# The financial centre of the world??



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> It's true that I'm a huge fan of London, and I'll passionately defend this city - but at the same time, I feel it's my duty to be fair and reasonable, and give as balanced an argument as I can (unlike most of the other UK forumers, who tend to be overly negative and hostile towards their opponents...).


I'm not one of them. I don't ever put another city down on purpose, only if I'm being a **** because I've had a bad day. Just needed to say that


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Effer does!


Whatever!


----------



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

NYC, London, Tokyo in that order


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> Effer does!
> 
> 
> Well, thanks.
> ...


I also am a fan of London. It's my second home, and I lived there for two years. Anyway, you are a good guy.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> I also am a fan of London. It's my second home, and I lived there for two years. Anyway, you are a good guy.


WJ is cool, in my top 10 formers


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> London and New York
> Consider, also, the position of the City of London, outside the euro, from another angle. There is no place in the new world economy for a sterling bloc - those advocating that Britain joins NAFTA, whatever the illogicality of their position from the point of view of the fact that 58 per cent of Britain's trade is with the eurozone, at least understand there is no place for an isolated UK economy in the world.
> 
> Outside the euro zone London will, in reality, be competing with New York within a single dollar bloc. There is no doubting the outcome of such a struggle. The winner will not be London.
> ...


If there was no place for the £, it wouldn't be around full-stop.

When you talk about the €-zone, finance and London is exactly what the City of London feared if London didn't adopt the €. They thought Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris would all capitalise and drain London dry. Ironically though this never happened. Looking at the percentage dominance of various markets, it became apparent that the reverse happened - London capitalised on the €-zone. It began absorbing people, talent, money, banks and other financial institutions from the likes of Paris and Frankfurt instead of diffusing them like had been predicted. It began to consolidate its continuingly competitive and raw dominance over Europe and the world. London isn't isolated from the EU, its become the premier European financial centre, just like New York is for the US and Tokyo is for Japan. These days, more €'s aren't traded through Frankfurt, they are traded through London, just like most other currencies go through London - the dominant currency market on the planet (larger than that of the entire US and Japan).

Also finance is a vast sector. People have commented on the stock markets which are what the normal joe bloggs would know about finance, but its far more than that - vast amounts of people are employed by the investment banks, consulting agencies and accountants like MikeHunt has mentioned, but again its a far larger and more immense system. Law, insurance, ICT, OTC derivatives, bullion, etc....

Another view is to look at how much money is being made per individual across various segments - the higher paid people would normally be located in areas where they are at the most demand. London so happens to now have higher salaries for most areas of finance (hence the mass attraction in recent years of various Americans to London). Another way is to look at how many are employed in the sector. An article not so long ago pointed out now that far more people are employed in finance in London than in New York. On top of that, London is now attacting large volumes of capital than any other city into more markets that it dominates. The end result is more people and organisations want to be closer to this money and that is why there are more international banks located in London than in New York. London is also attracting more immigrants than London, a sizable quantity being financial professionals from the developing world who recognise that London has eclipsed New York since the Big Bang, growing complications caused by Sarbanes-Oxley and the environment that London offers to various people that New York can not offer (hence also why wealthy Indians, Russians, Arabs, etc choose London as their primary away residence over New York). Now clearly New York isn't somehow relegated to some non-existant of a quagmire and dirt path, only that since the 1980/90's its been overtaken - just like New York did to London in the 1930's.






pottebaum said:


> Whether justified or not, New York is more heavily regarded as being the "financial capital of the world" by the mainstream media. One major reason? Stock exchanges; they aren't the end all and be all of finance, but they're the part people pay most attention to. The listed companies employ millions of people, plus the obvious attention payed to share prices.


Normal people pay attention to the stock markets because they are likely to have shares or be employed by these companies. That said, the stock markets are small fry and the larger markets pretty much go un-noticed - hence just because they are not visible, it doesn't mean that the hundreds of thousands that work in the other fields (which tend to be larger than the stock markets) are non-existant or that their work isn't important to the global economy - they are, and some could be considered more important than stock markets simply because its not only companies that are active, but entire governments with hundreds of millions if not billions of citizens. Media attention is a poor gauge as to to the extent, breadth and scale of the entire financial system.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

[edit there] k


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Personally I'd consider governments of developed and developing nations to be _'huge'_.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Yep.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

[edit] k


----------



## Der wahre Heino (Sep 13, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> Hedge funds alone are greater than Frankfurt's entire economy.


Can you back that up with some sources, please?


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Insurance?
> 
> *World's 50 Largest Insurance companies*
> 
> ...


so... what does it prove?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

siopao said:


> so... what does it prove?


Take it as you want.  Somebody mentioned insurance, so I thought I'd show some of the facts.


----------



## crazyjoeda (Sep 10, 2004)

For finance NYC comes to mind first.


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Take it as you want.  Somebody mentioned insurance, so I thought I'd show some of the facts.


facts that US beats UK in insurance? sorry, i still dont know what you're getting at... Im a little bit slow


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I just added the national statistic because it directly reflects each city; since they're both so global and important to their countries.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Both London and NYC!


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Enter the phrase "world's largest insurance market" into Google and you'll see that London (and Lloyds in particular) gets by far the most amount of results.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

And before anyone starts mentioning China or the USA, can I remind you that we are talking about individual cities here (i.e. London vs New York).


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Enter the phrase "world's largest insurance market" into Google and you'll see that London (and Lloyds in particular) gets by far the most amount of results.


I also see Tokyo and Japan.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

But again, Tokyo is very limited to the Asian (regional) market, less worldwide than London or NYC!


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

NYC and London have the same percentage of financial jobs of all jobs.Considering NYC has larger population,NYC's got larger financial sector.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

London has more international banks,but as a whole,I think NYC has larger banking industry because there are much more big banks located in NYC than in London.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Foreign currency market is a very low classy activity.It's less important than capital market.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

tiger said:


> but as a whole,I think NYC has larger banking industry because there are much more big banks located in NYC than in London.


London 4
New York 2


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I love New York but the respect on this issue goes to London. They've been the financial center of the world for at least 400 years if I'm right.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> London 4
> New York 2


Most HSBC's activities are traded in HK,arent' they?

The trade HQ of Bank of America is in NYC.

It's 3:3 

and there are far more investment banks and diversified financial groups in NY according to figures offered by potttebaum before.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

I doubt RBS is a London-based bank.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

HSBC is a British company and their global headquarters is based in Canary Wharf, London.











Bank of America is in Charlotte.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

tiger said:


> I doubt RBS is a London-based bank.


RBS are based in the City of London, at 280 Bishopsgate:


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

RBS is headquarted in...Scotland--they have their trading headquarters in London.

Next on the agenda....


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

HalifaxandBankofScotland(HBOS)'s HQ is located in Edinburgh!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

wjfox said:


> Bank of America is in Charlotte.


Yes, that's where they are headquartered--but their global corporate and investment banking, wealth and investment management, consumer and commercial banking businesses, and securities tradings headquarters are all in, or are being relocated to, New York City.

BoA is the world's 2nd largest bank.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Also,the ranking of Forbes 2000 is not based on total assets or on sales of companies.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Since Forbes data has been thrown into the debate; guess where it is headquartered! New York.


----------



## Der wahre Heino (Sep 13, 2004)

Der wahre Heino said:


> "Originally Posted by wjfox2002
> _Hedge funds alone are greater than Frankfurt's entire economy_."
> 
> Can you back that up with some sources, please?


I have seen you busy in this thread since i asked you. Now, can you please provide some sources, or at least tell me where you got that from? Im really interested.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Certainly in terms of the total volumes traded on the markets London is the world's leading financial centre - that's because currency (FX) markets, in which London dominates, are far larger and more liquid than stock markets in which New York is dominant:

http://fxtrade.oanda.com/currency_trading/intro_currency_exchange.shtml

_"The major dealing centers today are: London, with about 30% of the market, New York, with 20%, Tokyo, with 12%, Zurich, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Singapore, with about 7% each, followed by Paris and Sydney with 3% each.

In terms of trading volume, the currency exchange market is the worlds largest market, with daily trading volumes in excess of $1.5 trillion US dollars. This is orders of magnitude larger than the bond or stock market. For example, the New York Stock Exchange has a daily trading volume of approximately $60 billion. Thus, the currency exchange market is by far the most liquid market in the world today. Because of the volume in trading, it is impossible for individuals or companies to affect the exchange rates. In fact, even central banks and governments find it increasingly difficult to affect the exchange rates of the most liquid currencies."_

London's 30% of the global FX market represents a daily turnover of $450 billion - totally dwarfing the NYSE's $60 million daily turnover.

I believe London's financial sector also employs more and pays more than New York's. Certainly the world's largest global law firms have a greater precense in London than any other city. Bloomberg, a New York based financial news company, agrees that London is pulling decisively ahead:


*London on a roll as global financial hub*

April 8, 2004

Print this article
Email to a friend

Some London bankers are now earning more than their New York counterparts, writes Matthew Lynn.

Before the launch of the euro, the British spent a lot of time worrying about whether the City of London financial district would lose out to Frankfurt and Paris.

But the people who should have been worrying were not Londoners but New Yorkers. For what has actually been happening is more interesting, and less expected, than a battle between European financial markets.

It is this: since the euro was introduced in 1999, London has consolidated its position as the main European financial centre and turned itself into the hub of international markets.

And as the centre of global finance, London may be starting to creep ahead of New York.

The evidence? Some top London bankers are getting paid more than their New York counterparts.

A salary and bonus survey published last week by Napier Scott Executive Search, a British recruiting firm, made just that point. "The 7 per cent lead of US packages over the UK equivalents in 2002 has been reversed, with the UK exceeding the US by as much as 15 per cent," it said.

The British lead over the Americans was the result of carving out a leading position in some specific, niche financial products. In what it calls "exotic credit trading and credit structuring", for example, the city is paying significantly more than Wall Street.

Exotic credit trading covers the most innovative and unusual derivatives contracts.

According to the survey of remuneration for work completed in 2003, an average London managing director in exotic trading at a top-tier bank makes £125,000 ($A302,000) in basic salary, plus a £1.5 million bonus. The American counterpart would be making the equivalent of £108,000, plus a £1 million bonus.

Or take private banking, another big growth area. The head of private banking at a top-tier bank in London could expect to make £175,000. His North American equivalent would be making £160,000, while his Swiss colleague would have to struggle to make ends meet on a mere £150,000. It would be best to treat the figures cautiously. The numbers cover only a selection of jobs. Finance is a very broad church, and there will be some areas where Wall Street pays better than London. And the dollar's exchange rate movements - the currency is now sitting at more than $US1.80 to the pound, close to a 10-year low - should be considered, too.

The people who should have been worrying were not Londoners but New Yorkers.

Even so, the figures are significant because salaries are an accurate indicator of the way business is moving.

Bankers are good at putting prices on things - most of all on themselves. The reason they are getting paid more in London is because they are bringing in business and ensuring higher profits than their equivalents in New York.

"Certain individuals in the UK markets were able to command a bigger remuneration than their American counterparts because they were able to generate greater profits," said Napier Scott chief executive Shaun Springer.

The dominance of London as Europe's finance centre is well documented, and that has grown with the euro.

"Over the four years since the start of EMU, the UK has attracted a significant level of wholesale financial services business," according to a study by the British Treasury last year on the impact of the euro on the British financial industry.

What is significant is that London may be becoming the world's financial centre.

In some respects, London already has a striking lead over the US. According to last year's Treasury study, Britain accounts for 19 per cent of cross-border bank lending, compared with 10 per cent for the US and Germany. London accounts for more than half the world's foreign equities turnover, compared with 26 per cent for the US, and 31 per cent of foreign exchange dealing, compared with 16 per cent for the US.

No other financial centre comes close.

- Bloomberg


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> What "proof" was offered? It's funny that you're so ardent of a London supporter when you're not even English.


I'm not a London supporter, unlike you, I'm a supporter of reality and the thruth...

More money flows through London than through New York and Tokyo combined...
London's financial sector is more international than either also.

So if there's such a thing as "the financial center of the world"...it's London...

Pottebaum...what are you trying to prove?
What you are posting literally adds nothing to the discussion...

London --> largest financial center
New York --> largest commercial center
Tokyo --> largest economy

...of the three (and incidentally of the world...)


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

FM 2258 said:


> I love New York but the respect on this issue goes to London. They've been the financial center of the world for at least 400 years if I'm right.


If I'm not mistaking...New York was larger in the 90ies but London regained its position.
One of the British forumers should be able to answer that...


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between "financial" and "commercial?"


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

What I'm posting does add to the discussion; somebody asked a question, and I'm providing data. Sorry if that bothers you.

And I think London's financial sector has been larger for quite some time; New York's just seems to get more recognition--also considering that it has the entire US on its shoulders.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Commerce and finance are two different things; New York leads the world in business..but it gets a bit more tricky when you start discussing finance.

The are very closely linked, though;

*What do the world's 10 largest companies[business]* ;Citi, GE, American Intl, Exxon, BP, Bank of America, HSBC, Toyota, Fannie May, and Walmart--*have in common?*

*They're all traded on the New York Stock Exchange!**[Finance]*


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> HSBC is a British company and their global headquarters is based in Canary Wharf, London.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HSBC's and RBS's core business is retail banking which makes no money. Citigroup and JP Morgan have huge retail banking operations, but they also have huge investment banking units, and Goldman and Lehman service only the investement banking industry. You don't make anything by servicing Aunt Susie's savings account that has a 20,000 (dollar/Euro/Sterling/Yen, etc.) balance. You make money by raising capital for Sony and by handling IPO's for Google.

People keep saying that London has more foreign banks than NY does. That may (or may not) be true. However, the Bank of Lebanon and the Bank of XYZ make no money. Banks with huge investment banking operations do. The NY banks utterly domiate this area worldwide. The only non-NY banks that have strong international investment banking groups are Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

DonQui said:


> pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between "financial" and "commercial?"


Commercial - basically any business pursuit--selling flowers, for example.

Financial - involves the management of money, investments, credit, banking, etc.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

With respect to insurance, NY and London are about equal. The world's biggest broker, Marsh, is based in NY, as is the world's biggest insurer, AIG.

That being said, insurance does not belong in a thread about finance. Insurance is a low-end business that makes very marginal profits. There are many 30 year old millionnaires in finanance. By contrast, 30 year old guys in insurance are struggle to make $100,000 or the equivalent in pounds or Euros.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> HSBC's and RBS's core business is retail banking which makes no money. Citigroup and JP Morgan have huge retail banking operations, but they also have huge investment banking units, and Goldman and Lehman service only the investement banking industry. You don't make anything by servicing Aunt Susie's savings account that has a 20,000 (dollar/Euro/Sterling/Yen, etc.) balance. You make money by raising capital for Sony and by handling IPO's for Google.
> 
> People keep saying that London has more foreign banks than NY does. That may (or may not) be true. However, the Bank of Lebanon and the Bank of XYZ make no money. Banks with huge investment banking operations do. The NY banks utterly domiate this area worldwide. The only non-NY banks that have strong international investment banking groups are Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse.


From Euromoney.com:








Articles with red headlines or bearing this symbol are for subscribers only. 


ISI daily news

Investment bankers battle for market share

Source: II: LatinFinance.com 
Region: Latin America 
Date: 3 August 2005 

There was something unusual about the recent multibillion-dollar acquisition by Argentine steel and engineering multinational Techint. In May, Techint bid $2.25 billion to take over Mexican steelmaker Hylsamex. Although Citigroup took a leading role in providing financing for the acquisition, Techint engineered the deal without a financial adviser. 

"We very seldom use financial advisers for acquisitions. We don't have a dedicated in-house M&A team, but we have very competent managers who are very good at due diligence," says Edgardo Carlos, finance director at Tenaris, a Techint Group subsidiary. "Citigroup took a significant role in providing acquisition financing." 

Even in the darkest days of the 2001-2002 Argentine crisis, the group could rely on its relationship banks, says Carlos. While the company rarely hires investment banks to work on M&A assignments, it does see value in other specialties. Carlos says Deutsche Bank is "the most innovative" in offering derivatives solutions. HSBC and ABN Amro "are very good for trade facilities and their strength is in countries where Tenaris has significant exposure." Tenaris operates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Romania and Venezuela. It has strategic relationships with banks offering services from cash management to corporate reorganization. 

Carlos says Citigroup's global cash management operation is crucial to the smooth operation of Techint's multinational business. Techint hired JP Morgan to handle a 2002 exchange offer for the shares of subsidiary companies Siderca, Tamsa and Dalmine and a simultaneous listing on the New York, Buenos Aires, Italian and Mexican stock markets for newly created Tenaris. The reorganization resulted in a larger and more efficient corporate structure. 

Powerful Impressions
The banks' relationships with Techint typify the way Wall Street firms are specializing. Just like comic book super heroes, they are focusing on mastery in certain areas. There is nothing frivolous about this adventure: Banks are betting their future by specializing in a narrow range of disciplines. Bankers may boast that they offer a full range of investment banking services, but increasingly they concentrate on just one or two areas. Citigroup stands alone as the only truly universal bank operating across Latin America. It offers loans to low-income workers and carries out high-end capital market operations for governments and big companies. 

The urge to specialize is driven by the unpleasant fact that revenues, margins and profits in Latin America are too small to support the full weight of an investment banking platform. Latin America is among the world's least important investment banking markets. Research firm Dealogic estimates that gross revenues for debt, equity, mergers and acquisitions in Latin America amounted to only about 2% of banks' global revenues last year. 

Banks now make most of their money through sales and trading, essentially acting like hedge funds. David Hendler, analyst at independent research firm CreditSights, says proprietary trading and principal investments accounted for no less than 73% of 2004 pre-tax earnings for Goldman Sachs. Investment banking contributed just 6%. 

Of course, trading is risky. Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan's president and chief operating officer, said in June that quarterly trading results "are the worst the firm has experienced in some time." Dimon expects a 62% plunge in revenues from its trading operation for the second quarter of 2005. But prop trading profits are limited in Latin America because market volumes and liquidity are constrained, be it in the debt, equity, foreign exchange or derivatives markets. 


Lorenzo Weisman, founder and managing member of investment banking boutique Hill Street Capital and a former head of Latin America at UBS, says: "You are not going to make much money in Latin America unless you have a solid sales and trading activity. It is very hard to make money year in, year out with new issues alone. It only pays off once in a while. If you do five or six equity deals, you have had a great year, but that only happens occasionally. The same is true in the debt markets." 

Investment banks hate revealing much about their business – even though they stress the importance to clients of maintaining high standards for transparency and disclosure in the financial markets. Bankers do not reveal headcount and are vague about the breakdown of their revenues by business line in Latin America. Weisman says it may well be that they simply don't know. "For some reason, the large global investment banks don't always have a very good grasp as to whether they are making money in the region or not. This is because they tend to judge their activities department by department, rather than on a cumulative basis," he says. "Few are able to extract major synergies from their multiple activities there – turf wars are often the cause." 

Overcapacity has driven fees down. Wall Street has retrenched aggressively, but there are still too many bankers chasing too few deals. Most firms react by firing bankers the moment markets slide, only to rehire when conditions improve. They need to maintain coverage of the region to satisfy multinational clients' requirements that they provide global coverage and to maintain contact with small numbers of major corporate, banking and sovereign clients in the region. Benchmark capital market or M&A deals are relatively few and far between in Latin America, which is why competition for business is so intense. 

Seeking Relevance
It is against this backdrop that the banks are working. Issuers rarely focus exclusively on fees when awarding mandates. Rather, sovereign and corporate issuers alike expect sound execution and wide distribution of their bonds. They want a bank to demonstrate deep knowledge of the global industries in which they operate. Says Nicolás Aguzín, the new head of Latin American investment banking at JP Morgan: "Companies like the Techint Group, which is a worldwide leader in its industry, want to place their debt and equity with investors that are focused on their business. As an investment bank you have to be able to offer them these capabilities." 

Nonetheless, certain banks are clearly better at some things than others. Citigroup has excelled in debt liability management. Morgan Stanley has a strong restructuring and M&A practice. Deutsche Bank specializes in innovative structured products. Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) is building up a tidy business selling Mexican corporate issues to high-yield investors in the US. Merrill Lynch raised capital for financial institutions and rolled out billions of dollars in structured finance deals during the tough years of 2002-2004. And UBS toiled away in the barren equity capital markets for years, although its tenacity did not fully pay off. It ranked fourth in the equity issuance league tables, raising $586.4 million in five deals since the beginning of last year. 

Bruce Stevens, senior managing director in the strategic finance group at Bear Stearns, says: "Setting aside the issue of market cycles, investment banks have found that trying to be everything to everyone is not a winning proposition. The universal banks have been extremely aggressive in competing for blue chip clients and have affected pricing in ways that aren't sustainable in the long term. What you are seeing [now] is a process of competitors adapting to that environment." CreditSights' Hendler says what's happening in Latin America is a reflection of changes in the global investment banking industry. "There is more segmentation. There are exceptions, but most firms are focused on building better capabilities," he says. 

Big companies reward specialization. Philippe Gastone, senior vice president in M&A for the Americas and Europe at Mexican cement giant Cemex, says multinationals need banks with in-depth knowledge of local markets around the globe. "If you are buying a listed company in a developed country you need both global and local expertise, and that is where investment banks add value," he says. 

Cemex acquired Britain's RMC Group last year for $5.5 billion in cash and assumed debt, the largest acquisition ever by a Latin American company. "It was important to us that the banks knew the RMC people and had the technical expertise to know how the company operated locally and how to execute a deal in that country," he says. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup advised Cemex, and JP Morgan and Cazenove advised RMC. 

Winning New Business
It's not enough that the investment banks wield expertise in markets and products. They must also cultivate deeper relationships. UBS served as joint bookrunner on the $1.1 billion follow-on offering of Southern Peru Copper Corp. (SPCC) in June – Latin America's largest equity offering in years. UBS had worked closely with parent company Grupo México over the last five years on its own highly complex restructuring and that close relationship ensured that UBS won the equity mandate. Says Paul Knight, co-head of investment banking for UBS: "We spend a lot of time and energy on our most important relationships and Grupo México is an example of a core relationship for us." 

Similarly, Morgan Stanley has built up a roster of corporate clients. It acted as joint bookrunner with Citigroup in June on a $710 million global equity offering for Mexican beverage company Femsa. Morgan Stanley had advised and helped finance Femsa's $3.65 billion acquisition of Panama-based Panamerican Beverages (Panamco) in 2003. Morgan Stanley, like Goldman Sachs, only needs a few big deals a year in Latin America to make money, an approach known appropriately as elephant hunting. Indeed, says one competitor: "Morgan Stanley has about six or seven prized clients in Latin America that it tries to keep from the competition by trying to offer them everything they need. On the whole it works, but they don't have a balance sheet to match the global platform banks, which is their big weakness."

*Also from Euromoney.com:
Britain's HSBC, * which touts itself as the world's local bank, set out to build a global universal bank three years ago, layering an investment bank on to its commercial and retail banks. It was following in the footsteps of Citigroup in Latin America. 
"HSBC wants to be among the top three in every market. We want to be a purely global bank," says Gerardo Mato, managing director and head of Latin America financing for HSBC. It bought Mexico's ailing Bital in 2002, adding to mid-sized banks it already owned in Argentina and Brazil. It has also been building its investment banking capabilities in New York. HSBC went on hiring spree, poaching talent from Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan. John Studzinski, now co-head of HSBC's corporate, investment banking and markets business, was deputy chairman of Morgan Stanley International and head of investment banking in Europe before joining HSBC in June 2003. 

HSBC is struggling to push into the competitive fixed income market. It ranked ninth in debt underwriting in Latin America last year, lead-managing six deals totaling $2 billion. It worked on landmark transactions such as Pemex's $1.75 billion perpetual bond and Mexico's £500 million 20-year bond. In the first half of this year, it ranked 11th in the volume league tables with two bonds worth $914.1 million. 

HSBC still needs to convince the market and issuers that it is a contender in investment banking. David Hendler, analyst at independent research firm CreditSights, doubts HSBC will emerge as a major competitor in the short term. "Asia is still its stronghold and it is still mainly retail and traditional commercial lending. Maybe in five to 10 years it will get there," he says. "You can't count it out."


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

DonQui said:


> pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between "financial" and "commercial?"


money and shopping


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

Tokyo?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Finance is moving money around.

Commerce is making money.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

can we just agree that its London and NYC?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

pottebaum - But finance can make money, hence all the banks on the Fortune 500 List.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Of course; I was just trying to make it as simple as possible. Financial institutions like Citigoup have high revenue, sales, etc--but their main _purpose_ is to allocate and use money.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> Of course; I was just trying to make it as simple as possible. Financial institutions like Citigoup have high revenue, sales, etc--but their main _purpose_ is to allocate and use money.


Yes. But they only pursue that _purpose_--allocating and using money--because in doing so they can _make_ money.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Exactly--that certainly makes more sense than what I was saying. :lol:

Here we go:

Finance: Finance studies and addresses the ways in which individuals, businesses and organizations raise, allocate and use monetary resources over time, taking into account the risks entailed in their projects.

Commerce: Commerce is the trading of something of value between two entities. That "something" may be goods, services, information, money, or anything else the two entities consider to have value. Commerce is the central mechanism from which capitalism is derived. The process of transforming something into a commercial activity is called commercialization.

www.wikipedia.com


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

^So we agree in our own bizarre way. :lol:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

ReddAlert said:


> can we just agree that its London and NYC?


No, since more money flows through London than does through NY and Tokyo combined we most certainly cannot.
It's London...end of story.

What Mikehunt and Pottebaum are doing is focussing on one small part of "finance" in which NY happens to be a bit bigger than London each time.
It adds nothing to the debate because on the whole London is the bigger financial center.
It's the same thing as trying to prove you have the bigger supermarket because your vegetables department is larger.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

SHiRO said:


> No, since more money flows through London than does through NY and Tokyo combined we most certainly cannot.
> It's London...end of story.
> 
> What Mikehunt and Pottebaum are doing is focussing on one small part of "finance" in which NY happens to be a bit bigger than London each time.
> ...


Exactly...! :applause:


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

And let's repeat the facts you posted earlier:-



SHiRO said:


> *London --> largest financial center
> New York --> largest commercial center
> Tokyo --> largest economy*
> 
> ...of the three (and incidentally of the world...)


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Monkey said:


> Certainly in terms of the total volumes traded on the markets London is the world's leading financial centre - that's because currency (FX) markets, in which London dominates, are far larger and more liquid than stock markets in which New York is dominant:
> 
> http://fxtrade.oanda.com/currency_trading/intro_currency_exchange.shtml
> 
> ...


Excellent info - thanks for posting.


----------



## Der wahre Heino (Sep 13, 2004)

"Originally Posted by wjfox2002
Hedge funds alone are greater than Frankfurt's entire economy."

Can you back that up with some sources, please?


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

^ Okay, it was posted by Nick Taylor a while ago. He's the person to ask.

His stats were pretty convincing.

Anyway, this debate has been settled and London is clearly the centre of global finance, New York for business/commerce, and Tokyo for economy.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

What would Brisbane say on this subject? "Cairo" :crazy:


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

NY and London tied! London's more international, but the US market's a behemoth.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

samsonyuen said:


> NY and London tied! London's more international, but the US market's a behemoth.


But London is also a 'behemoth'.

It has greater liquidity in terms of the money it handles or which passes through it - more so than New York (as has already been explained several times now... :| ).

Finance is London's speciality, business/commerce is New York's.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> No, since more money flows through London than does through NY and Tokyo combined we most certainly cannot.
> It's London...end of story.
> 
> What Mikehunt and Pottebaum are doing is focussing on one small part of "finance" in which NY happens to be a bit bigger than London each time.
> ...


Wrong. Guys who advocate London's position keep focusing on currency markets (jobs which are handled by idiots and don't make that much money). Investment banking (i.e., raising money for companies) and taking them public and then trading them publicly on an exchange (like the NYSE) is the heart and soul of finance, and it's utterly dominated by NY, as is the hedge fund industry (which half the people arguing on this board probably have no idea what it actually is). The lack of knowledge of forum members who argue about finance is funny. The most vociferous guy who supports London is a student in a third-rate university in the middle of nowhere who focuses on urban studies!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Wjfox and Shiro, shush. Seriously, you're both fantastic forumers, but are in no position to give a clear analysis on this thread---either am I, either is MikeHunt, either is Nick-Taylor.

---
But should note that New York is home to the world's largest Mercantile/Commodity Exchange, and trades more crude oil than any other city in the world.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> NY and London tied!...


You are a wise man.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Mike the more I read from you, the more I don't like. You are now getting into the territory of insulting people's backgrounds and education. 

Your definition of a third rate university might not be the same as everyone else's. 

But eqally you are factually wrong on some counts, UK law firms are doing pretty well in the global top ten ever heard of Clifford Chance?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> Mike the more I read from you, the more I don't like. You are now getting into the territory of insulting people's backgrounds and education.
> 
> Your definition of a third rate university might not be the same as everyone else's.
> 
> But eqally you are factually wrong on some counts, UK law firms are doing pretty well in the global top ten ever heard of Clifford Chance?


A good friend of mine works for Clifford Chance, and it's the laughing stock of the NY legal market. It took over a NY firm called Rogers and Wells several years ago, and all of the R&W partners with substantial business left because the CC pay-scale, which is devised by London, was far lower than the NY pay-scale. CC's NY office is in such crisis that the firm's head located here from London to try to rescue it. By contrast, NY law firms thrive in London, and they pay way more than UK firms do.

PS: Here's the pay-scale for associates in London after three years:

Allen & Overy 69000
Clifford Chance 68000
*Debevoise & Plimpton (NYC Firm) 106000*
Freshfields 69000
Herbert Smith 66000
Lovells 67000
Norton Rose 67000
*Skadden Arps (NYC firm) 116000*
Slaughter and May 71000
*Weil, Gotshal & Manges 90000 (NYC firm)*

NY firms thrive in London and pay WAY more than London firms do because they are more profitable. Only the very biggest London firms have NY offices, and they're third-tier firms here that no one wants to work for due to poor compensation.


----------



## Chad (Oct 10, 2002)

hmm...somehow I just found this thread, anyway...very easy question.



> The financial centre of the world???


Must be "The World Financial Center" then...


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

surely paying your employees such as Cifford Chance (£68k thats a good wage) is better as your customers are getting value for money and dont just think your frittering away their cash.


----------



## Kanji (Feb 27, 2005)

Tokyo!!!


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

Kanji said:


> Tokyo!!!


Right back atcha! kay:


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Kanji said:


> Tokyo!!!


 :weirdo:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Wrong. Guys who advocate London's position keep focusing on currency markets (jobs which are handled by idiots and don't make that much money). Investment banking (i.e., raising money for companies) and taking them public and then trading them publicly on an exchange (like the NYSE) is the heart and soul of finance, and it's utterly dominated by NY, as is the hedge fund industry (which half the people arguing on this board probably have no idea what it actually is). The lack of knowledge of forum members who argue about finance is funny. The most vociferous guy who supports London is a student in a third-rate university in the middle of nowhere who focuses on urban studies!


We're not focussing on currency markets.
Just picking one aspect of finance and then claiming "your city" is the world's financial center is your MO.

Taking the financial sector of London and New York, London's is largest, simple as that. I don't care which individual subsections of "finance" make it so, but it does.

It's about time for you to admit and stop diluting this thread don't you think?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

pottebaum said:


> Wjfox and Shiro, shush. Seriously, you're both fantastic forumers, but are in no position to give a clear analysis on this thread---either am I, either is MikeHunt, either is Nick-Taylor.
> 
> ---
> But should note that New York is home to the world's largest Mercantile/Commodity Exchange, and trades more crude oil than any other city in the world.


Is this thread "the world's commodity exchange center" or is this thread "world's financial center"?

Why do you guys keep on bringing up irrelevant issues?

I have no problem admitting New York is the larger commercial center and has the larger stock exchange. 

Are you guys even interested in the thruth at all?


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

tiger said:


> :weirdo:


:baaa:I now realize youre not one of my countrymen hno:


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Siopao said:


> :baaa:I now realize youre not one of my countrymen hno:


 :sleepy:


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Shiro, wjfox brought up London's metals exchange--why wouldn't I bring up the New York Mercantile Exchange--the world's largest commodity market and trader of crude oil?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

elliott said:


> surely paying your employees such as Cifford Chance (£68k thats a good wage) is better as your customers are getting value for money and dont just think your frittering away their cash.


Not really.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Is this thread "the world's commodity exchange center" or is this thread "world's financial center"?
> 
> Why do you guys keep on bringing up irrelevant issues?
> 
> ...


You're the one who keeps bringing up limited, irrelevant issues like currency markets. The fact is, you have a biased tilt toward anything that you perceive as European. The funny thing though is that the British economic system is hardly European, and for that matter, the English people are quite different from Continentals. I can understand the hyper-nationalism of Brits saying blindly that London is the best, etc., but you're a different story. If the EU constitution is ever put to a referendum in the UK and is voted down by an enormous margin, I'm concerned that you might kill yourself.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Where do I bring up currency markets?
You are so talking out of your ass, you don't even know what to come up with next.

I also suggest you start to shape up a bit and leave out the presumptions about my person.
If I'm biased toward anything European, why do I state in this very thread that NY is the larger commercial center and has the larger stock exchange (among other things).
I'm interested in facts, thank you...

Now if YOU were interested in the facts, you would admit that London's financial sector is larger than NY's. In fact, it's larger than NY's and Tokyo's combined.

So, just admit to the truth or don't respond at all. You really need to do something about how you conduct yourself around here, so spare us another reply like the last one.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

I see Londoners are suffering from the "I still want to feel important in the world when clearly I can't and won't be, so I have to argue about it" syndrome. Ohh Londoners, your city is the world's financial center.Yeah, if this is the 19th century.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Where do I bring up currency markets?
> You are so talking out of your ass, you don't even know what to come up with next.
> 
> I also suggest you start to shape up a bit and leave out the presumptions about my person.
> ...


How on earth do you difine financial center? It's the sum of numerous activities (e.g., investment banking, stock exchanges, futures exchanges, commodities exchanges, hedge funds, etc.) If you think that London leads NY in all of those areas, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.

By the way, are you threatening to suspend me because I disagree with you? That's hardly democratic.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

polako said:


> I see Londoners are suffering from the "I still want to feel important in the world when clearly I can't and won't be, so I have to argue about it" syndrome. Ohh Londoners, your city is the world's financial center.Yeah, if this is the 19th century.


I don't necessarily agree with this. London (and Londoners) are awesome. Some guys on this forum though will assert that London is more historic than Rome, bigger than Tokyo and has a better skyline than NY.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> How on earth do you difine financial center? It's the sum of numerous activities (e.g., investment banking, stock exchanges, futures exchanges, commodities exchanges, hedge funds, etc.) If you think that London leads NY in all of those areas, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> By the way, are you threatening to suspend me because I disagree with you? That's hardly democratic.


See, you don't even know what you are talking about! :lol:

I don't _think_ the sum of investment banking, stock exchanges, futures exchanges, commodities exchanges, hedge funds, etc is larger in London than in New York...THAT IS A FACT WHICH YOU CAN READ FROM NUMEROUS SOURCES INCLUDING ONES POSTED IN THIS THREAD!
Read back the thread for christsakes!
One more time:
LONDON's FINANCIAL SECTOR IS LARGER THAN NY's AND TOKYO's COMBINED.

Now will you please admit to this FACT?

And who said anything about suspending?
Although the attitute displayed by you in this thread is what got you banned over at SSP (not conceding in the face of fact and dragging on threads with taunts and insults).


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

The currency exchange in London handles more money a day than New York and Tokyo combined--that doesn't make it more important than everything else.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

For Christ's sake Shiro, when do you sleep? :crazy:


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> See, you don't even know what you are talking about! :lol:
> 
> I don't _think_ the sum of investment banking, stock exchanges, futures exchanges, commodities exchanges, hedge funds, etc is larger in London than in New York...THAT IS A FACT WHICH YOU CAN READ FROM NUMEROUS SOURCES INCLUDING ONES POSTED IN THIS THREAD!
> Read back the thread for christsakes!
> ...


I don't see these facts. Please post them with respect to stock market capitalization and trading, commodities, futures, investment banking and hedge funds. 

In reality, the NYSE is bigger than the LSE. NY investment banks, as I posted, have the biggest market share by far. In fact, there is not a single serious investment bank that's based in London. HSBC has been trying unsuccessfully for years to break into this business.

My guess is that you're either a student or someone whose job is not even remotely related to finance.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

elliott said:


> surely paying your employees such as Cifford Chance (£68k thats a good wage) is better as your customers are getting value for money and dont just think your frittering away their cash.


PS: £68k is not a good wage in NY or in London. First time home buyers in either city cannot afford much on that sum.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

polako said:


> I see Londoners are suffering from the "I still want to feel important in the world when clearly I can't and won't be, so I have to argue about it" syndrome. Ohh Londoners, your city is the world's financial center.Yeah, if this is the 19th century.


Totally false and totally unnecessary.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Der wahre Heino said:


> Can you back that up with some sources, please?


I believe he is referening to the following *Economist* article:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1721232


_"In total we calculated that they managed $150 billion or thereabouts, though leverage means that the assets they control might be twice that—which would mean that more money is managed in St James's than in Frankfurt."_

Notes:
- The article is in reference to the location of hedge funds in London
- St James's is the main location for hedge funds in London and is south of Piccadilly Circus and north of Buckingham Palace.






tiger said:


> NYC and London have the same percentage of financial jobs of all jobs.Considering NYC has larger population,NYC's got larger financial sector.


Haven't heard that before, but there are different 'financial populations' in each city. That said the following snippets show otherwise, firstly with one snippet showing that pay is now higher than in New York (ie due to demand for the best of the best in the world - finance is a global industry), while the second shows that London has more people employed in finance than in New York (people aren't employed for no success in such a competitive sector - higher figures indicate towards more dominance of various markets and institutions):


*Financial Careers, 18th May, 2005 - High yield pay higher in Europe than US*
_“Below managing director level, most high yield salespeople and traders in the City of London are earning 25% more than their counterparts in New York”, says Lee Thacker, a consultant at Highland Partners in the City._


*The Economist, 6th February, 2003 - Goodbye to the City*
_The health of the City matters far more to London than Wall Street does to New York. About twice as many people are employed in the financial services industry in London as in New York. And given that financial services are Britain's biggest export earner by a long chalk, it is worrying for the economy as a whole._






FM 2258 said:


> I love New York but the respect on this issue goes to London. They've been the financial center of the world for at least 400 years if I'm right.


To give credit where it is due, London was surpassed by New York in the finance field in the 1930's. WW2 pretty much damaged it and it took years to repair networks of people that were lost in war and rebuild premises and markets blown to peices. It wasn't until the deregulation of the financial markets saw a revolution and the a subsequent flood of major foreign financial powers to London began. In turn, others began to become attracted to the growing dominance of London in various fields and by the 90's London had surpassed New York. Various laws, Sarbanes Oxley and other points meant London became the attractive alternative to New York (the presence of international organisations, banks, immense financial institutions and wealthy foreigners goes to show this) which became bogged down in a quagmire. This is interesting as only a few years before it was clearly the other way around.






tiger said:


> Most HSBC's activities are traded in HK,arent' they?
> 
> The trade HQ of Bank of America is in NYC.
> 
> ...


London is quite unique compared to New York in that it has immense networks with its former colonies. HSBC was until only a few years ago a Hong Kong bank trading under the British ideas and a British board. Then they made a few aquistions and relocated to London. To this date, a large chunk of HSBC's profits are derived from the Hong Kong and mainland China market, but has been decreasing as HSBC has made inroads in foreign developing markets.

An even more interesting bank is Standard Chartered. The bank has only one presence in the UK and that is its London Global Headquarters....all of its activities are in Asian or African developed or developing markets. It's one of the most interesting entities in the banking world and used to be more dominant, but had suffered as communism and various other interests corrupted its markets. It has though in recent years seen a re-birth and is one of the most sought-after possessions simply because of its interests in developing markets. Another interesting thing is that the two London based banks of Standard Chartered and HSBC are two thirds of the operation (Bank of China being the other) that print Hong Kong's money. 

Yes its home-grown interests don't do so well in New York, but then again New York isn't the world and that is where London is making its stand. It goes a long way to explaining the current premier position that London has.


The trade HQ and HQ of BoA are in Charlotte, NA.




tiger said:


> I doubt RBS is a London-based bank.


RBS and HBOS's HQ are in Edinburgh, but the trading arm which is a critical part of these banks operation are in London.






pottebaum said:


> And I think London's financial sector has been larger for quite some time; New York's just seems to get more recognition--also considering that it has the entire US on its shoulders.


So you automatically concede that London is the more important financial centre! Recognition is a very crude measure, there are some people in the world who do a lot of work, but don't get much recognition. Is Britney for example more important than Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who is the inventor of the world wide web just because she has more global recognition? Exactly - thats just how finance works as well.






Mike Hunt said:


> People keep saying that London has more foreign banks than NY does. That may (or may not) be true. However, the Bank of Lebanon and the Bank of XYZ make no money. Banks with huge investment banking operations do. The NY banks utterly domiate this area worldwide. The only non-NY banks that have strong international investment banking groups are Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse.


Clearly they are attracted to London for no reason whatsoever. They have no interest to make money so decide to located in London (one of the expensive cities in the world) just for fun - maybe they believe London is more fun than New York? Well clearly they must prefer to be in London for one reason or another!




MikeHunt said:


> Wrong. Guys who advocate London's position keep focusing on currency markets (jobs which are handled by idiots and don't make that much money). Investment banking (i.e., raising money for companies) and taking them public and then trading them publicly on an exchange (like the NYSE) is the heart and soul of finance, and it's utterly dominated by NY, as is the hedge fund industry (which half the people arguing on this board probably have no idea what it actually is). The lack of knowledge of forum members who argue about finance is funny. The most vociferous guy who supports London is a student in a third-rate university in the middle of nowhere who focuses on urban studies!


I would love to know your background and what firm you work with; then maybe we could start picking holes in your life - I somehow doubt you would be willing to share such information because I doubt your life is so rosy - hence why your here! I do find it funny though, that while I actually do have an idea behind the facts and figures that I have posted here, you have on other threads managed to claim to know London and its boundaries!

Also do you not find it ironic and pathetically contradictory that you attack me for my 'vociferous' support of London....but at the same time manage to create threads dedicated to New York and its 'superiority'....your most recent example would be: *The amazing density of NYC!!!*:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=257537

You also have a major problem with London and dedicate entire threads in proposing distorting views - last time I checked, comparisons required common sense, not puberty complications.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=261693

:laugh:




Mike Hunt said:


> I don't necessarily agree with this. London (and Londoners) are awesome. Some guys on this forum though will assert that London is more historic than Rome, bigger than Tokyo and has a better skyline than NY.


I've never heard anyone claim anything that you appear to be suggesting. That said, there are different interpretations - London's history is from a different period to that of Rome's, but that isn't saying that its got more history. London is a large city, but that isn't saying its as big or bigger than Tokyo. London also has a skyline, its strengths though aren't in skyscrapers but the hundreds of church spires that dot the cityscape. Now thats a different interpretation, but a check on 'reality', something you seem to lack.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Nick did you miss the bit where MikeHunt said 'London's biggest supporter gets his 2nd rate education from a third rate university and his degree isn't even in economics' or something very close to that. I suggest you go back and read the thread fully.

And Mike for the record the average salary in London in £23'000 so £68'000 take home pay is a pretty good salary, but those on that kind of money will also be getting bonuses as well.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I never conceded anything, Nick. London has more financial workers than New York, true, but that's due in part to the fact that workers in London can more easily interact with people elsewhere in the domestic market--since the UK's area is so much smaller. Somebody in Seattle isn't going to have their banker in NYC; although their branch may very likely be owned by a company in NYC. For the very same reason, it makes sense that London would have more foreign banks--where else would they locate in the United Kingdom?

Seriously, I'm not going to take a statement like "London is the financial capital of the world" all that seriously when it's coming from a British university student with 3500 posts on SCC. It's not a personal attack by any means--just a spark of reality in this world we've created on these forums

Perhaps you should look into the importance of stock exchanges, investment banking, hedge funds, the role of big business in finance, etc.It wouldn't hurt to look into NY's major strengths, too..


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Certain English forum members are so sad. Their false mantra is:

London is nearly as large as NY (Clearly false).
London is the most expensive place on earth (Clearly false).
London is the financial capital (Clearly false)
London is the world's most historic city (Clearly false)

Next they'll be telling us that London has a better skyline than NY, better weather than San Diego and that England has better cuisine than France and Italy.

London and the whole UK are awesome. Some of the best people that I know are from there. Most members of this forum who are from there are also superb. Some, however, who subscribe to the foregoing false statements are simply absurd. This absurdity is highlighted by the following unsolicited private message that Nick Taylor chose to send me on September 27th:

I'd thought I'd give this to you as the thread in the Citytalk, Urban Issues and Major Chip on the Shoulder Sub-Forum was shut down!

Let the slaugher begin! My first point would be that you've intentionally taken Greenwich, CT which is the 2nd richest place in the US (of towns with a population over 20,000) and taken some random little town called Windlesham. Secondly, the examples you have posted for this said village are of homes with house prices on average just 4% above the average for the South East region.


Region - Average House Price £ ($) - Population
Greater London - £293,363 ($519,721) - 7,421,228 (2005)
South East - £223,373 ($395,727) - 8,000,550 (2001)
East of England - £174,929 ($309,904) - 5,388,140 (2001)

Thirdly and lastly, if that was the most expensive area you could find (which by most accounts its clearly not), then clearly that would be a good thing for London and a bad thing for New York. Afterall the average joe could more likely afford a US$420,000 (approx) property than something which is US$10,000,000 - maybe that explains why more than 2x the amount of people are choosing to make London their home than New York! 


I thought that I would have to do the work to pop your balloon, but by all accounts you've managed that yourself without me doing any work. Not too long till you get the brig, then the ban and then oh no its going to be back to those legal paper!

*PS: TAYLOR'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE LITTLE ENGLISH TOWN REFERS TO THE VERY AVERAGE TOWN, WINDLESHAM, THAT ALLEGEDLY HAS THIS $130M HOUSE THAT SOME FORUM MEMBERS REFER TO AD NASEUM. INDEED, THE DEMENTED ENGLISH FORUM MEMBERS CONTEND THAT THIS HOUSE EVIDENCES LONDON'S SUPREMACY IN THE PROPERTY MARKET. THE FACT IS, THE HOUSE IS IN A CHEAP TOWN THAT PALES IN COMPARISON TO GREENWICH, CT!*


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> London is nearly as large as NY (Clearly false).
> London is the most expensive place on earth (Clearly false).
> London is the financial capital (Clearly false)
> London is the world's most historic city (Clearly false)
> [/B]


1. Correct, London is about twice the size of NYC in area. When population is concerned, London has about 500,000 less in the city limits, and about 3 million less in the metro area.

2. Well the world's 1st and 2nd most expensive houses on the planet, as well as the world's most expensive flat, are located here. The city of London and the West End are also #1 and #3 most expensive places in the world for office rents (Tokyo inner wards is in #2).

3. London handles 31% of the world's daily transactions, and handles more money than NYC and Tokyo combined. NYC may have a bigger stock exchange, but London dominates most other areas of finance. NYC may be the business capital, but London dominates finance.

4. I agree with you here, London is historic, but it's not the most historic city in the world.

Also, I wouldn't call Windlesham an average town. I live a couple of miles from it, and most of the houses there are extremely large and worth several million.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Bah, nevermind.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Pricemaza - Yeah I read that bit, but you always get those dolts in life who can't prove their case, lack the resources and/or ability to bring together a cohesive argument and will have no other avenue to pursue other than resorting to cheap juvenile insults. The problem is this formula never works - on these forums, at home, with friends or in the workplace and they will always be found out.






pottebaum said:


> I never conceded anything, Nick. London has more financial workers than New York, true, but that's due in part to the fact that workers in London can more easily interact with people elsewhere in the domestic market--since the UK's area is so much smaller. Somebody in Seattle isn't going to have their banker in NYC; although their branch may very likely be owned by a company in the city.
> Seriously, I'm not going to take a statement like "London is the financial capital of the world" all that seriously when it's coming from a British university student. Perhaps you should look into the importance of stock exchanges, investment banking, hedge funds, etc... I'm not going to say I know all that much, but your tendancy to completely ignore these things makes you come across as being very eager and weak in your arguments. No offense.


It was only a few weeks ago, that you came to me wondering what on earth Forbes was and where I had sourced a list (Forbes 2000 Listing) that I had compiled. I remember numerous PM's and converstations where you were asking numerous questions as to simple things in finance and business and me giving you several answers in reply. So yes I do take offence, jumping into the same bed with MikeHunt will also only end up tarnishing your already fragile image.

Also I don't quite get your theory behind London having more financial workers than New York simply because its domestic market is much smaller. Firstly, finance isn't just defined by a domestic market, it is a global sector which knows no borders. Secondly, surely having a smaller market would mean that there would be less people working for this said industry. The only way around this would be to state that the UK finance sector is either far more developed than that of the US or that there are cities of equal dominance in finance within the US. Thirdly if finance was a domestic only industry, how comes there so happens to be cross-border activities in every instrument and market? What is interesting is the makeup of this workforce, which is international due to the concentration and flows of money in London being greater in London than in any other city in the world. A simple way to put it is, you get people living around areas which have water, but have hardly any people living in the deserts or remote tundra. People will always be attracted to things that will mean that they survive and can have a better life, hence in our globalised world the attraction of London is greater.

Either way you are trying to come up with some seriously odd alternative rather than giving London its due credit.






MikeHunt said:


> Certain English forum members are so sad. Their false mantra is:
> 
> London is nearly as large as NY (Clearly false).
> London is the most expensive place on earth (Clearly false).
> ...


I don't think you should be lashing out as English forumers as 'sad' when clearly you are wrong.

Firstly you state: _'London is nearly as large as NY'_. What is the definition of large? I assume you are referring to population, but that could more appropiately be used to describe its area. London's land area is currently around 50% larger than that of New York. Population wise, New York is around 8.4% more populated than London, but unfortunately this is short term as London is absorbing more than are leaving than New York is, so within the next few years, London will be more populated than New York.

Secondly you state: _'London is the most expensive place on earth'_. This is partially right, in terms of office location, London's West End is the most expensive on the planet. Also the world's most expensive house was sold last year in London. Also according to Mercer's latest WCL survey, London has dropped down to third for the title of most expensive city in the world, although for most people the difference in how expensive the top three or 10 cities is of not much concern.

Thirdly you state: _'London is the financial capital'_. Well you haven't really put forward a comprehensive argument. Dotted amongst the jibes at professionals in other areas of the sector and at people on this forum, you did manage to put forward some ideas which are pretty much known already.

Lastly you stated: _'London is the world's most historic city'_. I don't believe this is what people have said and its more down to you mis-interpreting what has been actually said. I believe London has had a rich history, its strengths lie in the period after 1500 up and including now, while Rome's was before Christ and after, while New York's around 1900 onwards and including now. I'm unsure how you could 'measure' history and its richness and thats probably as vague as to the perfect weather.

On your other points, London has a skyline which is different to that of New York's and while it might not be one that is dominated by skyscrapers, it is one dominated by spires. Rome for example has a skyline in the form of domes and spires. There quite simply is no 'better skyline' only what preference dictates and its not too hard to guess what most people would recognise a skyline is on a skyscraper forum.

Again, 'good weather' is something hard to define. Without rain, you don't get greenery, with too much, you get floods and a bleak outlook. Peaks of snow for some is far better than thousands of miles of sand. Saying that, there are numerous stereotypes thrown around, like that of London constantly raining, which is blatantly not true as London receives less rain than all (according to) the GaWC's list of alpha cities bar Los Angeles.





MikeHunt said:


> PS: TAYLOR'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE LITTLE ENGLISH TOWN REFERS TO THE VERY AVERAGE TOWN, WINDLESHAM, THAT ALLEGEDLY HAS THIS $130M HOUSE THAT SOME FORUM MEMBERS REFER TO AD NASEUM. INDEED, THE DEMENTED ENGLISH FORUM MEMBERS CONTEND THAT THIS HOUSE EVIDENCES LONDON'S SUPREMACY IN THE PROPERTY MARKET. THE FACT IS, THE HOUSE IS IN A CHEAP TOWN THAT PALES IN COMPARISON TO GREENWICH, CT!


Apart from the 'shouting', isn't that a success story of social integration: a rich household with that of less-well off households. Maybe Greenwich, CT could take some lessons in social integration. We should remember though that we are talking about the US here, a country with one of the highest wealth inequalities in the world, where the ghettos were born and entire populations and economic bands segregated across the country.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Mike Hunt those statements are not clearly false at all. London is more expensive than New York as every house price survey and international ranking shows. London is 7.5 million within the city boundaries and 18 million in the metro which is not so far behind New York's 8 million and 21 million respectively. We have presented good quality evidence supporting London's claim to be the world's largest financial centre wheras all you have done is pour scorn on it without producing any factual evidence of your own. The most historic city thing is obviously subjective but London's claim is not so ridiculous. London did rule the largest empire in world history and was the dominant city of the Industrial Age during which the world changed much faster than ever before. Before London no city in history had ever had a population much larger than 1 million. However London's population suddenly spurted to 5 million in an extremely short space of time. The Industrial Revolution, started in Britain, did transform the world and is still transforming the world today. The combination of Industrial Age and global empire covering 30% of the world's population on every continent is certainly strong enough for London to stand alongside Rome or Istanbul or whichever city you feel is more historically important. Ultimately London's reach was far greater and her technological advances more transforming.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Well done guys, I think Mike's arguments have been soundly demolished here.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

^^ Okay then. Sorry!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

london-b said:


> But you're coming off as someone who not only is pathetic, but also has a chip on his shoulder and won’t let go, just how you're coming across.


That's what got him banned at SSP and that's what will get him banned here eventually.

Go on Mike...throw some more insults about the education of Londoners...


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

polako said:


> Great lists. Prove Londoners were wrong all along.


All hail the proof! :master:


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

polako said:


> Great lists. Prove Londoners were wrong all along.


No it doesn't. Every major international bank has a large presence in London. Indeed many American banks not based in New York have a larger London office than New York office. It's the sum total of all employment in all financial businesses and institutions, both foreign and local, that determines which financial centre is the largest by employment (though total financial sector employment is different again from daily turnover on markets by which measure London is definitely the largest). For example Singapore is one of Asia's most important financial centres but it doesn't have any large home grown financial companies at all - it's simply an important base for the large foreign players.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

polako said:


> Great lists. Prove Londoners were wrong all along.


Excuse me but I don't see a list about the total size of the financial sectors of LND and NYC, so no it does not prove "Londoners" were wrong all along.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> Excuse me but I don't see a list about the total size of the financial sectors of LND and NYC, so no it does not prove "Londoners" were wrong all along.


Well if those lists don't prove anything to you Londoners, than someone please find some lists about NYC's financial sector being larger than London's.

I found the first list, here it is:
# of financial sector jobs as of September 2005

NYC-590,000, suburbs(201,000)
London-300,000, suburbs(0)


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

polako said:


> Great lists. Prove Londoners were wrong all along.


pfffff. Hahahaha, are you kidding? Anyone who takes pottebaums lists seriously seriously has a screw loose. He hasn't posted any pictures of the BBC entertainment page that he has scribbled on yet has he? :hilarious


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

*"London is the heart of the world's financial business and the centre of financial innovation and information. It's supportive legal, regulatory and fiscal regimes are underpinned by a highly efficient technological infrastructure and an unrivaled concentration and variety of expert services."*










source:http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/cm/business/cases/london.htm

"London is the world’s best connected city, with 300-plus languages spoken everyday. Voted Europe’s best city for business for 15 consecutive years, London has more international banks than any other city. Seventy five per cent of the Fortune 500 companies are located here."

From Wikipedia:
"The City of London (also known as the "Square Mile") is the banking centre of the world, and Europe’s main business center. The headquarters of more than 100 of Europe’s 500 largest companies are in London. The London foreign exchange market is the largest in the world, with an average daily turnover of $504 billion, more than the New York and Tokyo exchanges combined."


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Butcher said:


> pfffff. Hahahaha, are you kidding? Anyone who takes pottebaums lists seriously seriously has a screw loose. He hasn't posted any pictures of the BBC entertainment page that he has scribbled on yet has he? :hilarious


Well, you have lost your mind and you should seek therapy. :laugh:


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

"Along with The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development there are more than 550 international banks and 170 global securities houses have set up offices in London. By contrast Frankfurt has around 280, Paris, 270 and New York 250."


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

polako said:


> Well, you have lost your mind and you should seek therapy. :laugh:


 :hahano: Real original comeback. Perahps you don't understand. Pottebaum's "facts" are irrelevant. He addressed a very small part of the financial sector. Its also a bit obvious that he is extremely bias towards US cities (especially NYC and Chicago). *New York is recognized as the commercial capital of the world, London is recognized as the financial capital of the world, and Tokyo is recognized as the city having the largest economy in the world.* Now why must Americans believe that their city is the greatest in every category. If New York city was unquestionably greater than London, they wouldn't have established the idea of the "Big three" cities, and New York would have been ranked ahead of every other city in the Gaw inventory of World cities.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

polako said:


> Well if those lists don't prove anything to you Londoners, than someone please find some lists about NYC's financial sector being larger than London's.
> 
> I found the first list, here it is:
> # of financial sector jobs as of September 2005
> ...


These types of things are measured in money not in amount of jobs.
If your numbers are true than NYC is the largest job market for finance...woohoo!
I think even Londoners can agree with that.

It still isn't the world's financial center because of that though.

btw maybe you want to give us a link to your source though...you know... to keep things credible...


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Butcher said:


> pfffff. Hahahaha, are you kidding? Anyone who takes pottebaums lists seriously seriously has a screw loose. He hasn't posted any pictures of the BBC entertainment page that he has scribbled on yet has he? :hilarious


Oh, and you're just a tub full of knowledge, aren't you?  Get a clue. And that quote about London being the "the heart of the world's financial business and the centre of financial innovation and information." is from the city's website. I'm not sure why you've put it in bold; especially since they threw the world "business" into it. If you'd look at my "crazy" lists, you'd see that NY's financial companies tend to be larger. 

I do find the fact that this thread was re-opened really crazy, though. Of course it was going to turn into another flame-fest; everything about it is stupid and immature...but it appears somebody just wanted to let a certain Briton make his point 3 days after the topic was locked. Listen, most of you mods seem like great guys, but it sometimes seems like you aren't even _trying_ be impartial anymore.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Shiro, Nick-Taylor and Monkey _were_ saying having more financial jobs made London more important in finance.

And Butcher, London most certainly _is not_ recognized as the financial capital of the world by the mainstream. New York seems to get more attention, because it plays a larger role in things the average man finds interest in--like the stock exchanges. It affects his retirement, his mutuals, his individual shares, and in many cases, his job. Hell, the company I work for is traded on the NYSE.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

If they were saying that they probably can back it up with credible figures unlike polako.

Anyway, if there is such a thing as a financial center of the world...it is London because more money flows through it than through any other city in the world including New York and LDN's financial sector is also more international than NYC's.
Having more jobs is just a secondary reason.


----------



## Mike (Sep 12, 2002)

wjfox2002 said:


> It (London) is the biggest market in the world for derivatives traded over the counter


As far as I know the world's biggest derivate market is EUWAX (European Warrant Exchange) in Stuttgart.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I think Chicago ranks above London in deriatives overall [future exchanges, etc], too.

You can make any city the leader in something if you add on the description, like "over the counter". Over the counter derivatives, which London apparently specializes in, are much smaller than those traded on an exchange. (Struttgart, Chicago, etc)


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> Shiro, Nick-Taylor and Monkey _were_ saying having more financial jobs made London more important in finance.
> 
> And Butcher, London most certainly _is not_ recognized as the financial capital of the world by the mainstream. New York seems to get more attention, because it plays a larger role in things the average man finds interest in--like the stock exchanges. It affects his retirement, his mutuals, his individual shares, and in many cases, his job. Hell, the company I work for is traded on the NYSE.


Pottebaum, there is a difference between London's recognition in America and its recognition around the world. In other countries, believe it or not, children aren't raised to believe that their country is the greatest at everything. Many Americans HAVE NEVER LEFT AMERICA!!! How do you expect the to appreciate the contributions of other cities to the global economy. However, in other parts of the world, London is recognized as the world's financial capital/ powerhouse, especially by those whose work involves finance.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> I think Chicago ranks above London in deriatives overall [future exchanges, etc], too.
> 
> You can make any city the leader in something if you add on the description, like "over the counter". Over the counter derivatives, which London apparently specializes in, are much smaller than those traded on an exchange. (Struttgart, Chicago, etc)


London also dominates the currency exchange markets, which are much larger than the stock market.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Butcher--whether it's justified or not, New York is usually recognized as the world's financial capital by the mainstream. Most people, other than you, would agree to this. It doesn't mean you have to think it's true or not.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> They're metro, from what I can see, Butcher. They usually use the term "NY, Northern NJ, Long Island" when referring to the NYC metropolitan.
> 
> ^And MikeHunt, since you're just looking at individual institutions in that last post of yours, don't forget the NYMEX. It's the world's largest commodity exchange and more energy products(oil! gas!) are traded there than any other place in the world.


Good point.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Tokyo and London follow what NY did the day before. Why, as set forth below, NY is the world's financial capital. (Despite these facts, however, let the delusional Brits think what they want!)
> 
> *World's Largest Stock Exchange (NY):*
> 
> ...


Its you and other Americans who are being delusional. The same source you used, Wikipedia, said that London is the financial capital of the world. So I think that throws your credibility out of the window:

"The City of London (also known as the "Square Mile") is the banking centre of the world, and Europe’s main business center. The headquarters of more than 100 of Europe’s 500 largest companies are in London. The London foreign exchange market is the largest in the world, with an average daily turnover of $504 billion, more than the New York and Tokyo exchanges combined."

source: Wikipedia

This statistic I found to be very compelling:
. 31% of global currency transactions occur in London, with more US Dollars traded in London than New York, and more Euros traded there than every city in Europe combined.

source: Wikipedia


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Oh, Butcher. :lol: 

If you're going to start quoting online encyclopedias, I suppose I'll give it a shot:

"New York (city), the largest city in the United States, the home of the United Nations, and the center of *global finance*, communications, and business."

www.encarta.com

And you realize, that in the case of Wikipedia--where users write the entries, that quote was very likely taken from a City of London website..


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Despite the following undisputed proof of NY's role as the financial capital of the world, let's pretend that London is the leader. Let's also pretend that:

1. London is more historic than Rome, Athens, Cairo, Istabul and Paris...
2. The UK has better cuisine than France and Italy.
3. London has a bigger population than NY.
4. London's housing is more expensive than NY's and Tokyo's.
5. London has a better and bigger skyline than NY and HK (combined).
6. London has a better climate than San Diego.

     



MikeHunt said:


> Tokyo and London follow what NY did the day before. Why, as set forth below, NY is the world's financial capital. (Despite these facts, however, let the delusional Brits think what they want!)
> 
> *World's Largest Stock Exchange (NY):*
> 
> ...


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

^Prudential Financial has its headquarters in Newark. Chubb in Warren, NJ.


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

The world's largest bank is actually the Japanese Postal System - over 300 trillion yen in assets. But since it is not officially a bank, it is never listed in these comparisons.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

polako said:


> ^Prudential Financial has its headquarters in Newark. Chubb in Warren, NJ.


Yes--but when I made that list, I included the metro area.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> Oh, Butcher. :lol:
> 
> If you're going to start quoting online encyclopedias, I suppose I'll give it a shot:
> 
> ...


Just because it was taken from a City of London website doesn't mean its innacurate. Plus, NYC is NOT the home of the UN because the UN is international territory, New York is NOT the financial capital of the world, because London is, and New York is not the communications center because London is. London is at the center of the time zones (indisputable). That is one reason that London is the biggest air hub in the world. Also, London is the only city in the world that can do business with New York and Tokyo in the same working day.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^If I were immature enough to put quotes in my sig, that'd be it.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^Mabye I'll put that in my sig!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I'd hope not. 

No offense, but really, read that last post. Do you not sense the stupidity in that?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

A symbol of New York's status as the world's financial capital is the world's largest bank, NY-based Citigroup, dominating the London "skyline"! This is imperialism in the modern world! 












MikeHunt said:


> Tokyo and London follow what NY did the day before. Why, as set forth below, NY is the world's financial capital. (Despite these facts, however, let the delusional Brits think what they want!)
> 
> *World's Largest Stock Exchange (NY):*
> 
> ...


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> I'd hope not.
> 
> No offense, but really, read that last post. Do you not sense the stupidity in that?


I understand why you would think that, but we've been through this a thousand times. I don't consider the UN to be part of New York. That is my opinion. I believe that London is by far the biggest financial center in the world. New York is obviously the biggest comercial center by far. And London is a bigger communications center IMO because of what I have posted earlier.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

MikeHunt, I noticed a Citigroup building also dominates the Sydney skyline. In 10 years all world skylines will be dominated by the US Financial Service companies, mainly Citigroup.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

Butcher said:


> Just because it was taken from a City of London website doesn't mean its innacurate. Plus, NYC is NOT the home of the UN because the UN is international territory, New York is NOT the financial capital of the world, because London is, and New York is not the communications center because London is. London is at the center of the time zones (indisputable). That is one reason that London is the biggest air hub in the world. Also, London is the only city in the world that can do business with New York and Tokyo in the same working day.


LOL! Now you`re definetly exaggerating. Even the tiny little village I live in can do business with NY and Tokyo at the same time, actually almost every city in Europe can do so... Also the argument of the NYC not being the home of the UN is quite picky. It`s as if one would say the Vatican City is not in Rome. Of course, the territory the HQ is built on is international territory, but still it is an integral part of NYC. Not to forget all the institutions affliated to the UN situated in NYC.
And for the rest of you: we`ve had this discussion for about two million times so far. Is it really worth discussing about it again?


----------



## Islander (Jul 29, 2004)

Butcher said:


> I don't consider the UN to be part of New York. That is my opinion.


Yeah, that makes sense. After all, it's a complete coincidence that they chose Manhattan when they could have carved out a chunk of international territory for the UN HQ anywhere on the globe, for example Antarctica or the Arizona desert. I'm sure the UN would have actually ended up settling in one of those two prime locations, but who's going to turn down a free plot of land at the expense of the Rockefellers, right?


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^The reason the UN was hq'd in the US was because America came up with the idea for the UN in the first place. It had nothing to do with prime location.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

defi said:


> LOL! Now you`re definetly exaggerating. Even the tiny little village I live in can do business with NY and Tokyo at the same time, actually almost every city in Europe can do so... Also the argument of the NYC not being the home of the UN is quite picky. It`s as if one would say the Vatican City is not in Rome. Of course, the territory the HQ is built on is international territory, but still it is an integral part of NYC. Not to forget all the institutions affliated to the UN situated in NYC.
> And for the rest of you: we`ve had this discussion for about two million times so far. Is it really worth discussing about it again?


well, I'm sorry, but I did read that London was the only major city that could do business with Tokyo and NYC in the same working day. If you want to figure out whether or not that is true, go ahead. And tell me, what does the UN even have to do with this discussion? Lets drop it now. And no, it is not worth discussing because no side is going to change their opinion.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

SHiRO said:


> Anyway, if there is such a thing as a financial center of the world...it is London because *more money flows through it than through any other city in the world including New York and LDN's financial sector is also more international than NYC's.*


Right, spot on :applause: :applause:


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

I love how those who support London blindly ignore a mass of facts. Here are more facts that supports NY's role as the financial capital of the world:

*Nasdaq, NY's No. 2 exchange, "lists more companies and, on average, trades more shares per day than any other stock exchange in the world." * (Source: Wikipedia)

*World's highest paid hedge fund managers in 2004 (NY-Based 5/ London Based:*
Edward S. Lampert $1.02 billion (ESL Investments: NY)
James Simons $670 million (Renaissance Technologies: NY)
Bruce Kovner $550 million (Caxton Associates: NY)
Steven Cohen $450 million (SAC Capital Advisors:NY)
David Tepper $420 million (Appaloosa Management: NY)
George Soros $305 million (Soros Fund Management: NY)
(Sources: WSJ and Newsmax.com)



MikeHunt said:


> Tokyo and London follow what NY did the day before. Why, as set forth below, NY is the world's financial capital. (Despite these facts, however, let the delusional Brits think what they want!)
> 
> *World's Largest Stock Exchange (NY):*
> 
> ...


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

pottebaum - LOL no it was not like that and you know that.






MikeHunt said:


> I am really amazed at how pathetic many London forumers are on this board. Their delusions regarding London's alleged pre-eminence is really quite sad.
> 
> Having lived in London, I know that the education that Londoners receive is grossly inferior to that to which New Yorkers are accustomed, and it shows in the utter ignorance demonstrated by many on this board.


So let me get this straight - you've had both a US and UK education as to actually be able to pass comment! Have to repeat a few years or catch up with UK education standards or something?

Funnily enough the UK education system continues to outscore the US education system in mathematical, science and reading literacy! I though have never been to a school in London, but I have in the metro area of London and in Singapore.





















The funniest thing though is how you make some points about London this and London that, but they are all taken and handled in a mature manner - I assume this is how you 'hope' to work; when your proven wrong you lash out at others? Maybe that is why you're on this forum instead of practicing your arse off - because you have a condition which implies that you are the right party even wrong wrong?






MikeHunt said:


> You haven't out-debated me on any point. That's absurd. Many, though not all of the London forumers here, suffer from the educational deficit to which I referred earlier together (i.e., sub-par education coupled with leaving school en masse at 18) with an unparalleled dementia.


So where is your source to suggest that there is en-masse leaving of school and that everyone somehow contracts dementia at 18 compared to New York City? I can only assume that your basing this on a fact you've read somewhere, or its another case of you losing the plot and pretty much failing to address the points at hand and resorting to crude childish insults!

I never knew that you were banned over at SSP though! What was it there - Chicagoans and their poor education? Maybe people from Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta.... Your insults know no boundaries bar possibly New York! Hey maybe you could be one of those lucky people who manage to get banned on more than one forum!






MikeHunt said:


> I think that people like Taylor (who sends unsolicited e-mails) need to calm down, together with people who make inane comments about the little city across the pond that suffers from a severe little brother complex vis-a-vis NY.


You solicited them when you created a thread that was plain simply an attack on London. Cause and effect. Also they aren't e-mails, they are Private Messages, a slight difference there!

You can't help yourself, and now you come out with crap that London is a little brother! If you knew anything of the two cities, you would know that London is the 'larger' of the two in terms of area and is currently only 8% smaller in population. The population difference though is shrinking, in part because London is now a more attractive destination for migrants of every background than New York is. By 2012, when its hosting the Olympic Games (that New York lost), London will be most likely larger in population than even New York itself! I don't think you'd get me going around calling New York, London's little brother when that happens, although I will think of you just when the Opening Ceremony commences. :laugh:






polako said:


> Great lists. Prove Londoners were wrong all along.


Where has anyone suggested otherwise that those lists were wrong!






MikeHunt said:


> A symbol of New York's status as the world's financial capital is the world's largest bank, NY-based Citigroup, dominating the London "skyline"! This is imperialism in the modern world!


So because of them having one of the largest skyscrapers in London, they must automatically be whaht - the largest bank in London and/or the UK? Looks like your logic has evaporated!
So who is it your with MikeHunt? Won't feel ashamed will you to say who what firm your in, unless its someone really redundant and backward.








































*World's Largest Law Firms: London 4, New York 1









World's Largest Banks: London 4, New York 2*


----------



## lakegz (Oct 23, 2003)

you have WAYYYYYY too much time on your hands. I dont even have enough time to read that geeesh. London has the best internet browsing in the world too i guess.


----------



## Mac (Apr 7, 2005)

When is somebody going to ban that trolling **** "mycunt"......

No matter what facts and figures you put in front of this moron, he can never see past his anti-British vitriol....such a loser, with such a large chip on his shoulder...


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Law firms profits matter -- not gross revenue. Gross revenue depends on how many lawyers a firm has. Profits attract the best lawyers, revenues do not. In this regard, Baker & Mackenzie, a Chicago firm, has enormous revenue and low profits (by NY standards). Therefore, it is a third-tier firm that does not attract the best talent. 

The Brits on this board are funny. London is more historic than Rome, right?   

I've had enough of this idiotic exchange with people who don't work in and know about finance. The facts speak for themselves and demonstrate unequivocally that NY is the financial capital of the world.


----------



## Mac (Apr 7, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> I've had enough of this idiotic exchange with people who don't work in and know about finance. The facts speak for themselves and demonstrate unequivocally that MikeHunt is one of the biggest ignorant twats on these forums.



I've corrected your post to the correct terminology...now do everyone a favour and go and have a car crash.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

You could have a small firm with high RPL, but be incapable of expanding on the national or global stage. The firms that succeed over the long run are those that balance growth and RPL, hence why the top 10 global firms haven't changed much over the last few years.

Your myopia is with London. You have made that clear in this thread and other threads on this forum. I somehow doubt you have the right to be preaching to others when you've been the source of much disruption here.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

lakegz said:


> you have WAYYYYYY too much time on your hands. I dont even have enough time to read that geeesh. London has the best internet browsing in the world too i guess.


Actually, according to the Guiness Book of World Records, London has the world's greatest internet connectivity. It's in the 2005 book, but I can't find it on the net. If anyone has access to the 2005 book, have a look!


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

New York.
Nobody refers to London as the worlds biggest financial centre, apart from the brits.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Of course and also Yanks never go on and on about how everything is bigger and better in the USA.... :crazy:


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Checker said:


> New York.
> Nobody refers to London as the worlds biggest financial centre, apart from the brits.


:| = All I can say to that.


----------



## Vapour (Jul 31, 2002)

Manchester Planner said:


> Actually, according to the Guiness Book of World Records, London has the world's greatest internet connectivity.


What is this "greatest internet connectivity" supposed to mean?


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

everybody knows its new York


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

TeKnO_Lx said:


> everybody knows its new York


Proof please?


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Vapour said:


> What is this "greatest internet connectivity" supposed to mean?


I can't remember the article word for word and I haven't got the book with me right now, so I was wondering if anyone out there has the 2005 edition at hand to get the exact definition. It's not a joke though!


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

london-b said:


> :| = All I can say to that.


well ok.but thats how it is.

I think most people wouldnt even connect London with being europes biggest financial center


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

"I think most people wouldnt even connect London with being europes biggest financial center"

I hope you're having a laugh. London is without a doubt Europe's largest financial centre. Frankfurt, Paris and so are waaay smaller than London when it comes to commercial activity of the sort we're talking about.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Checker said:


> well ok.but thats how it is.
> 
> I think most people wouldnt even connect London with being europes biggest financial center


Who are these people? I hope thats not you. Some people need to be educated :doh:


----------



## kenlau13 (Sep 28, 2005)

What about Hong Kong?


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

I didnt say its not the case.
All Im saying is,that most people dont connect London with being europes or even the worlds biggest financial centre.

But anyways, it isnt much bigger than Frankfurt.
Frankfurts problem is that it only represents 600.000 inhabitants of around 5 million in the metro,and 3.5 million in the city borders.
therefore the financial stats for Frankfurt are somehow misleading.the same goes for Paris which has only 2.1 million inhabitants officially.

and we should also remember that the whole of Great Britain isnt even the biggest economic power in Europe,nor in the world.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

"Frankfurts problem is that it only represents 600.000 inhabitants of around 5 million in the metro,and 3.5 million in the city borders."

We're not talking about population.

"therefore the financial stats for Frankfurt are somehow misleading."

Erm.

"the same goes for Paris which has only 2.1 million inhabitants officially."

Yes and the City of London has only 8'000 inhabitants...

"and we should also remember that the whole of Great Britain isnt even the biggest economic power in Europe,nor in the world."

Again, nothing to do with London's importance as a financial centre. Saying that though, the UK is still one of the world's largest economies and Europe's second largest.


----------



## DesiFem (Sep 28, 2005)

Cello,

I'm a new user. I've been reading the forums for quite awhile but never posted. :weirdo:


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Oh, sorry! But there are always lots and lots of clones, especially in contoversial threads!


----------



## DesiFem (Sep 28, 2005)

Yeah, I kind of figured that based on how aggressively people argue about the two cities.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

DesiFem said:


> According to the research publication done by the "Corporation of London", they mentioned that London comes a close second to New York in terms of *International Financial Center Competitiveness* .
> http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A8241D1B-F07F-4AF5-8113-A5657E911363/0/BC_RS_sizing_0306_FR.pdf


That links not working for me; but my computer's a bit screwed at the moment. I'll try it later.



Nick-Taylor said:


>


How unfair is that? It makes perfectly good sense that London would make up a larger share of the world's cross border banking. New York's in the United States; that English-speaking nation of 300 million people with a GDP 6.5X larger than the UK's and more Forbes 2000 companies, millionaires, and billionaires than the entire continent of Europe combined. If New York wired some money over to LA, would that count towards your graph? No. But it would for London. It's not so much a case of being 'international' here. You're just excluding the world's largest economy from New York's case..

Same argument goes for that equity graph. 



Nick-Taylor said:


> "World's largest law firms"


*World's 10 Most Profitable Law Firms 2004 (NY 5/ London 1)
*1Sullivan & Cromwell 1,842.38 
2 Bonelli 1,650.00 
3 Chiomenti Studio Legale 1,473.90 
4 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP 1,429.68 
5 Weil Gotshal 1,367.70 
6 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 1,355.99 
7 Gianni Origoni Grippo & Partners 1,316.05 
8 Slaughter and May 1,207.12 
9 Shearman & Sterling 1,134.90 
10 Latham & Watkins 1,127.95


Nick-taylor said:


> *"World's Largest Banks"*


Now, I use Forbes for my lists, too, but it is not always consistent. Look at Mike's listing a few pages back; he got his from "The Banker". 
And here's another way to look at it;









When you look things up and begin to gain an understanding of finance, you see how deceiving Nick-Taylor can be.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

MikeHunt, more money flows through LDN than through New York plus LDN is more internationally orientated, there is no other way of measuring this. All your little lists are futile...

Like talking to a brick wall...


----------



## Mike (Sep 12, 2002)

Checker said:


> ^^Thats true.But in Frankfurts case, many banks and financial companies are situated outside of the official city border, and wont appear in any stats for Frankfurt


Even if you would include the metro Frankfurt would come far behind London. Frankfurt is not so dominating in Germany like London is in the UK. Some examples:


- World's biggest derivates market (EUWAX) is in Stuttgart
- World's biggest reinsurances Munich Re and Germany's biggest insurance Allianz have their HQ in Munich (includes Dresdner Bank and Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein)
- Most big cities in Germany have their own stock exchange like Berlin, Dusseldorf, Hannover, Munich, Stuttgart which are eating away turnover from Frankfurt.

I for instance do my personal orders often in Stuttgart because they have some nice guarantees (i.e. for certificate trading Stuttgart guarantees the same or better prices than you get from Frankfurt market makers) and lower fees.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

^^ This is true. Gawc shows Hamburg, Berlin, Düsseldorf and Munich as Global Cities (Frankfurt being alpha), so 5 Global Cities, while in Britain there is only London. It dominates much more! And don't forget London's role as leader in the Commonwealth!


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

For those who say that NY is more recognised as the world finance Centre. You are probably correct. The fact is most people, including me to a degree and I work for a finacial company , have very little understanding of econoimics and how finance really works. So they pick out NY because it's Stock Exchange is the biggest, and stocks are the only part remotley relevant to most people. Hence why the stock exchanges are constantly on the news, even though in the finacial sector they are far from the most important part.

London handles more money than NY hence it is the finicial capital.
New York handles more business - Hence it is the commercial capital.
Tokyo has more overall value hence it has the biggest economy.

And MikeHunt you keep going on about how Londoners are obsessed that Londers are 'best in everything' according to them. But if this was the case then why would they readily admit that NY is the commerical centre of the world? Also it was mentioned by ShiRO early that London lost it's position has world finance centre during the mid-ninities but has since reclaimed it. Why would he say this if he thought London was completly dominate? You're the one who think NY is dominate in everything, not the other way around.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> MikeHunt, more money flows through LDN than through New York plus LDN is more internationally orientated, there is no other way of measuring this. All your little lists are futile...
> 
> Like talking to a brick wall...


Shiro, 

Your inability to comprehend the following facts is astounding. Talk about brick walls.

PS: The Corporation of London admits that NY is No. 1 (although calling itself a close second is disingenuous).

According to the research publication done by the "Corporation of London", they mentioned that London comes a close second to New York in terms of International Financial Center Competitiveness . 
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...-8113-A5657E911363/0/BC_RS_sizing_0306_FR.pdf 



*Nasdaq, NY's No. 2 exchange, "lists more companies and, on average, trades more shares per day than any other stock exchange in the world." * (Source: Wikipedia)

*World's highest paid hedge fund managers in 2004 (NY-Based 5/ London Based:*
Edward S. Lampert $1.02 billion (ESL Investments: NY)
James Simons $670 million (Renaissance Technologies: NY)
Bruce Kovner $550 million (Caxton Associates: NY)
Steven Cohen $450 million (SAC Capital Advisors:NY)
David Tepper $420 million (Appaloosa Management: NY)
George Soros $305 million (Soros Fund Management: NY)
(Sources: WSJ and Newsmax.com)



MikeHunt said:


> Tokyo and London follow what NY did the day before. Why, as set forth below, NY is the world's financial capital. (Despite these facts, however, let the delusional Brits think what they want!)
> 
> *World's Largest Stock Exchange (NY):*
> 
> ...


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

cello1974 said:


> ^^ This is true. Gawc shows Hamburg, Berlin, Düsseldorf and Munich as Global Cities (Frankfurt being alpha), so 5 Global Cities, while in Britain there is only London. It dominates much more! And don't forget London's role as leader in the Commonwealth!


Yes, I don't think anyone would deny that Germany has a larger economy than the UK. But it is spread over many major cities so falls short of london. Wasn't there talk a few years back of a london-Frankfurt Stock exchange merger? What happened with that?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

You realize why London handles more money than New York, right? The currency exchanges. Why do people trade currencies? So they can acquire assets, like stocks (NYSE-the world's largest stock exchange), commodities(NYNEX--the world's largest commodity exchange), etc.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

crazyevildude said:


> Yes, I don't think anyone would deny that Germany has a larger economy than the UK. But it is spread over many major cities so falls short of london. Wasn't there talk a few years back of a london-Frankfurt Stock exchange merger? What happened with that?


It didn't happen. From what i know the London Stock Exchange didn't want to merge with Frankfurt... :sleepy: It's because they hate us...


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

cello1974 said:


> It didn't happen. From what i know the London Stock Exchange didn't want to merge with Frankfurt... :sleepy: It's because they hate us...


Well...I can't say I blame them. You keep kicking are arses at football :  .


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

^^ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lough: :rofl:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Mike, don't post the same list over and over again...

More money flows through London...end of story...


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^No, not end of story. That massive amount of money flowing in and out of the city is due to the currency exchanges; of course London's incredibly strong in other categories, but this is where the whole "more than NY and Tokyo combined" stuff is coming from. People exchange a lot of money. I could just as easily go on and on about NY's huge stock markets; listing thousands of companies that employ millions people.

You could atleast try and see both sides of the story. You _are_ a moderator, after all.


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> ^No, not end of story. That massive amount of money flowing in and out of the city is due to the currency exchanges; of course London's incredibly strong in other categories, but this is where the whole "more than NY and Tokyo combined" stuff is coming from. People exchange a lot of money. *I could just as easily go on and on about NY's huge stock markets; listing thousands of companies that employ millions people.*
> 
> You could atleast try and see both sides of the story. You _are_ a moderator, after all.


Yes, and this is why NY is the world commercial centre. London is the finicial centre. Different things.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Stock exchanges are part of the financial sector, and one of the main reasons the city scores so strongly in both 'finance' and 'commerce'.


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

Yes, but the thousands of companies employing millions of people bit is commericial.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Mike, don't post the same list over and over again...
> 
> More money flows through London...end of story...


Shiro,

Don't ignore the lists and the independent analysis that London is No. 2. What's your response to that? It's absurd that you ignore all of the facts in this list (including the fact that no major investment bank is based in London, that NY has the No. 1 stock exchange and the No. 2 commodities exchange) and all you can say is "more money flows through London... end of story." That's not the end of the story. Anyone with any knowledge of finance knows that the elements (that I've posted repeatedly and that you and others ignore repeatedly) demonstrate NY's supremacy. By the way, what is your background that you claim to have this knowledge of finance and tell me precisely what you mean by your ad naseum (and meaningless) statement that "more money flows through London"? What are you referring to? Moreover, pls. re-post your source for this meaningless statement.


----------

