• Del Missier says acted on Bank of England instruction to cut Libor rates
• He reveals Barclays’ compliance division was told
• FSA’s Bailey says there was a “culture of gaming” at Barclays
• FSA’s Turner says he would be ‘amazed’ if there weren’t other market abuses
• FSA investigating 7 banks, not all British
• Turner says “at one” with Mervyn King that Diamond had to go
7.35pm: The hearing has ended. Tomorrow we’ll get Mervyn King and his deputy Paul Tucker at 10am.
7.30pm: Turning to Diamond’s resignation now, Turner recounts that he told Marcus Agius, the Barclays chairman on 6 July: “We’re not saying we found Diamond not to be fit and proper” to run Barclays but added that the board had to think “very seriously about the scale of the change which Barclays had to make both in a substantive sense but also in the need for them to have a leadership that could convince the external world that they had changed culturally and had addressed these issues”. He told Agius: “You have got to think about whether this is possible with Bob Diamond or simply impossible.”
Turner says while he regarded it as an “honourable decision,” he was surprised that Agius decided to step down two days later – he had expected Diamond to resign instead. Turner then had a meeting with Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, and both agreed on the “correct message”. King relayed that message to Barclays. “We were at one in the message we had to give to Barclays” that Diamond had to go, Turner stresses.
7.20pm: “We have been pushing this as fast as we can,” says Turner. “I think this is a huge problem.” He denies shrugging his shoulder dismissively during the testimony. “We should have spotted this earlier. There was a failure in general to see this whole financial crisis coming.”
7.14pm: George Mudie asks why did the FSA not act sooner on the warnings it had received, given that $4-5 trillion worth of business was affected and the reputation of the City of London was at stake.
7.07pm: Asked about governance at Barclays, Turner says: “The form may look as it is recommended by the book, but whatever the form was, the substance wasn’t working.”
McDermott says the FSA is investigating seven financial institutions over Libor, not all British banks.
7.00pm: Faisal Islam, economics editor Channel 4 News, tweets:
So i think if Diamond had not settled the Libor case: he would still be chief exec. As FSA wouldve done nothing re its litany of complaints
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) July 16, 2012
6.52pm: McDermott says the FSA has used its criminal prosecution powers in insider dealing cases, but doesn’t have such powers in the Libor rigging case. The City watchdog has been sharing evidence with the SFO throughout, she adds.
Here we didn’t believe we had the powers.
6.49pm: David Ruffley is pressing on why the FSA has not undertaken any criminal investigations. “We do not take the lead in prosecuting general fraud events,” reiterates McDermott. Turner said earlier that the FSA has been in contact with the Serious Fraud Office throughout the Libor investigation.
6.14pm: Turner describes Libor to the “frog in the boiling water story”.
“We did have, we never used the word, a somewhat light touch to regulation, in particular in those areas of wholesale conduct,” he admits. The FSA only had five people on Barclays and five on RBS, and at one stage only had one person shared between Barclays and RBS. The focus was only to a “small extent” on investment banks.
6.09pm: Turner is asked: “Is this the tip of the iceberg?” [in relation to market abuse]
“We don’t know… but I would be amazed if this was everything,” he replies.
6.05pm: Tracey McDermott, the FSA’s acting head of enforcement, says it was widely known in 2007 and 2008 that the libor market was not operating in the way it had previously done.
6.02pm: Steve Hawkes, business editor of the Sun, has just tweeted this:
TSC have called Andrew Bailey Anrew on his name plate … that can’t be blamed on Barclays
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) July 16, 2012
5.53pm: Bailey says he never had a conversation with a bank like the one he had with Barclays. “Barclays was an outlier.”
You couldn’t escape the fact that the culture of this institution was coming from the top.
5.46pm: The minutes from the Barclays board meeting on 9 February say resolving the perception of an aggressive culture is “critical to the future of the group”.
5.45pm: Bailey says Diamond “did not capture the severity of the issue” in his answers to MPs at at an earlier committee hearing.
5.43pm: You can read the letters between Barclays chairman Marcus Agius and the Financial Services Authority here.
5.41pm: “There was a culture of gaming, and gaming us,” says Bailey. “It had to change.”
Asked whether “the regulator had had enough?” Bailey replies: “Yes.”
5.40pm: Bailey says at the time of the February board meeting there were a whole series of issues with Barclays, but there was no impression that Bob Diamond was personally involved.
5.38pm: Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Andrew Bailey, the FSA’s top banking regulator and Tracey McDermott, the acting head of enforcement (and responsible for the Barclays fine) are now being grilled by MPs.
5.26pm: Right, del Missier is allowed to go. The FSA guys are next. During the break, here’s a quick missive from Jill Treanor, our banking correspondent:
So Del Missier is now naming names and providing new information about the Libor scandal. Mark Dearlove, head of the money markets desk, is the person he told to cut Libor rates. Dearlove, or someone on the money market desk, told the compliance department, then headed by Stephen Morse, that they were being asked to cut Libor submissions.
According to del Missier there was no response from compliance. According to the FSA register Morse is currently “inactive”
5.23pm: Del Missier says the money market desk informed the bank’s compliance unit of the request to reduce Libor rates, but compliance didn’t follow up with him or anyone in senior management.
5.22pm: The first bonus-related question, from Tory MP Andrea Leadsom. But she doesn’t get much of an answer and doesn’t follow up. Del Missier is asked how much his bonus depends on good controls. He is asked for a percentage, but says he was never told.
5.13pm: “I can understand… that there is resentment towards Barclays and the banks,” he says.
5.12pm: He is not aware he is under investigation by any regulatory authority in the UK or US. He says the FSA cleared him of any wrongdoing related to the Libor investigation.
5.09pm: Del Missier denies he is “acting as a fall guy” for Bob Diamond. “I’m not the fall guy for anything. This happened to the bank, and I resigned as a result of it.”
5.05pm: Del Missier admits the rigging was “regrettable”. He regrets the “control breakdowns”.
4.55pm: He says his instruction to the money desk at Barclays to submit lower Libor rates only lasted for days – it wasn’t open-ended. He wasn’t aware of other market manipulation at the bank.
4.48pm: Del Missier claims between 2005 and the autumn of 2008, he had no knowledge of rigging of rates. “I was not aware there was any sort of pressure applied to any of the Libor submitters in 2007. I first found out about that in late 2009, early 2010 as the investigation went on I became aware of the scale.”
4.41pm: “Were you aware that they were doing it from 2007 onwards?” del Missier is asked by MP George Mudie. “The traders were doing it to improve profits at Barclays,” says Mudie.
4.39pm: Del Missier says he had “regular communication” with Bob Diamond.
4.29pm: “I regret the fact that Barclays’ reputation has been sullied” by the Libor scandal, says del Missier. He agrees in retrospect that “lowballing” of Libor rates was improper, although he didn’t think so at the time. He believed he was acting on an instruction from the Bank of England to lower Libor.
4.27pm: Our banking correspondent Jill Treanor sums up the action so far:
Del Missier has kicked off by talking about a conversation he had with Diamond the day before that controversial memo which cost him his job. Diamond made no mention of having spoken to del Missier about this when he appeared before the committee when all would say was that he could not put himself in del Missier’s shoes.
4.24pm: Del Missier instructed Barclays’ submitters to cut the interest rate. He says he gave the instruction to the head of the money market desk, and admits he didn’t follow up on the instruction to see whether it was being followed. He says it was an instruction from Bob Diamond to lowball the libor rates, following his conversation with Paul Tucker at the Bank of England.
4.22pm: “The manipulation of Libor is illegal,” according to guidelines by the US Department of Justice read out by Ruffley, del Missier admits finally. But he adds he didn’t believe it was an inappropriate act at the time. “At the time it seemed appropriate given everything that was going on.”
4.21pm: Del Missier is being asked, repeatedly (in Jeremy Paxman style), by Tory MP David Ruffley whether lowballing of Libor is an illegal activity. “It’s not a yes or no answer,” says del Missier.
4.18pm: “This was not the first time Libor had come up as an issue,” says del Missier. He has also talked about the phone call he received from his boss Bob Diamond in October 2008, who told him that the Bank of England was putting pressure on the bank to get Libor rates down. The Bank in turn was coming under pressure from Whitehall.
4.12pm: Del Missier says the Libor rate at the time was “hugely, hugely subjective”. He talks about the context, describing it as a “period of severe escalation” post the Lehman Brothers collapse, with an “unprecedented degree of government intervention in the financial system”.
4.11pm: Here we go, Jerry del Missier is first up in front of the committee.
4.07pm: We’re still waiting for the testimony to start….
3.49pm: Good afternoon and welcome to our live blog. Jerry del Missier, a Canadian, is the latest to be hauled before the Treasury select committee to talk about the Libor rigging scandal. He quit just hours after Bob Diamond, the Barclays chief executive, resigned after the £290m fine hammered the bank’s share price and its reputation. The two men were close at Barclays Capital, the investment banking arm, and del Missier had been promoted only three weeks ago to chief operating officer for the entire bank.
Del Missier is also caught up in the controversial memo written by Diamond on October 29 2008 after a conversation with Bank of England governor Paul Tucker. Here is the memo.
In the memo Diamond, who then ran BarCap, tells del Missier and the then-chief executive John Varley that Tucker was concerned about the bank’s Libor levels during the crisis and Del Missier interprets the memo as a tacit signal to cut the submission to the Libor panel. Del Missier, who was investigated by the Financial Services Authority but no charges were brought, instructed the bank’s submitters to cut the interest rate. He is likely to be asked why he interpreted Diamond’s memo the way he did and whether or not he had asked Diamond for guidance. [When Diamond was asked at his appearance before MPs he said he could not put himself in Del Missier's shoes.]
The session is scheduled to run from 1600 to 1645 when Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, will appear alongside Andrew Bailey, the FSA’s top banking regulator and Tracey McDermott, the acting head of enforcement (and responsible for the fine).
Turner is likely to face a grilling about when he found out about Libor and crucially why it was Sir Mervyn King, Bank of England governor, who told Barclays that Diamond had to leave and not Turner, whose FSA actually regulates the banks.
Paul Tucker will give evidence to select committee about Libor scandal after Bob Diamond revealed a conversation with him
Paul Tucker, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, will get his opportunity to explain the controversial conversation he had with the former Barclays boss Bob Diamond about the key Libor rate when he appears before the Treasury select committee on Monday.
Tucker requested to appear before MPs, who more usually summon witnesses than receive requests to appear, in the hours before Diamond was questioned on Wednesday. There were expectations that the former Barclays chief executive would put him at the centre of the bank’s attempts to manipulate the London interbank offered rate which led to its £290m fine last week.
A memo written by Diamond to record a conversation he had with Tucker during the 2008 banking crisis led to a senior Barclays banker, Jerry del Missier, telling subordinates to reduce their Libor submissions. Del Missier quit this week.
The memo also said Tucker had told Diamond that “senior Whitehall figures” were concerned about the rates at which the bank said it was borrowing during the crisis. Tucker will be under pressure to identify these Whitehall figures as Diamond insisted he did not know who they were.
The 2008 email records the former Barclays CEO’s account of a conversation with a deputy governor of the Bank of England
The memo from Bob Diamond to his boss, chief executive John Varley, on 29 October 2008, will dominate Wednesday’s session of the Treasury select committee. It records Diamond’s account of his conversation that day with Paul Tucker, a deputy governor of the Bank of England. Tucker is reported as saying senior figures in Whitehall wanted to know why Barclays’ Libor submissions were so much higher than other banks’. Diamond replies that Barclays is not having to “pay up” for money and alleges that other banks are understating the level at which they are actually borrowing – in other words, Diamond claims rivals are suppressing their Libor submissions.
Then comes the ambiguous, but potentially explosive, final line. Tucker, according to Diamond, said that “it did not always need to be the case that we [Barclays] appeared as high as we have recently”.
Jerry del Missier, Diamond’s closest associate at Barclays Capital, was copied into the email. According to Barclays, del Missier “concluded that an instruction had been passed down from the Bank of England not to keep Libors so high and he therefore passed down a direction to that effect to the submitters”.
This version of events raises many questions – for Diamond, Barclays, the Bank, the Financial Services Authority and Treasury officials at the time.
1 Was Diamond’s account of his conversation with Tucker accurate? We need to hear Tucker’s version. But Diamond is on record as saying he did not believe he had been given an instruction from Tucker to lower the Libor rate. Why did he not make this clear in his memo? Why did he leave an obvious ambiguity at the end given that Libor was such a hot issue within Barclays?
2 Was the memo discussed further between Varley, Diamond and del Missier? Put yourself in del Missier’s shoes. You have just received a memo from your boss you believe is instructing you to fiddle the bank’s Libor submission – an act that is categorically forbidden. Wouldn’t you check if that was what Diamond really meant? Wouldn’t you discuss it with him or, better, Varley? Wouldn’t you object? A key question for MPs to ask Diamond is whether follow-up talks took place.
3 Why wasn’t del Missier sacked when the board discovered his grave mistake in issuing the instruction to lower Libor submissions? Barclays’ version is that del Missier acted alone. But, if that’s the case, why were his services retained? He resigned because his position had become “very difficult”, according to chairman Marcus Agius, even though no enforcement action was taken against him by the FSA. But surely, on Barclays’ account, del Missier’s position was equally difficult at the moment the board became aware of his actions – not three-and-a-half years after the events, and not a week after the publication of the FSA’s report.
4 Did Tucker and the Bank believe the Libor market in the autumn of 2008 was riddled with false submissions? And did the Bank, explicitly or implicitly, encourage this situation?
Barclays states that it “firmly believed that the other panel members were not, in fact, funding at a lower cost than Barclays, and we were disappointed that no effective action was taken, notwithstanding our having raised these issues with various authorities during the whole financial crisis period”.
On this account, Barclays portrays itself as banging its head against a wall when it complains that its submissions were honest but others’ were not. Tucker’s cute response, as recorded by Diamond, is “oh, that would be worse”. Did the Bank investigate Barclays’ allegations? Or, as Barclays implies, was Threadneedle Street, in the midst of a crisis, happy to tolerate readings that understated the true level of UK banks’ funding difficulties?
The Bank’s position is this: “It is nonsense to suggest the Bank of England was aware of any impropriety in the setting of Libor. If we had been aware of attempts to manipulate Libor we would have treated them very seriously.”
5 Why did the FSA exclude the details of Diamond’s memo from its final report? The report talked only of a “misunderstanding or miscommunication” as instructions were given to reduce Libor submissions and stated that “the origin of these instructions is unclear”. But the origin, we are told now by Barclays, is entirely clear – it was del Missier, after reading Diamond’s memo. Was the FSA, in its no-names summary last week, trying to protect del Messier because it had just cleared him to become Barclays’ chief operating officer?
6 Who were the “senior figures” in Whitehall? Why were they so interested in Barclays’ Libor submissions? Did the Treasury orchestrate a cover-up in which banks were quietly told to give misleading Libor prices? Again, Tucker’s evidence could be enlightening. He is due to appear before the committee on 18 July – but the pace of this affair may demand answers sooner.
Chief executive whose company lost $2bn showed how financial interests still hold the upper hand in Congress
The long shot big hope for Wall Street reformers Wednesday was that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon would trip up before the Senate banking committee and expose the need for tighter rules governing big banks. His firm, after all, recently lost billions making risky bets with depositor funds on the line.
Instead, with some notable exceptions, the senators themselves turned the cross-examination into a coronation, and exposed the extent to which elected officials still feel compelled to genuflect to powerful financial interests.
“You’re obviously renowned, rightfully so I think, as being one of the most, you know, one of the best CEOs in the country for financial institutions,” crooned Senator Bob Corker (R-TN). “You missed this, it’s a blip on the radar screen.”
Most of the fawning came from GOP senators, who, in addition to relying on Wall Street largesse, remain engaged in a political campaign against President Obama’s 2010 financial reform law. But some Democrats also treated Dimon if not quite like royalty then perhaps as a trusted confidant.
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) asked Dimon to sound off on the country’s budget woes. “I think you’re well aware of my concern about the fiscal condition of this country,” Bennet said. “I wonder if you could take the last couple minutes of this time to talk about how you see our relative position with Europe and other places, the political risk of our not accomplishing what we need to do in the fiscal side, and the upside if we could actually come together in a comprehensive way to address the long-term fiscal condition of the United States.”
His exchanges with GOP senators were even more saccharine. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) – a Tea Party hero – gave Dimon a full pardon. “I really appreciate you voluntarily coming in to talk with us,” he said. “It is important that we talk about things happening in the industry. It helps us as we look forward and, hopefully, it will contribute to best practice scenarios in industry. I appreciate your emphasis on continuous quality improvement. We can hardly sit in judgment of your losing $2bn. We lose twice that every day in Washington.”
Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) asked Dimon and his firm to be good corporate citizens, if only to avoid complicating conservative free market messaging. “How you managed JP Morgan is the business of your board of directors, your shareholders, but it does have consequences to those of us who believe in the free-market system, its value, its merit. I have the sense and I hope it’s the case that it is a responsibility you understand. [Your] behavior really matters in our ability to be an advocate for a free-market that creates jobs and economic opportunity and allows Americans to pursue the American dream.”
So concerned were the senators that increased regulations might burden Wall Street that in an exchange with Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), Dimon even offered to get neighborly with the people charged with policing his firm’s actions, to keep them well informed about financial regulatory issues.
“Me and lots of other folks, we’ll do whatever you want, we’ll even get apartments down here,” Dimon offered.
For reformers, that adds up to an opportunity missed. But that came as no surprise to one of the Democrats with a stake in strong financial oversight – Volcker rule author Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
“I think that if Dimon came in and surprised everyone … if he came in and said there are systemic issues that have been raised here, that I think do need to be addressed, it would change the conversation to have a champion among one of the major banks,” Merkley told TPM this week in advance of Dimon’s appearance before the committee. “I would be very surprised if we saw that testimony.”
The original version of this story was published on Talking Points Memo.
Talking Points Memo is an innovative news organization that provides breaking news, investigative reporting and smart analysis of politics. For more stories visit www.talkingpointsmemo.com. (c) 2011 TPM Media LLC.
Since you can’t get Facebook stock at the IPO insider price, I have a deal for anyone who feels left out: shares in eTattler
On New Year’s Day 1999, as the first internet bubble was inflating at an accelerating rate, I published in my newspaper column a supposedly leaked memo from an internet startup I’d invented to lampoon the craze. The bogus startup was called eTattler.com, which I envisioned as an auction service, run by utterly unethical people, for salacious information about politicians, celebrities and other public figures.
The memo was over the top, I thought, in its satire of the increasingly bizarre Silicon Valley of that era – a place where hopelessly nutty and cynical startups got funded, promoted and then offloaded, with massive profits for insiders, to suckers in public markets. Apparently my absurdity quotient wasn’t sufficiently excessive, because after the column was published I got several calls and emails from people who said, essentially: “If this isn’t a joke, I want to invest” or: “If this isn’t a joke, I want to advertise.”
My editors and I thereby decided to keep eTattler alive, and I produced a series of leaked memos during the next few months. We ended the saga by having the entire eTattler staff arrested for fraud. Well, almost the entire crew: the CEO – enriched by the IPO proceeds from his less-than-worthless enterprise, slipped through the net, and his whereabouts remain unknown, though it is rumored that he became a senior executive at a Wall Street investment bank during the property and financial bubbles of the next decade.
I bring all this up for two reasons. First, I’m debating whether to resurrect eTattler or something like it. The times seem unfortunately appropriate. And eTattler’s former CEO remains at liberty, which stands to reason given the way the Bush and Obama administrations ignored, and even rewarded, financial wrongdoing by the 1%.
The second reason I recall eTattler so fondly today is the upcoming Facebook IPO. I have no idea whether the offering price will be appropriate, because I can’t yet decide what I believe about Facebook’s longer-term prospects. But I’m quite sure of this: we are in a tech bubble again, even if it differs in significant ways from the last one.
The excitement surrounding Facebook’s offering plainly extends to Main Street. We’re seeing news stories chronicling the wishes of average Americans to get a piece of the action. This tells me that whatever the price Facebook sets for sale to its initial public-offering buyers, the street price of the shares will likely soar the first day.
Since you probably can’t get Facebook stock at the IPO insider price (much less the price earlier investors paid), I have a deal for anyone who feels left out: shares in eTattler. This “stock” is, as it always was, entirely free of charge, apart from what it’ll cost you to print out a certificate. (Actually, feel free to print as many as you want. Why settle for 10,000 shares when you can have a million?) One of the benefits of owning eTattler shares is that you can’t lose money on them, since there’s no charge. True, barring fraud or other nasty behavior of your part, you can’t make any money on it, either. But I’d call this a safe investment if ever there was one. And in this market, if you wanted an Internet stock to call your own with total assurance of not having to gamble your children’s college money, this may be one of the best.
I even have a stock certificate for you. It was created by the excellent graphics department at my former newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News in Silicon Valley, and you can download it here.
Perhaps my favorite moment during the eTattler saga was the emergence of a competitor of sorts, the brainchild of several Silicon Valley majordomos who wanted to capitalize on the market that eTattler had identified. They created HeyIdiot.com – an enterprise with a business model even more brazen than eTattler’s. It was, simply: “Send us money.”
Ah, the good old days …
America’s nominee Jim Yong Kim looks increasingly certain to be voted Bank president
One of the three candidates in the race to head the World Bank has pulled out, calling the selection process a “political exercise”.
The departure of Colombian economist José Antonio Ocampo means that America is almost certain to cement its grip on the poverty-fighting institution tomorrow, as Jim Yong Kim, the White House’s chosen candidate, is confirmed as its latest president.
Ocampo urged developing nations to back Kim’s only remaining rival, Nigerian finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who has the backing of the World Bank’s African members.
Kim, a Korean-born health campaigner hand-picked by President Obama, looks certain to be chosen if, as is traditional, Europe throws its weight behind America’s choice for the job.
But charities have reacted angrily to what they see as a stitch-up by rich western countries. Elizabeth Stuart, of Oxfam, said: “This election has still not been open or transparent. The world deserves better than a sham selection process with a forgone conclusion.”
Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children, said: “It is patently wrong that nationality should trump other criteria when deciding who leads the World Bank. The organisation exists to fight poverty, yet until now those with hands-on experience of doing so have barely had a chance at the top job.
“This is a golden opportunity to appoint a president whose experience means they will drive change and put the interests of the world’s poor first.”
Canada, Mexico and Japan have already said that they will support Kim, who has been on a whistle-stop tour of world capitals – accompanied by US Treasury officials – in a bid to win support for his candidacy. If European governments also back him, his position will be assured.
Ever since the bank and its sister institution the International Monetary Fund were set up in the aftermath of the second world war following the Bretton Woods conference on international monetary policy, the Europeans have chosen the boss of the IMF and the Americans the World Bank president, under a so-called “gentlemen’s agreement”.
Developing countries have won a greater voting share at both organisations in recent years to reflect the changing balance of power in the global economy. But they can still be outgunned by the old world.
Anti-poverty campaigners have found it hard to object to Kim, who has a proven record in health policy in poor countries. But they are exasperated at a process that allows the US to put its man in the post despite World Bank rhetoric about an open and transparent recruitment process.
Kim, who set up a non-governmental organisation called Partners in Health, which works to tackle HIV-Aids and other fatal diseases in poor countries, is a more radical candidate than many of the initial suggestions for the job including mooted for the job, which included the former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, who once signed a memo at the World Bank saying that Africa was “vastly underpolluted”, although the memo was said to be sarcastic. White House-watchers suggest that Obama may have been forced to seek out a less conservative name than Summers after Jeffrey Sachs, the anti-poverty campaigner, launched a public campaign for the nomination.
There have also been rumours that some countries threatening to protest have been bought off with the offer of major international posts. “The BRICs [Brazil, Russia, India and China] will get some consolation prizes,” said one Bank-watcher.
Professor Brook Baker, of Northeastern University, who has worked with Kim on health projects, said: “One of the things Jim will probably look closely at is how to bring a different ideological perspective. He’s not an uncritical proponent of the development model that’s dominated for the past 30 years… I think he’s going to say some things that will get him into trouble.”
Kim is currently president of Dartmouth College, where his tenure has been controversial, with some students and alumni claiming that he has failed to get to grips with the Ivy League university’s troubled finances.
Los Angeles Times
HSBC Holdings PLC, Europe’s largest bank, said it will withdraw from consumer banking in Japan, closing down six branches four years after starting the business.
HSBC will stop selling new investment products, including mutual funds, from March 8, and it will end operations in its branches in Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya by July 31, the London-based bank said in the memo emailed to its customers Wednesday and obtained by Bloomberg News. A spokesman in London confirmed the details of the email.
Originally posted here: HSBC exits Japan after 146-year run