Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Luuk Jacobs

Brexit preparation - time is running out

Recommended Posts

Andy Milner

Here's an updated view of the parliamentary arithmetic that May would be up against with a 3rd vote.

 

She would need to get the support of the ultra-Brexit wing of her party plus either the ultra-Brexit Labour MPs or the DUP to squeeze through, so still pretty much impossible given that the DUP have ruled out their support.

 

2500.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

As the prime minister suggests she will leave in order to secure her deal, use our updated simulator to see what difference this will make to the overall picture in the House of Commons. Can you assemble a...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

The "stay of execution" offered by a short extension that would potentially increase the chance of a no-deal Brexit is going to mean yet more cost incurred by companies in re-scheduling their no-deal Brexit plans.

 

Hopefully this won't be as impactful to our industry, by the manufacturers stockpiling or shutting down their production lines will have knock in effects to the overall economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Luuk Jacobs

Every day a new "unexpected sage" in the Brexit soap. Nothing clear as to where we will be comes March 29. May now trying to get the public opinion behind here with her yesterdays speech, blaming basically everyone apart from herself (personal opinion) and trying to give a motherly impression. The EU saying we will not extend unless the agreement is accepted. Everyone else seeming to fall over themselves to say that it is all scandalous not realising they are part of it.

 

This evening the cards could be completely different again and with the planned march for a peoples vote this Saturday, things could turn out very different by Monday. A soap screenwriter could not have written this but it is currently the reality.

 

(International) Businesses have long switched off and taken their measurements, including especially in the industrial sector, by moving business away from the UK. The UK footsie is not an indicator of the industries sentiment as most of these companies have significant international exposure and the UK is apart of potentially being the head-office, not a reflection of their core business. The exchange rate neither seems to fluctuate materially with the Brexit Soap scenario, so any indicator to go by is lacking ..... lets go to the next episode !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

The FCA has published a response to the ESMA paper on it's approach to MiFiD II and Benchmarking provisions in the result of a no-deal/no-transition Brexit.

 

WWW.FCA.ORG.UK

ESMA has published a statement clarifying its approach to aspects of the MiFID position limits regime, post-trade transparency requirements, derivatives trading obligation and benchmarks regulation if the UK...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

Although it would be hard, the parliamentary arithmetic still has a possibility of falling in May's favour if she is able to bring her deal back for a final vote.

 

Although this is a bit out of date, this calculator can give you an idea of the different factions in parliament:

 

2500.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Use our simulator to see what happens when each of the various tribes chooses to back the prime minister, to reject her bill or to abstain. Can you assemble a parliamentary majority?

 

The fundamental problem with May's plan all along is that she's simultaneously trying to scare the Brexiteers with the notion that if they don't support her Brexit may not happen, while trying to scare remainers with the prospect of a no deal Brexit, and it's hard to do either effectively without undermining the other!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Colin Ng

Very good read. Easy to follow and to the point. 

This sorry saga of brinkmanship has removed what little bargaining power we had. It is clear we need all EU states to agree to an extension - voting for it in parliament does it make it so.....

 

TM has to get round or persuade Bercow to let her have another vote first on the deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

Things are obviously moving very quickly at the moment (and ironically barely changing at the same time!), but here is a useful summary of the current position from the Chief Economist of Jaguar Land Rover who has been providing interesting commentary through-out this process:

 

Quote
  • It is likely the UK will get an extension to the negotiation period and therefore will NOT leave the EU on 29th March
  • It is likely that this extension will be a long one (e.g. 9 or more months)
  • It is likely that the UK parliament will in April agree the kind of future relationship with the EU that it wants
  • We will likely get clarity on the extension, its purpose and its duration, by Friday 22nd March
  • The situation is very fluid and nothing is certain apart from that without a change in the law (e.g. due to an extension) the UK will leave the EU on 29th March. 

 

 

0?e=1558569600&v=beta&t=WWSvHYxIxGwVFfWw
WWW.LINKEDIN.COM

It has been another long week in UK politics and, with a brief interlude in proceedings, now feels like a good time for a quick update on Brexit. You can read about the ins-and-outs of parliament's votes in the papers, so...
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

The main risk of a no-deal Brexit now seems to lay with the EU not granting an extension to article 50 - it would only take a single state to block the process. (However there are no clear candidates to do so, and the EU27 have stuck together very closely so far - precipitating a no-deal Brexit would be a sacrifice of Ireland and cause an almighty diplomatic fall-out).

 

There is also the fact that the UK has the right to unilaterally revoke the invocation of article 50 (as ruled by the ECJ last year) that should be a second line of defence - although the fact that the "no no deal brexit" vote only passed by 321 to 278 votes, I am now less sure that there would be a majority in the Commons to pass this.

 

Here is a really interesting (and detailed) document on the relationship of each member state with the UK:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_views-eu-27-v5_WEB.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Luuk Jacobs

It looks like yesterday evening's vote has put everything even more in jeopardy. Yes the vote was NoNo to a No-deal but in the end it is not a binding vote. The saddest thing for me to see is that the political establishment is and has not been able to pull them selfs together to create unite to get an agreement that is best for the country. From the outset the whole process has been looked at from a black and white point of view without any shades of grey. Over time it has resulted in as many opinions almost as there are MPs. I believe that the hassling will continue up till the date of the 29th of March with still any outcome possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Colin Ng

@Andy Milner Couldn't agree more! Looking back at Ben's post from August last year, those 59% of firms who have started to prepare for a Hard Brexit last year must feel like they have done the right thing in light of current state of play. In the space of 6 months, the negotiations have gone from Hard/Soft Brexit to No deal/Delay Brexit. Cannot wait for the results of tonights vote! Less than an hour to go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

"A waste of two years" - is a quote from one analyst in the below article. Whatever your political persuasion, it's hard to disagree really.

 

Quote

 

“We are now merely weeks away from the Article 50 deadline, and it is critical that every effort is made to avoid a no-deal exit from the EU... Since the Brexit referendum, British savers have taken nearly £19bn out of UK equity funds, which reflects broader concerns about the strength of the UK economy. A no-deal Brexit will only serve to further dent investors’ confidence in the UK economy, and every effort must be made to avoid it.”

Chris Cummings, chief executive, Investment Association 

 

 

FN-AG531_FN_MAY_M_20190313031625.jpg
WWW.FNLONDON.COM

Reaction from UK finance as Theresa May fails to get her Brexit deal over the line at the second attempt

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Andy Milner

Unfortunately this has seemed inevitable for a while, as Theresa May's only leverage over Parliament is running the clock down to a threat of a no-deal Brexit. I still remain convinced that there are enough sane MPs (and enough sanity on the EU side) to ensure that that doesn't happen, making an extension almost a certainty.

 

If the negotiations are extended, there is still no clear way to resolve the current impasse, so I tend to agree with Juncker (?) who said that an extension period should be in years rather than months.

 

The impact of this on-going uncertainty on the economy can only be a negative thing however - although with the slowdown in Germany and elsewhere, it may be hard to untangle the impacts at a macro-economic level from broader influences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Eva Keogan

So here we are in February, with four weeks to go the clock is still ticking and there is very little to show for the time and energy put into managing Brexit and its outcomes - and latest is that we may need to delay - this is beginning to feel like a rerun of Y2k (for those that remember). Thoughts?

 

_105779796_1c9d9680-5da7-41bf-baaa-80236
WWW.BBC.CO.UK

Tory backbenchers propose a two-month postponement, as Theresa May prepares to meet EU leaders.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Eva Keogan

There will be a lot going on from now until Christmas - just by looking at the Investment Week live blog on Brexit it is easy to see with six months on the clock there is a flurry of activity but May and Merkel are toughing it out without pulling any punches just quite yet - some good old fashioned political brinkmanship going on here and interesting points made here in The Guardian about key events in the next few weeks - so it's now wonder many are playing a waiting game and that itself could be seen as risk management?

3724.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Chancellor’s comments made to German finance chiefs as UK-EU negotiations face deadlock

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Luuk Jacobs

I am mainly surprised by the in point 1 mentioned 17% waiting till the political situation becomes clearer ...... more than 2 years after the referendum there is continued going left and right and I would wonder in the case of the 17% if they have a sufficient risk management in place.

Yes it might all come together by March 30, but the principle of good risk management is that if there is no clarity on a situation, you managing this by putting mitigating plans in place, not just waiting till the situation becomes clearer !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Rory McMillan
1 hour ago, Ben Cole said:

Article in todays FT indicating the majority of Asset Managers are preparing for a hard Brexit. 

Interestingly it goes on to state that 89% of all AM's polled have a Brexit response plan, yet only 49% have already put those plans into action.

https://www.ft.com/content/66318f28-a229-11e8-85da-eeb7a9ce36e4

Those are pretty scary statistics... The lead time to implement a Brexit response plan, particularly if it considers the worst case 'no deal' scenario, will surely leave the 51% pretty tight for time between now and March? Not to mention the 11%...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Ben Cole

Article in todays FT indicating the majority of Asset Managers are preparing for a hard Brexit. 

Interestingly it goes on to state that 89% of all AM's polled have a Brexit response plan, yet only 49% have already put those plans into action.

https://www.ft.com/content/66318f28-a229-11e8-85da-eeb7a9ce36e4

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Luuk Jacobs

I believe neither the EU nor the UK would, through Brexit, benefit from UK Asset Managers not being able to Manage at least existing European mandates. This would be a too big shock to the system and create an enormous risk to the performance of these mandates and clearly European investors would be hit hardest by it. Nevertheless the ESMA (EU regulator for the asset management industry) has clearly indicated that it is looking for better control and governance over these mandates (and specifically EU funds (Lux., Ireland). Ireland earlier this year and Luxembourg recently have started to incorporate this in their local legislation. This will initial mean a gradual move of risk and compliance responsibilities away from the UK into the EU with possibly over time fund managers.

For the EU it would be hard to defend that the UK is not equivalent directly after Brexit; the UK regulation is 100% aligned with the EU, whereas it would be hard to argue that the UK is not as equivalent as Mexico and Brazil or even the US. If the UK where to divert significantly away from the EU model after Brexit and over time than of course equivalence could be at risk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Jonathan Max

I’m sure there will be more fund managers launching products in the UK but….we are already seeing significant diversification strategies and companies broaden their reach. But @Ben Cole, I agree there isn't necessarily much of an incentive for the EU to make this easy for the UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Ben Cole

@Rory McMillan I very much doubt it, as you rightly point out there would be huge financial repercussions

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Rory McMillan

@Ben Cole do you think the EU would take such a harsh approach with the UK, given that it'd probably have financial repercussions for them as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Ben Cole

The biggest headache from a asset management perspective is in respect to passporting. i.e Asset managers across the EU rely on the passporting regime that enables them to sell services across the single market with ease. Once the UK leaves, it is not clear whether UK asset managers will find it as easy to access and service European investors.

 

For example, Italian pension schemes require their assets to be run by EU-based managers, and currently, firms in the EU can delegate the management of a fund to another jurisdiction i.e  London.  For the UK to continue to manage European mandates, it is vital that the EU grants ‘third-country equivalence’ after Brexit. Whilst the likes of some emerging markets such as Mexico and Brazil and included in the EU equivalence list, it’s not a given that the EU will include the UK, although that wouldn’t benefit anyone. – However for all we know the EU may wish to try and punish the UK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Rory McMillan

You'd have thought so...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-uk-leave-eu-latvia-jeremy-hunt-meeting-foreign-minister-a8492281.html

There's one of these scaremongering type articles almost every day about the potential for damages with a no-deal brexit... Can anyone who knows a bit more about it suggest what the main repercussions (both within AM and more generally) to a no-deal brexit would be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  
Luuk Jacobs

The CSSF says existing Luxembourg-based companies “wishing to receive additional licences or substantially changing operational models to cope with Brexit-related aspects” should speed up their Brexit planning and “submit their applications […] as soon as possible”.

I am surprised that there are still companies that need to be reminded of this. Independent if you believe that Brexit will happen and if it will be a hard or soft Brexit, I would have thought any company by now would have done their risk assessment and would have put its plans in place ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share this  

Become a member to read more and join the discussion

Members can read and contribute to discussions

Apply

Register now for free access.

Create your account

Sign in

Already a member? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Share this  
  • Related Content

    • Lydia Francis
      By Lydia Francis
      The following is a brief overview of the Treasury Select Committee meeting with the Financial Conduct Authority on 25th June 2019.
       

       
      Woodford Investment Management
      Unsurprisingly, the highly anticipated subject of Woodford Investment Management’s (WIM) shortcomings was the first topic for discussion at the meeting.
       
      The following observations are FSTP’s own view of the possible implications of Woodford Investment Management’s demise (we still don’t know what we don’t know and feel this subject has got some distance to run before all the facts are known).
       
      Key points:
      This failure of a retail fund will have serious and lasting impact on the operation of Asset Management in the UK.
      It throws into sharp relief the requirements falling out of the FCA’s Asset Management Market Study, in particular the need for independent Non-Executive Directors (NED) to challenge at Authorised Fund Manager (AFM) level and the production of qualitative value for money statements for all UK funds.
       
      From what we heard, we suspect there will be changes to the rules governing the liquidity of funds which retail investors are able to invest in. Andrew Bailey (FCA’s CEO) highlighted the Regulator’s view that European Union (EU) legislation has failed to manage retail funds. However, FSTP is concerned about an over reliance on principles based regulation (i.e. living within the ‘spirit of the rules’) in this area of Financial Services. Our clients operating in this arena are always looking for clarity and are generally welcoming of prescriptive rules in this area.
       
      Despite the introduction of formalised rules on product governance via MiFID II’s implementation in January 2018, distributor/manufacturer relationships and due diligence arrangements appear to be falling well short of regulatory expectations. We surmise that this is likely to result in a greater degree of regulatory intervention.
       
      The remuneration of individuals will attract the attention of the wider media and public as this situation develops. In this instance the Senior Managers and major beneficiaries of fees charged are one and the same. On the face of it there appears to be precious little individual accountability and a lack of challenge by others – the prevailing attitude seemingly being, “We pay ourselves what we think we are worth”. However, when that premise is built upon the investments of retail investors (bear in mind how much pension fund money will be tied up here) there has to be a day of reckoning. The message? If you are not providing retail investors with the service they have been led to expect, you cannot continue to reward yourselves so disproportionately. In short, Senior Managers must now be seen to be taking a more overt, moral stand on what is right and fair.
       
      Bailey was very strict to follow what he’s already told the media and the Committee’s Chair Nicky Morgan’s question, “Does anyone at the FCA read the papers and listen to what’s going on in the industry?” received a curt reply.
       
      The question, “Is it a failure of rules, or a failure of FCA supervision?” received a straight forward response of, “A failure of rules”, with Bailey’s reasoning being that whilst WIM has often had long periods of strong performance and long periods of poor performance, in this instance it is has not been able to save the situation, or the many reputations that have been tarnished as a result.
       
      The responsibilities of Link – the AFM for Woodford Funds – was centred on by Bailey who reiterated the regulatory contact that is now well publicised. The Committee observed that Link – previously owned by Capita – did not have a good record of managing Investment Managers on behalf of investors, given they were at the centre of the Arch Cru issues. (N.B. An article in the FT on 25 June alleges that the FCA pressured WIM into using the services of Link – as the largest provider of ACD services – in order for the necessary regulatory permissions to be granted).
       
      The relationship between WIM and Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) was raised by the Committee and it became obvious that once the immediate issue of fund liquidity is resolved, a review of the relationship between distributors and manufacturers will be instigated. (N.B at the Investment Association’s annual Policy Conference on Wednesday (26 June) Morgan remarked that the methodology behind Wealth 50’s composition raised questions as to whether customers are being treated fairly, after the TSC received a letter from HL confirming that its influential Wealth 50 list was not solely compiled on performance and that WIM’s inclusion on the list, despite under performance, was impacted by fee discounts offered to the platform).
       
      Justice for individuals
      A common theme throughout the discussion was ‘justice for individuals’. There is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the complexity of regulation and the consequent lack of clarity for consumers and practitioners alike, with the suggestion being made for the FCA to sort their impenetrable verbiage as most people don’t understand certain aspects such as T&Cs. This concept was understood by attendees from the FCA, who proceeded to mention that they do have enough resources to deal with all issues, and a review of systems and capabilities needs to be looked into.
       
      The FCA was forced to comment on its responsibilities under the Equality Act, bearing in mind TSC’s disappointment with the Regulator’s response to the report, ‘Consumers’ Access to Financial Services’, published by the Committee in May 2019. FCA’s Chairman, Charles Randell, stated that this is, “By no means us saying we don’t take our responsibility to consumer vulnerability very seriously”.
       
      Culture
      Culture was brought into question and Randell mentioned that the FCA’s focus is shifting to outcomes supported by principles. After some bad tempered exchanges Rushanara Ali, MP quipped, “Some would argue that you are not tough enough with bank bosses…are you too nice to bankers. Is it better to be feared, than liked or loved?” Bailey’s quick response of, “I don’t get up in the morning hoping people will love me”, will surely resonate for some time. He also added the FCA has 650 investigations currently underway, compared to the 250 when he took on the role.
       
      Brexit
      Of course, Brexit did rear its head and Bailey made frequent references throughout the discussion to the fact that regardless of the issues raised and the revisions suggested, Brexit will have a big impact on the FCA’s plans, such as the intended investment in data analytics. However there will be one area that can be assured of relatively no change post-Brexit, the Senior Managers & Certification Regime – it was made clear that the Regime will be implemented in its entirety.
       

       
      And finally....
       
      Overall, Randell (above left) and Bailey (above right) held their own against some intense questioning, but one wonders how much Bailey’s ambition to be the next Governor of the Bank of England tempered his responses.
       
      This was first published on the FTSP LLP blog.
    • AlgoMe
      By AlgoMe
      Opportunities for asset management in a rapidly changing world.
       
      Join us at The Investment Association’s Annual Policy Conference 2019, the IA’s flagship event and one of the most influential platforms for debate about the future of asset management in the UK. This year's conference will focus on how the industry can capitalise on growth opportunities and overcome the imminent challenges in a rapidly changing world.
       
      High level speakers will provide key insights on how the asset management community can utilise technology and innovation in order to deliver better outcomes for consumers; attract the best talent pool in a dynamic world of work and maintain the UK financial services industry’s global influence in a post-Brexit era.
       
      https://www.theia.org/events-training/event?eventtemplate=168-the-ia-annual-policy-conference-2019&event=357
       
    • Eva Keogan
      By Eva Keogan
      Direct quote from Investment Week: The number of firms in the UK reporting their Gender Pay Gap (GPG) figures by the deadline has fallen by more than a thousand, amid claims firms have restructured businesses or transferred staff to avoid being obliged to report, or have ditched reporting altogether under the perception they will not face repercussions.
       
      Is anyone working for a company which has done this? Is it time to name and shame as has been threatened before? Your thoughts are welcome.
       
      This is quite worrying to read and it's not just Investment Week which has reported on this but to down size companies so they are below the 250-person threshold for reporting is incredibly cynical. Has anyone found evidence of this? Also, using Brexit as a smokescreen is not going to wash next year.
       
       
      Gender pay gap reporting falls as asset managers unveil mixed results
      WWW.INVESTMENTWEEK.CO.UK More than 1,000 fewer firms reveal figures  
    • Rob Carter
      By Rob Carter
      Brexit, MiFID II, GDPR, Gender Pay Gap and Diversity are the themes we consider top of mind currently which is why we’ve created the Summer 2018 AlgoMe Industry Pulse Report.
       
      We wanted to get under the skin of some of these key events and burning issues for 2018. In doing so, we revealed some very interesting results and statistics.
       
      Given a choice of 7 cities, Dublin, Paris and Amsterdam are the top three choices for Asset Managers, Fintech and Financial Services employees to relocate to following Brexit. While 54% would not consider moving as a result of Brexit.
       
      When it comes to regulation; we are not surprised to find MiFID II and GDPR will affect over 60% of the roles in the industry.
      Positively, 59% believe Gender Pay Gap Reporting will improve the career progression of women.
       
      Please read the report for the full information and do get in touch if you would like to know more about your industry workforce.
       
      Rob Carter, CEO, AlgoMe
    • Pierre-Yves Rahari
      By Pierre-Yves Rahari
      https://www.ft.com/content/62097db4-65c1-11e9-9adc-98bf1d35a056
       
      The FCA outlined earlier this week, through the voice of CEO Andrew Bailey, the blueprint of the regulator's approach post-Brexit. In short - the way I read it - the FCA will aim to regulate towards outcomes in line with the European standards ("no race to the bottom") while operating with a hands' off approach ("principles and outcome based"). This is a very tight rope to walk ... Indeed, as I see it, the future UK regulation will need to be aligned with the European one, to ensure continuation of fluid collaboration and cooperation (the Europeans were quite clear on that matter during the Brexit talks), which the FCA is keen to deliver on. At the same time, the FCA seems to be responding to clamours of "too-much-regulation," which emerges regularly from some ranks of the Investment Management industry. I take the view that the FCA post-crisis approach - in line with most European regulators - has been to influence the resolution of issues that our industry is struggling to cope with on its own: Investor protection, transparency on costs, adequate governance models, conduct standards, diversity models and so on. This, to me, amounts to influencing a change of culture in our industry (which does not mean questioning the raison-d'être of the industry, i.e. increase the value of capital entrusted to us). Anyway, ten years of post-crisis regulation has brought some constructive changes to the industry, and some challenges, too, but I am not sure all has been achieved; it takes time to undertake a culture change as ambitious as the one we are tackling. As such, I find it risky that the FCA should lift their foot from the pedal so soon. In my opinion, the odds are high that the industry reverts to pre-crisis behaviours, if the regulator is already signalling that they will relax their grip on execution. I really want to hope that a change in approach will get to the ambitious outcomes that the industry needs, but we have been there before and failed to deliver. What would be different this time?
       
      Or am I seeing the glass half empty?
       
Debug info for admin:
appforums
moduleforums
controllertopic
topics/forum ID28
page ID
PHP user agentCCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)
×

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy with this. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.