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.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS