Some interesting statistics in respect to the plans of 55 investment management firms (45% with a HQ in the UK, 34% with a HQ in the EU and 21% with a HQ in the US)
83% of firms have a theoretical plan to respond to Brexit; but only 49% of firms have put their plan into action. 31% have plans under review, with 17% still unsure what do to, waiting to pull the trigger once the political situation becomes clearer.
59% are already working towards a hard Brexit rather than wait for potential political solutions which have no guarantee of emerging. Of these, 55% believe Brexit will be softer than currently anticipated but given the political uncertainties firms are left with no other choice but to implement hard Brexit plans.
54% of UK firms and half of US firms are aware of the challenges and pressing ahead with Brexit implementation plans; whereas just 40% of EEA firms have plans in place.
87% are planning to keep trading desks where they are. However, this may be temporary with only half anticipating that change may be required depending on the outcome of delegation. A third are keeping a watchful eye on the potential fragmentation of liquidity; but just 17% are ready to move today should the need arise.
70% believe the greatest impact will be on legal, with 52% expecting this to impact their clients significantly.
63% believe there will be no additional costs incurred in execution as a result of Brexit— despite a third anticipating a split in liquidity formation.
50% are reviewing their settlements options. Only a third feel comfortable that no change is required.
Three quarters expect the UK to retain financial services post Brexit due to a mix of liquidity access, staffing talent and ease of access.
Frankfurt is anticipated to emerge as the European beneficiary of Brexit—but this is also dependent on the business type, with Dublin and Luxembourg emerging as winners for asset management services, and Amsterdam as the main location for trading venues.
Regardless of Brexit, firms expect MiFID II regulatory change to continue, with 42% believing that the outcome will negatively impact both sides of the channel.
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
More than 1,000 fewer firms reveal figures
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.
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?
With all the tension and political noise....bit of Brexit humour to lighten the mood :-)
France's Europe minister Nathalie Loiseau has called her cat Brexit
France’s Europe minister Nathalie Loiseau has told how she calls her cat Brexit as he is “unsure whether he wants to go out or not” when the door is open. “He wakes me up miaowing like mad because he