>On the flip side, finance was thought to leave London en masse, and didn’t
It's a bit early to say, isn't it? Finance is still working under temporary arrangements. Most of the regulations regarding services remain to be negotiated.
It's a bit early to say, isn't it? Finance is still working under temporary arrangements. Most of the regulations regarding services remain to be negotiated.
As far as regulated business goes, it was clear from the start pretty much that there will be no passporting. The extent of other regulatory burdens remains unclear.
The point is, unless some highly unexpected new regulation comes in, it looks like banks at least kept the business and decision making in London, and only moved enough operational staff to EU to support operations there.
Funds for sure seem to have stay put in London, some moved but this is definitely a minority.
I’ve seen it reported that £1 trillion of assets were being moved out. Was that report incorrect, or was it a misleading number that is somehow vastly less relevant than it appears at first glance?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/business/brexit-economy-b...
In practice, for the Brexit/London question, it seems London banks set up small offices in the continent to ask as a front for regulators and EU clients, moved capital as necessary, but kept all significant business in London - so far at least.
Remember, this is finance, capital is transferred via a wire. It’s not mining, real estate or farming.
When you wrote that “funds” mostly stayed put, what do you mean by “fund”? An ELI5 style explanation would be great, because to me (with no economics/finance qualifications) a “fund” is the money.
It's also questionable in the long run whether the EU will permit all of these transactions to take place if the bank has only a token presence within the EU. At the moment everything is happening under temporary authorization.