Europe Shouldn’t Try to Eat London’s Lunch, , on October 19, 2020 at 5:00 am

By
On October 19, 2020
Tags:

(Bloomberg Opinion) — Brexit could one day give the European Union an opportunity to challenge the City of London’s dominance as a global financial hub. Right now, however, the EU is in no condition to take advantage.As talks on Britain’s future relationship with the union come down to the wire — yet again — London’s role as the bloc’s primary purveyor of financial services is under scrutiny. By the end of this year, the EU must decide whether to grant U.K.-domiciled firms unfettered access to its market or to set up barriers that would require them to move operations to the continent. At stake are businesses including trading stocks, managing investment funds, and clearing and settlement, which entails keeping track of who owes what to whom in currency and derivatives markets. Some big companies, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., are already shifting assets and personnel.There are potential benefits, to be sure. Promoting financial centers on the continent could have advantages for the EU quite apart from the jobs and revenue that the union hopes to gain. For one thing, it could reduce systemic risk. Concentrating so much financial business in the U.K. magnifies the effect of political and economic events in one country — as the Brexit process itself has eloquently demonstrated.A gradual shift need not be entirely negative even for the U.K., which faces the challenge of accommodating an outsized banking sector, with assets of more than four times the country’s annual economic output. Shifting some of this activity to other places — such as Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam — would lessen the strain.That said, demoting London would also impair the efficiencies and advantages of having everything in one place. And those advantages are vast. One example: The ability to clear and settle various kinds of derivatives — including forex, interest rates and credit — through one central counterparty allows financial institutions to free up billions of euros in collateral by netting positions and risks. More broadly, concentrating a lot of finance expertise in the same city enhances the flow of talent and knowledge, boosting productivity and growth.The right balance from the EU’s point of view is debatable and will change with time. For now, though, one thing needs to be emphasized: To replicate London’s benefits, Europe would have to be a true economic union, with seamlessly integrated and well-supervised banks and capital markets. It’s not there.Even before the global pandemic hit, European banks were poorly capitalized and straining under the burden of more than 500 billion euros’ worth of bad loans. Europe’s leaders are nowhere close to instituting risk-sharing mechanisms, such as mutual deposit insurance, needed to ensure the currency union’s viability. A capital-markets union — which would harmonize bankruptcy, accounting and other rules to facilitate cross-border investment — remains a work in progress.In some respects, the EU is actually less financially integrated than it used to be. Despite sharing a currency, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, all of them vying to become financial hubs, are less closely linked than they were a decade ago, judging from euro-area cross-border lending data.In the longer run, if Europe manages to address its flaws, financial business will likely migrate from London without further inducement. But forcing the matter will make everyone worse off. For the time being, EU negotiators should find a way to maintain the continent’s financial connections to the U.K.This means, among other things, a medium-term guarantee that U.K.-based firms will be able to freely offer their services throughout Europe, as long as U.K. regulations don’t stray too far from the EU’s (a version of what officials call equivalence). Coming to such an understanding won’t be easy, and the erratic maneuvers of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government certainly aren’t helping. But it’s in everybody’s interests that pragmatism and mutual advantage should prevail.Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

Europe Shouldn’t Try to Eat London’s Lunch(Bloomberg Opinion) — Brexit could one day give the European Union an opportunity to challenge the City of London’s dominance as a global financial hub. Right now, however, the EU is in no condition to take advantage.As talks on Britain’s future relationship with the union come down to the wire — yet again — London’s role as the bloc’s primary purveyor of financial services is under scrutiny. By the end of this year, the EU must decide whether to grant U.K.-domiciled firms unfettered access to its market or to set up barriers that would require them to move operations to the continent. At stake are businesses including trading stocks, managing investment funds, and clearing and settlement, which entails keeping track of who owes what to whom in currency and derivatives markets. Some big companies, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., are already shifting assets and personnel.There are potential benefits, to be sure. Promoting financial centers on the continent could have advantages for the EU quite apart from the jobs and revenue that the union hopes to gain. For one thing, it could reduce systemic risk. Concentrating so much financial business in the U.K. magnifies the effect of political and economic events in one country — as the Brexit process itself has eloquently demonstrated.A gradual shift need not be entirely negative even for the U.K., which faces the challenge of accommodating an outsized banking sector, with assets of more than four times the country’s annual economic output. Shifting some of this activity to other places — such as Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam — would lessen the strain.That said, demoting London would also impair the efficiencies and advantages of having everything in one place. And those advantages are vast. One example: The ability to clear and settle various kinds of derivatives — including forex, interest rates and credit — through one central counterparty allows financial institutions to free up billions of euros in collateral by netting positions and risks. More broadly, concentrating a lot of finance expertise in the same city enhances the flow of talent and knowledge, boosting productivity and growth.The right balance from the EU’s point of view is debatable and will change with time. For now, though, one thing needs to be emphasized: To replicate London’s benefits, Europe would have to be a true economic union, with seamlessly integrated and well-supervised banks and capital markets. It’s not there.Even before the global pandemic hit, European banks were poorly capitalized and straining under the burden of more than 500 billion euros’ worth of bad loans. Europe’s leaders are nowhere close to instituting risk-sharing mechanisms, such as mutual deposit insurance, needed to ensure the currency union’s viability. A capital-markets union — which would harmonize bankruptcy, accounting and other rules to facilitate cross-border investment — remains a work in progress.In some respects, the EU is actually less financially integrated than it used to be. Despite sharing a currency, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, all of them vying to become financial hubs, are less closely linked than they were a decade ago, judging from euro-area cross-border lending data.In the longer run, if Europe manages to address its flaws, financial business will likely migrate from London without further inducement. But forcing the matter will make everyone worse off. For the time being, EU negotiators should find a way to maintain the continent’s financial connections to the U.K.This means, among other things, a medium-term guarantee that U.K.-based firms will be able to freely offer their services throughout Europe, as long as U.K. regulations don’t stray too far from the EU’s (a version of what officials call equivalence). Coming to such an understanding won’t be easy, and the erratic maneuvers of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government certainly aren’t helping. But it’s in everybody’s interests that pragmatism and mutual advantage should prevail.Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Instant Quote

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

High West Capital Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with High West Capital Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. High West Capital Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Singapore

168 Robinson Road,
Capital Tower, Singapore 068912
+65 3105 1295

Taiwan

5th Floor, No. 1-8, Section 5, Zhongxiao East Road, Taipei

Hong Kong

R91, 3rd Floor,
Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Ave.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Australia

44 Martin Place, Sydney 2000 Australia
+02 8319 3232

Indonesia

Millennium Centennial Center, 38th Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 25
Jakarta 12920, Indonesia

Market Coverage