The Financial Secrecy Index

  9 Responses to “The Financial Secrecy Index”

1. 

   Iliam Dhone says:

   November 1 2009 at 4:06 pm

   A fascinating study, Mr Murphy, although one that produces few surprises (though I would have expected the remarkably opaque Liechtenstein to rank far higher up the table).

   It’s also interesting in that I think it may expose a few of your own prejudices. The jurisdictions most featured in your columns ‚Äî in terms of both volume and vitriol ‚Äî are the Cayman Islands (no. 4 in the league table), Jersey (no. 11) and the Isle of Man (a comparatively lowly no. 24). By contrast, the third Crown Dependency of Guernsey, despite ranking just below Jersey (no. 13) receives comparatively little attention and few of its own postings.

   I can recall seeing postings devoted to Switzerland (no. 3) and Ireland (no. 6), but very rarely anything focusing on Delaware (no. 1), Luxembourg (no. 2), the City of London (no. 5) or Belgium (no. 9).

   Why is this? Are there other factors that make you believe that the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man are more deserving of negative scrutiny than other jurisdictions ranked higher in the table? Or are you influenced by the work you receive from the UK Government and the undoubted ability of the United States of America to damage its detractors, preferring to target smaller island countries out of self-preservation? I would be genuinely interested to know your thoughts.
2. 

   Richard Murphy says:

   November 1 2009 at 5:18 pm

   Iliam

   I can’t win, can I?

   We target a place and we’re ‘picking on them’

   We produce research that broadens the horizon of study and it ‘exposes my prejudices’

   But you’re right – this does indicate a broadening of the horizons of our campaign

   We’ve rightly targeted some abuse

   Now we’ll target that which was impossible to hit until we’d opened the debate. That’s been done so the more difficult issues can be raised

   Richard
3. 

   Phil Harrison says:

   November 1 2009 at 5:30 pm

   The last paragraph suggests you picked on the easy target first ie the Isle of Man.

   Perhaps now you can focus on your own back yard with the City of London and the ‘special relationship’ with the US ie Delaware and consider leaving we Manx alone to lick our wounds and pick up the pieces.

   I hope you have as much success in the next part of your venture as you have had in the recent past.
4. 

   Creg says:

   November 1 2009 at 6:32 pm

   Actually Richard it really does show your prejudice in the past.

   In your achieve topics compare the number of post you have done about Jersey, IOM, Cayman to the number you have done on the UK (which I will add you only included after I informed you that you had not included it) and the US. Now remove all those US stories really concerning UBS abd the Swiss’s secretary.

   Now if you compare the weighted average to the FSI average you will see the depths of your prejudice
5. 

   Jim for Justice says:

   November 1 2009 at 6:54 pm

   Though 24th. on the list the Isle of Man invites focus as it has had 3 failed banks & has betrayed thousands of people who put their trust in a bank in what they believed was a trustworthy British Crown dependency.

   In his Review Sir Michael Foot is critical of the IoM because it has a depositors’ compensation scheme that was itself opaque, failing to do the job that any credible scheme – which he defined – should have done.
   He also pointed out that the IoM was altogether ill equiped to handle a banking crisis (see pages 49, 50 & 52)

   The IoM also has a chief of its FSC who last week tried to hoodwink the Tynwalfd Select Committee (set up to inquire into the reasons for the failure of KSFIoM)in an effort to relieve himself of any accountability for a catastrophic failure which he admits has done huge damage to the reputation of the IoM as an offshore financial centre.

   Depositing on the Isle of Man can not be considered safe & secure until there is a new & credible compensation scheme in place that delivers quickly what it promises should the deposit taker be in trouble. Until then the message to potential depositors from all those who got their fingers burnt by banking on the IoM is loud & clear: DON’T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN as it could seriously damage your wealth.

   Jim
   http://ksfiom-blog.blogspot.com
6. 

   Iliam Dhone says:

   November 1 2009 at 7:35 pm

   Agreed that your campaign had to start somewhere, but my posting nonetheless raised two important issues.

   The first is that anyone with no prior knowledge of the subject could conclude, from the prominence given to them in your blog, that the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man were the world’s three most abusive tax havens. In fact, the methodology used in the Financial Secrecy Index indicates that the State of Delaware is four times as abusive as Cayman, twenty times as abusive as Jersey and a truly staggering 260 times as abusive as the Isle of Man.

   This was why I asked whether you had any prejudices that made you dislike these jurisdictions in particular and single them out for more coverage. That was not an attempt to trick you – we all have prejudices, myself included. I would in fact respect you more for admitting them, or explaining why you have tended to focus on these jurisdictions in particular. Also, one specific question in my earlier posting went unanswered – why do you rarely post on Guernsey? Do you have something of a soft spot for it relative to Jersey or the Isle of Man, or is there no particular reason for this?

   The second key issue relates to the international campaign against tax havens, spearheaded by Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and the EU. The former chose as his vice-president the Senator for Delaware, the world’s most abusive tax haven; Luxembourg (apparently the world’s second most abusive tax haven) was a founder member of the EEC, has always punched vastly above its minuscule weight in EU decision-making and seems very likely to contribute the EU’s first President; and New Labour stayed in power for a decade mainly due to the wealth of the City of London (number five in the list).

   Consequently, many people living and working offshore regard the current campaign by the major powers not as a genuine attempt to reform the financial system, but an onslaught of bullying designed to damage small jurisdictions’ economies in order to eliminate competition. Hopefully, your blog will now shift focus to include the bulk of its stories on Delaware, Luxembourg, the City of London et al rather than small and relatively insignificant island nations – otherwise I believe your credibility could be damaged, and you could appear to be nothing more than an associate of, and apologist for, a number of hypocritical global bullies.
7. 

   Richard Murphy says:

   November 2 2009 at 10:09 am

   Iliam

   You entirely miss the point

   They are egregious tax havens

   The FSI is about secrecy

   Not the same thing

   Related. I strongly agree

   But not the same

   Richard
8. 

   Creg says:

   November 2 2009 at 2:49 pm

   “Hopefully, your blog will now shift focus to include the bulk of its stories on Delaware, Luxembourg, the City of London et al rather than small and relatively insignificant island nations ”

   Looking at his posts since this it does not look likely, still the same old predjudices

   And Jim, you will have to thank Richard (as in his eyes anyway), it is his fault the IOM now has 140 million less everty year. Effectively meaning your chances of getting any compensation has been cut to almost nil.
   You have a better chance of trying to get the money back from the UK, after all the stole it
9. 

   Hum says:

   November 2 2009 at 2:49 pm

   Well done on this work, even the French “Le Monde” has taken notice and has this as frontwebpage news:
   http://www.lemonde.fr/organisations-internationales/article/2009/11/02/paradis-fiscaux-les-ong-epinglent-le-royaume-uni-et-les-etats-unis_1261542_3220.html

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.