appear unfair to over-emphasise HSBC. Edwardx (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok done. The hearings and the settlement are now one paragraph in the 2010--present section. The settlement is moved from the controversies section to the historic section, alleged indian wrong doings are moved to the controversies section, and a reference to an upcoming senate report is deleted. Despite obvious differences in opinion, thanks to everybody.
 * RogierBrussee (talk) 12:35, 27 December 27 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am relatively inexperienced at Wikipedia editing. I don't mean to start (or continue) an editing war. However, I was appalled at how little discussion of the money laundering there was. I added some and created a separate section on it and added a short reference in the History section. Personally, I think it deserves more than I've written. I only checked the history after saving these edits. I don't know how Wikipedia resolves these issues but I would like to weigh in with the opinion that this is a very major event.
 * jreiss17 20:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be that the money laundering is just a tiny bit of the operations of the bank, but since it resulted in the largest fine ever in US history, surely it is a significant event for the world at large? It could be argued that HSBC in this case operated the world's largest market share in money laundering and that makes. With this reasoning, the money laundering scandal's notability should not be viewed from the point of view as a tiny percentage of HSBC's operations, but as a market share of illegal money laundering. Therefore, I think the HSBC money laundering scandal deserves more attention than it has now, or even an article of its own alternatively a section in a money laundering article, if such an article exists. AadaamS (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to recommend the same thing: an article devoted entirely to the scandal itself. I believe this will at least partially settle the editing dispute.  If it had it's own article, then I think most people would be content with a short section on the main HSBC article dealing with scandal - it would be apparent, but would not detract from the broader history of the bank.  Of course, there ought to be a link to the article on the scandal as well for those who want to pursue additional information on the story.  Furthermore, I just don't see why this doesn't have its own article.  When I search the word "controversy," the results include articles on "scandals" that are far more trivial than HSBC laundering money for drug cartels and terrorist organizations (e.g., Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, American Idol controversies, 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy, etc.).  Additionally, the scandal is about more than just HSBC: there were many public grievances aired over the DOJ's settlement to resolve the scandal, raising serious questions regarding equity in our criminal justice system and the influence of banks on our governing institutions.  Does this sound fair?  Lockwood Like (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This sounds pretty good. Do our best work, and don't artificially hold ourselves back.  And at the same time being prepared to spin off to a separate article and keeping a good summary here.  This isn't small potatoes.  This is big potatoes.  At least that's my read of the situation.  And if people have the time, by all means, dive in.  Do as much good work as you can.  Now, I think if we have some artificial standard of only the 'best articles' (however we might define this) this too often ends up being a perfectionist trap.  We do far better by having a variety of good articles.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusations / settlement for money laundering for drug cartels and terrorist organizations. Articles we might potentially use.
HSBC wins OK of record $1.92 billion money-laundering settlement, Reuters, Jonathan Stempel, July 2, 2013.

' .  .  .  While noting "heavy public criticism" of the settlement, which enabled HSBC to escape criminal prosecution, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn, New York, called the decision to approve the accord "easy, for it accomplishes a great deal."

'Gleeson ruled on Monday after more than six months of review,. . '

' .  .  .  The settlement, announced December 11, 2012, included a $1.256 billion forfeiture and $665 million in civil fines. . .  '

' .  .  .  The deferred prosecution agreement, known as a DPA, lasts for five years, and prosecutors may indict the bank if it violates the terms.

'Gleeson said "much of what might have been accomplished by a criminal conviction has been agreed to in the DPA," whose administration he will supervise. . .  '

' .  .  .  The case is U.S. v. HSBC Bank USA NA et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 12-cr-00763.'

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2013/10/04/why-hsbc-holdings-plc-is-a-bad-share-for-novice-investors.aspx

--

HSBC and Standard Chartered, Too big to jail, Two big British banks reach controversial settlements, Economist [UK], report from New York, Dec. 15 2012.

-


 * Perhaps the reader we might want to envision is a college student who is both interested in these issues for their own sake and is considering a job in finance, and he or she wants the best information available on what certain banks are like. And it is not our job to give some safe, timid, watered-down summary as if we're the PR department of HSBC!  To the contrary, our job is to lay it on the table as fully as we can, neither understating nor overstating, but instead just right down the middle.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not neutral. And a lot of good hard-hitting journalism isn't.  Maybe a better question, Is it accurate?  And is it a reasonably complete portrayal of the situation (the standard of breadth and comprehensiveness for an encyclopedia).  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

[reference included in article:] U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History [PDF file], Carl Levin, Chair, Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority, July 17, 2012 Hearing. See Executive Summary, page 3 [8 in PDF], paraphrase: In October 2010, the OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring HSBC to strengthen multiple aspects of its AML [Anti-Money Laundering] program. The identified problems included a once massive backlog of over 17,000 alerts identifying suspicious activity, failure to file timely Suspicious Activity Reports with U.S. law enforcement, failure to conduct any due diligence to assess risks to HSBC affiliates before opening correspondent accounts for them, a three year failure by HBUS [HSBC Bank USA], from mid-2006 to mid-2009, to conduct any AML of $15 billion in bulk cash transactions from those same HSBC affiliates, poor procedures for assigning country and client risk, failure to monitor $60 trillion in annual wire transfers by customers in countries rated lower risk by HBUS, and inadequate and unqualified AML staffing, resources, and leadership. It was noted that HSBC fully cooperated with the Senate investigation. page 5 [10 in PDF], "Circumventing OFAC Prohibitions," paraphrase: The standard practice is to use an OFAC filter (Office of Foreign Assets Control) to see which transactions need a closer look. And because this slows some transactions which are allowable, some non-U.S. financial institutions have used tricks such as stripping country names or characterizing transaction as transfer between banks in approved jurisdictions while omitting payment details. In the case of embargo restrictions on Iran, some foreign banks abused "U-turn" transactions which were allowable under U.S. Treasury regulations prior to Nov. 2008.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19323954

http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1177288/hsbc-pays-big-bonuses-while-admitting-money-laundering [ <-- also includes editorial comment ]

Argentina
Argentine revenue chief: British banking giant HSBC helped clients launder money, evade taxes, Vancouver Sun [Canada], Debora Rey, The Associated Press (BUENOS AIRES, Argentina), March 18, 2013.

[reference included in article:] Argentina: HSBC helped launder money, evade taxes, CBS News, Associated Press (New York), March 18, 2013.

http://www.elcomercioonline.com.ar/articulos/50054217-HSBC-dice-que-se-compromete-a-colaborar-con-la-investigacion-de-la-AFIP.html/

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/26/argentina-s-tax-office-targets-main-grain-exporters-demands-951-million-dollars-in-alleged-arrears "Ricardo Echegaray, head of Argentina’s Federal Administration of Public Revenue, known as AFIP"

issues / questions with Drug money laundering subsection
We're not giving the background, that this is not necessarily a first offense. We're not putting the fine in the context for what it means for HSBC. We mention drug cartels, but we don't also mention terrorist organizations. And the only country we mention is Mexico as if the whole situation is limited geographically. And it sure sounds like it isn't. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel I've made some progress. But can still use your help, yes, you! :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

American?!
Could I ask the most fundamental question... Since when has HSBC been American or based in New York? HSBC was founded in Hong Kong and is based at Canary Wharf in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.73.163 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

When CEO Stuart Gulliver first took office
HSBC names Gulliver new CEO, Flint as chairman, Wall Street Journal, Market Watch, Wallace Witkowski, Sept. 24, 2010. [From this source, it looks like Gulliver was appointed Sept. 2010 to take officer when the previous guy retires early 2011]

Stuart Gulliver is set for top at HSBC <--slow to load Express [UK], Andrew Johnson, Sept 25, 2010: '. . Geoghegan will formally retire at the end of March next year with a pay-off of £1.42 million but will stay as a consultant for the next three months for a £200,000 fee, which will be donated charity. . "

Money laundering probably should be it's own section
First off, the only other controversy we currently include is accusations that timber conglomerates in Mayalasia practiced irresponsible forestry. And HSBC disputes the accuracy of these allegations.

With money laundering, there's just a whole lot more information. And on much of it, HSBC is not disputing the accuracy. For example, CEO Stuart Gulliver appearing before UK’s Parliamentary Banking Standards Commission said the structure of the bank was "not fit for purpose." Terrorists and drug lords targeted HSBC, bosses admit, The Independent [UK], Simon English, 6 February 2013.

So for the time being, probably better that money laundering be it's own section.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

HSBC should restore the Midland Bank brand in the UK
Time for the mega HSBC to de-merge its UK business and restore its brand name and independence.

-Better for shareholders -Better for accountholders -Better for UK Businesses Freedom1968 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

HSBC settlement with US government over laundering cartel money
This may be a useful source WhisperToMe (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Taibbi, Matt. "Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke." Rolling Stone. December 13 (year unstated)

Refusing to let clients have their money
Listeners have told Radio 4's Money Box they were stopped from withdrawing amounts ranging from £5,000 to £10,000.

HSBC admitted it has not informed customers of the change in policy, which was implemented in November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)