|Bid||44.350 x 0|
|Ask||44.400 x 0|
|Day's Range||43.300 - 44.800|
|52 Week Range||27.500 - 59.900|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.57|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||18.98|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||Feb 27, 2020|
|1y Target Est||10.07|
The bank has named the branches that will close between April and September, but aims to avoid redundancies.
HSBC chairman Mark Tucker on Monday defended the need to provide transition financing to clients to spark environmental change and reach the lender's goal of being "net zero" in terms of carbon emissions by 2050.Speaking at the Asian Financial Forum, Tucker said climate change is probably "the most urgent and serious threat" faced by the global community and the lender has an obligation to tackle that, but it will not be achieved by stepping away from clients, particularly in emerging markets."Divestment is not the best option for the environment or for the people and the communities that rely on these traditional industries," Tucker said. "Ninety-five per cent of energy needs are still met by fossil fuels. The renewable market is still in its infancy.Get the latest insights and analysis from our Global Impact newsletter on the big stories originating in China."There's not a current proven way to help energy supply meet the demand if there's mass divestment. Fossil fuel dependency is more widespread than energy. They're also used in the production of steel, cement, packaging, etc"The bank, Europe's biggest by assets, announced in October that it planned to reduce financed emissions from its portfolio to net zero by 2050 or sooner, including providing up to US$1 trillion in financing and investment by 2030 to help clients achieve that goal.There's also a "significant business opportunity" in providing that transition financing, Tucker said.HSBC, however, is facing pushback from a group of investors over its continued financing of the fossil fuel industry.ShareAction, a UK-based responsible investment charity, organised a group of 15 institutional investors with a combined US$2.4 trillion in assets under management this month to file a shareholder resolution seeking that the bank outline its strategy on how it plans to reduce its exposure to fossil fuel assets.The group, which has previously targeted HSBC and other lenders over environmental issues, claims HSBC is the second-largest financier of the fossil fuel industry in Europe and 12th largest globally, providing US$86.5 billion in financing to fossil fuels companies since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2016.Mark Tucker, HSBC's chairman, said transition financing to higher carbon industries was a necessary step to achieving its climate goals. alt=Mark Tucker, HSBC's chairman, said transition financing to higher carbon industries was a necessary step to achieving its climate goals."We believe that banks should introduce robust project finance exclusions and corporate financing restrictions for companies that are heavily exposed to some of the most carbon-emitting sectors - such as coal," Wolfgang Kuhn, ShareAction's director of financial sector strategies, wrote in a January 10 blog post.Tucker said that emerging markets are "most dependent" on fossil fuels globally and Asian economies should play a large part in the discussions at the UN Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, in November. He called it a "key moment" in unlocking low-carbon goals globally.London-based HSBC generates most of its profit in Asia and is making a big bet on future growth in the region as part of a massive restructuring announced last year, which will see it shift capital from the US and Europe into higher growth businesses."If you just divest, the risk is it effectively increases energy, poverty and economic instability," Tucker said. "Just because we, as a bank, and others of the big banks divest, means that it will just force heavy fossil fuel users to go elsewhere, thereby just moving the problem."Tucker said the bank wants to help all of its customers to "decarbonise", while assisting in the development of new low-carbon technology."This is the most significant contribution that HSBC can make to the fight, and the most effective way is to help the global economy get to net zero," Tucker said."There is a transition. We're going to [undertake] every element to speed up the transition, but going overnight into things like divestment will make things worse, not better."This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2021 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2021. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
(Bloomberg) -- Some of the world’s biggest banks are urging a U.S. judge not to immediately terminate Libor after a group of borrowers filed suit claiming the benchmark was the work of a “price-fixing cartel.”Defendants in the case, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Credit Suisse Group AG and Deutsche Bank AG, said in a November filing that an injunction abruptly ending the London interbank offered rate would wreak havoc on financial markets and undermine years of work reforming the reference rate. The plaintiffs, which include 27 consumer borrowers and credit card users, are also seeking monetary damages.Attorneys not involved in the case say the chances of an injunction are slim. Yet it underscores the risks and legal costs for banks that continue to prop up Libor, which still underpins hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial assets around the world. It also highlights the fragility of the discredited benchmark, which in theory could be halted by a single court decision.“You have to take it seriously because it would be a catastrophe if it was granted,” said Anne Beaumont, a partner at law firm Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP. “They’re likely going to continue to get sued like this as long as it’s there.”A San Francisco judge has said he will render a decision on the injunction without a hearing. The judge is scheduled Thursday to hear a request by the banks to transfer the case to Manhattan federal court.Libor is derived from a daily survey of bankers who estimate how much they would charge each other to borrow. It’s used to help determine the cost of borrowing around the world, from student loans and mortgages to interest-rate swaps and collateralized loan obligations.In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, regulators discovered that lenders had been manipulating the rates to their advantage, resulting in billions of dollars of fines.For over three years, policy makers around the globe have been developing new benchmarks to replace Libor by the end of 2021. In November, officials proposed an extension for some dollar Libor tenors until mid-2023, to help firms cope with the transition process.If the benchmark were to be immediately switched off, many derivatives contracts already contain contractual fallback language that would enable them to transition to an alternative rate, according to Y. Daphne Coelho-Adam, a counsel at Seward & Kissel LLP who is not involved in the case. But hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds, loans and securitizations lack a clear replacement rate and could pose a threat to financial stability.Defendants in the case also include UBS Group AG, Citigroup Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc and ICE Benchmark Administration Ltd., which oversees the rate.‘Price Fixing’“It must be stopped one way or another or neutralized because it’s an illegal price-fixing agreement,” Joseph Alioto, an attorney at Alioto Law Firm representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview. Banks argue “that the sky is falling and all kinds of economic havoc will take place. In the United States that doesn’t matter,” he said. “If you’re fixing prices you can’t do it, regardless of the consequences or the business excuse.”The plaintiffs want Libor to be either prohibited or set at zero with borrowers repaying capital but not interest.The banks said in filing that none of the plaintiffs have shown that they ever paid interest based on Libor, adding that the suit is built on “baseless theories of antitrust liability.” Regulators have warned that even a temporary disturbance of Libor could devastate financial markets, the banks’ attorneys said.“Plaintiffs allege that the highly regulated process of setting a benchmark that is a fundamental part of the global economy is a per se antitrust violation,” the banks said. “But legitimate cooperative activities, even those involving competitors, often benefit competition.”Organizations including the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are supporting the banks. In a separate filing, they argue that without mechanisms to determine future borrowing costs, parties would spend “substantial resources” negotiating price schedules, and could be forced to use fixed rates.Attorneys for the banks didn’t respond to emailed requests for comment.(Adds details on filing from ISDA, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in penultimate paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.