匯豐處處碰壁 應該遷離英國

Scottish nationalism figured prominently in the campaign for Thursday’s UK general election. But the first true act of independence could be a Move by HSBC, a bank that has never been happy in London, back to Hong Kong. The Scots expatriate clan that founded and still heads HSBC is losing patience — a virtue it never possessed in abundance — with being taxed, ringfenced and unappreciated.

在圍繞週四英國大選展開的競選活動中，蘇格蘭民族主義成爲一個熱點。但首個真正的“獨立”行動，可能是匯豐銀行(HSBC)將總部遷回香港。匯豐在倫敦似乎從未高興過，創立匯豐並依然領導該行的蘇格蘭移民家族因賦稅、圈護規則以及不被賞識而正在失去耐心，而耐心是該家族從未充分擁有的一種美德。

HSBC ought to move, perhaps along with Standard Chartered, the other product of the former British empire that is starting to look out of place in a discontented UK. Asia is a better location for HSBC to have its head office, as it did until 1993, when it was forced to emigrate to London as a condition for buying Midland Bank. There is not much point in dallying.

匯豐應該遷離英國，也許可以與前大英帝國的另一產物渣打銀行(Standard Chartered)一起，後者在不滿足的英國也開始顯得格格不入。亞洲對於匯豐總部外遷來說是一個更好的選擇，匯豐直至1993年才被迫將總部從香港遷至倫敦——作爲收購米特蘭銀行(Midland Bank)的條件。再磨蹭也沒什麼意義。

Not only are economic growth prospects far better in Asia, but banks are regarded by British politicians — and many voters — with hostility and disdain. There are obvious reasons for this, but it might do them good to realise that the UK cannot remain complacent about its role in the world. It has some attractions as a global financial centre, but they are not infinite.

這不僅是由於亞洲經濟增長前景要好得多，更是因爲英國政客們（以及許多選民）都對銀行抱有敵意和不屑。顯然，這事出有因，但如果這些政客們意識到英國不能繼續自滿於在世界中的角色，這可能會對他們有好處。英國作爲全球金融中心有一定的吸引力，但這些吸引力並不是無限的。

It is an anomaly that HSBC is headquartered in the UK and thus due to pay a levy of $1.5bn on its global balance sheet this year. The bank’s heart lies in Hong Kong, where it was founded in 1865 and still issues banknotes. Asia contributed 78 per cent of its profits last year, while only 3 per cent came from Europe. That becomes ever truer as it retreats from ill-advised global forays.

匯豐的總部設在英國，因而就應該在今年爲其全球資產負債表向英國繳稅15億美元，這是一種畸形現象。匯豐的核心在香港，該行1865年成立於此，至今仍在香港發行鈔票。去年，亞洲貢獻了匯豐78%的利潤，而歐洲只有3%。隨着匯豐從其考慮不周的全球擴張中回撤，亞洲的貢獻顯得更加突出了。

The UK bank levy, introduced in 2011 and increased eight times since, has been rapidly transformed from a targeted incentive to reduce systemic risk by trimming balance sheets into permanent, all-purpose taxation. Both the Conservative and Labour parties would raise the levy if elected, with Labour adding £800m to pay for childcare.

英國2011年開始實施的銀行稅（此後稅率已提高8倍），已經迅速地從一項通過削減資產負債表以減少系統性風險的有針對性的刺激措施轉變成一項永久性、通用的稅種。不論保守黨還是工黨贏得大選，它們都將提高銀行稅，其中工黨計劃每年增收8億英鎊用以支付兒童保育經費。

The levy falls more heavily on HSBC and Standard Chartered than it does on foreign banks that pay only on UK activities, or UK banks that do not have big operations abroad. As a contribution to the government for providing a backstop in a crisis, it has its merits, (although banks also pay deposit insurance and corporation tax), but it is badly targeted as a general tax.

銀行稅給匯豐和渣打造成很大負擔，而對只爲英國業務繳稅的外國銀行或者那些沒有龐大海外業務的本土銀行影響不大。作爲對政府在危機中提供援助而繳的稅項，銀行稅有其優點（儘管銀行也繳納存款保險和企業所得稅），但它已經被完全當作了一般稅來徵收。

After all, neither HSBC nor Standard Chartered, which gains only 8 per cent of its turnover from the UK, needs to pay the non-UK element. It might cost them £1bn each to move head office, but they could recoup it quickly while shielding themselves from further rises in the levy, and political uncertainties including the possibility of the UK leaving the EU.

畢竟，不管是匯豐，還是僅有8%營收來自英國的渣打，都不必爲非英國部分繳稅。總部遷址可能要花費兩家銀行各10億英鎊，但它們可以很快收回這項成本，同時又免受英國銀行稅進一步提高以及英國可能脫離歐盟等政治不確定性的困擾。

For Standard Chartered, London has historic advantages. Its operations are evenly spread across different countries and regions and the UK has provided a neutral, stable home with a strong legal system and regulatory structure (despite the flaws revealed by the 2008 crisis). Without a sharp prod to move, it would probably stay.

對渣打而言，倫敦具有歷史優勢。該行的分支機構均勻地分佈在不同的國家和地區，而英國以其強大的法律體系和監管結構（雖然2008年金融危機暴露出一些缺陷）爲渣打提供了一箇中立、穩定的總部環境。在沒有受到重大刺激的情況下，渣打很可能會留下來。

But British parochialism is evident both in how the bank levy has been imposed and the general reaction to HSBC raising the possibility of leaving (“They’re only bluffing and good riddance to bankers, anyway,” has been the dominant note). The truth is that Asia is an attractive alternative.

但英國的狹隘性不但明顯地體現在徵收銀行稅這件事上，還體現在匯豐提出考慮遷離英國後國人普遍的反應。（“他們只是在虛張聲勢，不管怎麼說，銀行家走了最好，”已成爲主流基調）。而事實是，亞洲是一個有吸引力的選擇。

Not only is HSBC valued by Hong Kong investors more for paying dividends than taxes but it wins easily on “a 20-year view on where is the fastest economic growth in the world”, as Stuart Gulliver, HSBC’s chief executive, phrased the choice this week. HSBC came to the UK in 1993 to hedge political and financial risk, but this is a logical time to double down on Asia.

比起繳稅，香港投資者更看重匯豐的是其派發的股息，而且匯豐可以憑藉“關於世界上經濟增長最快的地區在哪裏的超前20年的眼光”——這是匯豐行政總裁歐智華(Stuart Gulliver)評論這一選擇時的措辭——輕鬆致勝。匯豐1993年遷冊英國以規避政治和金融風險，但現在是對亞洲雙倍下注的恰當時候了。

Both Hong Kong and Singapore are well supervised financial centres that emerged intact from the 1997 Asian crisis — one US chief executive rates Singapore as “the gold standard” for regulation, with well-paid, technocratic and strict supervisors that impose firm risk limits. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is known for intervening to curtail property lending.

香港和新加坡都是從1997年亞洲金融危機中毫髮無損走出來的、監管完善的金融中心——一位美國首席執行官將新加坡比作監管的“黃金標準”，由高薪酬、懂技術而且嚴格的監管人員實施嚴格的風險限制措施。香港金融管理局(Hong Kong Monetary Authority)以通過干預削減房地產貸款而聞名。

The question is whether Hong Kong is strong enough to take on the whole of HSBC’s $2.6tn balance sheet. It is already highly banked — banking assets are 700 per cent of gross domestic product and HSBC is the largest local bank. China could stand behind the territory in a crisis, but HSBC would not want to risk the dragon’s embrace.

問題在於香港是否有能力容納匯豐2.6萬億美元的資產負債表。香港早已高度銀行化——銀行業資產是本地生產總值(GDP)的7倍，而匯豐銀行是本港最大的銀行。假如發生危機，中國可以支持香港地區，但匯豐不會想冒被“巨龍”擁抱的風險。

The UK has made it easier for HSBC to leave in this regard. By imposing ringfencing of balance sheets of UK retail banks from 2019, it is mirroring how HSBC structures itself. Instead of relying on a central pool of capital — whether in London or Hong Kong — to support all of its activities, it holds capital at each subsidiary, lessening the weight for Hong Kong to bear.

在這方面，英國的做法已經讓匯豐可以更容易地遷離。自2019年起英國將對零售銀行的資產負債表實行圈護，這借鑑匯豐架構自身業務的方式。不是依靠某個資本核心區——倫敦或香港——支持其所有業務活動，匯豐將資本分散到所有子公司，這會減輕香港承受的壓力。

It would be useful for HSBC and the UK to part ways now. The former has grumbled for a long time about having to be in London and has a natural home to which to relocate. The latter would get a reality check — evidence that it stands to lose something by treating global banks that choose to domicile there largely as taxable pariahs.

匯豐和英國在此刻說再見是有用的。前者對於不得不窩在倫敦抱怨已久，而且擁有遷址總部的天然場所。後者會得到現實反思——認識到對待將總部設在英國的跨國銀行如同應納稅的賤民一樣，會讓英國失去什麼。

The loss would involve more than the levy — although halving the amount that HSBC pays would be significant enough. It would also mean a reduction in jobs and in work for professional services firms. The UK, along with other countries, is right to regulate banks more tightly than before. But it needs them to settle too.

英國失去的將不只是稅收——儘管匯豐的納稅額就算減半也足夠大。這也意味着就業以及專業服務公司的工作減少。英國（還有其他國家）用比以往更嚴格的方式監管銀行是對的，但也需要能將它們留住。