Opinion

Brexit: When the banks leave

More than a tenth of the City’s business is now bound to go, but how much worse could things get?

By: Date: December 1, 2017 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

This opinion piece was also published in Prospect Magazine UK

“Just left Frankfurt. Great meetings, great weather, really enjoyed it. Good, because I’ll be spending a lot more time there. #Brexit.” Thus tweeted Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, on October 19. It was the first time a major US financial services firm had signalled a shift of its European operations away from London in this way: not as a decision conditional on future developments, but as an established fact of business life. It was the first, but presumably not the last.

Just left Frankfurt. Great meetings, great weather, really enjoyed it. Good, because I’ll be spending a lot more time there. #Brexit.

It is too late to hope that the City of London, by many measures the world’s leading financial centre and an economic engine for both the UK and Europe, could emerge unscathed from Brexit. The City, which generates tens of billions of pounds each year in tax revenues, will suffer relative both to its competitors and to how it would have performed without Brexit – and probably in absolute terms as well. Harm is now unavoidable. The UK is suffering from heightened risk, and the vagaries of its politics since the Brexit vote – including the unexpected outcome of this year’s election – have reinforced that perception. There is no status-quo scenario: even if the UK were somehow to remain in the European Union after all, that would be disruptive too.

By contrast, since June 2016, the perception of political risk has decreased sharply in the EU27, and the continent is also enjoying a robust economic recovery. The UK domino has fallen alone; no other member state wants to leave the EU. Emmanuel Macron’s presidential election victory in France has put an end to short-term worries about the integrity of the euro area. Other elections have yielded broadly reassuring results. Even the fiasco of former Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi’s lost referendum on constitutional reform last December has not been disastrous. None of the numerous political challenges of the moment, including in Catalonia, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Poland and elsewhere, are widely perceived as threatening for EU integration or the euro. The EU27 remains exposed to external hazards – geopolitics, the oil price, a surge of refugees – but its major risks are no longer home-grown.

More than that, the EU’s ability to weather the pressures of the euro crisis, the 2015 migration crisis, and the Brexit vote has left it stronger. As political philosopher Ivan Krastev notes in his 2017 book After Europe: “It’s quite possible that European publics will become more confident about the EU not because it’s become better but simply because it has survived.” Resilience confers legitimacy. In the euro area, the unfinished banking union adds to the sense of cohesiveness. Supervision by the European Central Bank was a reason cited by Nordea, the largest bank in the Nordic countries, when it announced in September that it would move its headquarters from Stockholm (outside the euro area) to Helsinki.

The balance of political risk has shifted. Moving business from the UK to the EU27 no longer implies an increase in uncertainty. When Liam Fox, the UK’s international trade secretary, responded to Blankfein’s tweet by asserting that “money will go where money can be made, money can be moved, and money can be removed—that is a function of law and that is why London will remain pre-eminent,” it sounded debatable rather than self-evident. Given the likelihood that the UK will leave the single market, the default plan for most international financial firms will be to serve EU27 clients from an EU27 location. The implications vary among firms, but an estimated 15-25% of the City’s business is tied to EU27 clients in a way that makes it likely to cross the Channel (or the Irish Sea).

Any countervailing effects, where Brexit helps the City to win business, will be considerably smaller. The bonfire of EU financial regulations will be smouldering at best – it is not clear which rules the UK will want to repeal in this area. Liberalising bankers’ bonuses could make sense, but would not go down well with the British public. It is equally doubtful that London could substitute new financial business for lost European trades. In past decades, the City has successfully wooed clients from Asia, Russia, the Middle East, the Americas and elsewhere. How could Brexit win more of that already high market share? Not through lower prices, which are not a driver of clients’ choices. Not through enhanced British soft power or international connectivity either, which have already been impaired since the referendum, and could deteriorate much further.

Some UK firms may stay, out of patriotism – but many home-grown firms and nearly all foreign-held ones will not be sentimental. If moving jobs and client relationships to the EU27 is what business logic suggests, it will happen. The US firms at the core of the City’s activity are also the most ruthlessly business-driven. Their employees’ fondness for London will count for little if clients are best served from Frankfurt, Dublin or Amsterdam. Blankfein made no mystery of the order of Goldman Sachs’s priorities.

The City’s Brexit-inflicted damage over the next decade or so will amount to a significant slice, certainly more than a 10% drop in business. But how much worse could it get? That will depend on three interrelated factors: the UK’s openness to foreigners, the actual sequence and outcome of Brexit, and the competition from outside.

First is whether the UK will embrace the world or retreat from it – Global Britain or Little England? The City is critically dependent on foreign talent. It will be asphyxiated if the UK closes itself off. But there is also little doubt that a desire to reduce inward migration played a major role in the Brexit vote. As for trade and the economy, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated the obvious when he noted in a September speech at the International Monetary Fund that Brexit “will be, at least for a period of time, an example of de-globalisation not globalisation.”

Can the UK pivot from there to greater openness? Or is it condemned, as John le Carré put it, to become “England all alone, a citizen of nowhere”? Even in the very short term, can the freedom of movement inherent in the EU internal market be maintained during the post-Brexit transition period – if there is one – or would such a proposition trigger a major political crisis? At Mansion House on June 20, Philip Hammond, the UK Chancellor, bravely talked of Britain pushing “for a new phase of globalisation,” a Globalisation 2.0 that would be based on trade in services and not only goods. How Brexit could possibly catalyse this transformation is uncertain.

Second, the City’s future will depend on whether the UK crashes out of the EU without any agreement, leaves the single market in an orderly way, or doesn’t leave it at all. This in turn will be largely determined by Britain’s attitude to the outside world. A “no-deal” exit would be akin to a selective default, and immensely detrimental to the UK’s reputation as a safe place for doing business. Should that happen, the City will remain the hub for domestic finance in the UK, but most of its international activity will leave and not return.

If the exit from the single market happens smoothly and yields a relationship with the EU based on a new treaty – the stated aim of UK-EU negotiations – the framework for financial services is likely to be comparable to the current EU-US arrangements: a web of supervisory relationships, including mutual recognition of rules, but on a case-by-case basis. This implies the permanent loss of most of the City’s EU27-related business. Achieving a tighter, treaty-based relationship would entail improbably squaring a circle that trade negotiators have struggled with for decades. Financial regulation is largely driven by concerns about stability and systemic risk, which cannot be entrusted to a foreign jurisdiction, no matter how close and well-intentioned.

The most favourable Brexit scenarios for the City are those in which the UK never leaves the single market. These come in three varieties. The UK could remain in the EU, following a dramatic political shift. Time is now short for this, and it would probably be highly divisive. Even if there were a second referendum with a majority vote for “Remain,” Brexit would become the thwarted aspiration of a significant share of politicians and the public, which would bring yet more uncertainty. Alternatively, the UK could leave the EU and remain indefinitely outside it while still in the single market. A new government could decide, during a post-2019 transition period, with temporary single market membership, to make that status permanent, as it is with Iceland or Norway. Here too, uncertainty about a future change of status would persist, as it is unlikely that the UK would be satisfied with becoming a permanent subject of rules made in its absence in Brussels. Finally, the UK could leave the EU (though not the single market), and then re-enter it. In that case, the City may hope to recover some of the EU27-related business it would have lost in the intervening years. How much will depend on the political and economic conditions of the moment, which are evidently difficult to assess given that scenario’s current remoteness.

Third and finally, the City’s success could depend on its rivals. New York’s international activity may prosper from Trumpian deregulation, or shrink if there is another systemic crisis. Asia’s financial centres may cut their current dependency on the West, or fail to realise their full potential because of the region’s unresolved geopolitical and governance challenges. Closer to home, the EU27 may become a fierce competitor thanks to its ongoing supervisory integration and the critical mass of its internal market, or fall to its old demons of fragmentation and mercantilism.

To speak the language of financiers, Brexit has no net upside for the City, only net downsides. For the UK economy more broadly, things are more nuanced. Some re-balancing can be expected. As Charles Goodhart of the London School of Economics has noted, advanced manufacturing is unlikely to benefit, given its dependency on complex supply chains. Brexit, by erecting barriers, will negatively impact the UK’s position in those chains. But other services sectors could benefit from the spare capacity freed up by the City’s losses, in terms of available workforce and real estate, and from a devalued currency. If so, then London could grow ever-more dominant in the UK economy, even as it becomes less central to the European and global financial system. Given the political drivers of Brexit, and the geographical patterns of voting in the referendum, this would be somewhat ironic.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Brexit, phase two (and beyond): The future of the EU-UK relationship

Whether it looks more like ‘CETA-plus’ or ‘EEA-minus’, the trade deal that emerges from phase two of the Brexit negotiations should not be the limit of ambition for future partnership between the EU and the UK

By: Maria Demertzis and André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 13, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The challenge of fostering financial inclusion of refugees

Creation of a European identification for refugees and a pan-European registry would encourage better financial inclusion, along with clear guidelines about financial regulation and public-private partnerships

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 13, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Support for intra-EU mobility of people is on the rise

Europeans’ enthusiasm for immigration from other EU countries is steadily increasing –two-thirds of the EU population, on average, now support it.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 12, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The impact of Brexit for Research & Innovation in Europe

This event featured a new and interactive format, with a restricted and high-level on-site audience and in parallel, it has been livestreamed on our website to remain public and attract the widest participation.

Speakers: Alastair Buchan, Matt Dann, David Earnshaw, Kurt Deketelaere, Maryline Fiaschi, Martin Muller, Christian Naczinsky and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 12, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How the EU has become an immigration area

Natural change of EU28 population (the balance of live births and deaths) has fallen from high positive values in the 1960s to essentially zero recently, while the previous close-to-zero net immigration has turned positive and, since the early 1990s, become a more important source of population growth than natural increase

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 6, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The European Union with the Community of Latin America and the Caribbean: where do we stand?

Latin American and Caribbean countries have deep historical, political, cultural, and economic ties with Europe, and cooperation between the two regions has been intensifying recently. Here we report some of the main trends in trade, foreign direct investment, and agreements between the European Union and The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the European Union’s official counterpart in the bi-regional strategic partnership that commenced in 1999.

By: Francesco Chiacchio Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 5, 2017
Read article More by this author

Opinion

EU should pay member states to get rid of coal

The European Union should act to ensure the continued transformation of its energy system, and encourage member states to overcome their dependence on coal for supplying electricity. Helping coal-mining regions with the transition should require €150 million per year – a mere 0.1% of the total EU budget – and the EU would not even need to establish a new fund to support it.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 5, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The European Commission should drop its ill-designed idea of a finance minister

Beyond the opposing ideas of Jean-Claude Juncker and Wolfgang Schäuble for future euro-area governance, Guntram Wolff explores how alternatives such as a reformed Eurogroup might yield more effective fiscal policy-making.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 4, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The Bitcoin Bubble

The price of bitcoin has just passed $11,000. A year ago it was worth less than $800. Economists and commentators are thus increasingly concerned that this may be a bubble waiting to burst. We review recent opinions on the topic.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 4, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Flexicurity and labour market reforms in Europe

This event will discuss the potential of the flexicurity model as employment strategy and the way it could be implemented in European countries to be successful.

Speakers: Grégory Claeys, Philip Collins, Werner Eichhorst, Antoine Foucher, Maria Jepsen and Marco Leonardi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 4, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Why US investors earn more on their foreign assets than Germans

The United States benefits from large yields on its foreign assets relative to foreign liabilities, while in most continental European countries foreign assets and liabilities yield almost the same. Risk factors can explain only a small part of this difference; tax, intellectual property and financial sophistication issues might contribute to the high yields on US foreign assets.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 1, 2017
Read article Download PDF

Working Paper

Returns on foreign assets and liabilities: exorbitant privileges and stabilising adjustments

Large stock of foreign assets and liabilities could foster international risk diversification. US, British and Japanese investors earn high yields on FDI assets, which might also relate to tax, intellectual property and financial sophistication issues. Valuation changes on net foreign assets had a stabilising impact.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Pia Hüttl Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 29, 2017
Load more posts