begin quote from:
LONDON
— From a skyscraper in Canary Wharf, the once-bustling cluster of docks
transformed into a global banking center, traders at Citigroup’s
regional …
LONDON
— From a skyscraper in Canary Wharf, the once-bustling cluster of docks
transformed into a global banking center, traders at Citigroup’s
regional headquarters move unfathomable sums of money around the planet.
They are exploiting London’s unrivaled connections to the intricate
plumbing of the international financial system.
Now the flow of money is in doubt, imperiling London’s fortunes.
Many of the transactions Citigroup oversees here are dependent on Britain’s inclusion in the European Union. Italian banks tap
London’s vast pools of money to strengthen tattered balance sheets.
German manufacturers borrow funds for expansion. Swiss money managers
ply their fortunes. Citigroup and other global banks manage much of this
activity, executing trades, and ensuring that money lands where it is
supposed to, leaning heavily on their London operations.
In March, Prime Minister Theresa May set in motion Britain’s pending divorce
from the European Union, starting talks with Europe to resolve future
dealings across the English Channel. The negotiations come with a
two-year deadline. If no agreement is struck — an outcome that cannot be
discounted — Britain’s relationship with the European marketplace would
be thrown into chaos.
That prospect was seemingly enhanced this week as France elected as its next president, Emmanuel Macron,
who has vowed to ensure that Britain emerges the weaker from
negotiations. He has promised to fight any agreement preserving access
to Europe for London-based financial services companies, while openly
calling for bankers to decamp for Paris.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“It’s the British who will lose the most,” Mr. Macron said in a pre-election interview with the global affairs magazine Monocle. “The British are making a serious mistake over the long term.”
If a rupture across the channel results, global banks like Citi stand to feel significant consequences.
Somewhere
between one-fifth and one-third of London’s financial undertakings now
involve clients based in Europe. Much of this business is dependent on
so-called passports that give financial firms in one European Union
nation permission to operate in the others. Free of a deal preserving
the essentials of passport rights, many of these trades would be
effectively illegal. The rules and regulatory proclivities of 27
remaining European Union nations would have to be satisfied.
“I
wouldn’t even be able to service some clients, theoretically, once the
U.K. exits,” says Jerome Kemp, a New Yorker who is Citi’s global head of
futures, clearing and collateral at its London headquarters. “If the
client driving the order is sitting in the European Union, then we’ve
got a problem.”
Brexit, as it is known, has jeopardized London’s status
as banker to the planet. London will surely retain credentials as one
of the world’s most important financial centers. Yet it is likely to
surrender stature to European competitors exploiting Brexit as an
opportunity to capture spoils. It risks losing ground in its obsessive
rivalry with New York.
On
a recent afternoon at Citigroup’s headquarters, traders sit at banks of
computer screens watching prices in markets scattered from Shanghai to
São Paulo. One trader monitors the price of crude oil, eyeing a deal for
an American refinery in Brazil. Another seeks to divine how stock
markets in South Africa and Indonesia will react to higher American
interest rates.
A Swedish trader helps a money manager in Paris place a complicated bet that German government bonds will fall.
“There’s
about 10 questions that immediately come to mind as to whether we could
execute that trade in London after Brexit,” Mr. Kemp says.
Those questions stand to become more abundant as the European authorities mull
whether to require that so-called clearing — settling up the money — on
trades involving the euro currency take place within the European
Union.
Clearing
is a crucial part of the work Mr. Kemp’s team handles in London. Trades
of derivatives worth about 850 billion euros a day ($928 billion) are
now cleared daily in London, or roughly three-fourths of the total for
the globe.
Like
every bank with a regional headquarters in London, Citi cannot just
wait in the hopes that politicians will strike a deal preserving its
access to Europe. Banks are already configuring plans to move
significant numbers of people to other financial centers within the
European Union, ensuring that trading can continue without a hitch after
Brexit is complete.
This is a historic reversal for a city that has for centuries functioned as a central artery for finance.
As
the seat of a colonial realm stretching from the Americas to Asia,
London financed enterprises attendant to empire. Banking operations
established by pioneers like Nathan Mayer Rothschild extended credit to
shipping ventures that brought back treasure from distant shores.
In
modern times, the deregulation of London’s financial markets attracted
an influx of overseas banks. As globalization eroded international
borders, money washed in from every shore.
Today, nearly one-fifth
of global banking transactions are booked in the United Kingdom, most
of them in London. About $2.4 trillion in foreign currencies is traded
here daily, according to the Bank of England.
The
industry employs more than 1.1 million people in Britain, while
generating annual revenues reaching 205 billion pounds (about $265
billion).
New
York is bigger by some measures, but much of its business caters to the
American market. London has become the ultimate international financial
marketplace.
Sovereign
wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East manage investments here.
Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes park fortunes here. China looks to
London as a promising place to handle transactions involving its
currency.
Brexit
will not touch most of this activity. At least one-third of London’s
financial industry revenues involve business inside Britain. Another
third is tied to the world outside Europe.
But
disruption to the European business carries risks. Between 15,000 and
80,000 finance jobs could depart over the next two years, according to
various studies. As transactions move, regulators in the new venues are
likely to demand a heavier presence of human beings — people to hold
accountable should matters go awry. As bankers move, so could
accountants and lawyers.
Continue reading the main story
“Everyone
is preparing for the worst,” says Davide Serra, chief executive officer
of Algebris Investments, a hedge fund he co-founded in 2006. “You will
see the emergence of Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin, Luxembourg, Madrid.”
“To the world, London now matters more than New York,” he adds. “In 10 years’ time, New York will matter more.”
The Rise of the City
Looking
out from the headquarters of Rothschild & Company, London’s past
and potential future are effectively laid out on display.
The
building sits on land that once held the home of the founder Nathan
Mayer Rothschild. Conference rooms look down on the Bank of England.
Across the River Thames, a 95-story, glass-fronted pyramid known as the
Shard punctuates the view. It was erected by a consortium of investment
funds from Qatar.
Within
the original City of London — the heart of the finance industry, known
as the Square Mile — cranes sit atop a half-dozen new skyscrapers in
various stages of completion. Who will occupy them once Britain leaves
Europe?
Nathan
Mayer Rothschild saw the beginning. Born into a Jewish ghetto in
Frankfurt, he landed in the English mill town of Manchester at the end
of the 18th century, intending to buy patterns for his family’s textile
business.
He
soon sniffed out a better opportunity in the City of London, the warren
of streets laid down by the Romans at the lowest crossing point of the
Thames. The bounty of empire was landing on the docks — tea from India,
silk from China, cotton from the American South. Trade required credit.
Mr. Rothschild carved out a niche. He negotiated terms at the Royal
Exchange — today, a shopping mall full of Italian luxury goods.
As
the Duke of Wellington confronted Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, Mr.
Rothschild worked on behalf of the crown, quietly amassing gold and
silver to pay the troops. Napoleon succumbed.
The Rothschild bank soon helped other governments finance operations by borrowing from British merchants.
By
the middle of the 20th century, Warburg, another London bank, was
selling bonds for the Italian highway network, raising $15 million in
American currency. This was the first issue of so-called Eurobonds,
those raised in foreign currency — now a mammoth business.
The
mid-1980s brought the run of deregulation known as the Big Bang.
Financial firms gained the freedom to set their own commissions, and to
speculate and advise clients. Overseas companies could now acquire
British banks.
In
the foreigners came — especially the Americans. The rule of law
prevailed. The English language sufficed. A banker waking up in London
could trade in Asia in the morning, then across Europe, catch the
opening of markets in New York, and still make it home for dinner at
some palatial spread in a leafy neighborhood.
London finance had previously operated by gentlemanly code.
“I
used to catch the 5-to-9 tube,” recalls Robert Leitão, who spent the
’80s at Morgan, Grenfell & Company, one of the oldest banks in the
City, and who now counsels clients on mergers for Rothschild. “We were
reliably in a bar by 5 o’clock.”
Yet
as investment banks like J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley swept in, they
began poaching clients. “We had to get up earlier,” Mr. Leitão says.
He recalls his first brush with an American bank during a telecommunications merger in the early 1990s.
“We’d
go in with our little black-and-white documents and Goldman Sachs came
in with what was the first landscape-color presentation we’d ever seen,”
he says. “I remember one of my colleagues saying to me as we came out
of that meeting, ‘Oh my God, the world’s changed.’”
As
trading swelled and buildings required rewiring for high-speed
internet, the global banks outgrew the City. Many established
headquarters in new skyscrapers in Canary Wharf.
Much
of what was taking place now had little to do with financing business.
Money was arriving to avoid tax collectors in other jurisdictions.
Traders were wagering via exotic, lightly regulated instruments known as
derivatives — creations that would play a leading role in pulling the
world into the financial crisis of 2008.
Paul
Woolley worked in the asset management industry. He watched pension
funds flood in from around the world, as local managers concentrated
more on collecting fees than doing right by retirees. He saw London
refashioned into a playground for hedge fund billionaires.
“I’m in favor of free markets,” says Mr. Woolley, now a professor at the London School of Economics, where he oversees the Center for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality. “But the whole thing has ballooned into a complete monster.”
The Channel Widens
For Mr. Kemp, Citibank’s global head of futures, history is rolling backward.
Back
in 1987, when he landed in Paris, working as a broker at a French bank,
every nation was effectively its own fief. Buying a bond in Spain meant
having to go through the local trading desk.
But
as Mr. Kemp jumped to JPMorgan Chase and more recently to Citi, these
institutions increasingly concentrated people in London.
More
than a trillion dollars in foreign exchange and interest rate
derivatives change hands in the City every day, nearly three times the
volume in New York, according to the Bank for International Settlements.
“It
just made perfect sense to focus everything in a U.K. entity,” Mr. Kemp
says. “Now, we are looking at unwinding that ball of string that we’ve
worked so hard to put together over the last 20 years.”
Continue reading the main story
Banking
executives have urged the government to keep Britain within Europe’s
single marketplace. But that requires that Britain accept Europe’s
rules, including the right of people to move freely. The Brexit vote
was, in one sense, a primal scream against unlimited immigration.
In January, Prime Minister May acknowledged the choice and declared that her government would limit immigration. Within finance, the message was unmistakable: Prepare to move jobs.
“Anything
involving sales and trading in European currency or to European
customers is exposed,” says William Wright, founder of New Financial, a
London-based research institution.
Some
British leaders express hope that Europe will assent to a deal that
allows finance to carry on, even as Britain leaves the single market.
But Europe confronts existential threats to its union. Leaders are
intent on ensuring that Britain absorbs a blow to discourage other
countries that might leave.
Frankfurt,
Dublin and other European cities are courting financiers. Mr. Macron — a
former Rothschild investment banker — is keen to win finance jobs for
Paris.
All of this enhances the prospect of no deal, and the beginning of a new era for London.
Two
decades ago, Mr. Serra, the hedge fund manager, arrived here from his
native Italy, landing as a researcher at UBS, the Swiss financial
services giant.
“You
couldn’t get a decent espresso,” he recalls. “I remember the first
Lavazza machine I wanted to put in my bank, and the compliance and I.T.
came. They felt, because it was a non-U.K. machine, it had a risk of
burning the place down.”
Two
decades later, Mr. Serra’s fund manages about $7 billion worth of
holdings. His office in the upscale neighborhood of Mayfair boasts a
top-of-the-line espresso machine.
For his company, Brexit is just a minor nuisance, he says. He must merely open a small subsidiary somewhere in Europe.
But
one thing could prompt him to abandon London — limits on who can live
here. His team hails from Hungary, Bulgaria, India, China, Spain, the
United States, Ireland, Australia and Britain.
“If their immigration policy will curb my capacity to hire the best talent,” he says, “then I’ll move.”
The Quest for Growth
Admiralty
House in central London is a solid brick piece of Britain’s imperial
legacy, a four-story building fronted by columns near the Royal Horse
Guards. “From here,” reads a plaque at the entrance, “the worldwide
affairs of the Royal Navy were run for centuries.”
Today,
the building is a central element in a transaction connecting British
finance to investors scattered from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, a
deal structured to comply with Shariah, or Islamic law.
As
London reimagines its place in a post-Brexit world, city leaders are
probing terrain far beyond Europe for potential financial business. They
are seeking to make London a hub for settling purchases of Chinese
wares. They are exploring new varieties of bonds involving foreign
currencies. They are redoubling efforts to tap into the growing world of
Shariah-compliant finance.
The Brexit vote was, on one level, an angry rejection of globalization. Yet for London’s leaders, the economic solution to the resulting crisis is more globalization than ever.
“London
being the global hub, there’s a huge amount of liquidity,” says
London’s deputy mayor for business, Rajesh Agrawal. “We have a huge
advantage.”
Continue reading the main story
The
Islamic world is awash in money, yet the dictates of Shariah forbid
trading in interest. This has prompted creative minds to consult with
Muslim clerics to dream up financial instruments that effectively pay
interest without technically doing so.
Worldwide, Islamic banks — those run on the principles of Shariah — were stocked with about $1.4 trillion in assets in the first quarter of 2016, according to the Islamic Financial Services Board.
London
has been angling for a piece of the action. Three years ago, the
British government issued a Shariah-compliant version of a government
bond, using a structure called a sukuk.
Admiralty
House and two other buildings were officially sold to a government
entity. The government then rented the buildings back from itself,
distributing the proceeds to investors who bought the sukuk.
Britain was the first Western government to issue Shariah-compliant bonds, raising £200 million (then, about $340 million).
“The
U.K. government’s primary objective was effectively a demonstration of
the City of London and the U.K. legal and regulatory and tax system
being open for business,” says Richard O’Callaghan, a partner at the law
firm Linklaters, who advised the British government on the bond issue.
“You can’t be a global financial center without being able to
demonstrate that you have a viable Islamic framework.”
Expanding
the city’s fortunes by going global makes sense. Yet arithmetic
suggests these new frontiers cannot compensate for the revenues Brexit
may displace.
In
the decade since the London Stock Exchange began listing sukuk bonds,
about $48 billion has been raised through 65 different issues. London
clears derivatives worth that much in the course of a morning.
“Islamic
finance is starting from a very low base,” Mr. O’Callaghan says. “It is
a base that is growing, but it is never going to take over the world.”
Brexit
does not negate London’s financial savvy. It does not taint British
law, or undermine London’s appeal as a cosmopolitan entrepôt.
But it redraws the lines of global trade, impeding the flow of money that built the city.
Continue reading the main story
No comments:
Post a Comment