Of course, before the name was officially names HSBC is was Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation so it's not that strange. If the bank doesn't want to operate within the constraints of the UK/EU banking laws then they should be allowed to leave and try elsewhere. It also still means that if they continue to operate in the UK, EU or US they will still need to be regulated accordingly, in theory.
They're not the first bank in the UK to talk about Asia - Standard Chartered did and Goldman recently made a big move there - and they won't be the last. There is a certain feel to these decisions that doesn't feel right. Maybe they're fine but maybe this is where the banks see an easier ride by cooperative governments who will look the other way during a bubble. The real issue here is whether or not they will be as deeply regulated for their UK, US and EU business.
When things go south again (not "if") in the banking industry, will consumers be as exposed? Will governments suddenly be on the hook for billions and trillions more? Let them move, but both governments and consumers need even more protection in such circumstances. The financial fallout with the next crisis could be enormous.
Europe's biggest bank HSBC may move its headquarters from London to Hong Kong because of what it sees as high levels of tax and red tape in the UK, according to a report in the Sunday Telegraph.
The newspaper quoted unnamed investors who said they understood a move was "more than likely" and that there had been a "change of tone" as HSBC reviews its domicile, something the bank does every three years.
However, the bank maintained that it preferred to remain in the UK and said talk of an imminent change in its position was "entirely speculative and presumptuous".
