Today the Z/Yen Group publishesdthe tenth Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 10) covering 75 financial centres. The GFCI Top 10 were:

Centre GFCI 10 Rank GFCI 10 Rating GFCI 9 Rank GFCI 9 Rating Change in Rank Change in Rating
London 1 774 1 775 0 -1
New York 2 773 2 769 0 4
Hong Kong 3 770 3 759 0 11
Singapore 4 735 4 722 0 13
Shanghai 5 724 5 694 0 30
Tokyo 6 695 5 694 -1 1
Chicago 7 692 7 673 0 19
Zurich 8 686 8 665 0 21
San Francisco 9 681 13 655 4 26
Toronto 10 680 10 658 0 22

GFCI 10 uses 28,604 financial centre assessments completed by 1,887 financial services professionals.

Interesting stuff.

But next week the new Financial Secrecy Index from the Tax Justice Network is out and that will be much more telling.

Look for the overlaps I suggest!

 

Tax Justice Network: National Geographic: Guarded Treasures.

National Geographic magazine has picked up on ourFinancial Secrecy Index and published a fascinating graphical representation of the top 15 secrecy jurisdictions according to opacity and scale of operation.

The horizontal axis on the chart below shows scale of operation. The vertical axis represents opacity. As you can see, the United States tops the index by virtue of the scale of its offshore financial services activity and the opacity of laws at federal and state level (Delaware was cited in the 2009 index as an example of state level opacity).


Luxembourg comes second due to the sheer scale of its offshore activities, even though Switzerland (ranked third on the index) is more opaque.

Interestingly, the City of London, which has the largest offshore financial sector in the world, ranks fifth because it is comparatively transparent when set alongside the other main players. That does not let London off the hook, however, since if you look closely at the top fifteen shown on the chart below you will note that half have historic links to the British Empire(Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Ireland, Jersey, Singapore). In practice, City firms are happy to shunt their really dirty stuff offshore to the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories where they can more easily bypass political and regulatory processes.

As the National Geographic article notes: “some free marketeers say havens improve banking competition and economic growth. Yet the U.S. Treasury loses an estimated $100 billion a year to them.” And, citing TJN’s John Christensen, they point out that the biggest losers are the poor: “A 2009 study found that developing countries forfeit up to a trillion dollars a year” due to the activities of secrecy jurisdictions.

This is a fascinating insight into the emerging new geography of corruption.

NB: reposted from the Tax Justice Network blog, with permission.

 

More good news in Hines report » Business » This Is Guernsey.

It’s been reported by the Guernsey press that:

A report acknowledging the contribution of offshore centres is yet more good news for the island, says GuernseyFinance chief executive Peter Niven.

This is the STEP report on which I commented last week. Amazingly Peter Niven thinks the two support each other, saying:

This interestingly ties in with the Tax Justice Network’s recently published research on opacity in the world’s finance centres, where top of the list was the US state of Delaware – used by many companies and individuals as it has one of the laxest regulatory regimes in the world and if it were anywhere else but in the US it would have been shut down years ago.

This video explains just how far apart we are:

Guernsey must be seriously lacking in analytical ability of they can link TJN and STEP.

 

Tax Justice Network: Financial Secrecy Index – what the papers said.

TJN survey of press reaction to the Financial Secrecy Index.

 

As I have noted, there was a US Senate hearing today on a bill designed to require the identification of the beneficial ownership of US corporate entities in front of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The US Treasury testimony was given by Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing David S. Cohen. His testimony is here.

The core of it is this:

At the outset, it is important to recognize a number of key considerations that have informed our thinking:

First, the ability of criminal and other illicit actors to form corporations in the United States without disclosing their true identity presents a serious vulnerability.  It creates a pathway for criminal actors to gain access to the international financial system, and creates significant obstacles in our ability to investigate financial crime.  As I will explain, there is ample evidence that criminal organizations and others who threaten our national security exploit this vulnerability.

Second, information on the true beneficial ownership of a legal entity – at the time a business is formed, as ownership changes during its lifespan, and when it seeks to open accounts at financial institutions – is critical to stopping the exploitation of legal entities by criminal actors.

Third, the challenge of enhancing access to the beneficial ownership information of legal entities is complex and requires a global solution.  While we work within the Administration and with Congress to address this issue domestically, Treasury is also working with our foreign counterparts to improve global understanding and capability to address this challenge worldwide.

Fourth, in seeking to make beneficial ownership information available in ways that effectively address the misuse of legal entities, we are keenly aware of the need to preserve an efficient and straightforward entity formation process in the United States, and not to create unnecessary impediments to accessing the financial system for the vast majority of new and existing businesses that pose no threat whatsoever.

Finally, because we are starting from a situation in which beneficial ownership information is not required at the time of company formation, we believe that even incremental progress in this area is likely to yield substantial positive results.

I think their are two things to say in response. First, anyone who thinks the Tax Justice Network was wrong to name the USA / Delaware as the leading location for opacity in the world financial system should now be silenced.

Second, his points two to five justify all that we have said in the Financial Secrecy Index and at secrecyjurisdictions.com.

Times are changing. And I am quite convinced that beneficial ownership data on public record will become the public norm, eventually.

 

Tax haven survey’s unexpected boost for Isle of Man – Isle of Man Today .

A FINANCIAL secrecy index created by tax reform campaigners has ranked the Isle of Man 24th out of 60 jurisdictions for lack of transparency.
Tellingly, the index produced by the Tax Justice Network — a vociferous critic of the Isle of Man — places the US state of Delaware at the top of its league table of tax havens, followed by Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and the City of London.

This suggests these leading economic centres are more culpable of promoting international financial secrecy than the offshore centres they’ve attacked since the global financial crisis began.

Wishful thinking by the Isle of Man – but amusing none the less that they’ll seek TJN approval when it suits them.
Why wishful? Because there is a wilful misreading of the FSI in this story. The index measures the impact of a location’s opacity, not just the opacity itself. Most small jurisdictions are more opaque than larger ones (the US is an exception) but have smaller impact and so appear lower in the index. The IoM has relatiovely small volumes of financial flows – that is why it has a low ranking. It’s opacity rating is 83% – which is poor.
So don’t get complacent guys. We’re not going to be singing your praises for a long time yet.

 

The 2009 Financial Secrecy Index results were officially launched just a few days ago. You can find them here.

We are very gratified that David Taylor, Member of Parliament for North-West Leicestershire, had this to say about the index in Parliament yesterday:

The Tax Justice Network has done the world a great service in producing its global index of secrecy, which reveals the most secretive financial centres—the City of London being the fifth worst. Why cannot we take an international lead in tackling tax avoidance by first ending the clandestine and corrupting culture that permeates the City of London?

You can find the full text of the exchange between David Taylor and Financial Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms here.

Interesting to note that since 2004 the advance disclosure system has reduced tax avoidance losses by an estimated £12 billion. Of course there’s plenty more that can be recovered by taking further steps to tackle Britain’s avoidance culture, but £12bn will have paid for more than a few new schools and hospitals. And TJN can claim at least some of the credit for building political resolve to tackle this social cancer.

NB: the above reproduced from the TJN blog, with permission

 

The Jersey Evening |Post ran an extensive article on the Financial Secrecy Index yesterday, but it is not available on line. Odd hat all praise for Jersey is, and all criticism is not. No wonder we say the place is opaque.

And what’s their excuse for coming 11th? That we used ‚Äòout of date data’.

Nonsense. We benchmarked everyone at 31.12.08. So the comparison was fair to all.

This is really very lame excuse making when the truth is Jersey has a very long way to go to create transparency.

 

FT Alphaville ¬ª Blog Archive ¬ª Delaware is where it’s at.

The FT blog says:

So all those hedge funds that are threatening to pull out of the UK and move to Switzerland amid the threat of more draconian EU legislation should really be heading for… beautiful downtown Delaware!

And

Indeed, as the FT notes, “The question of the degree of blame attached to rich nations and tax havens for failings in financial transparency has become highly political in the wake of the credit crunch”.

Quite so.

And exactly what the Financial Secrecy Index is about.