Many leading offshore financial centres are located in small tropical Caribbean countries.

An offshore financial centre (OFC), though not precisely defined, is usually a small, low-tax jurisdiction specializing in providing corporate and commercial services to non-resident offshore companies, and for the investment of offshore funds. The term is a relatively modern neologism, first coined in the 1980s.^[1] Academics Rose & Spiegel,^[2] Société Générale,^[3] and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)^[4] consider offshore centres to include all economies with financial sectors disproportionate to their resident population:

An OFC is a country or jurisdiction that provides financial services to nonresidents on a scale that is incommensurate with the size and the financing of its domestic economy.

—Ahmed Zoromé, IMF Working Paper/07/87^[5]

Definition[link]

It has been remarked more than once that whether a financial centre is characterized as "offshore" is really a question of degree.^[6][7] Indeed, the IMF Working Paper cited above notes that its definition of an offshore centre would include the United Kingdom and the United States, which are ordinarily counted as "onshore" because of their large populations and inclusion in international organisations such as the G20 and OECD.^[8]

The more nebulous term “tax haven” is often applied to offshore centres, leading to confusion between the two concepts. In Tolley's International Initiatives Affecting Financial Havens^[9] the author in the Glossary of Terms defines an “offshore financial centre” in forthright terms as “a politically correct term for what used to be called a tax haven.” However, he then qualifies this by adding, “The use of this term makes the important point that a jurisdiction may provide specific facilities for offshore financial centres without being in any general sense a tax haven.” A 1981 report by the IRS concludes, “a country is a tax haven if it looks like one and if it is considered to be one by those who care.”^{[citation needed]}

With its connotations of financial secrecy and tax avoidance, “tax haven” is not always an appropriate term for offshore financial centres, many of which have no statutory banking secrecy,^[10] and most of which have adopted tax information exchange protocols to allow foreign countries to investigate suspected tax evasion.^{[11] [12]}

Views of offshore financial centres tend to be polarised. Proponents suggest that reputable offshore financial centres play a legitimate and integral role in international finance and trade, and that their zero-tax structure allows financial planning and risk management and makes possible some of the cross-border vehicles necessary for global trade, including financing for aircraft and shipping or reinsurance of medical facilities.^[13] Proponents point to the tacit support of offshore centres by the governments of the United States (which promotes offshore financial centres by the continuing use of the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC)) and United Kingdom (which actively promotes offshore finance in Caribbean dependent territories to help them diversify their economies and to facilitate the British Eurobond market).

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a U.S. government agency, when lending into countries with underdeveloped corporate law, often requires the borrower to form an offshore vehicle to facilitate the loan financing. One could argue that US external aid statutorily cannot even take place without the formation of offshore entities.^{[citation needed]}

Scrutiny[link]

Offshore finance has been the subject of increased attention since 2000 and even more so since the April 2009 G20 meeting, when heads of state resolved to “take action” against non-cooperative jurisdictions.^[14] Initiatives spearheaded by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and the International Monetary Fund have had a significant effect on the offshore finance industry.^[15] Most of the principal offshore centres considerably strengthened their internal regulations relating to money laundering and other key regulated activities. Indeed, Jersey is now rated as the most compliant jurisdiction internationally, complying with 44 of the "40+9" recommendations.^[16]

In 2007 The Economist published a survey of offshore financial centres; although the magazine had historically been very hostile towards OFCs, the report represented a shift towards a very much more benign view of the role of offshore finance, concluding:

Although international initiatives aimed at reducing financial crime are welcome, the broader concern over OFCs is overblown. Well-run jurisdictions of all sorts, whether nominally on- or offshore, are good for the global financial system.

—The Economist, "A survey of offshore finance: Places in the sun", 23 February 2007

The Channel Islands hold that funds generated offshore do indeed go through the Bank of England allowing the UK to benefit from the success of the crown dependencies as offshore centres.

Taxation[link]

Although most offshore financial centres originally rose to prominence by facilitating structures which helped to minimise exposure to tax, tax avoidance has played a decreasing role in the success of offshore financial centres in recent years. Most professional practitioners in offshore jurisdictions refer to themselves as "tax neutral" since, whatever tax burdens the proposed transaction or structure will have in its primary operating market, having the structure based in an offshore jurisdiction will not create any additional tax burdens.

A number of pressure groups suggest that offshore financial centres engage in "unfair tax competition" by having no, or very low tax burdens, and have argued that such jurisdictions should be forced to tax both economic activity and their own citizens at a higher level. Another criticism levelled against offshore financial centres is that whilst sophisticated jurisdictions usually have developed tax codes which prevent tax revenues leaking from the use of offshore jurisdictions, less developed nations, who can least afford to lose tax revenue, are unable to keep pace with the rapid development of the use of offshore financial structures.^[17][18]

Regulation[link]

Offshore centres benefit from a low burden of regulation. An extremely high proportion of hedge funds (which characteristically employ high risk investment strategies) who register offshore are presumed to be driven by lighter regulatory requirements rather than perceived tax benefits.^[19] Many capital markets bond issues are also structured through a special purpose vehicle incorporated in an offshore financial centre specifically to minimise the amount of regulatory red-tape associated with the issue.

Offshore centres have historically been seen as venues for laundering the proceeds of illicit activity.^[18] However, following a move towards transparency during the 2000s and the introduction of strict AML regulations, some^[15] now argue that offshore are in many cases better regulated than many onshore financial centres.^[20][21] For example, in most offshore jurisdictions, a person needs a licence to act as a trustee, whereas (for example) in the United Kingdom and the United States, there are no restrictions or regulations as to who may serve in a fiduciary capacity.^[22] The leading offshore financial centres are more compliant with the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering's '40+9' recommendations than many OECD countries.^[23]

Some commentators have expressed concern that the differing levels of sophistication between offshore financial centres will lead to regulatory arbitrage,^[24] and fuel a race to the bottom, although evidence from the market seems to indicate the investors prefer to utilise better regulated offshore jurisdictions rather than more poorly regulated ones.^[25] A study by Australian academic found that shell companies are more easily set up in many OECD member countries than in offshore jurisdictions.^[26] A report by Global Witness, Undue Diligence, found that kleptocrats used French banks rather than offshore accounts as destinations for plundered funds.^[27]

Confidentiality[link]

Critics of offshore jurisdictions point to excessive secrecy in those jurisdictions, particularly in relation to the beneficial ownership of offshore companies, and in relation to offshore bank accounts. However, banks in most jurisdictions will preserve the confidentiality of their customers, and all of the major offshore jurisdictions have appropriate procedures for law enforcement agencies to obtain information regarding suspicious bank accounts, as noted in FATF ratings.^[28] Most jurisdictions also have remedies which private citizens can avail themselves of, such as Anton Piller orders, if they can satisfy the court in that jurisdiction that a bank account has been used as part of a legal wrong.

Similarly, although most offshore jurisdictions only make a limited amount of information with respect to companies publicly available, this is also true of most states in the U.S.A., where it is uncommon for share registers or company accounts to be available for public inspection. In relation to trusts and unlimited liability partnerships, there are very few jurisdictions in the world that require these to be registered, let alone publicly file details of the people involved with those structures.

Statutory banking secrecy is a feature of several financial centres, notably Switzerland and Singapore.^[29] However, many offshore financial centres have no such statutory right. Jurisdictions including Aruba, the Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and the Netherlands Antilles have signed tax information exchange agreements based on the OECD model, which commits them to sharing financial information about foreign residents suspected of evading home-country tax.^[30]

Effects on international trade[link]

Offshore centres act as conduits for global trade and ease international capital flows. International joint ventures are often structured as companies in an offshore jurisdiction when neither party in the venture party wishes to form the company in the other party's home jurisdiction for fear of unwanted tax consequences. Although most offshore financial centres still charge little or no tax, the increasing sophistication of onshore tax codes has meant that there is often little tax benefit relative to the cost of moving a transaction structure offshore.^[31]

Recently, several studies have examined the impact of offshore financial centres on the world economy more broadly, finding the high degree of competition between banks in such jurisdictions to increase liquidity in nearby onshore markets. Proximity to small offshore centres has been found to reduce credit spreads and interest rates,^[32] while a paper by James Hines concluded, "by every measure credit is more freely available in countries which have close relationships with offshore centres."^[33]

Low-tax financial centres are becoming increasingly important as conduits for investment into emerging markets. For instance, 44% of foreign direct investment (FDI) into India came through Mauritius last year,^[34] while over two thirds of FDI into Brazil came through offshore centres.^[35] Blanco & Rogers find a positive correlation between proximity to an offshore centre and investment for least developed countries (LDCs); a $1 increase in FDI to an offshore centre translates to an average increase of $0.07 in FDI for nearby developing countries.^[36]

Offshore financial structures[link]

The bedrock of most offshore financial centre is the formation of offshore structures – typically:

• offshore company
• offshore partnership
• offshore trust
• private foundation^[37]

Offshore structures are formed for a variety of reasons.

Legitimate reasons include:

• Asset holding vehicles. Many corporate conglomerates employ a large number of holding companies, and often high-risk assets are parked in separate companies to prevent legal risk accruing to the main group (i.e. where the assets relate to asbestos, see the English case of Adams v Cape Industries). Similarly, it is quite common for fleets of ships to be separately owned by separate offshore companies to try to circumvent laws relating to group liability under certain environmental legislation.
• Asset protection. Wealthy individuals who live in politically unstable countries utilise offshore companies to hold family wealth to avoid potential expropriation or exchange control restrictions in the country in which they live. These structures work best when the wealth is foreign-earned, or has been expatriated over a significant period of time (aggregating annual exchange control allowances).^[38]
• Avoidance of forced heirship provisions. Many countries from France to Saudi Arabia (and the U.S. State of Louisiana) continue to employ forced heirship provisions in their succession law, limiting the testator's freedom to distribute assets upon death. By placing assets into an offshore company, and then having probate for the shares in the offshore determined by the laws of the offshore jurisdiction (usually in accordance with a specific will or codicil sworn for that purpose), the testator can sometimes avoid such strictures.
• Collective Investment Vehicles. Mutual funds, Hedge funds, Unit Trusts and SICAVs are formed offshore to facilitate international distribution. By being domiciled in a low tax jurisdiction investors only have to consider the tax implications of their own domicile or residency.
• Derivatives trading. Wealthy individuals often form offshore vehicles to engage in risky investments, such as derivatives trading, which are extremely difficult to engage in directly due to cumbersome financial markets regulation.
• Exchange control trading vehicles. In countries where there is either exchange control or is perceived to be increased political risk with the repatriation of funds, major exporters often form trading vehicles in offshore companies so that the sales from exports can be "parked" in the offshore vehicle until needed for further investment. Trading vehicles of this nature have been criticised in a number of shareholder lawsuits which allege that by manipulating the ownership of the trading vehicle, majority shareholders can illegally avoid paying minority shareholders their fair share of trading profits.
• Joint venture vehicles. Offshore jurisdictions are frequently used to set up joint venture companies, either as a compromise neutral jurisdiction (see for example, TNK-BP) and/or because the jurisdiction where the joint venture has its commercial centre has insufficiently sophisticated corporate and commercial laws.
• Stock market listing vehicles. Successful companies who are unable to obtain a stock market listing because of the underdevelopment of the corporate law in their home country often transfer shares into an offshore vehicle, and list the offshore vehicle. Offshore vehicles are listed on the NASDAQ, Alternative Investment Market, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the Singapore Stock Exchange. It is estimated that over 90% of the companies listed on Hong Kong's Hang Seng are incorporated in offshore jurisdictions. 35% of companies listed on AIM during 2006 were from OFCs.^[39]
• Trade finance vehicles. Large corporate groups often form offshore companies, sometimes under an orphan structure to enable them to obtain financing (either from bond issues or by way of a syndicated loan) and to treat the financing as "off-balance-sheet" under applicable accounting procedures. In relation to bond issues, offshore special purpose vehicles are often used in relation to asset-backed securities transactions (particularly securitisations).

Illegitimate purposes include:

• Creditor avoidance. Highly indebted persons may seek to escape the effect of bankruptcy by transferring cash and assets into an anonymous offshore company.^[40]
• Market manipulation. The Enron and Parmalat scandals demonstrated how companies could form offshore vehicles to manipulate financial results.
• Tax evasion. Although numbers are difficult to ascertain, it is widely believed that individuals in wealthy nations unlawfully evade tax through not declaring gains made by offshore vehicles that they own. Multinationals including GlaxoSmithKline and Sony have been accused of transferring profits from the higher-tax jurisdictions in which they are made to zero-tax offshore centres.^[41]

Ship and aircraft registrations[link]

Many offshore financial centres also provide registrations for ships (notably Bahamas and Panama) or aircraft (notably Aruba, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands).

Aircraft are frequently registered in offshore jurisdictions where they are leased or purchased by carriers in emerging markets but financed by banks in major onshore financial centres. The financing institution is reluctant to allow the aircraft to be registered in the carrier's home country (either because it does not have sufficient regulation governing civil aviation, or because it feels the courts in that country would not cooperate fully if it needed to enforce any security interest over the aircraft), and the carrier is reluctant to have the aircraft registered in the financier's jurisdiction (often the United States or the United Kingdom) either because of personal or political reasons, or because they fear spurious lawsuits and potential arrest of the aircraft. For example, in 2003, state carrier Pakistan International Airlines re-registered its entire fleet in the Cayman Islands as part of the financing of its purchase of eight new Boeing 777s; the U.S. bank refused to allow the aircraft to remain registered in Pakistan, and the airline refused to have the aircraft registered in the U.S.^{[citation needed]}

Insurance[link]

A number of offshore jurisdictions promote the incorporation of captive insurance companies within the jurisdiction to allow the sponsor to manage risk. In more sophisticated offshore insurance markets, onshore insurance companies can also establish an offshore subsidiary in the jurisdiction to reinsure certain risks underwritten by the onshore parent, and thereby reduce overall reserve and capital requirements. Onshore reinsurance companies may also incorporate an offshore subsidiary to reinsure catastrophic risks.

Bermuda's insurance and re-insurance market is now the third largest in the world.^[42] There are also signs the primary insurance market is becoming increasingly focused upon Bermuda; in September 2006 Hiscox PLC, the FTSE 250 insurance company announced that it planned to relocate to Bermuda citing tax and regulatory advantages.^[43]

Collective investment vehicles[link]

Many offshore jurisdictions specialise in the formation of collective investment schemes, or mutual funds. The market leader is the Cayman Islands, estimated to house about 75% of world’s hedge funds and nearly half the industry's estimated $1.1 trillion of assets under management^[44]), followed by Bermuda, although a market shift has meant that a number of hedge funds are now formed in the British Virgin Islands. As at year end 2005, there were 7,106 hedge funds registered in the Cayman Islands, 2,372 hedge funds in the British Virgin Islands and 1,182 in Bermuda.^[45] These figures do not include other collective investment vehicles. See also the recent survey by Deloitte in Hedgeweek.^[46]

But the greater appeal of offshore jurisdictions to form mutual funds is usually in the regulatory considerations. Offshore jurisdictions tend to impose few if any restrictions on what investment strategy the mutual funds may pursue and no limitations on the amount of leverage which mutual funds can employ in their investment strategy. Many offshore jurisdictions (Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Guernsey) allow promoters to incorporate segregated portfolio companies (or SPCs) for use as mutual funds; the unavailability of a similar corporate vehicle onshore has also helped fuel the growth of offshore incorporated funds^{[citation needed]}.

Banking[link]

Traditionally, a number of offshore jurisdictions offered banking licences to institutions with relatively little scrutiny. International initiatives have largely stopped this practice, and very few offshore financial centres will now issue licences to offshore banks that do not already hold a banking licence in a major onshore jurisdiction. The most recent reliable figures for offshore banks indicates that the Cayman Islands has 285^[47] licensed banks, the Bahamas ^[48] has 301. By contrast, the British Virgin Islands only has seven licensed offshore banks.

List of main offshore financial centres[link]

The list of jurisdictions considered by the IMF to be OFCs is published online.^[49] Many offshore financial centres are current or former British colonies or Crown Dependencies, and often refer to themselves simply as offshore jurisdictions. By some measures, there are more countries that are offshore financial centres than not but the following jurisdictions are considered the major destinations for offshore finance:

• Bermuda, which is market leader for captive insurance, and also has a strong presence in offshore funds and aircraft registration.
• British Virgin Islands, which has the largest number of offshore companies.^[50]
• Cayman Islands, which has the largest value of Assets under management in offshore funds, and is also the strongest presence in the U.S. securitisation market.
• Jersey is the most international of the British Crown dependencies, all of which can be counted as offshore centres. Jersey has particularly strong banking and funds management sectors and a high concentration of professional advisers including lawyers and fund managers.^[51]
• Luxembourg, which is the market leader in Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS, pronounced YOU-sits) and is believed to be the largest offshore Eurobond issuer, although no official statistics confirm this.
• New Zealand, the most remote jurisdiction, has the advantage of being a true primary jurisdiction but with a tough but practical regulatory regime. It is well positioned for the Asian market but retains close ties to Europe.
• Singapore has recently risen in stature as a centre for wealth management and ranked fourth in the world in the 2009 Global Financial Centres Index. The state is a hub for hedge funds and its private banking industry is growing at a rate of 30 per cent annually.^[52]

The following prominent offshore centres now specialise in certain niche markets:

• Bahamas, which has a considerable number of registered vessels. The Bahamas used to be the dominant force in the offshore financial world, but fell from favour in 1970s after independence.^[53]
• Panama, which is a significant international maritime centre. Although Panama (with Bermuda) was one of the earliest offshore corporate domiciles, Panama lost significance in the early 1990s.^[54] Panama is now second only to the British Virgin Islands in volumes of incorporations.^[55]

See also the list of Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories (FATF Blacklist)

Global Financial Centres Index[link]

Reputation and standards of regulation vary across the range of offshore centres. The 2010 Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) gathers data on all International Financial Centres and lists the following (all British sovereign territories), in order, as the world's five leading offshore finance centres:^[56]

1. Jersey
2. Guernsey
3. Isle of Man
4. Bermuda
5. Cayman Islands

In December 2009 a group of professional services firms and businesses with offices in the GFCI's leading offshore financial centres, established the International Financial Centres Forum (IFC Forum).^[57] According to its website, the IFC Forum aims to provide authoritative and balanced information about the role of the small international financial centres in the global economy.

Recent developments[link]

EU withholding tax[link]

The European Union has recently made a large number of offshore financial centres (Barbados and Bermuda being the notable exceptions) sign up to the European Union withholding tax and exchange of information directive. Under those regulations, brought into force by local law, banks in those jurisdictions which hold accounts for EU resident nationals must either deduct a 15% withholding tax (which is split between the offshore jurisdiction and the country of the account holder's residence), or permit full exchange of information with the country of the national's residence.

A number of larger jurisdictions, notably Hong Kong and Singapore refused to sign up to the directive. On implementation, the directive recouped far less money than anticipated,^[58] although it is disputed whether this is because the regulations lacked effectiveness, or because the predicted amount of funds in offshore bank accounts transpired to have been greatly exaggerated.^{[citation needed]} Similarly, the widely predicted capital flight to Hong Kong and Singapore appears not to have materialised.^{[citation needed]}

A ruling by the Special Commissioners in the United Kingdom in May 2006 permitted Revenue authorities to compel UK based banks to release information on offshore bank deposits where illegality is suspected, even where the customer had elected to pay a withholding tax rather than to exchange information.^[59]

OECD List[link]

In its 2000 report Towards Global Tax Competition,^[60] the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) identified 47 jurisdictions as tax havens based on the existence of preferential tax regimes for financial services and the absence of procedures for exchange of tax information. Between 2000 and April 2002, 31 jurisdictions made formal commitments to implement the OECD’s standards of transparency and exchange of information and were removed from the list of tax havens.

Andorra, Liechtenstein, Liberia, Monaco, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Vanuatu did not make commitments to transparency and exchange of information at that time and were identified in April 2002 by the OECD’s Committee on Fiscal Affairs as "uncooperative tax havens". All of these jurisdictions subsequently reversed this position and were no longer deemed tax havens.

After G20 leaders agreed to crack down on tax havens on during 2009 G20 London Summit in April 2009, the OECD published a list of countries that still needed to implement internationally agreed tax standards.^[61]

In May 2009, the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs decided to remove all three remaining jurisdictions – Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco – from the list of uncooperative tax havens in the light of their commitments to implement the OECD standards of transparency and effective exchange of information and the timetable they set for the implementation. As a result, no jurisdiction is currently listed as an uncooperative tax haven by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs.^[62]

See also[link]

• Tax haven
• International Financial Centre
• Tax exporting
• Corporate haven
• List of offshore financial centres
• Financial Secrecy Index

References[link]

External links[link]

• International Financial Centres Forum (IFC Forum)
• The Economist survey on offshore financial centres
• IMF's 2000 report on OFCs
• Lax Little Islands by David Cay Johnston, The Nation, May 13, 2009

The City of London, England is composed almost entirely of financial service companies.

A financial centre is a global city that is home to a large number of internationally significant banks, businesses, and stock exchanges.

An international financial centre is a non-specific term usually used to describe an important participant in international financial market trading. An international financial centre (sometimes abbreviated to IFC) will usually have at least one major stock market.

International Financial Centres Development Index[link]

The New York Stock Exchange, the world's largest stock exchange per total market capitalization of its listed companies.^[1]

In 2011, the Xinhua News Agency of China, partnering with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Dow Jones & Company of the United States, released the Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Centers Development Index. According to this index, the top ten financial centers in the world are:^[2]

1.	London
2.	New York City
3.	Tokyo
4.	Hong Kong
5.	Singapore
6.	Shanghai
7.	Paris
8.	Frankfurt
9.	Sydney
10.	Amsterdam

Global Financial Centres Index[link]

The London Stock Exchange

The Global Financial Centres Index is compiled by the London-based British think-tank Z/Yen and is published annually by the City of London Corporation.^[3] As of 2012, the top ten financial centres according to the Global Financial Centres Index in the world are:^[4]

1.	London
2.	New York City
3.	Hong Kong
4.	Singapore
5.	Tokyo
6.	Zurich
7.	Chicago
8.	Shanghai
9.	Seoul
10.	Toronto

Comparisons[link]

Wall Street, the center of American finance.

• Wall Street. During much of the 20th century, the United States and its financial capital of New York City were the leaders. But over the past few decades, with the rise of a multipolar world with new regional powers and global capitalism, numerous financial centres have challenged Wall Street's predominance, particularly from Asia which some analysts believe will be the focus of new worldwide growth.^[5] New York still has strengths in having a "concentration of finance professionals" -- prime brokers, large banks, traders, lawyers, accountants, and private bankers.^[6] One analyst suggested the prime factors for success as a financial city were three:

1. a pool of money to lend or invest
2. a decent legal framework
3. high-quality human resources^[7]

• London. Some reports have suggested that the City of London has overtaken New York as a world financial capital.^[8] London's merger volume was higher than New York's by $79 billion in 2005 and equity issuance was $130 billion versus $105 billion in the United States.^[9] Companies seeking to list their stocks have started going to London before New York.^[10] There is a perception that "regulatory scrutiny is more burdensome in the United States than in London"^[6][10], which has a "transparent and reliable legal system."^[11] One report suggested that London's location between Asia and the U.S. meant that it was particularly suitable when taking into account time zones.^[11] American organisations have often sent employees to work in London, and one 2008 estimate suggested that there were approximately 224,000 American workers in Britain.^[12]

Skyline of Shinjuku in Tokyo, Japan.

• Tokyo. One report suggests that Japanese authorities are working on plans to transform Tokyo but have met with mixed success, noting that "initial drafts suggest that Japan’s economic specialists are having trouble figuring out the secret of the Western financial centers’ success."^[13] Efforts include more English-speaking restaurants and services and earthquake-resistant offices, but that have neglected more powerful stimuli such as lower taxes and a deep-seated aversion to finance.^[13]

• Hong Kong. In 2010, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange raised nearly $53 billion for initial public offerings, compared with only $42 billion for the U.S. and $16 billion (£10 billion) in London.^[10][14] Hong Kong was the site of the world's largest I.P.O. in 2006 of the $19.1 billion Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.^[6] Hedge funds are doing well in Hong Kong with increased growth from 2006 to 2010.^[14] One estimate in 2009 was that the Hong Kong stock market was the world's seventh largest and noted that 70 percent of the world's 100 largest banks were based in the city.^[15]

• Singapore. This city was mentioned as a competitor given its proximity to Asian markets.^[11]

• Chicago. The Illinois city has the "world’s largest derivatives market" when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade merged in 2007.^[10]

• Shanghai. Official efforts have been directed to making Pudong a financial leader by 2010.^[16] Efforts during the 1990s were mixed, but in the early 21st century, Shanghai gained ground. Factors such as a "protective banking sector" and a "highly restricted capital market" have held the city back, according to one analysis in 2009 in China Daily.^[17] Shanghai has done well in terms of market capitalization but it needs to "attract an army of money managers, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, brokers and other professionals, Chinese and foreign," to enable it to compete with New York and London.^[18] China is generating tremendous new capital, which makes it easier to stage initial public offerings of state-owned companies in places like Shanghai.^[6]

• Toronto. The city is a leading market for Canada's largest financial institutions and large insurance companies. It has also become one of the fastest growing financial centres following the late-2000s recession and the stability of the Canadian banking system. Most of the financial industry is concentrated along Bay Street, where the Toronto Stock Exchange is also located.

• Others. Cities such as São Paulo and Johannesburg and other "would-be hubs" lack liquidity and the "skills base," according to one source.^[7] Financial industries in countries and regions such as the Indian subcontinent, Korea and Malaysia require not only well-trained people but the "whole institutional infrastructure of laws, regulations, contracts, trust and disclosure" which takes time to happen.^[7] *

New York Times analyst Daniel Gross wrote:

An example is the alternative trading platform known as BATS based in Kansas City which came "out of nowhere to gain a 9 percent share in the market for trading United States stocks."^[6] The firm has computers in New Jersey, two salespersons in New York City, but the remaining 33 employees work in a centre in Missouri.^[6]

Offshore financial centres[link]

A Bermudian banknote. Bermuda is a well known offshore financial centre.

An offshore financial centre, although not precisely defined, is usually a small, low-tax jurisdiction specialising in providing the corporate and commercial services to non-residents in the form of offshore companies and the investment of offshore funds.

The term offshore financial centre is a relatively modern neologism, first coined in the 1980s.^[19] Although the terms are not synonymous, many leading offshore finance centres are regarded as "tax havens", and the lack of precise definitions often leads to confusion between the concepts. In Tolley's International Initiatives Affecting Financial Havens^[20] the author in the Glossary of Terms defines an "offshore financial centre" in forthright terms as "a politically correct term for what used to be called a tax haven." However, he then qualifies this by adding "The use of this term makes the important point that a jurisdiction may provide specific facilities for offshore financial centres without being in any general sense a tax haven."

In 2009 the International Financial Centres Forum (IFC Forum) was established by a group of professional service firms and businesses with offices in the leading offshore centres.^[21] According to its website, the IFC Forum aims to provide authoritative and balanced information about the role of the small international financial centres in the global economy.

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Competitive Position of London as a Global Financial Centre
• International financial centres