Why

But, there is a particular reason why I felt sore for the cut in Hong Kong this time.

For those who are familiar with financial news, you may recollect when the wounded lion first announced in early August its plan to lay off 30000 staff globally, Hong Kong was specifically reassured to be minimally involved - because of its excellent performance as well as potential of further expansion.

And, in a month time, the promise changes.

There are two possibilities:

1. They did intend to cut so many jobs in Hong Kong. The promise in early August was a modern version of the Munich Agreement. (I dare not say who played Adolf Hitler in this drama.)
2. They did not initially, but were forced to do so because it is far more difficult to lay off people in Europe and America. In order to meet the quota of global cutting, Hong Kong has to contribute a lion's share. Alas, in that case, administrators of the world's local bank had certainly put the cart in front of the horse, and mistaken the means as the aim. (I am sure JW would say at this moment: Would you put your money on some bankers who have such a confused mind?)

Which one is the case? I have no idea. But, once again it proves the point: It is usually difficult to differentiate an ingenious crook from a complete idiot.