The inconsistencies in Jersey's new report on its financial services sector keep on jumping off my screen.
Take this claim in the report:
Jersey's banks largely service the needs of the expatriate ‘mass affluent' and internationally footloose high net worth individuals, as well as associated corporate and institutional clients. They attract deposits and funding from across the globe. Almost three-fifths of the island's over £200 billion of banking funds come from deposits and other instruments ultimately provided by customers from beyond the European Union, while less than a quarter arise from the United Kingdom.
I have already pointed out the fact that Jersey Finance say there is only £155 billion on deposit in Jersey and not the £200 billion noted above, but they also publish this chart of where the funds originate from:
Now given that Jersey is as such a point of origin for only a tiny part of the funds in Jersey - and let's not pretend otherwise because there is just not enough wealth in Jersey itself to impact on the totals declared - the claim that the UK provides less than a quarter of funds is very obviously wrong here. And so too is that the EU makes up less than 40% of the total is also wrong. Jersey originating funds would have to exceed £27 billion - that's £491,000 for each person working there - for this to be true. And I'm sorry, but that's just not credible.
These claims are irreconcilable and the report that includes them looks ridiculous as a result. In fact that word is exactly right: worthy of ridicule is all that can be said of this report.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
In the above chart, what is the reporting position of a Jersey company with Jersey directors?
If this is reported as Jersey resident; then this would explain why this figure is so high, when in fact the beneficial ownership of a Jersey company may not in fact be “Jersey and UK”
Perhaps the paper version of the report is a bit like the birthday cards that you can buy from stationers that play music when you open them up. Perhaps it plays something romantic like the “Moonlight Sonata” to seduce its target audience/readers….
Sorry I couldn’t resist this….you did say in an earlier post we could have giggle….
I think you just have an axe to grind with Jersey no matter what information is put out there.
Its a shame you have such a negative fixation with the place to be honest Richard but of no surprise really.
I do have an axe to grind – yes
I hate organised abuse
Richard,
I think your mixing up Residence, Domicile and ‘origin of wealth by location of ultimate beneficial owner’
The quarterly report that you have pasted the graph from is quite clearly titled deposits by RESIDENCE.
Most of the ‘Jersey’s value to Britain’ report is based on Domicile / location of UBO.
I am doing no such thing
People living in the UK but non-domiciled are resident in the UK
I am reading the data completely correctly
There is no distinction to make – and if it is claimed thee is one then that is just wrong
OK let me re-word that ….
The quarterly report refers to residence of depositors. How would a trust’s residence be described ? … It will be the residence of the trustee for regulatory reporting purposes, hence why the Jersey RESIDENT proportion seems high (lots of Trusts with Jersey resident trustees).
On the flip side the Jersey’s value to Britain report clearly states Underlying Owner and refers to Beneficiaries and settlors in the text.
I would certainly expect the two reports to be un-comparable as they are repotring the location of trustees in one report and underlying owners in another. Personally I’d go with the later as a better representation of where tax may / may not be due.
Then Jersey Finance have been guilty of publishing seriously misleading data for years
So much for know your client