THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTRES INDEX - Z/Yen · The Global Financial Centres Index Background & Introduction 1 The Main Themes of GFCI 6 A Return of Confidence 2 Connectivity and Co-operation

THE GLOBALFINANCIAL CENTRES INDEX

September 2009 en

6

THE GLOBALFINANCIAL CENTRES INDEX

en

6

The Global Financial Centres Index

Background & Introduction 1

The Main Themes of GFCI 6

A Return of Confidence 2

Connectivity and Co-operation 3

The Global Leaders 4

Rise of the Asian Centres 8

North American Centres 13

European Centres 15

Offshore Centres 17

Industry Sectors 22

The Five Key Areas of Competitiveness 23

Summary & Conclusions 26

Other Information from GFCI 6 27

Instrumental Factors 28

Contents

1

The Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) was firstproduced by the Z/Yen Group for the City of London inMarch 2007. It rated and ranked each major financialcentre in the world in terms of competitiveness. Sincethen, the increase in the number of respondents andadditional data in successive editions has highlightedthe changing priorities and concerns of financialservices professionals.

This 6th edition of GFCI provides ratings and rankingsfor 75 financial centres, up from 62 in GFCI 5,calculated by a ‘factor assessment model’. Thiscombines instrumental factors (external indices) withassessments of financial centres from responses to anonline questionnaire:

� Instrumental factors: Previous research indicatesthat there are many factors that combine to make afinancial centre competitive. These can be groupedinto five overarching areas of competitiveness –People, Business Environment, Infrastructure, MarketAccess and General Competitiveness. Objectiveevidence of these areas of competitiveness isprovided by a wide variety of comparable sources.For example, evidence about the infrastructurecompetitiveness of a financial centre is drawn froma survey of property and an index of occupancycosts. Evidence about a fair and just businessenvironment is drawn from a corruption perceptionindex and an opacity index. A review of theinstrumental factors used in the GFCI model hasbeen undertaken to ensure that the most up todate, comprehensive evidence is used from themost reliable sources. There are 64 instrumentalfactors used in the GFCI 6 model, up from 57 in GFCI 5 (see page 31). Of these factors, 24 havebeen updated since GFCI 5, 10 are directreplacements for factors used in GFCI 5 and 15 arecompletely new to the GFCI model. These newadditions include an index of tax informationexchange agreements, an index of globalintellectual property and three new measures oftransport infrastructure. Not all financial centres arerepresented in all the external sources, and thestatistical model takes account of these gaps.

� Financial centre assessments: Responses to an

ongoing online questionnaire completed byinternational financial services professionals (whoassess financial centres with which they are familiar).The online questionnaire runs continuously to keepthe GFCI up-to-date with people’s changingassessments. Since GFCI 5, 566 additionalrespondents have filled in the online questionnaireand been included in the model, thereby providing14,877 new assessments from financial servicesprofessionals across the world. A total of 36,497financial centre assessments from 1,802 financialservices professionals are used to compute GFCI 6.The assessments used in the GFCI model werecollected over a two year period from July 2007 toJune 2009. The assessments are discountedaccording to age so that the most recent carrymore weighting. Where the most recent assessmentsare referred to, this means those collected in the 6- month period since GFCI 5 was computed –January to June 2009.

The instrumental factors and financial centreassessments are combined using statistical techniquesto build a predictive model of financial centrecompetitiveness using support vector machinemathematics. The predictive model is used to answerquestions such as:

“If an investment banker gives Singapore and Sydney certain assessments, then, basedon the instrumental factors for Singapore,Sydney and Paris, how would that personassess Paris?”

Full details of the methodology behind the GFCI canbe found at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/GFCIThe full list of the 75 financial centres rated in GFCI 6 isshown on page 21.

Background & Introduction


This latest version of GFCI shows that of the75 centres rated, 59 centres havereceived higher scores and only threehave decreased. Thirteen new centresappear in the ratings for the first time. GFCI5 demonstrated that the financial crisishad created uncertainty and a significantreduction in confidence, with anunprecedented fall in the ratings for everycentre. The current rise in ratingsdemonstrates a return of confidence toGFCI 4 levels, with the top scores herebeing very similar, and the bottom scoresshowing a small improvement.

GFCI 5 demonstrated a ‘flight to safety’with the top rated centres being less hard

hit by the fall in ratings than the bottomcentres. The rise in ratings this time isvariable, with the change in ratingsvarying from minus six points (Gibraltar) toplus 135 (Beijing) with an averagemovement of plus 43 points. The large risesin ratings were achieved mainly by theAsian centres with Shanghai, Beijing andSeoul all seeing rises in excess of 100 points,as did Sao Paulo, Wellington andBudapest further down the rankings.

To demonstrate the changing pattern ofperceptions, Chart 1 shows the 3 monthmoving average assessments given byquestionnaire respondents to the top 25financial centres.

It seems clear that GFCI 5, based onassessments given during the second halfof 2008, showed the low point in GFCIratings with perceptions being affected bywidespread recession and uncertaintyabout the future of financial services. Thefailure of Lehman Brothers affectedpeople’s confidence in autumn 2008, for

example, and this is reflected in the chart.The level of assessments has returned tothe scores of last spring and summerreflecting increased optimism andindications that people feel the end of thecrisis may be in sight.

2


The Main Themes of GFCI 6A Return of Confidence

Chart 13 Month MovingAverageAssessments forthe Top 25Centres

Date >

Ave

rag

e A

sse

ssm

en

ts >

GFC

I2

GFC

I3

GFC

I4

GFC

I5

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

760

780

Jul 0

9

Jun

09

Ma

y 09

Ap

r 09

Ma

r 09

Feb

09

Jan

09

De

c 0

8

No

v 08

Oc

t 08

Sep

08

Au

g 0

8

Jul 0

8

Jun

08

Ma

y 08

Ap

r 08

Ma

r 08

Feb

08

Jan

08

De

c 0

7

No

v 07

Oc

t 07

Sep

07

Au

g 0

7

Jul 0

7

3


Connectivity and Co-operation

Another noticeable aspect of the GFCI 5ratings was the large variation in individualcentre responses, showing a degree ofuncertainty about the global economicsituation and what might happen. It isnoticeable in GFCI 6 that this degree ofvariability has been greatly reduced. Ofthe top 20 financial centres that were inGFCI 5, 15 have shown a reduction in thestandard deviation of assessments, whichindicates a greater degree of consensusand certainty than in 2008.

It is interesting to note that there has beena distinct shift in the location ofrespondents to the GFCI survey. Of the 566new respondents, nearly 50% have comefrom Asia (previously just under 10%).

There is still the highest response rate fromEurope (43%) from the total responsesincluded in the model. The GFCI modelagain has an under-representation ofrespondents from North America. Abreakdown of respondents is shown onpage 27.

The increased interest from Asianrespondents has resulted in highernumbers of people being familiar with,and rating, Asian centres. The financialcentres that have risen most in GFCI 6 areAsian, with Beijing, Shanghai and Seoul allrising by over 100 points in the ratings.Shenzhen is a new entrant into the GFCIand is currently in 5th place overall.

The GFCI has previously highlighted theneed for competitive financial centres tobe connected and co-operative.Respondents to the GFCI questionnairebelieve that the need for connectivityand co-operation is greater than ever ifthe industry is to deal with, and recoverfrom, the current crisis. A representativecomment:

“The only way we are going torebuild a sustainable and stablefinance industry is for policy

makers, especially those in NewYork and London, to worktogether. Going it alone is nolonger an option.”London Based Investment

Bank Director

These issues will be covered in moredepth within each separate section, byidentifying which centres appear to bethe most aware of and the most closelyconnected with other centres andgeographical regions.

4


Hong Kong and Singapore havedemonstrated stable long termcompetiveness over the last two yearsand we consider that they have nowjoined London and New York as genuineglobal leaders; consequently these

centres are discussed here. London andNew York still lead the field although thegap between the second and thirdplaced centre has been cut from 81points in GFCI 5 to 45 points here. The fourglobal leaders are:

London remains in top place, 16 pointsahead of New York (from 13 points inGFCI 5). The financial crisis has had asignificant impact on both centres butthey remain ahead of Hong Kong andSingapore. London remains in the topquartile of nearly all instrumental factorsand leads all industry sector sub-indices(page 22) except the Banking sub-index,where it is 2nd to New York. London leadsin all areas of competitiveness (page 23).

New York has gained 6 points since GFCI5 and remains in the top quartile in over80% of its instrumental factors. New York is2nd in all sub-indices except the Bankingindustry sub-index where it is in 1stposition. We have long argued that therelationship between London and NewYork is mutually supportive and a gain forone does not mean a loss for the other.Before the crisis, a level of competitionbetween the two centres was veryevident. Whilst many industryprofessionals still see a great deal ofcompetition, policymakers appear torecognise that working together oncertain elements of regulatory reform islikely to enhance the competitiveness ofboth centres.

Hong Kong continues to thrive and hasrisen by 45 points since GFCI 5. It has alsoregained 3rd place in GFCI fromSingapore (which was ahead in GFCI 4and 5). It is in 3rd place in all areas ofcompetitiveness and 3rd in the banking,asset management and insuranceindustry sector sub-indices.

Singapore has been climbing steadily inthe GFCI ratings and has risen by 32 points in GFCI 6. It is 4th place in allareas of competitiveness and 3rd in theprofessional services and Government &Regulatory industry sector sub-indices.

The Global Leaders

Table 1The GlobalLeaders

Centre GFCI 6 Rating GFCI 6 Rank Change in Change in

Rating since Rank since

GFCI 5 GFCI 5

London 790 1 9 0

New York 774 2 6 0

Hong Kong 729 3 45 +1

Singapore 719 4 32 -1

5


Shown in Chart 2 are three month rollingaverages of all assessments given to thetop four centres in the GFCI onlinequestionnaire:

It is worth noting the gradual rise of HongKong and Singapore towards Londonand New York. In mid 2007, before thecrisis began, London and New Yorkformed a pair with very similar averageassessments (just above 800) and HongKong and Singapore formed another pairwith similar average assessments(approximately 700). The four centres arenow much more closely grouped, with farmore similar average assessments. It isevident that all four centres haveconsistently performed well in all areas ofcompetitiveness with London, New Yorkand Hong Kong being in the top five inmost of the sub-indices since GFCI 1 andSingapore making a gradual rise over thepast two years.

GFCI responses give an interesting insightinto how connected different financialcentres are – how well known and well-regarded individual centres are by

respondents in different locations. Thefollowing four charts show the averageassessments given to the global leadersby respondents in different locations. Thebars on each chart represent how manypoints assessments from each locationare above or below the overall averageassessment for that centre. Note thatvalues from locations that provided veryfew assessments for a centre have beenexcluded as these were not statisticallysignificant. The second vertical line oneach chart indicates the averageassessment value excluding home region assessments, as these are oftenmore favourable than other responses,and this gives a clearer indication of how relatively well regarded a centre isfurther afield.

Chart 23 Month RollingAverage ofAssessments forGlobal Centres

Date >

GFC

I Ass

e3

Mo

nth

Ro

llin

g A

vera

ge

Ass

ess

me

nts

>

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

Singapore

Hong KongNew York

London

Jul-09Jan-09Jul-08Jan-08Jul-07

Respondents are asked to rate only thosecentres with which they are familiar. It follows that the number of assessmentsgiven to a centre by people not basedthere, indicates how well that centre isknown by (and possibly visited by) non-residents. London receivesassessments from over 80% of ‘non-home’respondents (those respondents not

based in London). This is the highestpercentage of any centre and indicatesthat London is well known in otherfinancial centres. Chart 3 shows thatLondon is rated particularly highly by NewYork based respondents – 86 points higherthan the average. It is also rated well bypeople based in London.

New York receives assessments from overtwo-thirds of ‘non-home’ respondents,the second highest percentage in theGFCI. New York is rated also 150 pointshigher than its overall average score byNew York based respondents but belowaverage by Londoners and those basedin offshore centres.

6


Chart 3AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation -London

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 1500

Average without Home

Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

Chart 4AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation – NewYork

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

Hong Kong receives assessments fromover nearly 60% of ‘non-home’respondents – the third most ‘connected’financial centre in GFCI. It is particularlywell regarded by Asian respondents whoassess it to be 50 points better than theworldwide average assessment.

With the Asia responses excluded,respondents from the UK viewed HongKong the most favourably.

Singapore receives assessments fromunder half ‘non-home’ respondents andis therefore less well connected than theother global leaders by this measure. Thisis perhaps due to its more recent rise toprominence. Singapore is rated well byAsia based respondents but less highly

by other regions, albeit UK respondentswere more favourably inclined than other areas.

7


Chart 5AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation – Hong Kong

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

Chart 6AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation -Singapore

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

8


Rise of the Asian Centres

All Asian centres have shown a markedimprovement in the GFCI ratings sinceGFCI 5. As well as being well supportedby respondents from Asia itself, this mayindicate that the Asian centres havebeen less badly affected by the recentcrisis than many of the leading European

and North American Centres. This rise inthe ratings of the Asian centres certainlyties in with the fact that many Asianeconomies are currently faring betterthan the main Western economies. The top rated Asian centres are shown in Table 2.

Shenzhen was flagged up in GFCI 5 as acentre that was being highly rated, albeitby too few respondents (25) to beincluded in the model. In GFCI 6,Shenzhen is included in the rankings forthe first time, as the highest new entry, in5th position.

Tokyo has risen back into the top ten withan increase of 63 points, having fallen tofifteenth place in GFCI 5. It wassomewhat of a surprise that Tokyo wasranked outside the top ten in GFCI 5 –perhaps an over reaction to some of thetrouble that Tokyo has suffered recently.A top ten position is probably a moreaccurate reflection. Whilst Japan doeshave significant economic difficulties,Tokyo is a leading financial centre thatperforms well in most areas - it is 5th in theAsset Management sub-index and 6th inthe Banking sub-index. Tokyo is also 5th intwo of the area of competitiveness sub-indices – the People sub-index and theInfrastructure sub-index.

GFCI respondents have been predictingthe rise to prominence of Shanghai forthe past two years, with it consistentlyfeaturing as one of the centres most likelyto become more significant in the nextfew years. Shanghai has now entered the GFCI top ten with a rise of 117 pointsand performs particularly well in theBanking sub-index (7th) and Insurancesub-index (6th).

Beijing, the other Chinese centre in GFCI,has risen by 135 points since GFCI 5 and isnow in 22nd place. Seoul also showed arise of over 100 points and is 35th in therankings. The rise of these four centressince the start of GFCI is clearly seen inthe chart of rolling average assessments:

Table 2Top AsianCentres in GFCI 6



GFCI 5 GFCI 5

Hong Kong 729 3 45 +1

Singapore 719 4 32 -1

Shenzhen 695 5 - -

Tokyo 674 7 63 +8

Shanghai 655 10 117 +25

Beijing 613 22 135 +29

Taipei 609 24 91 +17

Seoul 576 35 114 +18

Osaka 565 38 96 +14

Kuala Lumpur 557 45 47 0

Bangkok 532 60 52 -10

Date >

GFC

I Ass

e3

Mo

nth

Ro

llin

g A

vera

ge

Ass

ess

me

nts

>

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

TaipeiSeoul

Beijing

Shanghai

Tokyo

ShenzhenSingapore

Hong Kong


There appears to be considerablevolatility during 2008 with several of theAsian centres but it is noticeable that thespread between the centres in 2007 wasapproximately 350 and it is currentlyapproximately 200 – the averageassessments are much more closelygrouped and the average volatility ofassessments is also significantly reduced.

9


Chart 73 Month RollingAverage ofAssessments forSelected AsianCentres

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

The following charts show the averageassessments given to selected Asiancentres. The second line shows theaverage assessment with the Asiaresponses removed:

Shenzhen, in common with most of theAsian centres, is well supported byrespondents based in Asia. It is rather lesswell known and supported byrespondents elsewhere. Shenzhen wasonly assessed by 16% of ‘non-home’respondents indicating that it is not verywell connected outside Asia, and ratings

from outside Asia were generallyconsiderably lower than from thosebased in Asia. Over 80% of respondentswho assessed Shenzhen were based inAsia – many in Hong Kong. Shenzhen isjust across the border from Hong Kongand many view the city as a naturalmainland partner to Hong Kong.

Tokyo has a far more balancedrespondent profile than many otherAsian centres, with relatively similarratings across the board.

10


Chart 8AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation -Shenzhen

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

Chart 9AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation - Tokyo

Shanghai and Beijing present a similarprofile, with support from Asia and ratherlower ratings from elsewhere.

In general, Asian centres are wellsupported by Asian respondents withregard to both the number ofassessments and the averageassessment given. That is, the Asiancentres are well known and highlyregarded by Asian respondents. The verylow number of assessments given toAsian centres by North American basedrespondents, and relatively lowproportion of European respondents,shows that some Asian centres are farless well known outside of Asia. It shouldalso be noted that many Asian centresreceived consistently lower ratings fromoutside the region than inside.

11


Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

Chart 10AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation -Shanghai

Assessments >

Loc

atio

n >

-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150


Asia

Europe

UK

North America

Offshore

0

Chart 11AverageAssessments byRespondentLocation - Beijing

Shanghai has consistently been one ofthe top three centres expected tobecome more significant but has seen alarge increase in the number of mentionsin GFCI 6. In past editions of the GFCI,Dubai has been repeatedly mentionedas a centre likely to become moresignificant. The troubles that have hit theeconomy of Dubai recently have

affected respondents’ perceptions andDubai is no longer mentioned as often,and hence does not feature in the topfive. The GFCI questionnaire also asks inwhich centres the respondents’organisations are most likely to openoffices over the next few years andagain the Asian centres feature strongly

12


Table 3Centres Likely toBecome MoreSignificant

Financial Centre Number of Mentions in 2009

Shanghai 91

Shenzhen 84

Hong Kong 27

Beijing 14

Singapore 14

Table 4Centres WhereNew Offices willbe Opened


Shenzhen 41

Shanghai 27

Beijing 19

Singapore 16

Dubai 12

The GFCI questionnaire asks whichcentres are likely to become moresignificant in the next few years. As inprevious years, Asia features very stronglyand is where respondents expect themain increases to come from.

13


North American Centres

The North American Centres have allperformed reasonably well in GFCI 6 andall have increased their ratings:

Chicago remains the number two NorthAmerican financial centre behind NewYork and retains its position in the GFCItop ten. Chicago is not just very strong inderivatives trading, for which it isprobably best known, but is a real ‘all-rounder’. It is strong in all areas, and inthe top ten in all industry and area ofcompetitiveness sub-indices. Chicago israted highly by respondents based inNew York but (surprisingly) very few other respondents for North Americaassessed Chicago.

Chicago is rated by 38% of non-homerespondents and is well regarded bymany. A high response from Asianrespondents is notable although theaverage assessment from Asia is lowerthan that from New York and London.

Toronto has risen 32 points in the GFCIratings and is now the third NorthAmerican financial centre havingovertaken Boston since GFCI 5. Itperforms well in the People sub-indexwhere it is in 10th place. Toronto is ratedby a third of non-home respondents andsurprisingly it is rated by very fewrespondents from North America. It is theonly North American centre that enjoyssupport from the offshore centres and it isalso well regarded by respondentsbased in London.

Table 5Top NorthAmericanCentres in GFCI 6



GFCI 5 GFCI 5

New York 774 2 6 0

Chicago 661 8 23 -1

Toronto 647 13 32 -2

San Francisco 634 17 25 0

Boston 634 18 16 -9

Washington D.C. 630 20 34 +1

Vancouver 589 29 20 -4

Montreal 586 32 18 -6

Date >

3 M

on

th R

olli

ng

Ave

rag

e A

sse

ssm

en

ts >

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

Boston

San Francisco

TorontoChicago

New York


Shown in Chart 12 are the rolling averageassessments for several prominent NorthAmerican centres. There is a very highdegree of similarity between theaverage assessments of these centres,with the exception of New York, which is

rather less volatile than the other centres.It may be that the sentiment of NorthAmericans to North American centresmoves with broader economic orpolitical sentiment rather than withindividual centres.

The dip in average assessments of mostleading financial centres in spring 2009 isseen particularly well in this chart. Itwould appear that this was a low point ineconomic sentiment and the dipcorresponds closely to the low pointsexperienced on the major stock marketsaround the world.

14


Chart 123 Month RollingAverage ofAssessments forSelected NorthAmericanCentres

15


European Centres

European financial centres have hadmixed fortunes since GFCI 5. Severalcentres including Paris, Munich andMadrid have seen strong improvementsin their ratings whilst Dublin and Glasgowhave suffered a reduction in GFCI

ratings, which, whilst small, stands indirect contrast with the gains made bymost other centres. Both centres haveseen a significant slide in their rankings,Dublin falling from 10th to 23rd place andGlasgow from 31st to 49th.

Zurich and Geneva both remain in theGFCI top ten although have fallen in therankings, by one and three placesrespectively. Both centres remain strong inasset management and private banking.

Both the Swiss centres were rated byapproximately half of the non-homerespondents which demonstrates thatthey are well known and well connected.They received similar patterns ofassessments with strong support fromoffshore centres and London and belowaverage assessments from Asianrespondents.

Switzerland has however sufferedreputational damage caused to someextent by the continuing difficulties at themajor Swiss banks and by the fact thatSwitzerland remains on the OECD ‘greylist’ of “Jurisdictions that have committedto the internationally agreed taxstandard, but have not yet substantiallyimplemented it”.

Table 6Top EuropeanCentres in GFCI 6



GFCI 5 GFCI 5

London 790 1 9 0

Zurich 676 6 17 -1

Geneva 660 9 22 -3

Frankfurt 649 12 16 -4

Paris 630 19 30 0

Dublin 613 23 -5 -13

Edinburgh 605 27 5 -7

Munich 588 30 30 -1

Amsterdam 586 31 11 -7

Stockholm 569 36 13 -6

Brussels 568 37 16 -5

Monaco 563 39 30 -2

Madrid 560 40 54 +7

Copenhagen 560 42 28 -4

Vienna 555 46 42 -4

Milan 554 47 33 -7

Glasgow 550 49 -4 -18

Oslo 538 56 15 -17

Date >

3 M

on

th R

olli

ng

Ave

rag

e A

sse

ssm

en

ts >

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

ParisFrankfurtGenevaZurich

London


Chart 13 below shows that in 2007 Pariswas over 70 points below Frankfurt. Thegap is now less than 30 points. The chartalso indicates that the averageassessments of the mainland Europeancentres have become much closer. In mid

2007 the gap between top (Zurich) andbottom (Paris) was over 150 points. Thegap is now less than 50. The decline inconfidence in mid 2008 is very evident inthis chart:

16


Chart 133 Month RollingAverage ofAssessments forSelectedEuropeanCentres

17


Offshore Centres

The offshore centres have come under adegree of scrutiny during the financialcrisis. Many offshore centres areregarded as ‘tax havens’ and there hasbeen significant pressure applied tothese centres by many nationalregulators as well as international bodiessuch as the OECD. A reduction insecrecy required by the internationally

agreed tax standards has been a keydemand of the regulators. The scores ofthe offshore centres have risen in GFCI 6,but not by as much as those of manyother centres. The rankings of theoffshore locations have generallydeclined, particularly those centrestowards the lower end of the table.

Jersey regains its place just ahead ofGuernsey (by two points on a scale of1,000) having scored within four points ofeach other since GFCI 3. The British VirginIslands are the only offshore centre to risein the rankings, up one place to 33rd.

There has been significant pressureapplied to the so called ‘tax havens’ andthe OECD has regularly updated its lists offinancial centres that are complying withtheir requests. There is a strongcorrelation between GFCI ratings andthe OECD status. The offshore centres,such as the Channel Islands, which areon the OECD ‘White List’ have higherGFCI ratings whereas centres such as theBahamas and Gibraltar on the OECD‘Grey List’ are well below the White Listed centres.

Table 7Top OffshoreCentres in GFCI 6



GFCI 5 GFCI 5

Jersey 640 14 27 -1

Guernsey 638 15 23 -3

Isle of Man 609 25 8 -7

Cayman Islands 608 26 17 -4

Bermuda 597 28 33 -1

British Virgin Islands 584 33 35 +1

Bahamas 551 48 14 -12

Gibraltar 543 51 -6 -18

Chart 14 indicates the current strength of Jersey and Guernsey, and their increased lead in averageassessments over the Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands.

It appears that the offshore centres havegreater volatility in the assessments giventhan other leading centres. This might bedue to rapid changes in perceptionsrelated to political statements madeabout offshore centres. The four offshorecentres in Chart 14 seem to have similardegrees of connectivity. They all receiveassessments from between 35% and 40%of non-home respondents.

All the top offshore centres achievehigher than average assessments fromother offshore centres and from Londonbut lower assessments from Europe and

Asia. Very few respondents from NorthAmerica assessed the offshore centres(even those in the Caribbean). This isperhaps surprising bearing in mind thepressure being applied to the offshorecentres by the US government and thewide coverage in the financial press thatthese centres have been generating.

18


Date >

3 M

on

th R

olli

ng

Ave

rag

e A

sse

ssm

en

ts >

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

Cayman IslandsIsle of Man

Guernsey

Jersey


Chart 143 Month RollingAverage ofAssessments forSelectedOffshore Centres

19


Financial Centre

GFCI 6 Rating

GFCI 6Rank

Change inRating since

GFCI 5

Change inRank since

GFCI 5

London 790 1 9 3 0

New York 774 2 6 3 0

Hong Kong 729 3 45 1 +1

Singapore 719 4 32 5 -1

Shenzhen 695 5 - -

Zurich 676 6 17 5 -1

Tokyo 674 7 63 1 +8

Chicago 661 8 23 5 -1

Geneva 660 9 22 5 -3

Shanghai 655 10 117 1+25

Sydney 651 11 41 1 +5

Frankfurt 649 12 16 5 -4

Toronto 647 13 32 5 -2

Jersey 640 14 27 5 -1

Guernsey 638 15 23 5 -3

Luxembourg 637 16 25 5 -2

San Francisco 634 17 25 3 0

Boston 634 18 16 5 -9

Paris 630 19 30 3 0

Washington D.C. 630 20 34 1 +1

Dubai 617 21 37 1 +2

Beijing 613 22 135 1+29

Dublin 613 23 -5 5 -13

Taipei 609 24 91 1+17

Isle of Man 609 25 8 5 -7

Cayman Islands 608 26 17 5 -4

Edinburgh 605 27 5 5 -7

Hamilton 597 28 33 5 -1

Vancouver 589 29 20 5 -4

Munich 588 30 30 5 -1

Amsterdam 586 31 11 5 -7

Montreal 586 32 18 5 -6

British Virgin Islands 584 33 35 1 +1

Melbourne 584 34 22 5 -6

Seoul 576 35 114 1+18

Stockholm 569 36 13 5 -6

Brussels 568 37 16 5 -5

Osaka 565 38 96 1+14

Financial Centre

GFCI 6 Rating

GFCI 6Rank

Change inRating since

GFCI 5

Change inRank since

GFCI 5

Monaco 563 39 30 5 -2

Madrid 560 40 54 1 +7

Sao Paulo 560 41 120 1+13

Copenhagen 560 42 28 5 -4

Qatar 558 43 51 1 +3

Bahrain 558 44 45 5 -1

Kuala Lumpur 557 45 47 3 0

Vienna 555 46 42 5 -4

Milan 554 47 33 5 -7

Bahamas 551 48 14 5 -12

Glasgow 550 49 -4 5 -18

Johannesburg 550 50 47 5 -2

Gibraltar 543 51 -6 5 -18

Malta 543 52 - -

Mumbai 542 53 57 5 -4

Wellington 541 54 109 1 +2

Mexico City 541 55 - -

Oslo 538 56 15 5 -17

Rome 537 57 98 5 -2

Mauritius 536 58 - -

Helsinki 533 59 21 5 -15

Bangkok 532 60 52 5 -10

Rio de Janeiro 532 61 - -

Jakarta 511 62 - -

Buenos Aires 507 63 - -

Manila 494 64 - -

Prague 492 65 96 5 -7

Lisbon 477 66 68 5 -9

Moscow 462 67 99 5 -7

Riyadh 457 68 - 1 -

Warsaw 456 69 75 5 -10

St. Petersburg 453 70 - -

Tallinn 445 71 - -

Istanbul 442 72 - -

Athens 433 73 98 5 -12

Budapest 425 74 119 5 -12

Reykjavik 415 75 - -

Table 8The GFCI World

GFCI world map overleaf >

20


Table 8The GFCI World

21


Industry Sectors

GFCI 6 provides industry sector sub-indicesfor the Banking, Asset Management,Insurance, Professional Services andGovernment & Regulatory sectors. Theseindices are created by building the GFCIstatistical model using only thequestionnaire responses from respondentsworking in the relevant industry sectors;each sub-index therefore reflects the viewof respondents from one sector alone. As

might be expected of the two globalfinancial centres, London and New Yorkretain 1st and 2nd places in all sector-specific indices, with New York beingahead with the Banking sectorrespondents. Table 9 shows the top 10ranked financial centres in the industrysector sub-indices. The figures in bracketsshow how each centre has moved in thesesub-indices since GFCI 5.

In the Asset Management sub-index, assetmanagement specialist centres such asJersey and Guernsey feature in the topten. Edinburgh also does relatively well at15th place (against 27th in the overallGFCI). There have been several significantimprovements in the Banking andInsurance sub-indices for Asian centres – inthe Insurance sub-index Shenzhen is a newentry at 5th, Shanghai is up 39 places to 6thand Beijing is up 44 places to 9th. In theBanking sub-index Shenzhen is again 5thand Shanghai is up 29 places to 7th. This isat least in part due to a large number ofresponses from these sectors from theAsian centres. Tokyo features in the top tenfor four of the sub-indices, entering theAsset Management and the Bankingsector top tens with a rise of nine places in each.

The Professional Services sub-index reflectsthe main GFCI index fairly closely althoughthe Channel Islands are higher in the sub-index than in the main GFCI and Torontoenters the top ten.

22


1 London 3 (-) New York 3 (-) London 3 (-) London 3 (-) London 3 (-)

2 New York 3 (-) London 3 (-) New York 3 (-) New York 3 (-) New York 3 (-)

3 Hong Kong 1 (+1) Hong Kong 1 (+1) Singapore 3 (-) Hong Kong 1 (+2) Singapore 1 (+1)

4 Singapore 5 (-1) Singapore 5 (-1) Hong Kong 3 (-) Singapore 3 (-) Hong Kong 5 (-1)

5 Tokyo 1 (+9) Shenzhen 1(New) Tokyo 1 (+1) Shenzhen 1(New) Guernsey 1 (+3)

6 Zurich 5 (-1) Tokyo 1 (+9) Frankfurt 5 (-1) Shanghai 1(+39) Jersey 1 (+1)

7 Jersey 5 (-1) Shanghai 1(+29) Toronto 1 (+3) Zurich 5 (-4) Zurich 5 (-2)

8 Chicago 1 (+5) Zurich 5 (-2) Chicago 5 (-3) Tokyo 5 (-1) Geneva 5 (-2)

9 Guernsey 5 (-1) Chicago 5 (-4) Paris 5 (-1) Beijing 1(+44) Chicago 1 (+1)

10 Geneva 5 (-3) Frankfurt 5 (-2) Sydney 1 (+3) Chicago 1 (+3) Toronto 1(+12)

Asset

Management

Banking Government &

Regulatory

Insurance Professional

Services

Table 9Industry Sector Sub-indices (changes against GFCI 5 in brackets)

Rank

The instrumental factors used in the GFCImodel are grouped in five key areas ofcompetitiveness (People, BusinessEnvironment, Market Access, Infrastructureand General Competitiveness). The GFCIfactor assessment model is run with one setof instrumental factors at a time and the

results are compared to identify whichfactors influence which centres. Table 10shows the top ten ranked centres in eachsub-index (the figures in brackets showhow the centre has moved in the sub-index rankings compared with GFCI 5):

Most of the resulting sub-indices are fairlyclosely correlated to the main GFCI.Indeed in the top ten there are fewsurprises. This indicates that to be a leadingfinancial centre, strength in all areas isnecessary. London is top in all areas, NewYork is a very close 2nd, Hong Kong is 3rdand Singapore 4th.

Tokyo has risen in all five areas and Sydneyhas entered the top ten in both the People sub-index and BusinessEnvironment sub-index.

It is interesting to note the differencesbetween average assessments given to acentre and its performance in the sub-indices. These differences are particularlynoticeable in some of the Asian centres.Hong Kong and Singapore perform wellacross the board in the sub-indices, whichreaffirms their status as global leaders.Shenzhen, however, which is 5th in theGFCI ratings with high averageassessments, is 15th in the People

sub-index, 27th for Business Environment, 33rd for Market Access and 46th forInfrastructure. A similar pattern exists forShanghai which is 10th overall but 17th inthe People sub-index, 22nd for BusinessEnvironment, 26th for Market Access and33rd for Infrastructure; Beijing also exhibitssimilar characteristics. These lower ratingsin the sub-indices indicate that thesecentres are more volatile and that there isa greater mismatch in the way somepeople rate them relative to theinstrumental factors.

This type of analysis can also be used in aslightly different way, to look at thedifference between the averageassessment given to a centre and the GFCIrating (the average assessment adjustedto reflect the instrumental factors). If acentre has a higher average assessmentthan the GFCI rating, this indicates that therespondents’ perceptions about a centreare higher than the quantitative measuresalone would suggest. For non-home

23


The Five Key Areas of Competitiveness

1 London 3 (-) London 3 (-) London 3 (-) London 3 (-) London 3 (-)

2 New York 3 (-) New York 3 (-) New York 3 (-) New York 3 (-) New York 3 (-)

3 Hong Kong 1 (+1) Hong Kong 1 (+1) Hong Kong 3 (-) Hong Kong 3 (-)Hong Kong 3 (-)

4 Singapore 5 (-1) Singapore 5 (-1) Singapore 3 (-) Singapore 3 (-) Singapore 3 (-)

5 Tokyo 1(+10) Chicago 1 (+1) Chicago 3 (-) Tokyo 1 (+7) Chicago 1 (+1)

6 Sydney 1(+10) Zurich 3 (-1) Zurich 3 (-) Zurich 1 (+3) Zurich 5 (-1)

7 Zurich 5 (-2) Geneva 5 (-) Tokyo 1(+13) Chicago 1 (+1) Tokyo 1 (+7)

8 Frankfurt 5 (-2) Sydney 1 (+5) Frankfurt 5 (-1) Paris 5 (-1) Geneva 5 (-1)

9 Toronto 1 (+3) Tokyo 1(+17) Paris 1(+10) Frankfurt 5 (-4) Frankfurt 5 (-)

10 Chicago 5 (-3) Frankfurt 3 (-) Geneva 1 (+5) Geneva 1 (+3) Paris 1 (+17)

Rank People Business

Environment

Market Access Infrastructure General

Competitiveness

Table 10Sub-Indices by Areas of Competitiveness (Changes from GFCI 5 in brackets)

respondents in particular, this offers someinsights into a centre’s reputation,especially where a centre is perceivedmore positively than would be predictedfrom the data. Table 11 shows the 20 centres with the highest differencebetween average assessment and GFCI rating.

It is notable that seven of the top tencentres by this measure are Asian,reflecting the strong performance of Asiain GFCI 6. Sydney and Toronto, bothcentres that actively promote theircompetitiveness for financial services, arealso in the top ten. New York is in 8th placeand London comes in 23rd place here.

In terms of perceptions, the GFCIquestionnaire asks respondents whichfinancial centres they believe are suffering most as a result of the currentfinancial crisis. New York and London bothreceived three times more mentions thanany other centre.

24


Table 11Top 20 CentresAssessments &Ratings

City Average Weighted* GFCI 5 Rating Difference

Assessment

Shanghai 720 655 65

Singapore 765 719 46

Hong Kong 770 729 41

Shenzhen 736 695 41

Sydney 691 651 40

Toronto 682 647 35

Beijing 648 613 35

New York 808 774 34

Tokyo 707 674 33

Seoul 608 576 32

Zurich 707 676 31

Chicago 692 661 31

Vancouver 618 589 29

Frankfurt 676 649 27

Geneva 683 660 23

Taipei 632 609 23

San Francisco 656 634 22

Guernsey 660 638 22

Boston 655 634 21

Jersey 660 640 20

* weighted by

how recently

they were given

to be directly

comparable with

the GFCI

Table 12The Five CentresBelieved to beSuffering Mostfrom the Crisis


New York 129

London 111

Shanghai 36

Dubai 35

Hong Kong 25

This finding backs up the GFCI ratings.Although New York and London have bothachieved higher ratings than in GFCI 5,they have risen less than the other leadingcentres (although it should also be notedthat leading centres fell less than othercentres in GFCI 5). Respondents generallyfeel that the two long-established globalcentres are where the greatest losses haveoccurred and where the greatestreputational damage has been suffered.Hong Kong received less than 20% of thementions of New York; Singapore receivedfewer than 10 mentions.

The main concerns voiced about London’scompetitiveness were the fear of aregulatory backlash that limits the freedom

of financial institutions; the levels ofcorporate and personal taxation that maydrive high earners abroad; and economicconditions preventing or delayingnecessary investment in transportinfrastructure. New regulatoryarrangements were also a concern forNew York and the loss of skilled personnelto the industry was a concern ofrespondents in all the leading centres.

The GFCI questionnaire asked anotherquestion about the financial crisis – whichare the most significant risks to financialcentre competitiveness posed by thecurrent crisis. The most commonlyidentified risks are shown in Table 13.

The fear of regulatory overload wasbacked up by responses to a furtherquestion in the GFCI questionnaire whichasked about the most important factors ofcompetitiveness. The number of times thateach area was mentioned is summarisedin Table 14.

Evidently the business environment is

viewed as a key area by twice as manyrespondents as the second factor. It isactually mentioned in responses moreoften than People and Infrastructurecombined. This is clearly a response to thecurrent crisis but also reflects concerns overtaxation. One of the themes that emergesfrom the respondents is the importance ofpredictability and stability of regulation.

25


Table 13The MostSignificant Risksto FinancialCentreCompetitiveness

Risk Number of Mentions in 2009

Over Regulation / Regulatory Backlash 61

Credit Risk for Financial Institutions 31

Unemployment / Loss of Skills & Experience 28

Loss of Confidence / Trust in the Industry 22

Liquidity Risk 14

Increased Taxation 14

Wider Economic Problems - Recession / Inflation 14

Table 14Main Areas ofCompetitiveness

Area of Competitiveness Number of mentions Main concerns raised

by respondents

Business Environment 70 Regulation, taxation and rule of law

People 34 Quality and availability of staff

Infrastructure 18 Transport links and business infrastructure

General Competitiveness 16 General economic factors

Market Access 8 Cluster of professional advisors and

access to international markets

GFCI 6 shows that of the 75 centres rated,59 centres have received higher scoresand only three have decreased. Thirteennew centres appear in the ratings for thefirst time. GFCI 5 demonstrated that thefinancial crisis had created uncertaintyand a significant reduction in confidence,with an unprecedented fall in the ratingsfor every centre. The current rise in ratingsdemonstrates a return of confidence toGFCI 4 levels, with the top scores herebeing very similar, and the bottom scoresshowing a small improvement.

Accompanying the rise in ratings, there hasalso been a decline in volatility. Of the top20 financial centres that were in GFCI 5, 15have shown a reduction in the standarddeviation of assessments, also indicating agreater degree of certainty andconfidence than in 2008.

GFCI 6 now considers four centres to beleading global financial centres: London,New York, Hong Kong and Singapore.London remains in top place and hasslightly extended its lead over New York to16 points (from 13 points in GFCI 5). Thefinancial crisis has had a significant impacton both centres but they remain ahead ofHong Kong and Singapore, although thegap between the second and thirdplaced centre has been cut from 81 pointsto 45. Hong Kong and Singapore havedemonstrated stable, long termcompetiveness and have joined Londonand New York as genuinely global leaders.

Asian centres have shown a markedimprovement in the GFCI ratings sinceGFCI 5, reflecting that the Asian centreshave been less badly affected by therecent crisis than many of the leadingEuropean and North American Centres. It isalso notable that respondents from Asiahave shown a much higher degree ofparticipation in the survey than previously –nearly half of the 566 new respondentshave come from Asia (previously just under10%). Shanghai and Beijing have seen twoof the largest increases in scores in thesurvey; Shanghai has moved into the top

ten with a gain of 117 in the ratings andBeijing has jumped to 22nd place with arise of 135 points. Shenzhen is alsonoteworthy as the highest new entry intothe GFCI and has secured 5th place dueto very strong support from Asianrespondents. Tokyo has risen back into thetop ten with an increase of 63 points,having fallen to fifteenth place in GFCI 5,although featuring in the top ten in all otherprevious GFCI editions.

GFCI 6 demonstrates a pattern that mostof the leading centres are also the most‘connected’ centres, that is, the most wellknown globally outside of their own homeregion. London is rated by (and thusfamiliar to) over 80% of non-homerespondents, New York is rated by twothirds of non-home respondents and HongKong is rated by 57% of non-homerespondents.

The main concerns voiced about theleading centres’ competitiveness are the fear of a regulatory backlash that limitsthe freedom of financial institutions and the loss of skills and experience fromthe industry.

The GFCI has previously highlighted theneed for competitive financial centres tobe connected and co-operative. Newrespondents to the GFCI questionnairebelieve that the need for connectivity andco-operation is greater than ever if theindustry is to deal with, and recover from,the current crisis.

For further information about the GFCIplease see the GFCI website at:www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/GFCI

26


Summary & Conclusions

27


Other Information from GFCI 6

Table 15Respondents byIndustry Sector

Sector Number of Responses

Banking 493 27.4%

Asset Management 307 17.0%

Insurance 158 8.8%

Professional Services 296 16.4%

Regulatory & Government 93 5.2%

Other 455 25.2%

TOTAL 1,802 100.0%

Table 16Respondents by Size ofOrganisation

Number of Employees Worldwide Number of Responses

Fewer than 100 477 26.5%

100 to 500 278 15.4%

500 to 1,000 136 7.6%

1,000 to 2,000 90 5.0%

2,000 to 5,000 149 8.3%

More than 5,000 563 31.2%

Unspecified 109 6.0%

TOTAL 1,802 100.0%

Table 17Respondents by Location

Location Total Responses New Responses

Europe 769 42.7% 168 29.7%

North America 161 8.9% 21 3.7%

Asia 387 21.5% 276 48.8%

Offshore 466 25.9% 100 17.7%

Multiple or Other 19 1.1% 1 0.2%

TOTAL 1,802 100.0% 566 100.0%

A key component of the areas ofcompetitiveness sub-indices are the 64instrumental factors that are incorporatedinto the GFCI model. These are selected torepresent the factors that make a centrecompetitive in financial services. Table 18shows how closely instrumental factorrankings correlate with the GFCI rankings:

28


Instrumental Factors

Table 18Top 20InstrumentalFactors bycorrelation withGFCI 6

Instrumental Factor R2 with GFCI 6

Lifestyle Assets 0.641

Mastercard Centres of Commerce Index 0.549

World Competitiveness Scoreboard 0.487

Global Competitiveness Index 0.413

Intellectual Capital 0.394

City Brands Index 0.388

Capital Access Index 0.352

Quality of Roads 0.349

Credit Ratings 0.343

JLL Direct Real Estate Transaction Volumes 0.330

Volume of Stock Futures Trading 0.321

Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments 0.309

Business Environment 0.304

Capitalisation of Stock Exchanges 0.292

Global Cities Index 0.284

The Access Opportunities Index - Business 0.282

Foreign Direct Investment Inflows 0.275

The World’s Most Innovative Countries 0.273

Number of International Fairs and Exhibitions 0.270

RPI (% change on year ago) 0.251

It is interesting to see that the broadermeasures of competitiveness seem to actas good indicators for financial centrecompetitiveness. The six most highlycorrelated instrumental factors are allbroad measures of competitiveness ratherthan being specific to financial services.

This indicates that cities that are successfulat most things are likely to be verycompetitive financial centres. A full list ofinstrumental factors is shown in Table 19with 1 meaning that the factor has beenupdated since GFCI 5 and b meaning thatthe factor has been added since GFCI 5.

29


Table 19Instrumental Factors

Instrumental Factor Source Website

Peopleb Intellectual Capital Price Waterhouse Coopers http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf

1 Graduates in Social Science World Bank www.worldbank.org/education

Business and Law

1 Gross Tertiary Education Ratio World Bank www.worldbank.org/education

b Visa Restrictions Index Henley & Partners http://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/

1 Human Development Index UN Development Programme http://hdr.undp.org

1 Quality of Living Survey Mercer HR www.mercerhr.com

Personal Safety Index Mercer HR www.mercerhr.com

b International Crime Victims Survey UN Office of Drugs and Crime http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/news.htm#The_2009_ICVS

b Lifestyle Assets Price Waterhouse Cooper http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf

World’s Top Tourism Destinations Euromonitor Archive www.euromonitor.org

b Number of World Heritage Sites World Economic Forum http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/

gcp/TravelandTourismReport

Average Days with Precipitation Sperling’s BestPlaces www.bestplaces.net

per Year

Business environment

Business Environment EIU www.economist.com/markets/rankings

1 Ease of Doing Business Index The World Bank www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings

1 Operational Risk Rating EIU

1 Global Services Location Index AT Kearney www.atkearney.com

1 Opacity Index Milken Institute www.milkeninstitute.org/publications

Corruption Perceptions Index Transparency International www.transparency.org/publications

Wage Comparison Index UBS www.ubs.com

Corporate Tax Rates Price Waterhouse Coopers n/a

1 Employee Effective Tax Rates Price Waterhouse Coopers n/a

1 Personal Tax Rates OECD www.oecd.org

Total Tax Receipts (as % of GDP) OECD http://oberon.sourceoecd.org

b Bilateral Tax Information Exchange Agreements OECD http://www.oecd.org

1 Index of Economic Freedom Heritage Foundation www.heritage.org/index/countries.cfm

Economic Freedom of the World Fraser Institute www.freetheworld.com/release.html

b Banking Industry Country Standard & Poor http://www2.standardandpoors.com

Risk Assessments

b Political Risk Index Exclusive Analysis Ltd http://www.exclusive-analysis.com/

Market access1 Capital Access Index Milken Institute www.milkeninstitute.org/research

Master Card Centres of Commerce Master Card www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/wcoc/index.html

Access Opportunities Index SRI International www.sri.com/news/releases

1 – This index has been updated since GFCI 5

b – This index has been added since GFCI 5

30


1 Securitisation International Financial Services London www.ifsl.org.uk

1 Capitalisation of Stock Exchanges World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

1 Value of Share Trading World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

1 Volume of Share Trading World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

b Broad Stock Index Levels World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

1 Value of Bond Trading World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

b Volume of Stock Options Trading World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

b Volume of Stock Futures Trading World Federation of Stock Exchanges www.world-exchanges.org

b Net External Position of Banks Bank for International Settlements http://www.bis.org/statistics/bankstats.htm

b External Position of Central Banks Bank for International Settlements http://www.bis.org/statistics/bankstats.htm

(as % GDP)

b Global Credit Rankings Institutional Investor Magazine http://www.iimagazinerankings.com/

rankingsRankCCMaGlobal09/globalRanking.asp

Infrastructure

b Office Occupancy Costs CBRE http://www.cbre.com/EN/Research/Global+Reports/

1 Office Space Across the World Cushman & Wakefield www.cushwake.com/cwglobal

Direct Real Estate Volumes Jones Lang LaSalle www.joneslanglasalle.co.uk

Real Estate Transparency Index Jones Lang LaSalle www.joneslanglasalle.co.uk

1 E-Readiness Ranking EIU www.economist.com/markets/rankings

b Transportation & Infrastructure Assets Price Waterhouse Coopers http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf

b City Infrastructure Mercer HR http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving

1 Airport Satisfaction Skytraxx www.airlinequality.com/AirportRanking/ranking-intro.htm

b Quality of Ground Transport Network World Economic Forum http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/


b Quality of Roads World Economic Forum http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/


General competitiveness

1 World Competitiveness Scoreboard IMD www.imd.ch/research

Global Competitiveness Index World Economic Forum www.weforum.org

1 Global Business Confidence Grant Thornton www.grantthorntonibos.com

b Foreign Direct Investment Inflows UNCTAD http://www.unctad.org

b The World’s Most Innovative Countries EIU http://www.economist.com/markets/

rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13562333

b Global Intellectual Property Index Taylor Wessing http://www.taylorwessing.com/ipindex/

1 Retail Price Index Economist www.economist.com/markets/indicators

1 Cost of Living Survey Mercer HR www.mercerhr.com

City Brands Index Anholt www.simonanholt.com

b Global Cities Index AT Kearney http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4509

b Number of International Fairs World Economic Forum http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/

& Exhibitions gcp/TravelandTourismReport

b City Population Density City Mayors Statistics http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/

largest-cities-density-125.html

Documents

THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTRES INDEX - Z/Yen · The Global Financial Centres Index Background & Introduction 1 The Main Themes of GFCI 6 A Return of Confidence 2 Connectivity and Co-operation