£7BN profit? Time to cut the workforce...
Discussion
Marty Funkhouser said:
sinizter said:
If it can still be run in a similar fashion as when it employs more people, then why not ?
Because 30000 people will be unemployed - that puts a huge strain on society, on families and on the unemployed.HSBC doesnt owe anyone a living but I do wonder where it will all end if companies downsize when they've just posted £7 BILLION profit!
Do you assume that private companies are not allowed to shift dead weight for profit or would you who if you owned the company keep dead weight or staff that gave you no value just cause it meant they were employed?
Du1point8 said:
thats a bit up on 25000 that they have quoted and its across the global so its only a small percentage over several years so what is the issue?
Do you assume that private companies are not allowed to shift dead weight for profit or would you who if you owned the company keep dead weight or staff that gave you no value just cause it meant they were employed?
If my company had just made £7BN then I would not make anyone unemployed, regardless of how much more profit it would make - when is it enough???? £10BN? £50BN???Do you assume that private companies are not allowed to shift dead weight for profit or would you who if you owned the company keep dead weight or staff that gave you no value just cause it meant they were employed?
I know how it works, big companies always have to make more money than the year before, the best way to do that? Cut out the humans where possible.
All I'm saying is that whats the logical conclusion to this????
[quote=Marty Funkhouser]
Because 30000 people will be unemployed - that puts a huge strain on society, on families and on the unemployed.
quote]
How so? That's worldwide, not in the UK, for example.
As such, if the services are required in the country concerned another bank will step in; so not the same net job loss by any means.
HSBC may not think the returns on equity are worthwhile, someone else may well do so, and with better local knowledge could make a better fist of things.
Because 30000 people will be unemployed - that puts a huge strain on society, on families and on the unemployed.
quote]
How so? That's worldwide, not in the UK, for example.
As such, if the services are required in the country concerned another bank will step in; so not the same net job loss by any means.
HSBC may not think the returns on equity are worthwhile, someone else may well do so, and with better local knowledge could make a better fist of things.
Marty Funkhouser said:
Because 30000 people will be unemployed - that puts a huge strain on society, on families and on the unemployed.
HSBC doesnt owe anyone a living but I do wonder where it will all end if companies downsize when they've just posted £7 BILLION profit!
It's a private company. Not a government employment scheme.HSBC doesnt owe anyone a living but I do wonder where it will all end if companies downsize when they've just posted £7 BILLION profit!
Whether there is a £7B of profit or loss, if they don't need the employees, they don't need the employees.
ellroy said:
Marty Funkhouser said:
Because 30000 people will be unemployed - that puts a huge strain on society, on families and on the unemployed.
How so? That's worldwide, not in the UK, for example.As such, if the services are required in the country concerned another bank will step in; so not the same net job loss by any means.
HSBC may not think the returns on equity are worthwhile, someone else may well do so, and with better local knowledge could make a better fist of things.
It's not about what profit they have made, it's about how they see their market looking forwards and staffing for that. Sometimes loss making companies recruit in anticipation of a better future, sometimes profitable companies shed staff in anticipation of tough times to come, this is the latter.
Marty Funkhouser said:
If my company had just made £7BN then I would not make anyone unemployed, regardless of how much more profit it would make - when is it enough???? £10BN? £50BN???
Gosh! You remind me of how stupid I was as a 19 year old.Marty Funkhouser said:
I know how it works, big companies always have to make more money than the year before, the best way to do that? Cut out the humans where possible.
All I'm saying is that whats the logical conclusion to this????
Actually, you don't have a clue how it works.All I'm saying is that whats the logical conclusion to this????
You haven't got the faintest clue.
The funny thing is that it is really simple. It is so simple that a person with an IQ of 40 should be able to understand it.
If you had a Billion pounds to invest, would you put it into a building society at 3%, or would you invest it into a buisness. If you put it into a buisness, would you expect(hope for) more than 3%.
I do not have a billion pounds to invest, but some of my money is in safe deposit accounts, and some of it is in shares. I expect a better return on the shares, but I also accept that these shares carry a greater risk.
Don
--
Here's the thing. At the last place I worked we had a guy who swept the yard. It didn't really need sweeping, but he did that because he was unable to do any other task but nobody wanted to fire him. That was a badly run company.
If a company's directors knew that they had a large number of workers they didn't need, who are sat on their asses all day, and did nothing about it, they would be fired quite quickly. And rightly so.
If a company's directors knew that they had a large number of workers they didn't need, who are sat on their asses all day, and did nothing about it, they would be fired quite quickly. And rightly so.
don4l said:
Actually, you don't have a clue how it works.
You haven't got the faintest clue.
The funny thing is that it is really simple. It is so simple that a person with an IQ of 40 should be able to understand it.
If you had a Billion pounds to invest, would you put it into a building society at 3%, or would you invest it into a buisness. If you put it into a buisness, would you expect(hope for) more than 3%.
I do not have a billion pounds to invest, but some of my money is in safe deposit accounts, and some of it is in shares. I expect a better return on the shares, but I also accept that these shares carry a greater risk.
Don
--
If its stupid to wonder if this extreme capitalism is really the best way to live well then I'm as dumb as a pile of bricks.You haven't got the faintest clue.
The funny thing is that it is really simple. It is so simple that a person with an IQ of 40 should be able to understand it.
If you had a Billion pounds to invest, would you put it into a building society at 3%, or would you invest it into a buisness. If you put it into a buisness, would you expect(hope for) more than 3%.
I do not have a billion pounds to invest, but some of my money is in safe deposit accounts, and some of it is in shares. I expect a better return on the shares, but I also accept that these shares carry a greater risk.
Don
--
PS. its business, not buisness, but maybe I'm wrong what with my low IQ and all...
Marty Funkhouser said:
If its stupid to wonder if this extreme capitalism is really the best way to live well then I'm as dumb as a pile of bricks.
PS. its business, not buisness, but maybe I'm wrong what with my low IQ and all...
It's an imperfect system, but the one thing it has going for it is that it works better than any other system anyone has tried. If people don't have the profit motive or the need to have a survival instinct they lose motivation. OK there are a few well meaning individuals who do stuff for the love of their fellow man, but they are pretty rare. PS. its business, not buisness, but maybe I'm wrong what with my low IQ and all...
Given a global workforce of over 300,000, it is not a huge cull by any means.
And is the profit really HUGE? There are 17.8 billion shares in issue - so £7bio is about 40p per share - and the dividend is about half of that.
A share costs about £6 or so. So about 3.5% yield - give or take.
Hardly lavish, given the risk in buying bank shares.
so, yes, they need to cut costs, or their shareholders will sell their shares and invest in companies which offer better returns. If enough shareholders sell their shares, the share price will drop and before you know it, more than 30,000 people will lose their job.
And is the profit really HUGE? There are 17.8 billion shares in issue - so £7bio is about 40p per share - and the dividend is about half of that.
A share costs about £6 or so. So about 3.5% yield - give or take.
Hardly lavish, given the risk in buying bank shares.
so, yes, they need to cut costs, or their shareholders will sell their shares and invest in companies which offer better returns. If enough shareholders sell their shares, the share price will drop and before you know it, more than 30,000 people will lose their job.
Marty Funkhouser said:
If its stupid to wonder if this extreme capitalism is really the best way to live well then I'm as dumb as a pile of bricks.
PS. its business, not buisness, but maybe I'm wrong what with my low IQ and all...
It's not extreme, it's a company rebalancing it's global business by moving out of unprofitable countries and businesses, selling off bits of the bank that don't fit in with it's strategy, and also slimming down it's staff over 2 years through mostly natural wastage I would imagine. Total non-story from the BBC as usual, and some shockingly ignorant comments on here sadly. PS. its business, not buisness, but maybe I'm wrong what with my low IQ and all...
HSBC pay tax in the UK, so if they do well it's good for our economy. People seem to forget about things like this when criticising big companies - we want their profits to be big. 25,000 workers in a global workforce of a company like HSBC isn't that much, especially when you take natural turnover into account.
The suggestion that they should keep those 25k people employed simply because they've made a multi-billion pound profit is quite strange. I imagine it's the kind of thing a clueless dreadlocked student would spout. Business isn't like that, they need to be as efficient as possible or they lose out to other companies, then even more people will be out of a job.
Banking is cyclic anyway, it has always been the way. If you spent any length of time working at a large investment bank (or possibly any massive company), you will understand how easily this many jobs can be lost. The number of people who seemingly have almost nothing to do all day is astounding.
The suggestion that they should keep those 25k people employed simply because they've made a multi-billion pound profit is quite strange. I imagine it's the kind of thing a clueless dreadlocked student would spout. Business isn't like that, they need to be as efficient as possible or they lose out to other companies, then even more people will be out of a job.
Banking is cyclic anyway, it has always been the way. If you spent any length of time working at a large investment bank (or possibly any massive company), you will understand how easily this many jobs can be lost. The number of people who seemingly have almost nothing to do all day is astounding.
Marty Funkhouser said:
If my company had just made £7BN then I would not make anyone unemployed, regardless of how much more profit it would make - when is it enough???? £10BN? £50BN???
The directors only obligation is to deliver maximum shareholder value. That's it. If that means losing jobs while posting a profit, that is what they *must* do.Marty Funkhouser said:
Bloody hell....time to slash and burn!
How is it "slash and burn" when the cuts are to take place over the next two and a half years?You also need to understand that past performance doesn't necessarily indicate/guarantee future performance. Just because they made a load last year, it doesn't mean that they will over the next two and a half years. What they've done is projected (guessed) at what the market will do over that period and are going to rationlise their workforce accordingly (arguably securing the jobs for those that will remain).
Plus, announcing it now makes the City happy that they're doing something that will save lots and lots of lovely, sexy money thereby propping up their share price now, rather than later.
Use Psychology said:
i'd certainly like to see what the world would be like if companies had a greater focus on benefitting their employees, and less of a focus on profit. obviously this varies from company to company but wouldn't it be interesting if only employees could be shareholders.
Yes it would be fascinating what would happen if the only way you could become and employee is if you had to put up thousands of pounds to become a shareholder before you could start a new job. Don't think it would work somehow.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff