HSBC Confirm “Roles Will Be Made Redundant”
[Updated] HSBC Bermuda confirmed this afternoon [Nov 28] that “some existing roles will be made redundant” to “accommodate the new structure.”
The company did not confirm exactly how many people will be laid off, and unofficial reports range quite a bit. HSBC did note that new part time roles will be created, as well as four new sales roles.
An HSBC spokesperson said “We are continuously reviewing our business model, as are most businesses, given the challenging economic environment to ensure we maintain a sustainable business.
“Our goal is to simplify our banking structure in the Branches and enhance our customer experience. This new retail banking structure will align roles and staffing levels appropriate to current market demand as well as market growth.
“To accommodate the new structure, some existing roles will be made redundant and new part time roles will be created to provide greater coverage during peak periods within our branches.
“HSBC will also be creating 4 new sales roles, to help service customers in all our locations.
“As always, employees impacted by role redundancies are our priority focus for redeployment. We have had success training and redeploying staff into new roles and will continue to provide these opportunities for our staff whose roles are changing.”
Update 6pm: When asked for specifically how many people were made redundant, an HSBC Bermuda spokesperson stated: “Our focus is on finding new roles for employees, so we don’t release numbers.
“Historically, employees have had good success at redeploying, helped by our accreditation focus.”
Once AGAIN this Bank has NO regard for Bermuda.
How many people were laid off HSBC?
OBA let us know exactly what has happened.
I heard 55!
What a miserable Christmas! Prayers to to Families.
Well, back in the day before HSBC bought out Bank of Bermuda there were 1100+ employees in Bermuda. Today that number is well under 700 I believe, possibly approaching 600. Much back office work has been shipped overseas. Facilities department outsourced, etc.
No, looking back it was not a good move for Bermuda to let HSBC buy it out. I cashed out well with the stock I owned, and I do make good use of the of the unique International money management that HSBC offers, but I wish that the sale had not happened.
Here we go again………
Soon HSBC will be a fancy empty building. And more money from mortgages and all services will be sent off this island. And you wonder why the economy is drying up.
Its the PLP’s fault remember. Not outsourcing by greedy banks, its the PLP’s fault.
This is really a sad sad situation.
Let us not forget Mr Boremeless, it was under the PLP’s reign that the 60/40 rule was relaxed which directly led to the sale of Bank of Bda to HSBC. OBA had not part of it. How would the OBA even know ‘what exactly happened’.
It is very sad for the people losing their jobs. The HSBC does not care about Bermuda – that much is true.
Every time there is a new round of redundancies at HSBC, it affects my family since my wife works there. Once again, we are sitting here wondering whether she still has a job, and whether we’ll be able to pay our bills next month. But realize this: PLP changed the law. They own part of the blame for this.
Your comment is misleading.
The 60/40 ownership rule means that any company that’s listed as a local company must be owned by a 60 percent majority of Bermudians or Bermudian companies, the other 40 percent can be owned by people or institutions from outside Bermuda.
The banks and hotels, are not bound by the 60/40 rule, but other local companies are.
When HSBC bought the Bank of Bermuda the government of the day had to waive the 60/40 rule for the bank (it was not “relaxed” just waived in this case – they did the same thing shortly therefter for Butterfield).
HSBC Bermuda is still listed as a local company but it just happens to have foreign ownership.
And it’s not just the 55 (or whatever) employees that are being affected this time. It’s also all of those that have been released over the last few years.
My comment is not misleading at all. The bank was subject to the 60/40 rule until the PLP allowed the law to be changed in 2003. This directly led to the sale to HSBC. Know the facts next time.
I know you’re trying to deflect, but…
They DO have SOME responsibility for allowing the sale.
Come on. Let’s not forget.
So, they were supposed to block the sale? If they had done that, I suspect that such a decision would be listed today as one more example of how the PLP was anti-business, and if only they had allowed such a respected, international institution to set up in Bermuda, how the jobs would have grown and the economy benefited, etc, etc…well, hindsight is 20/20.
I should also point out, that that PLP did not allow the sale – the shareholders did. The sale could not have happened without shareholder approval, the vote was put to THEM, and they decided to take the money – the PLP only gave them the legal means to offer that option in the first place, but it was the shareholders who overwhelmingly approved the sale. The higher bank officers also left very rich. So perhaps we should blame them.
You’re showing your ignorance of reality again, “Portia”.
It wasn’t that they should or shouldn’t have blocked the sale.
The sale wouldn’t have even been possible if they hadn’t changed the law.
Should they have “blocked” it by not changing the law? Yes. And many said so at the time.
I know you’re trying to make your party look like the victim in all this, but at least TRY for some honesty about it.
No, Mike, ignorance is making assumptions about people without even knowing anything about them. You call the PLP “my party”, BUT I voted OBA last December, FYI. I noticed in reading previous posts that you seem to take exception whenever anyone accuses you of being pro-OBA and biased. So maybe you should extend others the courtesy of not making assumptions…we all know what happens when you “assume” things.
I never said the PLP had no role in the sale – of course it would not have been possible without the law change! I stated this is my post above. But, you have to ask WHY the law was changed in the first place – because that’s what the bank lobbied for them to do. And if I recall correctly, the first time they petitioned for the law change, it WAS blocked, and then an election came and the law was changed soon after.
You talk about “reality”, but the reality is this:
1) BOB wanted this sale. They lobbied for the law change hard because some executives stood to gain a LOT of money from the sale.
2) The majority of shareholders wanted the sale too. They also made out very well from it.
So, were either the executives or the shareholders who voted “yes” thinking of Bermuda’s best interests, or their own? THAT is the reality, in dollars and cents. If you want to blame the PLP for their part, then fine. But don’t absolve the other role players in this.
Thank you for adding such insight and detail. I like reading unbiased posts.
Not true. You like reading posts that have the same bias you do.
In fact HSBC really stands for:
Henry
Smith’s
Big
Cheque.
Never absolved anyone. You’re making assumptions.
I was simply responding to someone who seemed to be trying to push yet another, “it wasn’t the PLP’s fault” message. You seemed to take umbrage with this for some reason and, given that you have a history of promoting false messages and misinformation, and continue to do so in this latest attempt to remove or at least reduce blame from the PLP.
The desire to sell to HSBC would never have become a reality or even a possibility if the option to sell wasn’t there… And it wasn’t there until there was talk of changing the law. Now we may be having a chicken/egg conversation, but it wasn’t the majority of the shareholders that had the idea to push to sell, as you seem to be presenting.
You make a good point Mr Hind. But the sale could never (in a million years) have happened if the PLP hadn’t changed the law.
Not quite sure what point you are trying to make.
I’m making the same point you are.
(How can my point be good if you don’t know what my point is?)
Just curious, what law did the PLP change?
@ We the people, I am not sure how old you are, but I am in my 60′s when KFC ( and this is not about them) came to Bermuda, there was lots of interest generated in the public sector and internationally that other Food Chains etc would try to come in BDA. Remember Burger King or McDonald’s wanted to come, but it had to be 60% owned by Bermudians to prevent our restaurant and small business from being squeezed out. It was about that time that the 60/40 Law was enacted. Now a lawyer or some legal professional can correct me.
I believe you are wrong, There are franchising rules in Bda that prevent business such as McD and BK coming to Bermuda. How KFC got here is still a mystery to me, but that rule was put in place to protect local businesses, mainly restaurants.
Your description of the 60/40 rule is correct, but i dont think it applies to the KFC situation.
Not sure if you’re referring to the prohibited restaurants act or not. That was put in place after the US had pulled out of the base and John Swan wanted to open a McDonalds.
Bank of Bermuda is a local company which meant that it had to be at least 60% owned by Bermudians. The bank went to the government and asked to have that law waived in their case because they wanted access to the international capital markets and couldn’t list on an overseas exchange if they were bound by that. The government agreed and sometime later HSBC applied to purchase the bank. The government of the day (PLP) agreed and placed a couple of conditions on the sale [majority Bermudian board, retain the name Bank of Bermuda for five years, increase lending in the local housing market, and a couple of others].
Bank of Bermuda had to be owned 60 by Bermudians as that was the law. The law was changed in 2003 which directly led to the sale of the bank to a 100% foreign entity. The sale could never have happened if the law had not been changed. PLP changed the law.
The 60/40 rule changed the game. It was a complete set up and a slap in the face to the people of this country. HSBC should have never been able to own more than 40% of the shares giving them total control. They said Bermuda needed to make that move to be more competitive internationally “total bs”. HSBC has no regards to the ppl of Bermuda but they have been making theses cuts the entire time. In 2007 they were the largest employers with over 1200 staffed. Now they employ just under 600. Don’t know why this is just reaching the public eye.
I think that 1,200 number included the employees of various BoB subsidiaries around the world. After HSBC completed the purchase they transferred ownership of those foreign subs to the relevant local HSBC operation. End result is that HSBC Bermuda operates almost entirely in Bermuda.
Actually, there was a way around that – i.e., even if they only owned 40% of the shares it would be simple to structure things in such a manner that they had complete control.
HSBC doesn’t give a rat’s behind about Bermuda and Bermudians. When they were the Bank of Bermuda, they had the personal touch and knew their clients intimately. Now you are just a number on a piece of paper to them. If you aren’t wealthy then they won’t give you the time of day. I switched my business to another local bank. I am completely fed up with them and their poor service to locals.
the world’s bank…..what in the world???
Its not the OBA OR The bank its the PLP come on people
They have zero commitment to Bermuda. We’re a tiny tiny tiny piece of their banking empire.
“An HSBC spokesperson said “We are continuously reviewing our business model, as are most businesses, given the challenging economic environment to ensure we maintain a sustainable business.”
Translation: In order to ensure our shareholders continue to make fat profits and continue paying out huge fat bonuses for top brass, we’ll just get rid of the little guy trying to earn enough to afford a $7 loaf of bread, $5 carton of Milk, and $7 box of corn flakes.
Or “Because we’re not a charity and we have a responsibility to our shareholders, we are going to minimize nonproductive parts of our business, and maximize productive parts of our business”.
If only that was necessarily the case in all occasions of these redundancies. How many people have been laid off the past two years at HSBC? Companies are going to continue to streamline, realign, readjust,and all that nice sounding corporate jargon until only the CEO is left. Does ‘increased unemployment’ somehow coexist with economic recovery? Who’s gonna pump money in the economy once we’re all unemployed? Its easy to have this kind of mentality shown above until you’re the one with your job on the chopping block.
In the real world, making sure a business remains viable makes life better for the employees. You do better if you work for a profitable and well-managed bysiness.
You’re assuming, as per your initial post, that it’s a case of ‘nonproductive’ areas being cut, the reality is we on the outside don’t know what the exact reasons are. Has HSBC indicated that their current business model is no longer viable, thus cuts have to be made? Their PR statement is deliberately ambiguous, and the ‘global recession’ excuse is pretty much on auto-pilot nowadays. Do note that while they’re making people redundant, ‘new’ part-time roles will be created. In other words let em go, then bring em back on a part-time basis so we don’t have to offer benefits. Rack in dem profits!
As silly and idealistic as this may seem to you, human beings shouldn’t be treated like old furniture in order to maintain some CEO’s fat annual bonus. At one point employees were considered the backbone of a company, in this economy I guess it’s use em till you now longer need em, them screw em eh?
My apologies if I see the human factor in this, and my heart goes out to those affected. And what a time to do it. Merry Christmas!
If an organisation reorgs from time to time to stay profitable, it stays in business. The worst possible plan would be to keep an outdated unprofitable organisation, which eventually has to completely close. We’ve seen that happen. Most businesses try not to let that happen; if they see unprofitable areas they try to make them profitable. And that might mean changing staff levels. Like I said earlier, to the extent it makes the whole enterprise more sustainable, it works to the advantage of the employees who remain.
That’s the way ordinary business works. Ask Zane Deslva how maby money-losing employees he keeps on the payroll. Ask the Burt family why they closed their building business. Ask Wayne Furbert how many extra staff he had on payroll that he didn’t need.
Again you assume this is a simple exercise of trimming excess fat or non-productive employees. Do you have insider info about the inner workings that we don’t? Because otherwise neither of us know the real reasons behind all these redundancies. I’d still like to know, in the midst of your dissertation about how businesses work, how this in the grand scheme helps our economy to have more and more unemployment.
Bermuda has benefited so much from HSBC coming to the island. Over the years hundreds of people were given permanent vacations, our money has made a quick trip to the UK, and lets not forget the wonderful interest rates we get to pay for mortgages. Why would we want to pay market rates when we could pay double the rates paid be less qualified buyers in other markets.
I, for one, am so happy that HSBC has been allowed to enter the Bermuda market and bring about all these great changes.
What “changes”? What was different when it was Bank of Bermuda?
I believe hmmmm was being sarcastic.
Kinda slow today?LMAO
The fact of the mater is that Bermuda private sector is often harsh in difficult times, however unpopular as they may appear these decisions have to be made. Shareholders expect returns, otherwise why would they put their money into non performing companies.
Its just a shame that Government never made these difficult decisions a long time ago, so that the Pyramid of the Bermuda economy was not so top heavy.
There have been rumours circulating that they will be doing a total pull out down the road.
BOB/HSBC has been attempting to address customer experience for years and all it seems to do is.
1) Shed jobs.
2) Make it harder to conduct standard banking transactions.
Just my view
FWB
Lets all look forward to the next profit reported by HSBC Bermuda. Anyone guess it will be less than $100m??
HSBC has removed hundreds of jobs from the Bermudian economy. It’s a damn shame.
There is a sick mentality that blames the Progressive Labour Party ( P.L.P)for everything that happens in this Island….! If the sun shines….its PL.P..if it rains….its the P.L.P……if the wind blows…its the P.L.P.!I agree that the P.L.P is Powerful….and you know that too….! You know and I know that the O.B.A/U.B.P.supporters are terrified at having the O.B.A./U.B.P Party to lead this country so soon….I know that the job is too big for you and I know that you can’t handle it…but dont worry ….you wont be there too much longer…..the people will soon relieve you of the burden and ease you out and save you from any other further embarassement….We will soon take over the helm and put the country back on course and in safe hands…….!
Too big for the OBA, lmao, the job was WAAAAAY to big for the PLP, why you think they got voted out. Only thing they were good for was spending ALL OF OUR MONEY!! Yeah right, put the country back to the bankrupt state it was.
Takbir, was it not the PLP that implemented the 60/40 rule for HSBC? That’s what I thought, so partly to blame.
what a dreamer you are..
Takir, you are a wonderful advert for the OBA. Keep commenting please.
What a way to wish to your staff Happy Thanksgiving HSBC. Making 40 plus people redundant four weeks before Christmas that is a class act. I guess the PLP would be blamed for this alone with the cold weather.
40?????
!!
Along*
CapitalG…. Here I come !!!1
they want out….they got wat they wanted …500M in mortgage repayments at 9% would keep their shareholders happy for a loooong time comming. so why keep us employed cuz salaries cuts into their profits
This bank DOES NOT CARE about its Bermudian employees or Bermuda as a whole! Want to speak to someone….here, talk to some lady in India!
They stated that it cost on average $150,000 annually to employ 1 person ( salary, tax, insurance, benefits etc.) Now the people in India & Malaysia are given an annual salary of $18,000. That’s their reason for outsourcing the jobs here. Which has caused mortgages to be delinquent and now they can’t stop at this point because their plan hasn’t worked out for the better. So now they can’t help but let go employees to keep their profit margin UP. SMFH
Butterfield and Smith were generously compensated for paving the way for HSBC to behave in this manner.
The decision to allow the sale of Bank of BERMUDA, was definitely one of the worst ever made. Here we have a foreign bank operating on our shores and could CARE LESS ABOUT BERMUDIANS!! This company, since they’ve been here, have put more Bermudians out of work that any other foreign company. At it’s peak, Bank of BERMUDA had employed 3000 plus. I am well aware the economic time are tough, but hsbc service is poor, with their call center being in Malaysia, where the contacts BARELY SPEAK ENGLISH!! The world’s local bank my a$$!!
This is not fair to Bermuda. HSBC came and bought our local bank then made the decision to cut jobs and not just 1 or 2. They cut hundreds!! They have no interest in Bermuda and their social and moral compass is non-existent.
At the end of the day, Bermudians are the ones that suffer. This is unfortunate; I just hope our little island can somehow bounce back.
HSBC is going to make them redundant and then restructure by bringing them back as part-time ONLY when they are busy. That means quite simply, you get no benefits, no health insurance, getting second job will be difficult because that person will work in the middle of the day during lunch periods at HSBC. I guarantee you these people will ALWAYS work under the required lawful hours so that these workers receive no benefits. SHAME ON HSBC, ‘wait a minute’ THEY HAVE NO SHAME. But there is a GOD in heaven and they will get their just reward! I think it’s time Bermudians really got up , stood up or shut up! If you want change, then fight for it…all of us.
This is entirely the PLP’s fault, they destroyed the local real estate market on which the local banks depend. this has less to do with HSBC and the 60/40 rule, and overstaffing, as it does with the local economy and the lack of liquidity in that economy.
OBA need to de-restrict the housing market, and fast.
HSBC…GOD IS WATCHING YOU!!!GREED WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL WORLDWIDE…NOT ONLY IN BERMUDA!!!!!
HSBC, need to have someone that speaks the queens english…… I am tired of trying to explain to someone in Malasia what my problem is !!!! albeit they are very nice, but I can not understand them.
After reading all the comments from fellow workers early this morning, I could not sleep. I thought I’d come back with a ‘tongue n cheek’ parable. ” There was a private jet (HSBC) flying over a little pasture where the sheep, who have no mind of their own, were grazing in the lush green pasture. The jet kept flying over and the shepherd never took notice. The shepherd sat on the hillside just looking at the sheep. One day the jet landed and made a proposal to the shepherd. The owner said ” I can give you a lot of money for your pasture, you can become rich and I promise you that I will care for these ‘dumb and harmless’ sheep. You have done a good job, the field is so green (money) but I’ll do better” The shepherd took the money and went on his way. Then the new owners came and saw the other pastures that were struggling and not quite as large as his pasture, so he became greedy and lured many sheep from the other two pastures (NTB & Cap G). When he convinced the sheep to listen to his voice, they followed the new owner to graze on the greener(money) pasture. When the new owner (HSBC) had enough sheep, he decided it was too many, and skinned them alive and sent their wool to CHINA, leaving the poor sheep who depended on the owner to keep them safe and warm, but he left them wondering about in the cold, not lead by anyone.
HSBC is the worst thing that could of ever happened to Bermuda. They dont give a flying fig about Bermudians. They are just a gobal —– that nickle and dime you and dont give you the service thats expected. They need to go else where. Huge building with no staff and no service.
Do you mean to tell me that those persons made redundant could not be encouraged in the “new sales roles, to help service customers in all our locations” I know one young lady who always gave me great service and should she be gone, so will my business.
which will lead to more roles being made redundant
Find a friend (you’ll find plenty who were made redundant,
laid -off , restructured whatever, they will give you the whole scoop. Don’t believe the hype they are putting in the press. I did you not! no guarantee for placement in similar job, and then you loose a redundancy package if you take the crappy position they give you, or they say. Been there , done that.
@sandgrownan – How did the PLP destroy the local real estate market? The real estate market was and had been over heated for decades – since the 1980s – and was due to imploded eventually. The removal of the 60/40 rule for the banks may have enabled , no, did enable the sale of Bank of Bermuda to HSBC but the FINAL decision lay with the shareholders who for the most part could not see pass the $45 per share payoff. They had the power to stop the sale.
What exactly do you mean by “OBA need to de-restrict the housing market, and fast.”? De-restrict it how? They have already reversed the licensing requirement for non-Bermudians. Are you referring to the class or category of house that is available for sale to non-Bermudians? Please clarify.
It was the PLP who delighted in the huge reduction in Bermuda home values. Birch loved the fact that the biggest investment most of us ever make lost 50% of its value under the PLP.
There won’t be too many new takers in the real estate market while there is talk of riots in public meetings. That riot statement devalued real estate as soon as it was muttered.
They created an environment that caused the bottom to fall out of the market – fewer expats (less rental income), flood the market with condos, licenses for Bermudian/nonBermudian couple, open hostility to expats/international business, only allowing Bermudians to sell to Bermudians. And Burch was brazenly honest saying it was the goal. That little lot destroyed liquidity in the local market.
Not to mention pitting lots of hard working Bermudians into negative equity situations. Utter tw@ts.
This is just further fallout
For all of you who are threatening to change banks, that is EXACTLY what HSBC wants you to do. They are not interested in retail banking in Bermuda. As long as they can charge ridiculous rates for mortgages and other loans to the Bermudian public, that is their primary interest. Retail banking is basically more trouble than it’s worth to them. This is obvious by how we, as customer, are treated by HSBC!
To tell the truth local lending in any form is not something they care a lot about. The real money is made in the business/corporate banking services, Trust business, etc. Retail banking in any form has always been a sideshow.
When it was Bank of Bermuda, all they really asked of the retail bank was not to lose money, it was mostly looked at as a necessary community service, but hardly a profit centre. That started to change around the time they brought in EasyLink cards to try to cut the ridiculous cost of processing thousands of small checks.
Remember they had spun a lot of the mortgage business off into Bermuda Home. They brought that back in and actually started to make modest profits in retail banking locally.
HSBC would not really care about the retail banking part, except for Premiere because that services customers with enough money to be profitable who tend to consume a lot of services and influence the business banking side. However it was part of the acquisition deal that retail banking had to be maintained, so they are trying to do it as cheaply as possible.
The local mortgage market is increasingly risky for obvious reasons, and I am sure they would like to get out of a lot of it if they could. The US mortgage meltdown left a very bad taste in their mouth for risky mortgages. However unlike in the US it is difficult to sell them off to someone else here.
Yep. Hence their $1 ‘savings fee’ started a few months ago. I’ve since closed 3 accounts with them because what they’ve taken out in ‘savings’ fee is more than they’ve paid me in interest this year. And as you say, closing my various saving accounts was very likely the desired effect.
Hardy Re pulled out too.
Hardy Underwriting Bermuda
guess they didn’t make a few BILLION this year. All branches contribute to corporate, but they sure as hell don’t get SFA back.
HSBC has sooooo…..Many underwater mortgages,this means more out of work!