HSBC and financial deregulation in the UK

A small over five old ages subsequently, HSBC appears to be enduring the banking storm as the unofficial ‘Last Bank Standing ‘ of the UK banking system, whilst the Chief executive officer of RBS has lost his occupation and the bank itself has had to accept recapitalisation on footings that could profess a bulk equity interest to the UK authorities

Following the extended fiscal deregulating in the UK throughout the 1980s, many Bankss began quickly turning their merchandise portfolios, taking advantage of the deregulating to research of all time more profitable fiscal services ( Harris, 2007 ) . In recent old ages, this enlargement has encompassed abroad investings, with Bankss taking on joint ventures and acquisitions in non UK markets in an effort to entree more quickly turning sectors and markets. The Royal Bank of Scotland was one of the most active Bankss in this activity, taking a ?1.7 billion interest in Bank of China Ltd in 2005, giving it entree to around 13 % of the overall Chinese market ( MarketWatch, 2005 ) . However, the chief focal point of RBS’ enlargement activities in the period focused on increasing the handiness of their leveraged fiscal instruments, with Risk ( 2002 ) coverage that RBS spent the bulk of 2002 and 2003 increasing the liquidness available to it in foreign exchange and other covering markets. As portion of this, and in response to stockholder concerns about the possible peril of some of these instruments, RBS implemented a series of hazard direction merchandises to increase the degree of transparence around their investings and guarantee that they were hedged against any market downswings ( Corporate Finance, 2003 ) .

In contrast, HSBC’s corporate scheme was focal points on acquisitions in developing markets, including the acquisition of a Mexican pension fund direction company in November 2003, together with the purchase of a interest in an Indian retail bank and the acquisition of Lloyds TSB’s onshore and seaward concerns in Brazil, both in December 2003. In add-on, several of HSBC’s bulk owned subordinates entered into joint ventures and acquisitions over the same period, leting the company to diversify its operations ( HSBC Annual Report 2003, 2008 ) . Whilst this was criticised in some countries for non taking advantage of the leveraged chances at the clip ( Davidson, 2003 ) , it enabled HSBC to turn its grosss as the US and UK economic systems faltered. Indeed, in 2007 HSBC managed to accomplish a new high degree of net incomes in malice of the falling markets in the UK and the US ( HSBC Chairman’s statement 2007, 2008 ) . This is partially because HSBC has such a strong focal point on emerging markets, but besides because HSBC’s operations are non as extremely leveraged as RBS’ , and therefore have non suffered as much from the deleveraging presently happening in these markets ( HSBC CEO’s statement 2008, 2008 ) .

Indeed, RBS’s one-year studies show a really different narrative to those of HSBC, with the bank finishing nine acquisitions in 2003, of which four were in the US, three in Europe and two in the UK and Ireland ( RBS Chairman’s statement 2003, 2008 ) . These acquisitions were driven by the expansive financial and pecuniary policies of the US at the clip, which led many analysts to believe that these markets had come through the worst of the station point com recession ( RBS Chairman’s statement 2003, 2008 ) . However, RBS’ 2005 statement reveals an inordinate degree of focal point on the western universe, with the company depending on the UK for 58 % of its net incomes, with the bulk of the balance coming from the US and Western Europe. Even attempts to diversify, including the investing in Bank of China, were driven by disposals of portions in Banco Santander in Spain, therefore neglecting to cut down the company’s dependance on its nucleus markets of the UK and US ( RBS CEO, 2005 ) . As a consequence of this, whilst RBS’ direct exposure to subprime loaning was non every bit big as HSBC’s, the deficiency of diverseness of the portfolio, and the fact that RBS had a more leveraged portfolio meant that RBS was forced to do a ?5,925 million write down on the value of its recognition market portfolio in 2008, therefore taking to a projected record loss of over ?1 billion ( RBS CEO’s study 2008, 2008 ) . As a consequence of this, RBS was unable to capitalize itself any longer, and was therefore forced to accept recapitalisation by the UK authorities.

In contrast, whilst HSBC suffered a important bead in net incomes due to its direct exposure to the US markets, its lower grade of purchase meant that it was still extremely profitable, with the addition from its emerging market investings assisting to countervail its losingss from the US. As a consequence of this, HSBC was able to go on with its planned acquisition of Korea Exchange Bank, and even attempted to take down the antecedently agreed monetary value as a consequence of the recognition crunch. This continued strategic focal point on the Asiatic markets, where high nest eggs rates provide capital, and therefore cut down the trust on the now non working sweeping loaning markets, has enabled HSBC to come through the recognition crunch as the unofficial ‘Last Bank Standing’ , and is one of the few UK Bankss non to necessitate a bailout from the UK Government. It is interesting to observe that RBS wished to avoid the demand for a authorities bailout, and attempted to seek recapitalisation from its ain stockholders by agencies of a new rights issue. However, this rights issue was significantly under subscribed, intending that the UK authorities was forced to purchase up most of the portions at a premium to the market monetary value. As a consequence, RBS is now mostly owned by the UK authorities, and has efficaciously been nationalised.

In decision, RBS’ skeptics were mostly right to be concerned about the bank’s inordinate usage of purchase and deficiency of diverseness in its grosss. In contrast, HSBC’s determination non to extremely leverage its portfolio, whilst greeted with some agnosticism, has allowed the company to avoid any indirect losingss. As a consequence, whilst HSBC had the largest direct exposure to US sub-prime loaning, it did non hold as big an indirect exposure as many of its equals, who depended on the sweeping markets for support, and therefore saw important indirect losingss as they were forced to neutralize places to cover the loss of sweeping support. Finally, RBS was strongly involved in extremely leveraged investing banking merchandises including foreign exchange and other covering markets. Whilst this allowed the company to turn its grosss strongly from 2003 to 2007, it meant that when the deleveraging procedure began the bank was much more vulnerable to forced merchandising. In contrast, HSBC’s deficiency of purchase and strong shock absorber of nest eggs sedimentations from the Asiatic markets meant that HSBC’s gross growing was non as spectacular over the first portion of the period, with RBS’ runing net income turning from ?6 billion in 2003 to ?10 billion in 2007, whilst HSBC’s merely grew from $ 20 billion to $ 24 billion. However, HSBC’s rise was finally more sustainable, and therefore the bank has non suffered the same destiny as RBS.


  1. Banker ( 2002 )HSBC hazards foray into North America.Banker ; Vol. 152, Issue 922, p. 30.
  2. Corporate Finance ( 2003 )The Royal Bank of Scotland Financial Markets — taking the revolution in foreign exchange trading.Corporate Finance ; June 2003 Supplement, p. 2.
  3. Davidson, C. ( 2003 )Advanced analytics for private investors.Hazard ; Vol. 16, Issue 6, p. 14-16.
  4. Harris, G. ( 2007 )Brand portfolio options for the UK retail Bankss.Journal of Financial Services Selling ; Vol. 11, Issue 3, p. 249-256.
  5. MarketWatch ( 2005 )RBS takes a hazard by banking on China.MarketWatch: Global Round-up ; Vol. 4, Issue 10, p. 118-119.
  6. MarketWatch ( 2004 )HSBC: major interest in Chinese bank.MarketWatch: Financial Services ; Vol. 3, Issue 9, p. 11.
  7. Hazard ( 2002 )Latecomer ‘s advantage.Hazard ; Vol. 15, Issue 12, p. 95.