City of London’s Brexit Departures Are Speeding Up, , on October 6, 2020 at 6:00 am

By ILP
On 10/06/2020
Tags:

(Bloomberg Opinion) — Since Britain voted in 2016 to quit the European Union, there has been a fierce debate about the harm this will do to the City of London. Pessimists warned that losing unfettered access to the single market would force banks to move trillions of dollars in assets out of the world’s leading financial hub. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would go, the Cassandras said. The reality has been more difficult to discern. The finance industry’s move to the continent has been piecemeal, and Brexit preparations have been complicated by the onslaught of the pandemic. Indeed, the management of the virus and the demands of home-working during lockdown mean some firms have had to slow their Brexit planning.Unfortunately for London, one can still discern a shift in direction — amid all the fog of the Covid-19 war — that may support the Brexit doomsayers’ case. As Britain and Brussels embark on the final stage of talks to determine their future trading relationship, the trickle of resources moving away from the City is turning into a steady stream. The biggest investment banks have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the midst of a global recession to lease real estate on the continent, while relocating activities and jobs to set up standalone operations in the EU.Although a single European rival to London may not emerge for some time, if at all, the shift is already posing questions about London’s future role in global finance — and Britain’s coffers.Take JPMorgan Chase & Co. The biggest U.S. bank is moving the equivalent of $230 billion of assets from the U.K. to its EU hub in Frankfurt, Bloomberg News has reported. That represents one-tenth of the Wall Street giant’s total assets and more than a third of the assets it holds in the U.K., its latest accounts show. About 200 employees are moving to continental Europe in what one executive described as a “first wave” of relocations.The potential impact on JPMorgan’s revenue is even more striking. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Television, the bank’s top European executive, Viswas Raghavan, said 25% of the wholesale revenue generated by the firm in the U.K. could be headed elsewhere. “It’s a reasonable start,” he said.This sense that a quarter of the City’s investment bank business might be in play is shared by other London financiers involved in Brexit preparations. Morgan Stanley is looking for a new headquarters in London that could be 25% smaller than its current space there.Where larger firms go, smaller ones will follow, as will the ecosystem of lawyers and consultants around them. For a country that derived 12.3 billion pounds ($16 billion) in corporation tax from financial services in 2019 — 22% of all government receipts — the stakes are phenomenally high.As things stand, next year financial services firms in the U.K. will lose their “passport” for selling their services in the EU. Assuming the two sides agree on a deal (still a big assumption), the City firms will probably have to rely instead on a system of “equivalence.” In that scenario, the EU would be able to decide unilaterally whether the U.K.’s rules are close enough to its own regulations to allow finance industry access.Even if granted, an equivalence regime will leave firms with too much uncertainty about their long-term access to the EU, giving them little choice but to maintain a continental base.What’s more, Europe is desperate to chip away at British dominance. The European Securities and Markets Authority will let London’s clearing houses sell services into the EU after Dec. 31, but it’s also planning a “comprehensive review of the systemic importance” of the industry, which could see that permission removed. Clearing houses play a critical role in safeguarding financial stability, as well as managing collateral for buyers and sellers of derivatives. The U.K.’s stranglehold on clearing euro swaps is of particular concern to the EU.London’s position as the biggest investment-management center after New York is also uncertain. ESMA wants to limit EU-based funds delegating portfolio management to teams outside the bloc, including the U.K. About 90% of the assets under management in EU funds are delegated in this way.The City of London’s dominance in Europe, underpinned by the deregulation of the 1980s and a favored legal system, isn’t yet threatened, and forcing the creation of a European rival could backfire, as my colleague Lionel Laurent has argued. But the direction of travel has been set. Unless London can draw business from elsewhere, the City won’t be quite the destination it once was.  This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

City of London's Brexit Departures Are Speeding Up(Bloomberg Opinion) — Since Britain voted in 2016 to quit the European Union, there has been a fierce debate about the harm this will do to the City of London. Pessimists warned that losing unfettered access to the single market would force banks to move trillions of dollars in assets out of the world’s leading financial hub. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would go, the Cassandras said. The reality has been more difficult to discern. The finance industry’s move to the continent has been piecemeal, and Brexit preparations have been complicated by the onslaught of the pandemic. Indeed, the management of the virus and the demands of home-working during lockdown mean some firms have had to slow their Brexit planning.Unfortunately for London, one can still discern a shift in direction — amid all the fog of the Covid-19 war — that may support the Brexit doomsayers’ case. As Britain and Brussels embark on the final stage of talks to determine their future trading relationship, the trickle of resources moving away from the City is turning into a steady stream. The biggest investment banks have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the midst of a global recession to lease real estate on the continent, while relocating activities and jobs to set up standalone operations in the EU.Although a single European rival to London may not emerge for some time, if at all, the shift is already posing questions about London’s future role in global finance — and Britain’s coffers.Take JPMorgan Chase & Co. The biggest U.S. bank is moving the equivalent of $230 billion of assets from the U.K. to its EU hub in Frankfurt, Bloomberg News has reported. That represents one-tenth of the Wall Street giant’s total assets and more than a third of the assets it holds in the U.K., its latest accounts show. About 200 employees are moving to continental Europe in what one executive described as a “first wave” of relocations.The potential impact on JPMorgan’s revenue is even more striking. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Television, the bank’s top European executive, Viswas Raghavan, said 25% of the wholesale revenue generated by the firm in the U.K. could be headed elsewhere. “It’s a reasonable start,” he said.This sense that a quarter of the City’s investment bank business might be in play is shared by other London financiers involved in Brexit preparations. Morgan Stanley is looking for a new headquarters in London that could be 25% smaller than its current space there.Where larger firms go, smaller ones will follow, as will the ecosystem of lawyers and consultants around them. For a country that derived 12.3 billion pounds ($16 billion) in corporation tax from financial services in 2019 — 22% of all government receipts — the stakes are phenomenally high.As things stand, next year financial services firms in the U.K. will lose their “passport” for selling their services in the EU. Assuming the two sides agree on a deal (still a big assumption), the City firms will probably have to rely instead on a system of “equivalence.” In that scenario, the EU would be able to decide unilaterally whether the U.K.’s rules are close enough to its own regulations to allow finance industry access.Even if granted, an equivalence regime will leave firms with too much uncertainty about their long-term access to the EU, giving them little choice but to maintain a continental base.What’s more, Europe is desperate to chip away at British dominance. The European Securities and Markets Authority will let London’s clearing houses sell services into the EU after Dec. 31, but it’s also planning a “comprehensive review of the systemic importance” of the industry, which could see that permission removed. Clearing houses play a critical role in safeguarding financial stability, as well as managing collateral for buyers and sellers of derivatives. The U.K.’s stranglehold on clearing euro swaps is of particular concern to the EU.London’s position as the biggest investment-management center after New York is also uncertain. ESMA wants to limit EU-based funds delegating portfolio management to teams outside the bloc, including the U.K. About 90% of the assets under management in EU funds are delegated in this way.The City of London’s dominance in Europe, underpinned by the deregulation of the 1980s and a favored legal system, isn’t yet threatened, and forcing the creation of a European rival could backfire, as my colleague Lionel Laurent has argued. But the direction of travel has been set. Unless London can draw business from elsewhere, the City won’t be quite the destination it once was.  This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Contact Us

Please use our Instant Quote form to see if you're pre-qualified for a non-recourse stock loan, or if you have any questions or feedback, please email, call or chat with us.

deals@internationalliquiditypartners.com

+44 20 3994 1588

Headquarters: Hunkins Waterfront Plaza, Charlestown, Nevis

Open 24 hours a day / 7 days a week / 365 days a year

 

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is Securities-Based Lending?
Securities-based lending, or a stock loan, is the practice of using market investments such as stocks, ETF’s, warrants, bonds, or real estate investment trusts as collateral for a loan.
How much money can I get for my securities?
Borrow up to 80% of the value of your pledged investments giving you the capital you need to expand your business, purchase real estate, or tackle a costly project.
What happens if my securities lose value?
With a non-recourse stock loan, you can walk away from your securities at any time and keep the loan money with no negative credit consequences even if the investments lose value.
Is my information safe with ILP?
We pride ourselves on outstanding service and make client confidentiality our top priority. You can always be absolutely certain your information is safe with us.
How long does it take for the disbursement of funds?
Most of the transactions we process take less than 7 days from application to the disbursement of funds giving you cash quickly when you need it most.
What credit score do I need to qualify?
There are no credit checks or personal guarantees necessary with our services. Your pledged securities are the only collateral required for the loan you receive.

Instant Quote

Please fill out your information to see if you are pre-qualified.

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

International Liquidity Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

International Liquidity Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with International Liquidity Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. International Liquidity Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Nevis Office

Main Street
Hunkins Waterfront Plaza
Charlestown, Nevis

New York Office

Coming Soon!

Market Coverage