HSBC leaks

[CountDeMoney]

I made myself a promise not to attack personally any posters,

[Jacob]

...but you continue to astound me as probably the most pathetic, despicable git on Languish.

This week.

Next week it'll be someone else.

[Monoriu]

You are really a bizarre person. Sorry, I made myself a promise not to attack personally any posters, but you continue to astound me as probably the most pathetic, despicable git on Languish.

The most ironic part for me is that many people here are benefiting much more from the system than you are, but that does not stop them from discussing its less-than-stellar parts, whereas you seem to be buying the system's propaganda hook and sinker.

I would say that you are one of those people who would be first against the wall when the revolution comes, but that's probably not true - most revolutionaries would probably consider that a waste of a good bullet. That is assuming you actually would not have joined revolutionary tribunals and started to pass death sentences.

Hong Kong's stock market index is known as the Hang Seng.  Hang Seng is the name of the bank that compiles the index, and it is the second largest bank in Hong Kong after HSBC.  Guess what, the majority shareholder of Hang Seng Bank is also HSBC.  The current dividend yield is over 5%, and I consider it a good buy at current prices. 

[Sheilbh]

Mono, this attracting any interest in China:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1eb881e1a7c64852897109abaa0b3766/swiss-leaks-show-deposit-daughter-chinas-ex-premier

[Monoriu]

Mono, this attracting any interest in China:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1eb881e1a7c64852897109abaa0b3766/swiss-leaks-show-deposit-daughter-chinas-ex-premier

The HSBC story is in the headlines today, and Li Peng's daughter is reported as well.  I guess the only surprise is that she only had $2-3 million.  People expected more. 

[Warspite]

The Brits are a curious bunch, by the way.

Their press is always so much sound and fury on anything from cheating, corrupt banks, to Russian oligarchs, to evil Saudis, to eavesdropping media moguls - you name it. Yet they are most unbashed in the fact that their entire economy is based on serving these crooks in every way imaginable. To be honest, I can't think of any other world power class government being so much in the pocket of big money - no matter where it comes from.

At least Americans, the French, Russians or the Chinese tend to prefer their own oligarchs. Only the Brits are a perfect whore.

Or, indeed, our press are so much sound and fury on, err, a British bank.

Also, I'm not sure that private wealth is that important to the British economy, especially given that most of the financial services sector is actually much more boring forms of moving money around.

You really are a curious one, Marty.

[The Minsky Moment]

Holder's Doctrine (you cannot criminally prosecute banks' top brass as that would threaten the financial system) is alive and well.

First of all Holder's memo had nothing to do with prosecuting "top brass".  It was addressed solely to prosecution of corporations at entities.

Second it was not specific to banks or any particular kind of corporation.

Third, the part of the memo that addressed "collateral consequences" is also general and merely states that prosecutors in their discretion "may consider" those consequences in their charging decisions.  It concludes: "the balance may tip in favor of prosecuting corporations in situations where the
scope of the misconduct in a case is widespread and sustained within a corporate ... In such cases. . . visiting
punishment for the corporation's crimes upon shareholders may be of much less concern where those
shareholders have substantially profited, even unknowingly, from widespread or pervasive criminal
activity. Similarly, where the top layers of the corporation's management or the shareholders of a closely held corporation were engaged in or aware of the wrongdoing and the conduct at issue was accepted as away of doing business for an extended period, debarment may be deemed not collateral but a direct and
entirely appropriate consequence of the corporation's wrongdoing."

The Holder memo's collateral consequences doctrine thus did not prevent the ill-advised and extremely damaging prosecution of Arthur Andersen as an entity, resulting in no conviction but in the utter destruction of the firm.

[viper37]

The Holder memo's collateral consequences doctrine thus did not prevent the ill-advised and extremely damaging prosecution of Arthur Andersen as an entity, resulting in no conviction but in the utter destruction of the firm.

why was it ill-advised?

[CountDeMoney]

resulting in no conviction but in the utter destruction of the firm.

As usual, getting away with it.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Holder memo's collateral consequences doctrine thus did not prevent the ill-advised and extremely damaging prosecution of Arthur Andersen as an entity, resulting in no conviction but in the utter destruction of the firm.

why was it ill-advised?

For several reasons.  First because the charge centered around the actions of a few individuals, so if there was a basis for a criminal charge, those individuals should have charged, not the firm.  Second, the criminal charges were quite weak and picked apart by a unanimous Supreme Court.  Third, the consequence was a very unhealthy concentration in the public company audit market - this was definitely a case where concerns about collateral consequences should have come into play.  In fact, right now the Big 4 probably are immune from prosecution because the consequences of killing off another one would be catastrophic.

Then of course there are the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs . . .

[viper37]

For several reasons.  First because the charge centered around the actions of a few individuals, so if there was a basis for a criminal charge, those individuals should have charged, not the firm.  Second, the criminal charges were quite weak and picked apart by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Seperating the consequences from the trials is necessary, imho.  A prosecutor should not ask himself what are the consequences of doing justice, he should do justice by pressing charges about those he believes to be guilty.

But if the case is too weak, than it's another matter.

Third, the consequence was a very unhealthy concentration in the public company audit market - this was definitely a case where concerns about collateral consequences should have come into play.  In fact, right now the Big 4 probably are immune from prosecution because the consequences of killing off another one would be catastrophic.

Then of course there are the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs . . .

Well, see, there were similar arguments made here about engineering firms guilty of colluding with each another to inflate prices.  They were excluded from all public bidding for a short time, and many thought it was too harsh a punishment, that it would crush our firms and force the shareholders to sell to American and other foreign interests.

Notwithstanding the fact that this selling process was already started prior to this, my opinion was that there needed to be a punishment for company founders and shareholders to allow this to happen.  If they are forced to sell their company for a fraction of what it's really worth, than in the future, others will think twice about colluding, and employees who risk losing their jobs will think twice about going along with this without speaking.

As for the concentration of the industry, it might have happenned otherwise, and avoiding prosecution is not a good way to prevent concentration.  In fact, if firms are already colluding with each another to exclude other firms, the end result is very similar.

[Grey Fox]

You are really a bizarre person. Sorry, I made myself a promise not to attack personally any posters, but you continue to astound me as probably the most pathetic, despicable git on Languish.

The most ironic part for me is that many people here are benefiting much more from the system than you are, but that does not stop them from discussing its less-than-stellar parts, whereas you seem to be buying the system's propaganda hook and sinker.

I would say that you are one of those people who would be first against the wall when the revolution comes, but that's probably not true - most revolutionaries would probably consider that a waste of a good bullet. That is assuming you actually would not have joined revolutionary tribunals and started to pass death sentences.

Yes, Mono is Han Chinese.

[Jacob]

Yes, Mono is Han Chinese.

He's hardly representative.

[Martinus]

Yes, Mono is Han Chinese.

He's hardly representative.

He is the only one we have.

[Valmy]

Is he Han?  I thought Hong Kongers were Cantonese.