Why investors don't care about the HSBC money laundering scandal

Not a massive deal.

HSBC are going to be fined up to $1bn for poor anti-money laundering controls in Mexico, which made it a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations", according to a US Senate committee. Finding that a bank has lax checks on money laundering is nothing new - it happened recently at Coutts, but this time the revelation  “almost puts Barclays in the shade”, writes Nils Pratley at the Guardian.

Well, hardly.

Since the HSBC scandal emerged last week (in an internal memo), shares in HSBC have only dropped 3 per cent – compare this to the 17 per cent fall in Barclays shares since the fine was announced.

Although HSBC’s fine is certain to outweigh Barclays’, the markets have remained fairly unbothered for a few reasons.

First, HSBC’s misdeeds are somewhat overshadowed by the Libor scandal, and second, as detailed in the 340-page US Senate report, the news comes amid that of similar failures  by other banks.

“The senate chose to release HSBC [‘s fine] as a case study - Lloyds and Barclays have also been prosecuted and fined”, says Sandy Chen at Cenkos. He says that Lloyds was fined back in 2009, and Barclays in 2010, but the figures haven’t yet been released.

HSBC investors will also be reassured by the fact that the current HSBC chief Stuart Gulliver was not involved in the Mexican fiasco, where as Bob Diamond was very much at the scene of the Barclays Libor fixings.

Lastly, HSBC can put the problem to bed by simply paying the fine and complying with regulators, an option Barclays doesn’t have. Here’s Sandy Chen in a note:

“Because HSBC has cooperated with the US Senate investigation, and because it has begun to implement the recommended changes, we think that US legislators and regulators will be inclined to give HSBC some breathing space.”

HSBC. Photograph, Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

What Labour MPs who want to elect the shadow cabinet are forgetting

The idea is to push Jeremy Corbyn to build an ideologically broad team, but it distracts from the real hurdle – management.

Labour MPs who have been critical of Jeremy Corbyn are pushing to vote for shadow cabinet members – rather than having all the posts appointed by the leader.

Most of the parliamentary Labour party who are not Corbyn loyalists believe this should be the “olive branch” he offers them, in order to put his recent words about “unity” and “wiping the slate clean” into action.

Corbyn and his allies have refused to consider such an idea outside of a “wider” democratisation of the party – saying that Labour members should also get a say in who’s on the frontbench. It’s also thought Corbyn is reluctant due to the shadow cabinet having three representatives on the National Executive Committee. He wouldn’t want his opponents voting for those, tipping the balance of the Committee back towards centrists.

Shadow cabinet elections were a longstanding convention for Labour in opposition until Ed Miliband urged the party to vote against them in 2011. Labour MPs on different wings of the party believe a return to the system would avoid Labour’s frontbench being populated solely by Corbyn’s ideological wing.

But there is a complication here (aside from the idea of a party leader having to run an effective opposition with their opponents in key shadow cabinet positions).

Proponents of shadow cabinet elections say they would help to make Labour a broad church. But really they could put those in the “make-it-work” camp who initially helped form Corbyn’s team in a difficult position. Initially conciliatory MPs like Thangam Debonnaire and Heidi Alexander have since left their posts, revealing frustration more at Corbyn’s management style than policy direction. Chi Onwurah MP, who remains a shadow minister, has also expressed such concerns.

One senior Labour MP points out that the problem with shadow cabinet elections lies in those who left Corbyn’s shadow cabinet but had wanted to cooperate – not in bringing ideological opponents into the fold.

“There were lots of people on his team who actually liked Jeremy, and wanted to make policy with him,” they tell me. “And many of them eventually felt they had to leave because of how difficult it was to work with him. They wanted to stay but couldn’t. If people like that couldn’t stay, will they go back? It will be much harder for him to show them he can work differently.”

One of the “make-it-work” faction voices their concern about returning to the shadow cabinet via elections for this reason. “A lot of us [who left] are still really interested in our policy areas and would be happy to help if they asked,” they say. “But it was too difficult to be taken seriously when you were actually in those shadow cabinet meetings.”

My source describes a non-collegiate approach in meetings around the shadow cabinet table, where Corbyn would read out pre-written opening statements and responses when they delivered their ideas. “It was like he wasn’t really listening.”

The plan to reintroduce shadow cabinet elections barely left the ground in a meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee on Saturday night, on the eve of Labour conference.

This is in spite of Labour MPs urging the NEC to make a decision on the matter soon. Jon Ashworth, an NEC member and shadow minister, told me shortly after Corbyn’s victory speech that this would be “a good way of bringing people back” in to the team, and was determined to “get some resolution on the issue” soon.

It doesn’t look like we’ll get that yet. But for some who have already tried serving on the frontbench, it’s a distraction from what is for them a management – rather than an ideological – problem.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.