Chinese banks - Open for business

2013-10-22 07:59:48

A last hurrah for the globalisation of finance

SET astride the entrances to HSBC s main building in Hong Kong are two huge

lions, guardians of the wealth of Britain s biggest bank. On the roof, two

large metal rods point menacingly at the angular tower occupied by Bank of

China, a rival. Both were installed on the advice of HSBC s feng shui advisers,

the latter to protect the bank from the negative energy generated by Bank of

China s building.

Britain s banks, heirs to empire, have long coveted the riches of China. On

October 15th their hopes of reaping them rose greatly when the chancellor of

the exchequer, George Osborne, announced a deal with China that is intended to

make Britain the main offshore hub for trading in China s currency and bonds

and for foreign institutions investing in China s fast-growing economy.

But there was a price. Mr Osborne conceded that British regulators would

consider (which tends to mean approve ) applications from Chinese banks

wanting to enter Britain as branches of their parent banks rather than as

subsidiaries. The difference may seem arcane but in the world of banking

regulation it is hugely important. Branches are overseen by their parents bank

supervisors at home. They are not required to have thick cushions of capital to

absorb losses or large chunks of cash to see them through hard times. Instead

they are expected to call on their parents for help if they run into

difficulties. This makes branches much cheaper and more attractive for banks

than subsidiaries.

It also explains why regulators generally dislike them. The laxer rules on

branches leave them more vulnerable if they or their parent banks get into

difficulties. In allowing Chinese banks to use branches, British authorities

are in effect betting that if anything goes wrong the Chinese government will

bail them out, says Simon Gleeson of Clifford Chance, a law firm.

The chancellor s decision has raised eyebrows in London s financial district.

Some worry that a supposedly independent regulator has been subjected to

political interference and has been forced to lower its standards. Yet critics

of the deal overlook two important points. The first is that there is an

inevitable tension between a bank regulator s mission of maintaining financial

stability and the wider aim of promoting economic growth. Tension between a

regulator and elected officials is not just inevitable but healthy.

Lonely island

Just as important is the tricky balance regulators must find between protecting

their own banking systems and encouraging the smooth functioning of global

capital markets. Letting banks use branches allows capital to flow more easily

around the world. Forcing them into subsidiaries can lead to the creation of

stagnant pools of cash and capital.

Although Britain has cast a more sceptical eye over branches of foreign banks

since the crisis particularly after its taxpayers were left out of pocket by

the collapse of Icelandic banks and their British branches it has generally

stood on the side of financial globalisation. In this it is increasingly

lonely. American regulators are likely soon to force foreign banks to establish

fully-capitalised units. EU officials are threatening to do the same. Given

this trend, Britain s stance looks less like an opportunistic grab for Chinese

business and more like a last, probably hopeless, stab at keeping alive the

dream of a seamless global financial market.