More flexible Working Rights - but how much is too much?

News that UK employees are to be 'given' more flexible working rights may sound good news, but the question is: How much, and how much would be too much? It is again a policy based on Top-Down Command rather than allow market forces to find an organic solution. 

UK employees to be given more flexible working rights

MIFID: Now the Tax Man wants to have his cut

Just when you thought the 1000+ pages MIFID nonsense could not get any worse this news hits the wire. Could it be that it was all along the main purpose of this unnecessary and counterproductive EU edict to create new tax raising opportunities for the voracious appetite that quasi-democratic politicians so desperately are looking for? Just one more reason to make it more attractive for the Financial Service Industry to decamp to friendlier climes, such as New York, Dubai, Singapore. Maybe a successful Brexit will make Britain to abolish this convolut.
Bloomberg

London Job Losses: Trickle rather than Bleeding

One always had to wonder why Deutsche Bank needs 9000 people in London, or HSBC needs 43000 in the UK. Was that not always padded by quite a bit or over staffing? Given the arrival of Fintech and the plummeting cost of communicating with low-cost centres there was always the prospect of job diversion, especially in support roles. Globalisation also means that other centres such as Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai etc would grow in stature and staff would be relocated closer to customers and markets.
In the opposite direction there are forces that might in the long run strengthen the role as hub and nerve centre coordinating and directing the regional centres. Higher Value-added roles might well be concentrated in the UK - if politics and regulation are creating a business-friendly environment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/bank-jobs-are-bleeding-out-of-london--and-brexit-hasnt-even-kicked-in-yet.html

London Job Losses - trickling rather than bleeding

One always had to wonder why Deutsche Bank needs 9000 people in London, or HSBC needs 43000 in the UK. Was that not always padded by quite a bit or over staffing? So large banks move dozens or even hundreds of jobs, dispersed in various regional centres? Given the arrival of Fintech and the plummeting cost of communicating with low-cost centres there was always the prospect of job diversion, especially in support roles. Globalization also means that other centres such as Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai etc would grow in stature and staff would be relocated closer to customers and markets.
In the opposite direction there are forces that might in the long run strengthen the role as hub and nerve centre coordinating and directing the regional centres. Higher Value-added roles might well be concentrated in the UK - if politics and regulation are creating a business-friendly environment.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/bank-jobs-are-bleeding-out-of-london--and-brexit-hasnt-even-kicked-in-yet.html

EU Regulators Take Aim At London's Asset-Management Industry

No surprise there, EU is basically a protectionist racket, dominated by socialist parties and lobbies, where even pseudo right wing parties are praying from the same hymn sheet and embrace big government. Also means that the UK has to negotiate harder, I suggested a while ago that if local production would be required for asset management services then the same rule should be applied to manufactured goods. So come on BMW, Daimler, start producing in the UK. And someone has to tell the Eurocracy: keep your MIFID and Financial Transaction Tax nonsense!
EU Regulators Take Aim At London's Asset-Management Industry

BOE's Carney urges banks to prepare for all potential outcomes

OK, so what about WW3, Meteor impact? All these events COULD happen, more work for the jobsworths in the ever-expanding  regulatory realm.
Brexit: Mark Carney urges banks to prepare for all potential outcomes

Apocalyptic forecasts for UK Finance miss key points

I am tired to repeat the same old arguments (first published back in Feb 2016!) that Brexit is not the Armageddon that some predict. While some firms will boost their presence on the Continent London will benefit by being more open to the 'rest' of the World. Being in sole charge of policy the UK will be much more nimble than the multi-headed EU bureaucracy that has to satisfy 27 squabbling member states. And spreading staff all over Europe will do nothing for the efficiency of the (mostly) larger financial firms that de-emphasise London. Why triggering Brexit signals a long, slow bleed for the UK banking sector

London’s single market access will end with Brexit

No need to run scared, as I have stated earlier, an analysis of all business lines shows that the EU umbrella is not really that important. Major firms are already present in key locations on the Continent. In the long run a dynamic London financial centre serving the world without cumbersome regulations will win over Paris and Frankfort any time! And what about 'giving access' to London to banks/asset managers in the (doomed?) Eurozone?
London’s single market access will end with Brexit

FCA Interim Report on Fund Management

It is always reassuring that the cast of thousands employed in the recently-established regulatory silos are put to good use. Even if it is mostly confined to produce volumes of paper that unfortunates in the businesses that they are regulating are forced to plough through.

Does the Fund Management Industry need more 'oversight'? Maybe, but to a certain extent any imperfections are also the result of misguided legislation introduced by a succession of governments (and increasingly so by a EU and its assorted bureaucracies).

But what benefit will it bring to raise the fiduciary bar from a general obligation "to treat customers fairly" to a new requirement "to act in the best interests of investors"? No doubt that legions of (expensive) lawyers find this picking of words will go a long way to pay for their kids' school fees.

Even more expensive (for the investors, for as they will ultimately have to pick up the tab for this new boondoggle) would be the introduction of an "Independence Governance Board".  It will be most welcome to myriad retired professionals that will be employed to produce annual reports of the issues they have raised and management's response.

How the introduction of an all-inclusive charge could work in practice does not seem to be of major concern to the paper-pushers at the FCA. Trading in securities is still not free, even in the age of online dealing and wafer-thin commissions.

Professional/Institutional Investors are already more than able to analyse the performance and cost of investment propositions.

The FCA report is more relevant for the retail investor who may find it difficult to pick the right investment fund when there are many more funds than equities to choose from. So investors tend to rely on intermediaries - Private Bankers and IFA mostly - that do the selecting and monitoring for them. Maybe more transparency would be needed in that space? How many Private Banks publish their performance and fee schedules on a regular basis?

Asset Management Market Study, Interim Report, FCA

Brexit - Impact on London Financial Centre

Merchants of doom are let loose by the result of the Out side winning the EU Referendum in the UK. All sorts of comments are made by objective and less objective parties. The surprise referendum result shocked quite a few and as the Remain side was expecting a win the resulting reaction was also emotionally charged. And many in the business and financial community favored staying in the EU. That our 'friends' on the other side of the Channel are fighting to get as much of the financial business as they can should surprise no one. One only wonders why they are so keen on activities that the political and cultural 'Elites' on the Continent seem to keen to despise in any case.

But how much business is going to move away from London?

The Brexit impact will be crucially dependent on the skill with with the Exit negotiations are handled by the British Officials.

Leave London? Cut your nose to spite your face!

Talk about major financial institutions leaving the City of London in the wake of the Brexit Vote do not throw a good light on the leadership (if one can call it that) of these firms. Most of them are already well represented in the other major financial centres in Europe. Coverage of local clients is handled by these branches and there is no reason to shift major resources to places like Madrid, Milan or Amsterdam, not even to Frankfurt or Paris (why would it be more efficient to cover France from Frankfurt if the major European hub is installed there?).

Scared about Brexit? - Update

Following up on my post from earlier this year (see below) I want to reply to an important point made by those arguing against Brexit. It is the future of the UK's financial service business, in particular the role of London as the major industry hub in Europe.

Of course no one can predict what the regulatory and tax landscape would be in case of the UK voting to leave the EU.

But a point by point analysis demonstrates that Armageddon is not going to happen.

Hard to believe: Competition Inquiry into Fund Management

Bureaucrats are hard-pressed to find enough to occupy the enormous number of people working at the UK's regulatory body, the FCA. The irony is that the roughly 4000 employees themselves put a large burden on the industry and by extension on the British (and international) savers who ultimately pay for the costs of this neo-totalitarian construct.
Sloppy supervision led to the so-called abuses in the financial sector (Forex, Libor, 'mis-selling' of payment protection) and even more sloppy prosecution led to the imposition of arbitrary fines that bear no relation to the 'crimes' committed. In any proper court of justice there has to be concrete proof that harm was done but these enquiries are nothing else than vindictive persecution of an unpopular and quite often hated minority.
And the bureaucrats take their time. The final report is not expected to be published before early 2017 (who wants to open a book on that?).
There may be problems in the UK asset management industry but only a fool (and a regulator with time and money on his hands) would say that there is not enough competition. Any distortions are more likely to be the outcome of ill-considered tinkering by politicians (and I am sure Chancellor Osborne is busily working on some more schemes that will aggravate an already non-sensical legal and tax framework).
FCA launches competition study of UK asset management industry (IPE)

The 'fun' (ugly?) face of the City

The one thing that surprises me - given the amount of ever-more sophisticated technology that is available - is the survival of the voice-based interdealer brokers. As this incident demonstrates the level of sophistication needed to fulfill the role of go-between is not all that great. So may the level of 'client entertainment' have a significant role to play? Sooner or later the penny will drop and another source of generous income for many staffers will be rationalised away, or fall foul of tightening regulation.
City traders make new recruit eat 8 quarter pounders (Mail on Sunday)

7-Yr Bonus Clawback? You must be joking!

That is what a former Wimbledon Champion would probably say to the psychopathic politicians and regulators (including reckless Bank of England officials busy stealing from Savers). How anyone can be expected to work for seven long years and not be sure that the hard-earned money will be his for good is beyond me. Anyone contemplating a career in banking in the UK should have his head examined. Meanwhile our politicians are busy cleaning up the problems they or their predecessors created, safe in the knowledge that however big the waste of money they will NEVER be asked to compensate the taxpayer.

Why UK's new bonus regime could be the world's toughest (CNBC)

Barclays: how not to manage a business

Announcing that the number of jobs in the investment banking unit will be cut by 25 per cent over the next three years is as bad a decision as can be. Firstly it sends a clear signal to anyone who can get a job elsewhere to do so as soon as feasible. The remaining staff will be spending most of their time second-guessing where and when the next cuts will be made. Even worse, the instinct for survival will make it essential that each and every one tries to protect his employment by trying to put the knife into his or her colleagues' back. Above all it is not even clear why a down-sized and provincial version of Barclays - not dissimilar to a building society or - shock horror! - the Co-op bank, will be more successful in the long run. Is there something JP Morgan or Bankamerica know that Jenkins and the regulatory/political cabal here in the UK don't know? But never mind, Shipping, Car Manufacturing, Textiles, Steel Making etc were successfully destroyed by the Powers-that-be, so it matters little if British Banking is blow-torched as well. Makes it so much easier for other financial centres - in the EU and further away - to eat the City's lunch.

London - what would be effect of 'Brexit'?

When senior banking figures warn that London's position as preeminent financial centre would be at risk from any British exit from the EU must be taken seriously. But at the same time one should not overlook the other side of the argument. Language and legal traditions aside the first question that comes to mind is the following: where would all the banks that are supposed to leave move to? A battle royal would ensue between the obvious candidates, Frankfurt and Paris. But some banks might also consider Amsterdam or Brussels, and the main European banks might find it unnecessary to maintain a major location outside their home country. If it ever comes to the question of 'Brexit' the main deciding factor might well be what the regulatory and tax regimes look like in the UK and the various possible alternatives inside the EU.

Government Mis-Selling Scandal

Having been on the receiving end of many a sales call trying to convince me of the necessity of buying identity theft protection for my credit cards,I can say that the present hysteria about this issue here in the UK can only be called a modern version of the witch hunt. Given that this dark period is but a few hundred years away it is remarkable that not much has changed in human nature - certainly not in the nature of those who want to bully and nanny the citizen.
Condemning banks in blanket fashion to 'compensate' those who were supposedly mis-sold protection products goes against all notions of legal due process. Only slightly worse is the silence of the guardians of our investment monies who should scream bloody murder as the companies they invest on our behalf get fleeced by regulators. Where is the Governance army hiding when it is really needed?
Government can play a role in protecting the consumer, as can all the worthy or unworthy organisations who claim to have the consumer's interest at heart. But let them issue warnings, educate the public so that people can make decisions that are (hopefully) protecting their own interest. Nobody forced me to buy any product, suitable or unsuitable. And maybe some people might have benefitted from the protection they bought. Who speaks up for them?

Co-op Bank: Slaughter of the Innocents?

Talk of bailing-in holders of certain bonds demonstrates that investors and depositors in European Banks are well-advised to be ultra cautious and not rely too much on reassurances uttered by regulators and their political paymasters. It beggars belief that after the chaotic 'resolution' of the debt crisis in Cyprus there is even talk of applying a hair-cut to the value of certain bonds issued by the Co-op bank. Most of those looking at losses would be retail investors, the most vulnerable and least sophisticated participants in the financial markets. Before their investments are impaired it would be appropriate to seize the full equity value of the bank - and one would hope that there is one.

Apart from this glaring injustice this episode is another sad illustration about the danger inherent in Merger transactions. The list of desasters is a long one, Bankamerica/Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, Commerzbank/Dresdner Bank, Lloyds TSB'HBOS to name the most prominent one

Hester to leave RBS by 'mutual agreement'

Replacing the CEO? No problem, George Osborne can try his hand on running a real business, and his friend/buddy Cameron can fill the role of Investor Relations/Press chief. At least they will provide good entertainment on the SS Royal Bank of Scotland (soon to be England?). And no, we take no placement fee as we want to help the taxpayer - on second thought, did Hester not have five years to groom a successor? Any properly run organisation should have at least one credible replacement for each senior executive position. After all, that should be the priority of the CEO and a functioning board.