Connect with us

Europe

Dublin-on-Thames? City leaders debate the post-Brexit future

Published

on


This is the final article in a series on the Future of the City of London

In the mid-1980s, Goldman Sachs was choosing between London and Paris for its new European headquarters.

When the US bank weighed their respective merits — infrastructure, financial rule book, immigration policy, labour laws and taxes — London “clearly won”, says Richard Gnodde, now head of Goldman’s international arm.

What clinched it for the UK capital was Big Bang, Margaret Thatcher’s sweeping deregulation of the City of London, which began in 1983. From then on, most international financial services companies came to the same conclusion. The UK capital was seen as a launch pad to Europe, heralding the explosive growth of London as a global financial centre.

Now, on the eve of Britain’s departure from the EU, Mr Gnodde says policymakers should remember that “it wasn’t preordained in 1980” that the UK would enjoy the success it has. If it is to continue to thrive, “London has to get that playbook out from 1980-85.”

In London’s favour remain several immutable advantages: its language, timezone and rule of law. It also benefits from the agglomeration effect of its wide array of financial services and related industries, which makes the City one of the most desirable places for ambitious graduates.

Bar chart of Share by region in 2018 (%) showing Global financial activity

But Brexit brings a new challenge and the City must find new ways to thrive. Top finance executives suggest simplifying regulation, targeting new sectors such as green finance, cutting taxes and paying more attention to emerging markets outside Europe.

The City’s new chapter has also been complicated by the coronavirus pandemic, which has raised fundamental questions about how and where we work, and threatened city centre ecosystems. Meanwhile a record £2,076bn deficit casts a shadow over the UK government’s policy response.

Protect the golden goose

Three days after the Brexit vote in June 2016, Barclays chief executive Jes Staley summoned his top lieutenants to its private bank headquarters off Park Lane. 

Over the course of that overcast Sunday afternoon — followed by drinks at The Dorchester — they concluded the issue was so intensely politicised that a deal could not be expected before midnight on deadline day. They began planning for the worst.

Mr Staley says London’s position as “one of the great financial centres” relies on retaining its £8.5tn fund management industry. The main battle with Brussels will be over delegated authority, which allows UK managers to manage EU clients’ money out of London.

Bar chart of Average daily traded value ($bn) showing Exchange volumes around the world

“Don’t look at where the banks are. Look at where the people managing these extraordinary pools of assets are,” Mr Staley said. “The users of capital find the providers of capital, not the other way around. Unless a portfolio manager at Legal & General or Fidelity relocates, we are not going to have the exodus some predicted.”

Bernard Mensah, international president of Bank of America, said: “The EU has been less successful so far in attracting the money. The holy grail is removing delegated authority of fund management. That would really tighten the grip . . . London maintaining that industry here really helps it maintain a critical mass.”

Jes Staley, chief executive officer of Barclays, says the real threat to London is not Paris, Frankfurt or Milan, but New York, Singapore and Hong Kong. © Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

To remain attractive to those investors — in the face of growing competition from other European cities — London should take advantage of its new regulatory freedom, said Mr Staley. The real threat, he contends, is not Paris, Frankfurt or Milan, but New York, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Paul Marshall, co-founder of $50bn hedge fund Marshall Wace and an ardent Brexit supporter, puts it more bluntly. “The starting statement has to be that the UK and Europe are now backwaters in global financial terms,” he said. “In a global context, even the discussion of Brexit is parochial.”

Line chart of Value traded ($tn) showing Electronic trading volumes have risen strongly in China

Simplify regulation

Britain’s membership of the EU brought the financial sector two big benefits: access to skilled migrant workers and a free passport to sell their products and services across the region’s single market.

Both are under threat from Brexit. The UK had been hoping its regulations would be recognised as equivalent to the EU’s, which would enable UK-based institutions to maintain access to EU customers. However, Brussels has so far refused to reciprocate.

Bernard Mensah, international president of Bank of America, says that London’s fund management industry ‘really helps it maintain a critical mass’ © Charlie Bibby/FT

On the other hand, diverging from the EU rule book is seen as an opportunity for the UK and a threat in Brussels.

Sam Woods, deputy governor of the Bank of England, said in a recent speech that Brexit means the UK will no longer be “shackled in lockstep” with the EU. It can pursue “a more British style of regulation” based around “openness” and “dynamism” in the “rough-and-tumble” financial sector.

Wary of that, Mairead McGuinness, the EU’s financial services commissioner, warned earlier this week that the EU cannot permit itself to be “captured” by the City of London, saying: “Our interest is making sure that we are not captured by a system that we don’t regulate, or controlled by it.”

People including Mr Staley and former BoE governor Mervyn King told the FT they would rather see the UK gravitate towards American rules.

“The biggest threat to the City comes from New York,” Lord King said in an interview. “If we are to pursue regulatory equivalence with anyone, it should be the US. The key thing is to not be too out of step with them in the areas of capital and liquidity.”

“Being free from EU rules is an important step forward. We can make regulations simpler, but more effective in making the system safe,” he added.

Richard Gnodde, chief executive of Goldman Sachs International: “it wasn’t preordained in 1980” that the UK would enjoy the success it has. © Charlie Bibby/FT

He also criticised Europe’s wide-ranging Mifid II reform of financial markets, which “has simply increased costs while doing absolutely nothing to give useful information to investors”.

The UK has also been a longstanding opponent of the EU bonus cap, which was introduced in 2014 in response to the financial crisis and limits year-end payouts to twice a bankers’ salary.

Goldman Sachs’ Mr Gnodde said removing the bonus cap would “put the UK on the same footing, aside from the EU, with every other major financial centre”.

Line chart of Market capitalisation of listed stocks ($tn)  showing US exchanges are the largest by far

“Removing that ratio makes London a more attractive place for sure,” he added. “If I move a senior person between New York and London I am driving up the fixed cost of our operations. If that rule doesn’t exist, I don’t have to think about that.”

‘Dublin-on-Thames’

The City is also already lobbying on taxation. Sir Paul of Marshall Wace said that London should position itself as “Dublin-on-Thames”, matching Ireland’s 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate to attract more multinationals.

William Jackson, managing partner of €26bn private equity firm Bridgepoint, concurred: “If we really wanted to steal a march on our European friends, you’d make us the offshore [centre], a more favourable place to be based from a tax perspective.”

“The EU is looking at this very closely as well, because they don’t want Singapore sitting across the English Channel, being a massive competitor,” said Mr Jackson. “I don’t think we’ll see the true colours of this government until we get through this Brexit negotiation, but the mood music is very positive.”

Sir Paul Marshall, co-founder of $48bn hedge fund Marshall Wace and an ardent Brexit supporter: ‘The UK and Europe are now backwaters in global financial terms’ © Anna Gordon/FT

Yet the UK government is also considering reforms of capital gains tax that could hurt the private equity industry’s lucrative carried interest tax break. And while Britain has tightened its regime for UK residents with non-domicile tax status — historically a big draw for foreigners to come to London — countries such as France and Italy have been offering non-dom tax breaks of their own. 

As the government weighs up a tax overhaul, it is also working on initiatives to develop new sectors. Last month prime minister Boris Johnson outlined plans for a UK “green industrial revolution” focused on nuclear, hydrogen, electric cars and offshore wind power, all of which will require tens of billions in financing.

“The opportunity is to double down on green finance,” said Huw van Steenis, chair of sustainable finance at UBS and a former adviser to the BoE. “We need to be relevant [and] it’s probably more about whether we have expertise than [EU] access. But the risk is that Brexit has distracted from innovation.”

Future of the City

In a series of articles, the FT examines how London’s financial centre will fare in the decades ahead as Brexit negotiations reach their climax

Receive alerts when a new part of this series is published by adding ‘London fights for its future’ to myFT

The City has some catching up to do in its ambition to become a global centre for the near-$1tn market for green bonds. Sixteen countries including Germany, France, and Sweden have already sold green sovereign debt, while the UK’s intention to start a green gilts programme was only announced last month.

Another area marked for expansion is fintech. The UK has nine fintech “unicorns” — private companies valued at more than $1bn — such as app-based neobanks Monzo and Revolut. The rest of Europe has just six, according to CBInsights. However, that trails the 37 based in the US. And the two most successful European fintechs are Sweden’s Klarna and Dutch payments giant Adyen.

Looming over all of this is the fallout from coronavirus. The pandemic has forced a shift to remote working and financial services firms have coped better than any of them expected. That has caused executives to mull whether expensive offices with thousands of staff are necessary. Mr Staley said: “That may ultimately be a bigger issue than Brexit.”

Additional reporting by Nicholas Megaw and Owen Walker in London



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Europe

Berlin under fire over attempt to interfere with Wirecard inquiry

Published

on

By


Germany’s finance ministry has come under fire over an attempt to secretly interfere with the questioning of a key witness during a parliamentary inquiry into Wirecard, a potential breach of parliamentary etiquette.

The collapse of the German payments company last summer sent shockwaves through Germany’s financial and political elite. A parliamentary inquiry has exposed multiple regulatory failures and led to the departure of the heads of three supervisory agencies.

Days ahead of Friday’s final parliamentary debate on the committee’s final report, the finance ministry disclosed that one of its senior officials tried to intervene in the inquiry’s work in the run-up to the questioning of Munich chief prosecutor Hildegard Bäumler-Hösl, a key witness.

The government revealed this in a written answer to a question raised by Fabio De Masi, an MP for the hard-left Die Linke party, which was seen by the Financial Times.

The ministerial official was not named, but can be identified by the description of his role, as Reinhard Wolpers, the head of the subdivision financial market stability. Wolpers is one of three finance ministry employees who are members of BaFin’s administrative council. The finance ministry declined to comment on his identity.

In the run-up to the questioning of Bäumler-Hösl in January, Wolpers approached BaFin’s then-vice president, Elisabeth Roegele, and asked her to provide questions for Bäumler-Hösl which he then would pass on to MPs.

The government has no constitutional role in the inquiry, which is being pursued by parliament and has powers akin to a court. Moreover, Roegele was also nominated as a witness and had not yet been questioned by MPs at that point. She was forced out of her job by the government alongside President Felix Hufeld in late January.

“Wolpers’ behaviour is a clear violation of rules,” De Masi told the Financial Times, adding that the government official showed a “lack of respect for the Bundestag”.

BaFin and Munich prosecutors are embroiled in a blame game over the controversial 2019 short selling ban which investors regarded as a vote of confidence in the disgraced company. BaFin imposed the ban after receiving information from Munich prosecutors about an allegedly imminent short selling attack against Wirecard.

Several BaFin employees told MPs that Munich prosecutors had stated that the information was highly credible. Bäumler-Hösl denied that and said she just passed it on to BaFin without commenting about its validity.

The short-selling ban is potentially toxic for German finance minister Olaf Scholz, who is the Social Democrats’ candidate for chancellor in September’s federal election.

The finance ministry scolded the watchdog publicly for the short selling ban, saying it was based on poor and insufficient analysis.

The ministry’s response to De Masi disclosed that Wolpers approached Roegele via email and text messages days ahead of Bäumler-Hösl’s testimony. The ministry said Wolpers “acted upon his own, personal initiative and did not co-ordinate with other employees of the finance ministry”. It added that the executive level “at no point” was informed about the behaviour but only became aware of the matter because of De Masi’s inquiry.

“The communication of [our] employee with Ms Roegele was eventually without a result, as Ms Roegele did not submit such suggestions for questions,” the ministry said, adding that “no information” was passed on to members of the inquiry committee from the ministry.

Lisa Paus, a Green MP, said that the “authority of the finance ministry” was misused for the political interest of the Social Democrats. “That’s an absolute no-go.”

Florian Toncar, an MP for the pro-business Free Democrats, said that it would be “very surprising” if Wolpers’ actions were “not approved or even requested by the ministry’s senior level”.

Jens Zimmermann, SPD representative on the inquiry, said he was unable to comment on internal procedures at the ministry “as I don’t have any insights [into them]”, adding that his only contact was with the ministry’s official representatives in the committee. “I did not receive any suggestions for potential questions to Ms Bäumler-Hösl,” Zimmermann said.

Wolpers and Roegele did not respond to FT requests for comment. Munich prosecutors declined to comment.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

UK exporters get more than £12bn in government financial aid

Published

on

By


UK exporters have been given more than £12bn in state financial support to keep Britain trading with the rest of the world through Brexit and the pandemic.

UK Export Finance, the government’s export credit agency, provided British businesses with the highest level of financial support in 30 years in the 12 months to the end of March, according to its annual report published on Wednesday. This is almost treble the amount from the previous financial year, to help exports to 77 countries.

The agency aims to support viable UK exports with loan guarantees, insurance and direct lending to help them win, fulfil and get paid for international business where there are gaps in private sector provision. 

UKEF provided more than £7bn in support to companies disrupted by the pandemic, such as Rolls-Royce, Ford, easyJet and British Airways, with a mixture of trade guarantees and insurance to encourage private sector lending to exporters.

It also helped exporters facing Brexit risks, for example providing a £480m guarantee on a £600m commercial loan in March 2021 after a carmaker committed operations to the UK. 

UK exporters, especially smaller businesses, have complained about extensive red tape and costs arising from trading with the EU after Brexit.

Many have also warned that the trade deals struck by the government have yielded little benefit so far, instead causing them to rejig operations and move production and distribution overseas.

“We are opening up the world’s fastest-growing markets through the trade deals we are negotiating so that the UK can recover as quickly as possible from the pandemic,” said minister for exports Graham Stuart.

Support through finance and guarantees was given to 549 companies, more than double the number helped over the previous two years.

The agency also underwrote its largest ever civil infrastructure project, with £1.7bn in guarantees to build two monorail lines in Cairo and provide the trains, the first such exports in more than 12 years.

The export agency is now planning to increase its coverage of businesses focused on zero carbon initiatives. 

Stuart will say on Wednesday that UKEF will create a renewables, energy and carbon management team to underwrite activity across sectors such as wind power, solar, green hydrogen, grid resilience and decommissioning. UKEF has also committed to ending support for new fossil fuel projects overseas. 

Last year, UKEF launched a new scheme to encourage trade after Brexit and for small businesses to take advantage of new trade agreements.

Under this, exporters could apply for larger loans from the UK’s five high street banks backed by an 80 per cent guarantee that can be used both to cover costs linked to exports and also to scale up business operations.

Marcus Dolman, co-chairman of the British Exporters’ Association, said that such new products were “already proving their value to UK exporters and to supporting UK jobs”.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

What unites and divides Germany’s potential coalition partners

Published

on

By


Guten Morgen and welcome to Europe Express.

Germany’s election season is kicking into gear and both Angela Merkel’s centre-right CDU/CSU and the up-and-coming Greens have published their election manifestos. With polls indicating the two parties could end up bedfellows in the first post-Merkel government, we compare their Europe-related policies.

The Uefa Euro 2020 football championship is in full swing and gripping fans across the continent. But we explore a darker reality that has spilled out in stadiums and pitches: culture wars.

In Luxembourg, EU affairs ministers meet today to prepare for a summit, hear the latest on EU-Swiss relations and discuss the rule of law in Hungary and Poland.

This article is an on-site version of our Europe Express newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter sent straight to your inbox every weekday morning

Berlin calling

Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, have laid out their joint election manifesto after the Greens published theirs in past weeks. It is well worth looking at what unites and divides the potential government allies in the post-Merkel era.

In brief, the CDU/CSU wants to return to how things were before the coronavirus pandemic, especially on fiscal rules and the sacrosanct schwarze Null (a balanced budget). They seem lukewarm on disruptive digital and green policies and made a libertarian push for a retreat of the state from many areas of society under the motto: “throwing money at problems isn’t always the best way to solve them”.

Meanwhile, the Greens have put forward a transformational plan. Their ambition is to turn Germany into a carbon-neutral economy in the next 20 years. Here are three areas to watch closely:

Debt and spending 

  • The CDU/CSU have insisted that once the pandemic is over, so should be any relaxation of fiscal rules. They support the EU’s unprecedented, mutual-debt-fuelled €800bn recovery plan, but say it should be a one-off. They oppose consistent debt mutualisation across the bloc. (Here is Armin Laschet’s take in an interview with the FT)

  • The Greens are less dogmatic about what other EU nations should do in terms of borrowing. They even suggest a relaxation of Germany’s debt brake to allow public investment in schools and infrastructure, to be financed with more debt. 

Climate goals

  • The CDU/CSU have embraced the goal of CO2 neutrality by 2045 and a 65 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2030. But there are caveats for some industries and climate activists have pointed to inconsistencies and omissions in the conservative parties’ manifesto — notably their vague commitments on a “stable, fair and transparent” price for carbon.

  • The Greens are seeking to raise the carbon price to up to €60 per tonne in 2023, along with subsidies and incentives to cushion the social impact of a greener economy. 

Europe and foreign policy

  • The CDU/CSU were more dovish on China and Russia and they failed to mention the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. The Greens were more hawkish and maintained their opposition to the pipeline for environmental and geopolitical reasons (they worry about circumventing Ukraine, depriving it of transit revenues, and increasing energy dependence on Russia).

  • Both the CDU/CSU and the Greens favour majority voting in EU foreign policy, replacing the current model of unanimity. The Greens would also abolish the need for unanimous EU decision-making on taxation.

The September 26 election result will determine how much of these manifestos get translated into actual policy — and how much one or both political groups will have to compromise.

Chart du jour: Europe’s Covid bill

Bar chart of Government debt as GDP (%) showing National debt in Eurozone countries spiked in 2020

Public debt in the eurozone rose 14.1 per cent in 2020 compared with the previous year, the biggest leap in two decades, driven by the pandemic. Greece and Spain have recorded the biggest single increase in debt loads, while Ireland only recorded a marginal increase.

Beautiful game, uglier realities

International football’s biennial jamborees usually offer a few weeks of summer escapism for avid fans and newbies alike, writes Mehreen Khan in Brussels.

But this year’s European championships have become an extension of the psychodramas and culture wars that dominate political life on the continent.

The list of controversies runs long (and we are only 11 days in). Last month, France’s far-right kicked off a movement to boycott Les Bleus over a rap song. In England, the national team has defied criticism in the tabloid press by continuing to take the knee in support of Black Lives Matter, despite jeering from some of their own fans. 

Further east, Ukraine’s football association was ordered by governing body Uefa to partly modify its kit design. Russia had complained that the jersey included a map of Crimea, which Moscow annexed in 2014.

Greece has also complained to Uefa about neighbouring North Macedonia using the acronym “MKD”. The Greeks (who didn’t qualify for the tournament) say the abbreviation violates the terms of the 2018 agreement under which Macedonia changed its name to North Macedonia.

The latest conflagration came this weekend, when German captain and goalkeeper Manuel Neuer became the subject of an investigation by Uefa for wearing a rainbow armband in support of LGBT+ rights. News of the probe prompted senior EU officials to express support for the player.

The inquiry has since been dropped by the governing body, which concluded that the armband did not constitute a breach of its rules prohibiting the display of “political symbols”. 

Neuer’s Germany faces off tomorrow against Hungary, where LGBT+ rights have come under political assault from Viktor Orban’s ultranationalist government. Munich’s Allianz arena is preparing to welcome the visitors by lighting up the stadium in rainbow colours.

Separately, Uefa on Sunday said it was investigating “potential discriminatory incidents” during Hungary’s two opening matches in Budapest, where TV images captured homophobic banners among the 55,000-strong crowd. Monkey chants were also reportedly directed at French players on Saturday. 

Brussels risks getting ensnared in the politicisation of the world’s most popular game. EU diplomats have told Europe Express that the incoming Slovenian presidency, led by rightwing prime minister Janez Jansa, wants leaders to sign off on summit conclusions this week on the governance of sport. 

Under the banner of the European Way of Life, Jansa is pushing for leaders to agree language “reaffirming the uniqueness of the organisation of sport in Europe”. The request has baffled diplomats, particularly as the EU has little legal authority over sport.

Slovenian diplomats said the push was needed to prevent schisms such as the scuppered European Super League that rocked world football earlier this year. Jansa also has a long-running grudge against his compatriot and president of Uefa Aleksander Ceferin, often taking to Twitter to send pointed jibes at football’s governing chief.

Between all the spats and controversies, viewers could be forgiven for forgetting that some football is also going on.

In the dock

Poland and Hungary will be in the spotlight during ministerial meetings in Luxembourg today as member state ministers discuss Article 7 procedures against the two countries, writes Sam Fleming in Brussels.

These procedures allow the European Commission, European parliament or member states to take action against countries for serious breaches of the rule of law under threat of punishments such as the suspension of EU voting rights.

The commission triggered the process against Poland in 2017, while the parliament launched it against Hungary the following year.

In Poland, incursions into judicial independence have continued, as have apparent threats to the primacy of EU law. In Hungary, there are mounting concerns about the judiciary, anti-corruption frameworks, media pluralism and human rights. Last week, Hungary passed an anti-LGBT+ law that sparked criticism from rights groups. The commission said it would look into whether the legislation breached EU laws.

Nevertheless, the two countries can shield each other from punishments under the Article 7 regime by wielding their vetoes. The question ahead is whether the commission can obtain better results by deploying powers agreed last year to withhold EU funds over breaches of vital principles.

Commission vice-president Vera Jourova is due to address the ministers in the General Affairs Council, setting out the state of play in both countries.

“The last hearing on Poland took place in December 2018 and on Hungary in December 2019, and many things happened since then,” she told Europe Express. “Unfortunately most of them continued to raise our concerns.”

What to watch today

  1. EU affairs ministers meet in Luxembourg

  2. Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel receives European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in Berlin

Notable, Quotable

  • United front: French politicians from left to right have persuaded a Green candidate to withdraw from the second round of regional elections on Sunday. The move is aimed at ensuring that Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement National does not take control of the southern Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region.

  • Belarus sanctions: EU foreign ministers approved sanctions against a further 86 individuals and organisations in Belarus and set their sights on industries including finance, potash and petroleum products to put pressure on President Alexander Lukashenko’s regime.

  • Government collapse: In a first for Sweden, the country’s prime minister Stefan Lofven has lost a no-confidence vote in his government. The vote, engineered by rightwing opposition party Sweden Democrats, means Lofven has a week to call an election or build a new ruling coalition.

  • German tech offensive: Germany’s Federal Cartel Office added Apple to the Big Tech companies in its crosshairs, launching a probe into whether the iPhone maker has established market dominance through its “digital ecosystem”.

  • St Schuman: “Founding father” of the EU Robert Schuman may soon become a saint. The former French prime minister was given the title of “venerable” in a decree by Pope Francis over the weekend, which is one of the steps that could lead to sainthood.

Recommended newsletters for you

FirstFT Europe — Our pick of the best global news, comment and analysis from the FT and the rest of the web. Sign up here

Free Lunch — Your guide to the global economic policy debate. Sign up here

Are you enjoying Europe Express? Sign up here to have it delivered straight to your inbox every workday at 7am CET. Do tell us what you think, we love to hear from you: europe.express@ft.com.

Today’s Europe Express team: sam.fleming@ft.com, mehreen.khan@ft.com, david.hindley@ft.com, valentina.pop@ft.com. Follow us on Twitter: @Sam1Fleming, @MehreenKhn, @valentinapop.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending