The twice-yearly league table of 77 financial centres is compiled from a number of data sources, including responses by bankers and other financial services executives to an online survey, by Z/Yen, a London-based think-tank. It was originally launched in 2007, when it was funded by the City of London, but the last few surveys have been sponsored by Qatar, which is now in 35th place, not significantly above its 36th place position in the last GFCI ranking before it took over sponsorship.
As in the March ranking, London, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore took the first four places, but in fifth place this time is Zurich, up one, while Seoul climbed three rungs to reach sixth place. (See table, below.)
In a summary, the authors of the study note that the trend “of large rises in the ratings of Asia/Pacific centres appears to have stalled”, as a number of these centres declined in the latest ratings as well, in some cases, in their rank.
In particular, they went on, “centres on the mainland of China have seen significant declines, with Shanghai the largest faller in the index” in terms of ratings.
Meanwhile, “the offshore centres, having suffered significant reputational damage in the past four years, regained ground in GFCI 10 and GFCI 11. GFCI 12 shows a mixed picture, with no significant moves (apart from the Bahamas, which gained 22 points)”, while “Jersey and Guernsey remain the leading offshore centres”.
In the ranking, Jersey moves up one rung to 20th place, Guernsey up three to 28th place, and the Isle of Man four places to 40th. Malta climbed three places to 69th.
Kuala Lumpur also made significant gains, with a move up to 26th place from 35th, thus leapfrogging Guernsey, among others.
Dubai moved up to 22nd place from 29th, while rival Abu Dhabi rose 10 places to 38th.
One of the biggest decliners was Beijing, down 17 places to 43rd, just above the Cayman Islands, which itself fell four places. Caymanians will console themselves, though, that Dublin, their rival in funds management, also slid, by three places, and remains five rungs lower, in 49th place.
In a statement, Mark Yeandle, associate director of the Z/Yen Group and the leading author of the GFCI, pointed out that the data had been collected before the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal broke.
In spite of this, he said, the results indicate that “finance professionals based in London have less confidence in London’s future competitiveness than European and Asian professionals have in their home centres”.
To see the full 50-page report, click here.
|
Global Financial Centre Index 12
|
|||
|
Financial Centre
|
GIFC12
|
GIFC11
|
Change
|
|
London
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
|
New York
|
2
|
2
|
–
|
|
Hong Kong
|
3
|
3
|
–
|
|
Singapore
|
4
|
4
|
–
|
|
Zurich
|
5
|
6
|
1
|
|
Seoul
|
6
|
9
|
3
|
|
Tokyo
|
7
|
5
|
2
|
|
Chicago
|
8
|
7
|
1
|
|
Geneva
|
9
|
14
|
5
|
|
Toronto
|
10
|
10
|
–
|
|
Boston
|
11
|
11
|
–
|
|
San Francisco
|
12
|
12
|
–
|
|
Frankfurt
|
13
|
13
|
–
|
|
Washington D.C.
|
14
|
15
|
1
|
|
Sydney
|
15
|
16
|
1
|
|
Vancouver
|
16
|
17
|
1
|
|
Montreal
|
17
|
18
|
1
|
|
Melbourne
|
18
|
20
|
2
|
|
Shanghai
|
19
|
8
|
11
|
|
Jersey
|
20
|
21
|
1
|
