The financial capitals of the world have lost their luster. The bright lights of New York City seem to have dimmed. London has far too many issues to contend with, from inflation, messy politics and homes not built for the heat to a dysfunctional international airport. Hong Kong is a dark shadow of what it once was — a former British colony filled with tycoons and billionaires whose fast, wheeling-dealing free spirit has faded.
Other close contenders such as Tokyo, Singapore and Shanghai do not hold the same allure as they once did. So what’s left?
Financial centers have typically been places with well-formed regulatory oversight and deep capital markets. Naturally, an ecosystem of workers is created around this, drawing in professionals such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and headhunters.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Factors such as tax rates and the ability to draw capital — equity and debt — that facilitate business and bolster a city’s competitiveness help, too. There are various ways to measure that — the size and depth of capital markets, along with detailed, weighted indices that take into account everything from tax rates to office occupancy and legal jurisdiction.
These measures, though, ignore an underappreciated but increasingly relevant factor in the post-COVID-19 era: human capital. We can no longer measure workers based on one-dimensional factors such as education level or income bracket. Where do people want to live? Where can professionals do their jobs smoothly and, therefore, successfully? That has changed since COVID-19 turned our world upside down.
The latest rankings of the Global Financial Centers Index, or GFCI, based on 150 quantitative measures and almost 75,000 assessments of cities, as well as about 12,000 survey respondents, put New York, London, Hong Kong and Shanghai at the top of the list. Notably, human capital was the most-mentioned area of competitiveness when respondents were asked what issue they considered the most important.
Contrary to popular understanding, financial-sector development was the lowest on that list because remote working and the ease of digital services through the pandemic have shown that there is a different way to do business. The caveat, however, is the need for “a reliable and trustworthy ecosystem.”
It is time to redefine global financial centers based on more subjective criteria, but where do you even begin? Cost and quality of living, for instance, help set a baseline to assess the cities that help attract — or put off — talent. Hong Kong remains the most expensive city, with its sky-high rents and COVID-19 measures that have made the cost of logistics, and life in general, exorbitant. Even the price of beer has shot up there. It ranks 71 on consultancy firm Mercer LLC’s quality of living index, while places such as Vienna and Zurich top the list. London is 41, while the world’s foremost global financial center, New York, comes in at 44.
Then there is connectivity. Travel to and from any of the top three financial centers is currently a shambles during what executives have described as the busiest season ever. Hong Kong barely has any flights out — and let us not even talk about its quarantine system — while London cannot handle passengers, and New York remains hectic and full of delays.
It is not hard to see why, then, people in the US and elsewhere are leaving their jobs for greener pastures.
The Great Resignation has been as much about people doing what they want — and not being tied to work — as the other economic factors that have allowed it.
People choose to live in big cities because being employed in the finance world, or the ecosystem around it, is lucrative. Yet it is also expensive to live in and around these areas.
Consider what is happening with tech jobs — the first sector to go remote. US white-collar salaries are converging across the country, regardless of whether they are in a major hub or away from headquarters. Wages in Washington are reaching those in the Bay Area.
To retain talent and lure the best and brightest, businesses need to shift tactics. As BlackRock Inc’s office opening in West Palm Beach, Florida, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc’s new location in Birmingham, UK, show, it is not all that difficult. Spreading talent out across places that offer better living standards, easy travel and flexible work hours to match time zones and trading hours could go a long way to resolve labor problems and, ultimately, the cost of human capital.
This is not to say companies should let workers head off to remote islands with spotty wi-fi and poor infrastructure. Instead, it is about acknowledging that places traditionally thought of as white-collar finance workers’ hubs are not that anymore.
Globally, there are few places where the world’s financiers want to live. One fast emerging hub for instance, is Dubai. (Full disclosure: I have lived in New York, London and Hong Kong, and am a recent Dubai transplant.)
It is not just the influx of expats fleeing other less-friendly regimes such as Singapore and Hong Kong. Capital is flooding in too. The emirate has put in place measures to attract talent through visa programs, housing and other incentives for asset managers to set up shop. Schools are plenty and increasingly well-established. Its neighbor, Abu Dhabi, has made similar efforts.
There are, no doubt, shortcomings, such as Dubai’s move to protect its telecom operator at the expense of consumers (you cannot use applications such as WhatsApp or FaceTime to make voice or video calls, for example).
However, history shows that financial centers can evolve quickly, breaking with their traditional molds. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, hubs vying for importance such as Dubai, Shanghai and Sao Paulo emerged, although some have not quite lived up to their promise.
One of the most significant changes was the evolution of financial technology, or fintech, which raised questions over whether it would eventually make financial hubs unnecessary for the global economy to function.
Such changes — and the ability for employees and employers to live with them and make it work — show that it is time for a reassessment.
Anjani Trivedi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Asia. Previously, she was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) took the stage at a protest rally on Sunday in front of the Presidential Office Building in Taipei in support of former TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has been sentenced to 17 years in jail for corruption and embezzlement. Huang told the crowd that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) had sent a message of support the previous day, saying she would be traveling from the south to Taipei: If the protest continued into the evening, she had said, she would show up. The rally was due to end
RSS