[rtpg]

this is parroted so often but is usually quantifiably false. Usually the fines are small compared to overall profit of a company because the actions are relatively small compared to total operations, but most fines defintely cost the company more than not doing the actions would have in financial cases.

[sheetjs]

HSBC paid 1.9B fine for money laundering related to Mexican drug cartels.

To understand this number, lets look at the DOJ claims:

> Between 2006 and 2009, according to DOJ, HSBC failed to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers and $9.4 billion in cash transactions from its Mexico bank operations.

We don't know exactly how much HSBC profited from these specific alleged activities, but even a 1% rate (pretty low if they turned a blind eye, especially on the cash side) would net more than triple the fine. (and yes, profiting 7B and paying 2B in fines is a net profit of 5B)

I do, however, agree that quotes like "X days profit" generally refer to the entire bank's profit and not to the actual activity in question

[rtpg]

According to HSBC's US site, there's a fixed $30 rate for a signle wire transfer. Mexico's rates are probably less (for reference, here in France it costs me nothing to do a wire transfer within Europe).

I sincerely hope they didn't come out on top of this.

[rayiner]

So they failed to monitor $10 bn in transactions. 1% of that is $100 m. The fine was 19x larger. What am I missing?

[eliasmacpherson]

"HSBC failed to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers"