President Obama is reigning in the size and capabilities of US banks, but regulators in Hong Kong and Singapore aren’t following his heavy-handed lead. This means recruitment at local banks is unlikely to be negatively affected.

So why aren’t Asian financial centres keen to break up and constrain their own banks? Here are a few reasons.

One

It would amount to an undeserved punishment for institutions which have, by in large, survived the financial crisis without the need for government largesse on thescale seen in the US or Europe.

Two

The restrictive US proposals are counter intuitive in countries which are trying to grow their banking sectors by increasing, not restricting, financial innovation.

Three

Regulators in Asia have been busy working on their own reforms, so no surprises that they won’t jump on the Obama bandwagon. And unlike many central banks in the West, China already has a liquidity requirement in place.

Four

Banker bashing isn’t as common in Asia as it is the West, even during bonus season. Political leaders aren’t under so much pressure to make tax hikes and radical regulatory reform.

Five

Hong Kong and Singapore could potentially gain from Obama’s proposals by inviting Wall Street banks to set up hedge fund and private equity operations in their cities.

Six

Asian-owned banks don’t do so much of the stuff (like prop trading) which Obama so dislikes.

All this means that when you ask recruiters and HR people about the potential employment effect of the US plans on domestic institutions, they are inclined to say “what effect?”.

Tomorrow we’ll have a look at how foreign banks in Asia might react to the American proposals. It’s a bit more complicated for them than it is for the locals.