29 September 2009

UK Funds Under Management Down 12% in 2008 to £3.7 Trillion, Signs of Recovery in 2009

UK assets under management fell 12 per cent in 2008 to £3.7 trillion according to the annual Fund Management report by International Financial Services London (IFSL), the independent organisation promoting UK financial services worldwide.

The decline follows five successive years of growth, averaging eight per cent per year. Poor investment performance, reduced inflow of new funds and investor redemptions all contributed to the fall in assets over the past year. Early indicators for 2009 show that the industry has started to recover with a 14 per cent gain in assets of UK domiciled retail funds in the first seven months of the year.

According to IFSL’s report, institutional funds were the source of two-thirds of UK funds under management in 2008. Around 16 per cent came from retail funds, 9 per cent from alternative funds and the remainder from private clients.

Marko Maslakovic, Senior Economist at IFSL said: “Profit margins among fund managers in the UK declined from 32 per cent to 23 per cent in 2008 as revenues fell faster than costs. Profitability is likely to remain at lower levels in 2009 as market conditions including reduced asset values, increased competition for new business and investor shift to lower revenue asset classes persist.

Global trends: Worldwide conventional investment management assets3 fell 19 per cent in 2008 to $61.6 trillion (see Table below). The decline reported in US dollars was exacerbated by the strengthening of the US dollar during the year. Pension assets accounted for $24.0 trillion of the total, with a further $18.7 trillion invested in insurance funds and $18.9 trillion in mutual funds. Together with alternative funds2 and private wealth funds, assets of the global fund management industry amounted to around $90 trillion.

Stephen Wright, IFSL’s Chief Executive, noted: “The UK is the second largest fund management market after the US and by far the biggest centre in Europe. London however continues to be the leading centre for international fund management with over a third of its funds under management originating from overseas.


Click here to view PDF of Fund Management 2009 report

IOSCO : Joint Forum final release of Report on Special Purpose Entities

The Joint Forum today released the final version of its paper entitled Report on Special Purpose Entities. This paper serves two broad objectives. First, it provides background on the variety of special purpose entities (SPEs) found across the financial sectors, the motivations of market participants to make use of these structures, and risk management issues that arise from their use. Second, it suggests policy implications and issues for consideration by market participants and the supervisory community.

John C Dugan, Chair of the Joint Forum and Comptroller of the Currency in the United States, said today: “This paper significantly adds to the understanding of the use of these vehicles, both on how they are structured and operate and on how risk is transferred. This work will serve to inform supervisors and other market participants of the benefits and risks associated with use of SPEs.” Mr. Dugan added “Policymakers can use this analysis for important contextual background to help advance the ongoing discussions on updating the regulatory and supervisory landscape for structured finance transactions and securitization markets.

New survey identifies key drivers of private investment in public equity in next 12-18 months

Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE), a new report published by mergermarket in conjunction with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and Rodman & Renshaw LLC, highlights a broad range of drivers expected to stimulate PIPE investment activity in the next 12 to 18 months.

The survey, conducted in the third quarter of 2009, canvasses the opinions of experienced PIPE investors from the US, including private equity practitioners, venture capital investors, hedge fund managers and mutual fund investors.

-- 49% of respondents expect to see an increase in their firm’s PIPE investment activity over the next 12 to 18 months, while an additional 43% expect their firm’s activity to remain at its current level over this

time. The majority of respondents expect PIPE transactions to be fueled largely by liquidity concerns on the part of issuers as respondents cite companies’ need for liquidity to repay debt or to finance operations as a key driver of PIPE activity this year.

-- 82% of respondents expect to see an increase in the volume of registered direct common stock offerings (RDs) due to their uniquely appealing features for issuers and investors, including non-public marketing and documentation processes.

-- 82% of respondents expect the lower mid-market range to offer the highest volume of PIPE opportunities. In terms of sector-specific predictions, 54% of respondents expect to see the greatest demand for PIPEs in the Healthcare, Biotechnology and Life Sciences industry, while an additional 51% of respondents expect the Financial Services industry to see the greatest demand.

Other findings include:

• 73% of respondents expect to see more single investor deals than syndicated deals over the next 12 to 18 months

• 58% of respondents expect private equity firms to be the most active investors in PIPEs this year

• 49% of respondents describe their PIPE investment strategy as long-term, or more than two years

• 80% of respondents expect PIPE deals to exclude registration rights from deal terms going forward, largely in response to changes to holding period requirements under Rule 144 for non-affiliates.

Read the full report

Money laundering and terrorist financing in the securities sector

The securities sector is one of the core industries through which persons and entities can access the financial system. This report shows that the securities sector provides opportunities that criminals may also exploit. This sector is characterised by the speed of executing transactions; its global reach and its adaptability. Indeed, new products and services are developed constantly, in reaction to investor demand, market conditions, and advances in technology. Product offerings are vast and often complex. Some are intended for sale to the general public and others tailored to the needs of a single purchaser.

Additionally, a considerable number of transactions are conducted electronically and across international borders. All these characteristics make the securities sector attractive to those who would abuse it for illicit purposes.

This FATF study describes (i) how criminals might be able to use securities firms to launder money and finance terrorism and (ii) how illicit funds can be generated through fraudulent activities.

The report contains case studies that illustrate the risks associated with the various types of intermediaries, products, payment methods and clients involved in the securities industry. It also identifies that some areas of vulnerability are not necessarily unique to the securities industry: indeed, some money laundering schemes involve types of products and transaction that exist in the banking and insurance sectors as well.

Suspicious transaction reporting in the sector remains relatively low, which appears to be explained by a number of factors, including a lack of awareness and insufficient securities-specific indicators and case studies.

28 September 2009

Jersey: Statement from Geoff Cook in Response to G20 Summit

Jersey Finance welcomes the commitment by the G20 nations in their fight against non co-operative jurisdictions and the expansion of the OECD’s Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information.

Following the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh the Group have agreed to use counter measures against tax havens from March 2010. Jersey Finance supports international efforts to act against non co-operative jurisdictions and firmly supports the drive towards achieving a level playing field in tax cooperation.

Geoff Cook, chief executive of Jersey Finance commented:

Jersey Finance fully supports the ongoing commitment by the G20 nations in their efforts to bring sanctions against uncooperative jurisdictions and endeavours to enhance international standards of financial regulation and compliance.

We are also delighted that Jersey has been invited to take on the role of Vice Chair of the OECD’s Peer Review Group set up at its recent Global Forum to assess how effectively international standards of transparency and exchange of information are being implemented by individual jurisdictions. And believe this work will help to cement Jersey’s status as a co-operative jurisdiction and is further confirmation that we are viewed as a member of the international community sitting alongside the other elected Vice Chairs (India, Japan and Singapore) and Chair (France).

25 September 2009

G-20: Leaders' Statement - The Pittsburgh Summit

PREAMBLE

1. We meet in the midst of a critical transition from crisis to recovery to turn the page on an era of irresponsibility and to adopt a set of policies, regulations and reforms to meet the needs of the 21st century global economy.

2. When we last gathered in April, we confronted the greatest challenge to the world economy in our generation.

3. Global output was contracting at pace not seen since the 1930s. Trade was plummeting. Jobs were disappearing rapidly. Our people worried that the world was on the edge of a depression.

4. At that time, our countries agreed to do everything necessary to ensure recovery, to repair our financial systems and to maintain the global flow of capital.

5. It worked.

6. Our forceful response helped stop the dangerous, sharp decline in global activity and stabilize financial markets. Industrial output is now rising in nearly all our economies. International trade is starting to recover. Our financial institutions are raising needed capital, financial markets are showing a willingness to invest and lend, and confidence has improved.

7. Today, we reviewed the progress we have made since the London Summit in April. Our national commitments to restore growth resulted in the largest and most coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus ever undertaken. We acted together to increase dramatically the resources necessary to stop the crisis from spreading around the world. We took steps to fix the broken regulatory system and started to implement sweeping reforms to reduce the risk that financial excesses will again destabilize the global economy.

8. A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency.

9. The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete. In many countries, unemployment remains unacceptably high. The conditions for a recovery of private demand are not yet fully in place. We cannot rest until the global economy is restored to full health, and hard-working families the world over can find decent jobs.

10. We pledge today to sustain our strong policy response until a durable recovery is secured. We will act to ensure that when growth returns, jobs do too. We will avoid any premature withdrawal of stimulus. At the same time, we will prepare our exit strategies and, when the time is right, withdraw our extraordinary policy support in a cooperative and coordinated way, maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

11. Even as the work of recovery continues, we pledge to adopt the policies needed to lay the foundation for strong, sustained and balanced growth in the 21st century. We recognize that we have to act forcefully to overcome the legacy of the recent, severe global economic crisis and to help people cope with the consequences of this crisis. We want growth without cycles of boom and bust and markets that foster responsibility not recklessness.

12. Today we agreed:

13. To launch a framework that lays out the policies and the way we act together to generate strong, sustainable and balanced global growth. We need a durable recovery that creates the good jobs our people need.

14. We need to shift from public to private sources of demand, establish a pattern of growth across countries that is more sustainable and balanced, and reduce development imbalances. We pledge to avoid destabilizing booms and busts in asset and credit prices and adopt macroeconomic policies, consistent with price stability, that promote adequate and balanced global demand. We will also make decisive progress on structural reforms that foster private demand and strengthen long-run growth potential.

15. Our Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth is a compact that commits us to work together to assess how our policies fit together, to evaluate whether they are collectively consistent with more sustainable and balanced growth, and to act as necessary to meet our common objectives.

16. To make sure our regulatory system for banks and other financial firms reins in the excesses that led to the crisis. Where reckless behavior and a lack of responsibility led to crisis, we will not allow a return to banking as usual.

17. We committed to act together to raise capital standards, to implement strong international compensation standards aimed at ending practices that lead to excessive risk-taking, to improve the over-the-counter derivatives market and to create more powerful tools to hold large global firms to account for the risks they take. Standards for large global financial firms should be commensurate with the cost of their failure. For all these reforms, we have set for ourselves strict and precise timetables.

18. To reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21st century. After this crisis, critical players need to be at the table and fully vested in our institutions to allow us to cooperate to lay the foundation for strong, sustainable and balanced growth.

19. We designated the G-20 to be the premier forum for our international economic cooperation. We established the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to include major emerging economies and welcome its efforts to coordinate and monitor progress in strengthening financial regulation.

20. We are committed to a shift in International Monetary Fund (IMF) quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries of at least 5% from over-represented countries to under-represented countries using the current quota formula as the basis to work from. Today we have delivered on our promise to contribute over $500 billion to a renewed and expanded IMF New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB).

21. We stressed the importance of adopting a dynamic formula at the World Bank which primarily reflects countries’ evolving economic weight and the World Bank’s development mission, and that generates an increase of at least 3% of voting power for developing and transition countries, to the benefit of under-represented countries. While recognizing that over-represented countries will make a contribution, it will be important to protect the voting power of the smallest poor countries. We called on the World Bank to play a leading role in responding to problems whose nature requires globally coordinated action, such as climate change and food security, and agreed that the World Bank and the regional development banks should have sufficient resources to address these challenges and fulfill their mandates.

22. To take new steps to increase access to food, fuel and finance among the world’s poorest while clamping down on illicit outflows. Steps to reduce the development gap can be a potent driver of global growth.

23. Over four billion people remain undereducated, ill-equipped with capital and technology, and insufficiently integrated into the global economy. We need to work together to make the policy and institutional changes needed to accelerate the convergence of living standards and productivity in developing and emerging economies to the levels of the advanced economies. To start, we call on the World Bank to develop a new trust fund to support the new Food Security Initiative for low-income countries announced last summer. We will increase, on a voluntary basis, funding for programs to bring clean affordable energy to the poorest, such as the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.

24. To phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.

25. We call on our Energy and Finance Ministers to report to us their implementation strategies and timeline for acting to meet this critical commitment at our next meeting.

26. We will promote energy market transparency and market stability as part of our broader effort to avoid excessive volatility.

27. To maintain our openness and move toward greener, more sustainable growth.

28. We will fight protectionism. We are committed to bringing the Doha Round to a successful conclusion in 2010.

29. We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations.

30. We warmly welcome the report by the Chair of the London Summit commissioned at our last meeting and published today.

31. Finally, we agreed to meet in Canada in June 2010 and in Korea in November 2010. We expect to meet annually thereafter and will meet in France in 2011.

* * *
1. We assessed the progress we have made together in addressing the global crisis and agreed to maintain our steps to support economic activity until recovery is assured. We further committed to additional steps to ensure strong, sustainable, and balanced growth, to build a stronger international financial system, to reduce development imbalances, and to modernize our architecture for international economic cooperation.

A Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth

2. The growth of the global economy and the success of our coordinated effort to respond to the recent crisis have increased the case for more sustained and systematic international cooperation. In the short-run, we must continue to implement our stimulus programs to support economic activity until recovery clearly has taken hold. We also need to develop a transparent and credible process for withdrawing our extraordinary fiscal, monetary and financial sector support, to be implemented when recovery becomes fully secured. We task our Finance Ministers, working with input from the IMF and FSB, at their November meeting to continue developing cooperative and coordinated exit strategies recognizing that the scale, timing, and sequencing of this process will vary across countries or regions and across the type of policy measures. Credible exit strategies should be designed and communicated clearly to anchor expectations and reinforce confidence.

3. The IMF estimates that world growth will resume this year and rise by nearly 3% by the end of 2010. Subsequently, our objective is to return the world to high, sustainable, and balanced growth, while maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility and sustainability, with reforms to increase our growth potential and capacity to generate jobs and policies designed to avoid both the re-creation of asset bubbles and the re-emergence of unsustainable global financial flows. We commit to put in place the necessary policy measures to achieve these outcomes.

4. We will need to work together as we manage the transition to a more balanced pattern of global growth. The crisis and our initial policy responses have already produced significant shifts in the pattern and level of growth across countries. Many countries have already taken important steps to expand domestic demand, bolstering global activity and reducing imbalances. In some countries, the rise in private saving now underway will, in time, need to be augmented by a rise in public saving. Ensuring a strong recovery will necessitate adjustments across different parts of the global economy, while requiring macroeconomic policies that promote adequate and balanced global demand as well as decisive progress on structural reforms that foster private domestic demand, narrow the global development gap, and strengthen long-run growth potential. The IMF estimates that only with such adjustments and realignments, will global growth reach a strong, sustainable, and balanced pattern. While governments have started moving in the right direction, a shared understanding and deepened dialogue will help build a more stable, lasting, and sustainable pattern of growth. Raising living standards in the emerging markets and developing countries is also a critical element in achieving sustainable growth in the global economy.

5. Today we are launching a Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth. To put in place this framework, we commit to develop a process whereby we set out our objectives, put forward policies to achieve these objectives, and together assess our progress. We will ask the IMF to help us with its analysis of how our respective national or regional policy frameworks fit together. We will ask the World Bank to advise us on progress in promoting development and poverty reduction as part of the rebalancing of global growth. We will work together to ensure that our fiscal, monetary, trade, and structural policies are collectively consistent with more sustainable and balanced trajectories of growth. We will undertake macro prudential and regulatory policies to help prevent credit and asset price cycles from becoming forces of destabilization. As we commit to implement a new, sustainable growth model, we should encourage work on measurement methods so as to better take into account the social and environmental dimensions of economic development.

6. We call on our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to launch the new Framework by November by initiating a cooperative process of mutual assessment of our policy frameworks and the implications of those frameworks for the pattern and sustainability of global growth. We believe that regular consultations, strengthened cooperation on macroeconomic policies, the exchange of experiences on structural policies, and ongoing assessment will promote the adoption of sound policies and secure a healthy global economy. Our compact is that:


G-20 members will agree on shared policy objectives. These objectives should be updated as conditions evolve.
G-20 members will set out our medium-term policy frameworks and will work together to assess the collective implications of our national policy frameworks for the level and pattern of global growth and to identify potential risks to financial stability.
G-20 Leaders will consider, based on the results of the mutual assessment, and agree any actions to meet our common objectives.
7. This process will only be successful if it is supported by candid, even-handed, and balanced analysis of our policies. We ask the IMF to assist our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in this process of mutual assessment by developing a forward-looking analysis of whether policies pursued by individual G-20 countries are collectively consistent with more sustainable and balanced trajectories for the global economy, and to report regularly to both the G-20 and the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), building on the IMF’s existing bilateral and multilateral surveillance analysis, on global economic developments, patterns of growth and suggested policy adjustments. Our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors will elaborate this process at their November meeting and we will review the results of the first mutual assessment at our next summit.

8. These policies will help us to meet our responsibility to the community of nations to build a more resilient international financial system and to reduce development imbalances.

9. Building on Chancellor Merkel’s proposed Charter, on which we will continue to work, we adopted today Core Values for Sustainable Economic Activity, which will include those of propriety, integrity, and transparency, and which will underpin the Framework.

Strengthening the International Financial Regulatory System

10. Major failures of regulation and supervision, plus reckless and irresponsible risk taking by banks and other financial institutions, created dangerous financial fragilities that contributed significantly to the current crisis. A return to the excessive risk taking prevalent in some countries before the crisis is not an option.

11. Since the onset of the global crisis, we have developed and begun implementing sweeping reforms to tackle the root causes of the crisis and transform the system for global financial regulation. Substantial progress has been made in strengthening prudential oversight, improving risk management, strengthening transparency, promoting market integrity, establishing supervisory colleges, and reinforcing international cooperation. We have enhanced and expanded the scope of regulation and oversight, with tougher regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, securitization markets, credit rating agencies, and hedge funds. We endorse the institutional strengthening of the FSB through its Charter, following its establishment in London, and welcome its reports to Leaders and Ministers. The FSB’s ongoing efforts to monitor progress will be essential to the full and consistent implementation of needed reforms. We call on the FSB to report on progress to the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in advance of the next Leaders summit.

12. Yet our work is not done. Far more needs to be done to protect consumers, depositors, and investors against abusive market practices, promote high quality standards, and help ensure the world does not face a crisis of the scope we have seen. We are committed to take action at the national and international level to raise standards together so that our national authorities implement global standards consistently in a way that ensures a level playing field and avoids fragmentation of markets, protectionism, and regulatory arbitrage. Our efforts to deal with impaired assets and to encourage the raising of additional capital must continue, where needed. We commit to conduct robust, transparent stress tests as needed. We call on banks to retain a greater proportion of current profits to build capital, where needed, to support lending. Securitization sponsors or originators should retain a part of the risk of the underlying assets, thus encouraging them to act prudently. It is important to ensure an adequate balance between macroprudential and microprudential regulation to control risks, and to develop the tools necessary to monitor and assess the buildup of macroprudential risks in the financial system. In addition, we have agreed to improve the regulation, functioning, and transparency of financial and commodity markets to address excessive commodity price volatility.

13. As we encourage the resumption of lending to households and businesses, we must take care not to spur a return of the practices that led to the crisis. The steps we are taking here, when fully implemented, will result in a fundamentally stronger financial system than existed prior to the crisis. If we all act together, financial institutions will have stricter rules for risk-taking, governance that aligns compensation with long-term performance, and greater transparency in their operations. All firms whose failure could pose a risk to financial stability must be subject to consistent, consolidated supervision and regulation with high standards. Our reform is multi-faceted but at its core must be stronger capital standards, complemented by clear incentives to mitigate excessive risk-taking practices. Capital allows banks to withstand those losses that inevitably will come. It, together with more powerful tools for governments to wind down firms that fail, helps us hold firms accountable for the risks that they take. Building on their Declaration on Further Steps to Strengthen the International Financial System, we call on our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to reach agreement on an international framework of reform in the following critical areas:

Building high quality capital and mitigating pro-cyclicality: We commit to developing by end-2010 internationally agreed rules to improve both the quantity and quality of bank capital and to discourage excessive leverage. These rules will be phased in as financial conditions improve and economic recovery is assured, with the aim of implementation by end-2012. The national implementation of higher level and better quality capital requirements, counter-cyclical capital buffers, higher capital requirements for risky products and off-balance sheet activities, as elements of the Basel II Capital Framework, together with strengthened liquidity risk requirements and forward-looking provisioning, will reduce incentives for banks to take excessive risks and create a financial system better prepared to withstand adverse shocks. We welcome the key measures recently agreed by the oversight body of the Basel Committee to strengthen the supervision and regulation of the banking sector. We support the introduction of a leverage ratio as a supplementary measure to the Basel II risk-based framework with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment based on appropriate review and calibration. To ensure comparability, the details of the leverage ratio will be harmonized internationally, fully adjusting for differences in accounting. All major G-20 financial centers commit to have adopted the Basel II Capital Framework by 2011.
Reforming compensation practices to support financial stability: Excessive compensation in the financial sector has both reflected and encouraged excessive risk taking. Reforming compensation policies and practices is an essential part of our effort to increase financial stability. We fully endorse the implementation standards of the FSB aimed at aligning compensation with long-term value creation, not excessive risk-taking, including by (i) avoiding multi-year guaranteed bonuses; (ii) requiring a significant portion of variable compensation to be deferred, tied to performance and subject to appropriate clawback and to be vested in the form of stock or stock-like instruments, as long as these create incentives aligned with long-term value creation and the time horizon of risk; (iii) ensuring that compensation for senior executives and other employees having a material impact on the firm’s risk exposure align with performance and risk; (iv) making firms’ compensation policies and structures transparent through disclosure requirements; (v) limiting variable compensation as a percentage of total net revenues when it is inconsistent with the maintenance of a sound capital base; and (vi) ensuring that compensation committees overseeing compensation policies are able to act independently. Supervisors should have the responsibility to review firms’ compensation policies and structures with institutional and systemic risk in mind and, if necessary to offset additional risks, apply corrective measures, such as higher capital requirements, to those firms that fail to implement sound compensation policies and practices. Supervisors should have the ability to modify compensation structures in the case of firms that fail or require extraordinary public intervention. We call on firms to implement these sound compensation practices immediately. We task the FSB to monitor the implementation of FSB standards and propose additional measures as required by March 2010.
Improving over-the-counter derivatives markets: All standardized OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, and cleared through central counterparties by end-2012 at the latest. OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories. Non-centrally cleared contracts should be subject to higher capital requirements. We ask the FSB and its relevant members to assess regularly implementation and whether it is sufficient to improve transparency in the derivatives markets, mitigate systemic risk, and protect against market abuse.
Addressing cross-border resolutions and systemically important financial institutions by end-2010: Systemically important financial firms should develop internationally-consistent firm-specific contingency and resolution plans. Our authorities should establish crisis management groups for the major cross-border firms and a legal framework for crisis intervention as well as improve information sharing in times of stress. We should develop resolution tools and frameworks for the effective resolution of financial groups to help mitigate the disruption of financial institution failures and reduce moral hazard in the future. Our prudential standards for systemically important institutions should be commensurate with the costs of their failure. The FSB should propose by the end of October 2010 possible measures including more intensive supervision and specific additional capital, liquidity, and other prudential requirements.
14. We call on our international accounting bodies to redouble their efforts to achieve a single set of high quality, global accounting standards within the context of their independent standard setting process, and complete their convergence project by June 2011. The International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) institutional framework should further enhance the involvement of various stakeholders.

15. Our commitment to fight non-cooperative jurisdictions (NCJs) has produced impressive results. We are committed to maintain the momentum in dealing with tax havens, money laundering, proceeds of corruption, terrorist financing, and prudential standards. We welcome the expansion of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, including the participation of developing countries, and welcome the agreement to deliver an effective program of peer review. The main focus of the Forum’s work will be to improve tax transparency and exchange of information so that countries can fully enforce their tax laws to protect their tax base. We stand ready to use countermeasures against tax havens from March 2010. We welcome the progress made by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and call upon the FATF to issue a public list of high risk jurisdictions by February 2010. We call on the FSB to report progress to address NCJs with regards to international cooperation and information exchange in November 2009 and to initiate a peer review process by February 2010.

16. We task the IMF to prepare a report for our next meeting with regard to the range of options countries have adopted or are considering as to how the financial sector could make a fair and substantial contribution toward paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the banking system.

Modernizing our Global Institutions to Reflect Today’s Global Economy

17. Modernizing the international financial institutions and global development architecture is essential to our efforts to promote global financial stability, foster sustainable development, and lift the lives of the poorest. We warmly welcome Prime Minister Brown’s report on his review of the responsiveness and adaptability of the international financial institutions (IFIs) and ask our Finance Ministers to consider its conclusions.

Reforming the Mandate, Mission and Governance of the IMF

18. Our commitment to increase the funds available to the IMF allowed it to stem the spread of the crisis to emerging markets and developing countries. This commitment and the innovative steps the IMF has taken to create the facilities needed for its resources to be used efficiently and flexibly have reduced global risks. Capital again is flowing to emerging economies.

19. We have delivered on our promise to treble the resources available to the IMF. We are contributing over $500 billion to a renewed and expanded IMF New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). The IMF has made Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocations of $283 billion in total, more than $100 billion of which will supplement emerging market and developing countries’ existing reserve assets. Resources from the agreed sale of IMF gold, consistent with the IMF’s new income model, and funds from internal and other sources will more than double the Fund’s medium-term concessional lending capacity.

20. Our collective response to the crisis has highlighted both the benefits of international cooperation and the need for a more legitimate and effective IMF. The Fund must play a critical role in promoting global financial stability and rebalancing growth. We welcome the reform of IMF’s lending facilities, including the creation of the innovative Flexible Credit Line. The IMF should continue to strengthen its capacity to help its members cope with financial volatility, reducing the economic disruption from sudden swings in capital flows and the perceived need for excessive reserve accumulation. As recovery takes hold, we will work together to strengthen the Fund’s ability to provide even-handed, candid and independent surveillance of the risks facing the global economy and the international financial system. We ask the IMF to support our effort under the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth through its surveillance of our countries’ policy frameworks and their collective implications for financial stability and the level and pattern of global growth.

21. Modernizing the IMF’s governance is a core element of our effort to improve the IMF’s credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness. We recognize that the IMF should remain a quota-based organization and that the distribution of quotas should reflect the relative weights of its members in the world economy, which have changed substantially in view of the strong growth in dynamic emerging market and developing countries. To this end, we are committed to a shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries of at least five percent from over-represented to under-represented countries using the current IMF quota formula as the basis to work from. We are also committed to protecting the voting share of the poorest in the IMF. On this basis and as part of the IMF’s quota review, to be completed by January 2011, we urge an acceleration of work toward bringing the review to a successful conclusion. As part of that review, we agree that a number of other critical issues will need to be addressed, including: the size of any increase in IMF quotas, which will have a bearing on the ability to facilitate change in quota shares; the size and composition of the Executive Board; ways of enhancing the Board’s effectiveness; and the Fund Governors’ involvement in the strategic oversight of the IMF. Staff diversity should be enhanced. As part of a comprehensive reform package, we agree that the heads and senior leadership of all international institutions should be appointed through an open, transparent and merit-based process. We must urgently implement the package of IMF quota and voice reforms agreed in April 2008.

Reforming the Mission, Mandate and Governance of Our Development banks

22. The Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) responded to our April call to accelerate and expand lending to mitigate the impact of the crisis on the world’s poorest with streamlined facilities, new tools and facilities, and a rapid increase in their lending. They are on track to deliver the promised $100 billion in additional lending. We welcome and encourage the MDBs to continue making full use of their balance sheets. We also welcome additional measures such as the temporary use of callable capital contributions from a select group of donors as was done at the InterAmerican Development Bank (IaDB). Our Finance Ministers should consider how mechanisms such as temporary callable and contingent capital could be used in the future to increase MDB lending at times of crisis. We reaffirm our commitment to ensure that the Multilateral Development Banks and their concessional lending facilities, especially the International Development Agency (IDA) and the African Development Fund, are appropriately funded.

23. Even as we work to mitigate the impact of the crisis, we must strengthen and reform the global development architecture for responding to the world’s long-term challenges.

24. We agree that development and reducing global poverty are central to the development banks’ core mission. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks are also critical to our ability to act together to address challenges, such as climate change and food security, which are global in nature and require globally coordinated action. The World Bank, working with the regional development banks and other international organizations, should strengthen:

its focus on food security through enhancements in agricultural productivity and access to technology, and improving access to food, in close cooperation with relevant specialized agencies;
its focus on human development and security in the poorest and most challenging environments;
support for private-sector led growth and infrastructure to enhance opportunities for the poorest, social and economic inclusion, and economic growth; and
contributions to financing the transition to a green economy through investment in sustainable clean energy generation and use, energy efficiency and climate resilience; this includes responding to countries needs to integrate climate change concerns into their core development strategies, improved domestic policies, and to access new sources of climate finance.
25. To enhance their effectiveness, the World Bank and the regional development banks should strengthen their coordination, when appropriate, with other bilateral and multilateral institutions. They should also strengthen recipient country ownership of strategies and programs and allow adequate policy space.

26. We will help ensure the World Bank and the regional development banks have sufficient resources to fulfill these four challenges and their development mandate, including through a review of their general capital increase needs to be completed by the first half of 2010. Additional resources must be joined to key institutional reforms to ensure effectiveness: greater coordination and a clearer division of labor; an increased commitment to transparency, accountability, and good corporate governance; an increased capacity to innovate and achieve demonstrable results; and greater attention to the needs of the poorest populations.

27. We commit to pursue governance and operational effectiveness reform in conjunction with voting reform to ensure that the World Bank is relevant, effective, and legitimate. We stress the importance of moving towards equitable voting power in the World Bank over time through the adoption of a dynamic formula which primarily reflects countries’ evolving economic weight and the World Bank’s development mission, and that generates in the next shareholding review a significant increase of at least 3% of voting power for developing and transition countries, in addition to the 1.46% increase under the first phase of this important adjustment, to the benefit of under-represented countries. While recognizing that over-represented countries will make a contribution, it will be important to protect the voting power of the smallest poor countries. We recommit to reaching agreement by the 2010 Spring Meetings.

Energy Security and Climate Change

28. Access to diverse, reliable, affordable and clean energy is critical for sustainable growth. Inefficient markets and excessive volatility negatively affect both producers and consumers. Noting the St. Petersburg Principles on Global Energy Security, which recognize the shared interest of energy producing, consuming and transiting countries in promoting global energy security, we individually and collectively commit to:

Increase energy market transparency and market stability by publishing complete, accurate, and timely data on oil production, consumption, refining and stock levels, as appropriate, on a regular basis, ideally monthly, beginning by January 2010. We note the Joint Oil Data Initiative as managed by the International Energy Forum (IEF) and welcome their efforts to examine the expansion of their data collection to natural gas. We will improve our domestic capabilities to collect energy data and improve energy demand and supply forecasting and ask the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to ramp up their efforts to assist interested countries in developing those capabilities. We will strengthen the producer-consumer dialogue to improve our understanding of market fundamentals, including supply and demand trends, and price volatility, and note the work of the IEF experts group.
Improve regulatory oversight of energy markets by implementing the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) recommendations on commodity futures markets and calling on relevant regulators to collect data on large concentrations of trader positions on oil in our national commodities futures markets. We ask our relevant regulators to report back at our next meeting on progress towards implementation. We will direct relevant regulators to also collect related data on over-the-counter oil markets and to take steps to combat market manipulation leading to excessive price volatility. We call for further refinement and improvement of commodity market information, including through the publication of more detailed and disaggregated data, coordinated as far as possible internationally. We ask IOSCO to help national governments design and implement these policies, conduct further analysis including with regard with to excessive volatility, make specific recommendations, and to report regularly on our progress.
29. Enhancing our energy efficiency can play an important, positive role in promoting energy security and fighting climate change. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, distort markets, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with climate change. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the IEA have found that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 by ten percent. Many countries are reducing fossil fuel subsidies while preventing adverse impact on the poorest. Building on these efforts and recognizing the challenges of populations suffering from energy poverty, we commit to:

Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms. This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will have our Energy and Finance Ministers, based on their national circumstances, develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and report back to Leaders at the next Summit. We ask the international financial institutions to offer support to countries in this process. We call on all nations to adopt policies that will phase out such subsidies worldwide.
30. We request relevant institutions, such as the IEA, OPEC, OECD, and World Bank, provide an analysis of the scope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the implementation of this initiative and report back at the next summit.

31. Increasing clean and renewable energy supplies, improving energy efficiency, and promoting conservation are critical steps to protect our environment, promote sustainable growth and address the threat of climate change. Accelerated adoption of economically sound clean and renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures diversifies our energy supplies and strengthens our energy security. We commit to:


Stimulate investment in clean energy, renewables, and energy efficiency and provide financial and technical support for such projects in developing countries.
Take steps to facilitate the diffusion or transfer of clean energy technology including by conducting joint research and building capacity. The reduction or elimination of barriers to trade and investment in this area are being discussed and should be pursued on a voluntary basis and in appropriate fora.
32. As leaders of the world’s major economies, we are working for a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We underscore anew our resolve to take strong action to address the threat of dangerous climate change. We reaffirm the objective, provisions, and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including common but differentiated responsibilities. We note the principles endorsed by Leaders at the Major Economies Forum in L’Aquila, Italy. We will intensify our efforts, in cooperation with other parties, to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the UNFCCC negotiation. An agreement must include mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing.

33. We welcome the work of the Finance Ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing to be provided as a resource to be considered in the UNFCCC negotiations at Copenhagen.

Strengthening Support for the Most Vulnerable

34. Many emerging and developing economies have made great strides in raising living standards as their economies converge toward the productivity levels and living standards of advanced economies. This process was interrupted by the crisis and is still far from complete. The poorest countries have little economic cushion to protect vulnerable populations from calamity, particularly as the financial crisis followed close on the heels of a global spike in food prices. We note with concern the adverse impact of the global crisis on low income countries’ (LICs) capacity to protect critical core spending in areas such as health, education, safety nets, and infrastructure. The UN's new Global Impact Vulnerability Alert System will help our efforts to monitor the impact of the crisis on the most vulnerable. We share a collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis and to assure that all parts of the globe participate in the recovery.

35. The MDBs play a key role in the fight against poverty. We recognize the need for accelerated and additional concessional financial support to LICs to cushion the impact of the crisis on the poorest, welcome the increase in MDB lending during the crisis and support the MDBs having the resources needed to avoid a disruption of concessional financing to the most vulnerable countries. The IMF also has increased its concessional lending to LICs during the crisis. Resources from the sale of IMF gold, consistent with the new income model, and funds from internal and other sources will double the Fund’s medium-term concessional lending capacity.

36. Several countries are considering creating, on a voluntary basis, mechanisms that could allow, consistent with their national circumstances, the mobilization of existing SDR resources to support the IMF’s lending to the poorest countries. Even as we work to mitigate the impact of the crisis, we must strengthen and reform the global development architecture for responding to the world’s long-term challenges. We ask our relevant ministers to explore the benefits of a new crisis support facility in IDA to protect LICs from future crises and the enhanced use of financial instruments in protecting the investment plans of middle income countries from interruption in times of crisis, including greater use of guarantees.

37. We reaffirm our historic commitment to meet the Millennium Development Goals and our respective Official Development Assistance (ODA) pledges, including commitments on Aid for Trade, debt relief, and those made at Gleneagles, especially to sub-Saharan Africa, to 2010 and beyond.

38. Even before the crisis, too many still suffered from hunger and poverty and even more people lack access to energy and finance. Recognizing that the crisis has exacerbated this situation, we pledge cooperation to improve access to food, fuel, and finance for the poor.

39. Sustained funding and targeted investments are urgently needed to improve long-term food security. We welcome and support the food security initiative announced in L’Aquila and efforts to further implement the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security and to address excessive price volatility. We call on the World Bank to work with interested donors and organizations to develop a multilateral trust fund to scale-up agricultural assistance to low-income countries. This will help support innovative bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve global nutrition and build sustainable agricultural systems, including programs like those developed through the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP). It should be designed to ensure country ownership and rapid disbursement of funds, fully respecting the aid effectiveness principles agreed in Accra, and facilitate the participation of private foundations, businesses, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in this historic effort. These efforts should complement the UN Comprehensive Framework for Agriculture. We ask the World Bank, the African Development Bank, UN, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Food Programme (WFP) and other stakeholders to coordinate their efforts, including through country-led mechanisms, in order to complement and reinforce other existing multilateral and bilateral efforts to tackle food insecurity.

40. To increase access to energy, we will promote the deployment of clean, affordable energy resources to the developing world. We commit, on a voluntary basis, to funding programs that achieve this objective, such as the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program and the Energy for the Poor Initiative, and to increasing and more closely harmonizing our bilateral efforts.

41. We commit to improving access to financial services for the poor. We have agreed to support the safe and sound spread of new modes of financial service delivery capable of reaching the poor and, building on the example of micro finance, will scale up the successful models of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) financing. Working with the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and other international organizations, we will launch a G-20 Financial Inclusion Experts Group. This group will identify lessons learned on innovative approaches to providing financial services to these groups, promote successful regulatory and policy approaches and elaborate standards on financial access, financial literacy, and consumer protection. We commit to launch a G-20 SME Finance Challenge, a call to the private sector to put forward its best proposals for how public finance can maximize the deployment of private finance on a sustainable and scalable basis.

42. As we increase the flow of capital to developing countries, we also need to prevent its illicit outflow. We will work with the World Bank’s Stolen Assets Recovery (StAR) program to secure the return of stolen assets to developing countries, and support other efforts to stem illicit outflows. We ask the FATF to help detect and deter the proceeds of corruption by prioritizing work to strengthen standards on customer due diligence, beneficial ownership and transparency. We note the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action and will work to increase the transparency of international aid flows by 2010. We call for the adoption and enforcement of laws against transnational bribery, such as the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, and the ratification by the G-20 of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the adoption during the third Conference of the Parties in Doha of an effective, transparent, and inclusive mechanism for the review of its implementation. We support voluntary participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which calls for regular public disclosure of payments by extractive industries to governments and reconciliation against recorded receipt of those funds by governments.

Putting Quality Jobs at the Heart of the Recovery

43. The prompt, vigorous and sustained response of our countries has saved or created millions of jobs. Based on International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates, our efforts will have created or saved at least 7 – 11 million jobs by the end of this year. Without sustained action, unemployment is likely to continue rising in many of our countries even after economies stabilize, with a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable segments of our population. As growth returns, every country must act to ensure that employment recovers quickly. We commit to implementing recovery plans that support decent work, help preserve employment, and prioritize job growth. In addition, we will continue to provide income, social protection, and training support for the unemployed and those most at risk of unemployment. We agree that the current challenges do not provide an excuse to disregard or weaken internationally recognized labor standards. To assure that global growth is broadly beneficial, we should implement policies consistent with ILO fundamental principles and rights at work.

44. Our new Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth requires structural reforms to create more inclusive labor markets, active labor market policies, and quality education and training programs. Each of our countries will need, through its own national policies, to strengthen the ability of our workers to adapt to changing market demands and to benefit from innovation and investments in new technologies, clean energy, environment, health, and infrastructure. It is no longer sufficient to train workers to meet their specific current needs; we should ensure access to training programs that support lifelong skills development and focus on future market needs. Developed countries should support developing countries to build and strengthen their capacities in this area. These steps will help to assure that the gains from new inventions and lifting existing impediments to growth are broadly shared.

45. We pledge to support robust training efforts in our growth strategies and investments. We recognize successful employment and training programs are often designed together with employers and workers, and we call on the ILO, in partnership with other organizations, to convene its constituents and NGOs to develop a training strategy for our consideration.

46. We agree on the importance of building an employment-oriented framework for future economic growth. In this context, we reaffirm the importance of the London Jobs Conference and Rome Social Summit. We also welcome the recently-adopted ILO Resolution on Recovering from the Crisis: A Global Jobs Pact, and we commit our nations to adopt key elements of its general framework to advance the social dimension of globalization. The international institutions should consider ILO standards and the goals of the Jobs Pact in their crisis and post-crisis analysis and policy-making activities.

47. To ensure our continued focus on employment policies, the Chair of the Pittsburgh Summit has asked his Secretary of Labor to invite our Employment and Labor Ministers to meet as a group in early 2010 consulting with labor and business and building on the upcoming OECD Labour and Employment Ministerial meeting on the jobs crisis. We direct our Ministers to assess the evolving employment situation, review reports from the ILO and other organizations on the impact of policies we have adopted, report on whether further measures are desirable, and consider medium-term employment and skills development policies, social protection programs, and best practices to ensure workers are prepared to take advantage of advances in science and technology.

An Open Global Economy

48. Continuing the revival in world trade and investment is essential to restoring global growth. It is imperative we stand together to fight against protectionism. We welcome the swift implementation of the $250 billion trade finance initiative. We will keep markets open and free and reaffirm the commitments made in Washington and London: to refrain from raising barriers or imposing new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports and commit to rectify such measures as they arise. We will minimize any negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions, including fiscal policy and action to support the financial sector. We will not retreat into financial protectionism, particularly measures that constrain worldwide capital flows, especially to developing countries. We will notify promptly the WTO of any relevant trade measures. We welcome the latest joint report from the WTO, OECD, IMF, and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and ask them to continue to monitor the situation within their respective mandates, reporting publicly on these commitments on a quarterly basis.

49. We remain committed to further trade liberalization. We are determined to seek an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the Doha Development Round in 2010, consistent with its mandate, based on the progress already made, including with regard to modalities. We understand the need for countries to directly engage with each other, within the WTO bearing in mind the centrality of the multilateral process, in order to evaluate and close the remaining gaps. We note that in order to conclude the negotiations in 2010, closing those gaps should proceed as quickly as possible. We ask our ministers to take stock of the situation no later than early 2010, taking into account the results of the work program agreed to in Geneva following the Delhi Ministerial, and seek progress on Agriculture, Non-Agricultural Market Access, as well as Services, Rules, Trade Facilitation and all other remaining issues. We will remain engaged and review the progress of the negotiations at our next meeting.

The Path from Pittsburgh

50. Today, we designated the G-20 as the premier forum for our international economic cooperation. We have asked our representatives to report back at the next meeting with recommendations on how to maximize the effectiveness of our cooperation. We agreed to have a G-20 Summit in Canada in June 2010, and in Korea in November 2010. We expect to meet annually thereafter, and will meet in France in 2011.

ANNEX: Core Values for Sustainable Economic Activity

1. The economic crisis demonstrates the importance of ushering in a new era of sustainable global economic activity grounded in responsibility. The current crisis has once again confirmed the fundamental recognition that our growth and prosperity are interconnected, and that no region of the globe can wall itself off in a globalized world economy.

2. We, the Leaders of the countries gathered for the Pittsburgh Summit, recognize that concerted action is needed to help our economies get back to stable ground and prosper tomorrow. We commit to taking responsible actions to ensure that every stakeholder – consumers, workers, investors, entrepreneurs – can participate in a balanced, equitable, and inclusive global economy.

3. We share the overarching goal to promote a broader prosperity for our people through balanced growth within and across nations; through coherent economic, social, and environmental strategies; and through robust financial systems and effective international collaboration.

4. We recognize that there are different approaches to economic development and prosperity, and that strategies to achieve these goals may vary according to countries’ circumstances.

5. We also agree that certain key principles are fundamental, and in this spirit we commit to respect the following core values:


We have a responsibility to ensure sound macroeconomic policies that serve long-term economic objectives and help avoid unsustainable global imbalances.
We have a responsibility to reject protectionism in all its forms, support open markets, foster fair and transparent competition, and promote entrepreneurship and innovation across countries.
We have a responsibility to ensure, through appropriate rules and incentives, that financial and other markets function based on propriety, integrity and transparency and to encourage businesses to support the efficient allocation of resources for sustainable economic performance.
We have a responsibility to provide for financial markets that serve the needs of households, businesses and productive investment by strengthening oversight, transparency, and accountability.
We have a responsibility to secure our future through sustainable consumption, production and use of resources that conserve our environment and address the challenge of climate change.
We have a responsibility to invest in people by providing education, job training, decent work conditions, health care and social safety net support, and to fight poverty, discrimination, and all forms of social exclusion.
We have a responsibility to recognize that all economies, rich and poor, are partners in building a sustainable and balanced global economy in which the benefits of economic growth are broadly and equitably shared. We also have a responsibility to achieve the internationally agreed development goals.
We have a responsibility to ensure an international economic and financial architecture that reflects changes in the world economy and the new challenges of globalization.

G-20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth

1. Our countries have a shared responsibility to adopt policies to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth, to promote a resilient international financial system, and to reap the benefits of an open global economy. To this end, we recognize that our strategies will vary across countries. In our Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth, we will:


implement responsible fiscal policies, attentive to short-term flexibility considerations and longer-run sustainability requirements.
strengthen financial supervision to prevent the re-emergence in the financial system of excess credit growth and excess leverage and undertake macro prudential and regulatory policies to help prevent credit and asset price cycles from becoming forces of destabilization.
promote more balanced current accounts and support open trade and investment to advance global prosperity and growth sustainability, while actively rejecting protectionist measures.
undertake monetary policies consistent with price stability in the context of market oriented exchange rates that reflect underlying economic fundamentals.
undertake structural reforms to increase our potential growth rates and, where needed, improve social safety nets.
promote balanced and sustainable economic development in order to narrow development imbalances and reduce poverty.

2. We recognize that the process to ensure more balanced global growth must be undertaken in an orderly manner. All G-20 members agree to address the respective weaknesses of their economies.


G-20 members with sustained, significant external deficits pledge to undertake policies to support private savings and undertake fiscal consolidation while maintaining open markets and strengthening export sectors.
G-20 members with sustained, significant external surpluses pledge to strengthen domestic sources of growth. According to national circumstances this could include increasing investment, reducing financial markets distortions, boosting productivity in service sectors, improving social safety nets, and lifting constraints on demand growth.
3. Each G-20 member bears primary responsibility for the sound management of its economy. The G-20 members also have a responsibility to the community of nations to assure the overall health of the global economy. Regular consultations, strengthened cooperation on macroeconomic policies, the exchange of experiences on structural policies, and ongoing assessment can strengthen our cooperation and promote the adoption of sound policies. As part of our process of mutual assessment:


G-20 members will agree on shared policy objectives. These objectives should be updated as conditions evolve.
G-20 members will set out their medium-term policy frameworks and will work together to assess the collective implications of our national policy frameworks for the level and pattern of global growth, and to identify potential risks to financial stability.
G-20 leaders will consider, based on the results of the mutual assessment, and agree any actions to meet our common objectives.
4. We call on our Finance Ministers to develop our process of mutual assessment to evaluate the collective implications of national policies for the world economy. To accomplish this, our Finance Ministers should, with the assistance of the IMF:


Develop a forward looking assessment of G-20 economic developments to help analyze whether patterns of demand and supply, credit, debt and reserves growth are supportive of strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
Assess the implications and consistency of fiscal and monetary policies, credit growth and asset markets, foreign exchange developments, commodity and energy prices, and current account imbalances.
Report regularly to both the G-20 and the IMFC on global economic developments, key risks, and concerns with respect to patterns of growth and suggested G-20 policy adjustments, individually and collectively.

24 September 2009

Mauritius: Population should have faith in the Judicial System, says Ag. PM at Judicial Conference

Everything should be undertaken to ensure that the population has faith in the judicial system of the country the Acting Prime Minister, Dr. Rashid Beebeejaun, GCSK, said on September 22 at the Grand Baie International Conference Centre while opening a three-day Judicial Conference on the theme “Enhancing the Justice System under the rule of law” .

The Acting Prime Minister also underlined the contribution of the members of parliament and the Police towards the judiciary and in improving access to justice.

The Chief Justice of Mauritius, Honourable Y.K.J Yeung Sik Yuen, GOSK, stated that the creation of both the Family and Commercial Divisions has contributed significantly in easing many processes of law that are related. He also added that he is favourable to the setting up of a Division in matters related to personal injury cases.

The opening ceremony was attended by the President of the Republic of Mauritius, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, GCSK, KCMG, QC, the Attorney General, Mr. Rama Valayden and other eminent personalities of the Judiciary.

This Conference is organised in collaboration of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple and the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute. The Conference is being attended by members of the Judiciary from Canada, India, Kenya, Mozambique, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles and Mauritius.

Members from the Middle Temple are the resource persons at the Conference and amongst the themes that are being covered are measures to prevent witness intimidation, the legal profession in the new era, the advocate’s duty to the court, the training of Judges and how should Judges be selected.

23 September 2009

IOSCO consults on transparency of structured finance products

The International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Technical Committee has published a consultation report on Transparency of Structured Finance Products. The Report sets out a number of factors to be considered by market authorities when considering enhancing post-trade transparency of structured finance products in their respective jurisdictions.

The Technical Committee is seeking input from financial services practitioners, industry participants and other relevant stakeholders.

The closing date for responses is 13 November 2009.

FSA reaffirms approach to consumer responsibilities

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today issued a feedback statement reaffirming its regulatory approach to balancing the responsibilities of consumers and firms, which it first set out in Discussion Paper 08/05.

The 2008 paper articulated how the FSA considers consumer responsibility in its decision and policymaking. For example, the intensity of regulation increases in line with the risks posed to customers by different products. Central to this is the obligation on firms to treat customers fairly. The discussion paper also explained the links between this work and other FSA initiatives such as the continuing programme of Financial Capability and the FSA’s consumer communications.

In that publication the FSA also asked for feedback from industry and consumer bodies to gauge if a wider consensus could be reached as to what is the appropriate balance of responsibility between consumers and firms in the sale of financial services products.

Today’s feedback statement acknowledges that the responses reflected a variety of views and there was no consensus. In the absence of wider agreement on where the balance of responsibilities lies between firms and consumers, the FSA will maintain its current approach as set out in the discussion paper.

Dan Waters, director of retail policy and conduct risk, said:

"The FSA believes in the importance of having a transparent policy-making framework. The feedback statement and our original discussion paper set out for the first time the approach we take to consumer responsibility and will help the industry understand our approach to this important topic.

"We intend to take forward the positive dimensions of this work through our financial capability agenda and our wider consumer communications strategy.

"The more engaged, demanding and discerning consumers become, the better off industry and consumers will be."

Consumer responsibility: Feedback on DP08/5


Are You Ready for Hedge Fund Regulation? Prepare Now for What's Coming

The inevitable regulation of hedge funds currently under discussion in Washington may fundamentally change the way hedge funds operate. Savvy funds are laying the groundwork now to comply with the most likely regulatory requirements. Will you be prepared?

Tuesday, September 29, 11AM-12PM EST, 1hr

Click here to register for this webinar

22 September 2009

Jersey Rated as the Top Offshore Jurisdiction

Jersey has been established as the highest rated offshore international finance centre in the competitive ranking Global Financial Centres Index, published today (22nd September) by the City of London.

Jersey is 14th in the latest Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) overall, following close behind some major city financial centres such as Frankfurt, Sydney and Toronto. The rankings are led once again by London and New York. Only Guernsey, one place below, and Luxembourg (16th) feature in the top twenty among the Jersey finance industry’s direct competitors.

The report indicates that there is now a strong correlation between GFCI rankings and the OECD status of the various jurisdictions, with those centres that have not achieved ‘white list’ status, such as the Bahamas (48th) and Gibraltar (51st), placed very much lower in the rankings. The report also indicates that Jersey and Guernsey have increased their lead over both the Isle of Man (25th a fall of 7 places), and Cayman (26th) which fell four, in the overall assessment.

Geoff Cook commented;

Coming so soon after our excellent review from the IMF, these latest rankings from the City of London study are another endorsement of how positively we are considered by the international finance community. It is particularly encouraging that towards the end of a very difficult year for the finance industry globally, Jersey has retained its position in the world’s top 20 and is now also the highest ranked of the offshore locations.”

OECD holds a major Conference “Transfer Pricing and Treaties in a Changing World”

On 21-22 September 2009, the OECD held a major conference “Transfer Pricing and Treaties in a Changing World”. Almost 700 transfer pricing and treaty experts from over 90 governments (OECD and non-OECD), the private sector, NGOs, academia and international organisations gathered in Paris for the event. This conference was part of the OECD’s Global Forum on Tax Treaties and Transfer Pricing, which plays an important role in the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs’ programme to bring together international tax experts from OECD and non-OECD countries to discuss international tax issues. The Conference was open to participants from the private sector and universities for the second consecutive year, and to representatives from NGOs and news media.

Participants in last year’s Conference on the 50th Anniversary of the OECD Model Tax Convention overwhelmingly voted the adoption of the OECD's Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations in 1995 as the most important tax treaty development (besides the Model Tax Convention itself) of the past 50 years. Accordingly, this year’s conference had a strong focus on transfer pricing, although a number of related treaty topics were also discussed.

In his opening address, Jeffrey Owens, Director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, stressed the significance of transfer pricing for as well as non-OECD economies in a global economy where multinational enterprises play a prominent role. This is especially relevant in the midst of the current economic challenges, when the location of profits and losses within a multinational group is very sensitive as it directly affects the group’s effective tax rate. Governments also are carefully monitoring the allocation of profits and losses to their jurisdictions, in a context where many of them are striving for a balance between business friendly, pro-growth tax measures and measures to maintain the needed level of tax revenues to support public spending.

These considerations, which are high in the mind of governments and private sector representatives engaged in the OECD work on transfer pricing, were reflected in the Conference programme, which addressed the following topics in a mix of presentations and case studies:

• Adjustments and Corresponding Adjustments: The Role of Articles 7, 9 and 25 of the Model Tax Convention: Panellists from the OECD Secretariat, from governments and from the private sector discussed the treaty limitations related to possible adjustments by a tax administration to the profits of an affiliate or of a branch of a foreign company and examined the extent to which the State of residence of the foreign company is obliged to make a corresponding downward adjustment to eliminate economic or juridical double taxation.

• Information Powers and Transfer Pricing: Documentation Requirements, Exchange of Information and Burden of Proof Issues: Government and private sector representatives discussed the implementation of transfer pricing documentation requirements and the use of exchange of information clauses in transfer pricing audits, as well as related burden of proof and penalty issues, trying to find the right balance between, on the one hand, enabling effective enforcement of transfer pricing legislation by tax authorities and, on the other hand, keeping the compliance burden reasonable and providing reasonable certainty to taxpayers who make documentation efforts.

• Deductibility of Interest in Related Party Situations: Panellists from the government and private sectors discussed the treaty aspects of recent changes to thin capitalisation rules; issues related to the allocation of “free capital” for tax purposes to a permanent establishment in the context of the allocation of profits to that permanent establishment; the use of tax treaties to facilitate double dip financing arrangements and cross-border arbitrage with respect to the interest deduction.

• Transfer Pricing in a Downturn Economy: Panellists from the governmental and private sectors analyzed the challenges created by the recent economic downturn for transfer pricing practitioners from the government and private sectors alike. In particular, panellists discussed the extent to which loss-making situations are to be regarded as “arm’s length”, depending in particular on the functional and risk profile of each of the entities of the multinational group to which losses are allocated, as well as the treatment and allocation of restructuring costs (e.g. termination costs, severance payments, write-off of assets) depending in particular on the rights and other assets of the restructured entities and on the expected benefits from the restructuring.

• Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments - Designing a Modern Article 7 of the Model Tax Convention: The OECD is on the verge of finalising a new Article 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on business profits. This will allow the full application of the conclusions from the July 2008 Report on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. Panellists discussed the main differences between the existing Article 7 and the proposed new one.

• Transfer Pricing and Customs: Panellists from the World Customs Organisation and from the government and private sectors discussed difficult questions that typically arise in relation to the possible convergence of valuation rules, the acceptability for customs purposes of transfer pricing post import adjustments and vice versa, and more generally the coherence of a “whole of government” approach in that area.

• Treaty and Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles Characterisation: Panellists from the OECD Secretariat, from governments and from the private sector discussed definitional issues in relation to intangibles and the related treaty and transfer pricing questions. They focused especially on “soft intangibles”, i.e. elements that are not necessarily legally protected intangibles and not always intangible assets recognised for accounting purposes, but are nevertheless regarded as significant value drivers economically and as such may need to be remunerated for transfer pricing purposes.

• Recent court decisions: Finally, several recent court decisions dealing with transfer pricing and treaty issues were presented to the audience.

The Conference was aimed at facilitating a constructive dialogue between private sector representatives and tax administrators and between representatives from OECD and non-OECD economies. It was undertaken in accordance with the OECD ambition of broadening and deepening the international consensus on transfer pricing, in an effort to limit the instances of double taxation created by differing country views and to make the arm’s length principle workable in a satisfactory manner in the globalised economy where domestic systems are highly interdependent.

Mansion House speech

Speech by Adair Turner, Chairman, FSA
The City Banquet, The Mansion House, London

My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It’s a year and four days since Callum McCarthy spoke here on his second last day as Chairman of the FSA. I know he always received a warm welcome here and I am grateful, Lord Mayor, for your kind words, given that I now seem to be regarded as somewhat of a heretic in certain quarters of the City. Heretics used to be burned at Smithfield, not far from here, so perhaps I should have been worried coming here. But I will not be recanting this evening. I will try, however, to be socially useful by addressing head on the complexities involved in distinguishing the benefits of a vibrant financial sector from the problems of excess and instability.

To say a lot has changed in the year since Callum stood before you is inadequate. Callum’s speech came a few days after Lehman’s collapse, but before we understood the full consequences. When I became Chairman two days later, I didn’t know I would spend my first three weeks at the FSA amidst the biggest financial crisis for at least 70 years.

Today the world looks much less scary than it did then. The financial system is no longer fragile: growth is returning in many countries, confidence to many markets. I say that with some trepidation because, of course, there may be setbacks and unexpected events. But it is important to recognise the positives: a bias to over-cautious pessimism in official statements can be as harmful as a bias to unjustified optimism.

The banking system is stable. House prices have fallen much less than anticipated. The big emerging economies have proved far more robust than we feared. The Bank of England mid-point forecast suggests fairly robust UK growth over the next three years.

But even if that is the case – even indeed if the path of growth, unemployment and housing prices turns out to be better than current expectation – we must not forget what occurred last autumn. This was the worst crisis for 70 years – indeed potentially it could have been the worst in the history of market capitalism. Real disaster – a new Great Depression – was only averted by quite exceptional policy measures. Despite these measures major economic harm has occurred. Hundreds of thousands of British people are newly unemployed; tens of thousands have lost houses to repossession; and British citizens will be burdened for many years with either higher taxes or cuts in public services – because of an economic crisis whose origins lay in the financial system, a crisis cooked up in trading rooms where not just a few but many people earned annual bonuses equal to a lifetime’s earnings of some of those now suffering the consequences. We cannot go back to business as usual and accept the risk that a similar crisis occurs again in ten or 20 years’ time.

We need radical change. Regulators must design radically changed regulations and supervisory approaches, but we also need to challenge our entire past philosophy of regulation.

And parts of the financial services industries need to reflect deeply on their role in the economy, and to recommit to a focus on their essential social and economic functions, if they are to regain public trust.

The financial system plays vital roles in a market economy and particularly so in a complex global economy of global trade and global capital flows. It encompasses many specific activities: life and general insurance, both broking and underwriting; equity trading and research and primary issuing: commodity and foreign exchange trading; basic commercial banking, trade finance and project finance and private equity, and market making and liquidity provision in numerous traded instruments.

And many of these services have been delivered efficiently and without creating undue risks throughout the crisis; many are not bust and don’t need fixing.

And the City is a centre of huge expertise in the full range of these activities. It is, and will continue to be, a major provider of wholesale financial services to the rest of Europe and the world. And it will continue to create many high-paid high-skilled jobs. And it will continue to change and innovate.

And it is important to understand, amid the public suspicion of traders and trading rooms, that market making and liquidity provision in key markets is an important economic function, delivering important indirect economic benefits – even when the traders involved are focused day by day simply on making money, even though their activities look to some people like pure speculation, even though they do indeed entail position taking for speculative gain. Adam Smith’s insight that good economic results can flow from the private pursuit of profit remains valid and vital.

But it’s possible to say all of that, and also recognise that not all financial innovation is valuable, not all trading plays a useful role, and that a bigger financial system is not necessarily a better one. And, indeed, there are good reasons for believing that the financial industry, more than any other sector of the economy, has an ability to generate unnecessary demand for its own services – that more trading and more financial innovation can under some circumstances create harmful volatility against which customers have to hedge, creating more demand for trading liquidity and innovative products; that parts of the financial services industry have a unique ability to attract to themselves unnecessarily high returns and create instability which harms the rest of society.

That is what I said in a recent interview for Prospect Magazine, which caused quite a stir. The editor of Prospect was delighted: small circulation intellectual magazines devoted to the 4,000-word essay don’t often get that publicity. Others were less happy. One City practitioner declared himself ‘appalled, disgusted, ashamed and hugely embarrassed that I should have lived to see someone who commands a senior and crucial important position as head of the UK regulatory regime, making such damaging and damning remarks’.

Well, I am sorry I spoilt his breakfast, but I do not apologise for being correctly quoted as saying that while the financial services industry performs many economically vital functions, and will continue to play a large and important role in London’s economy, some financial activities which proliferated over the last ten years were ‘socially useless’, and some parts of the system were swollen beyond their optimal size. And if you disagree with that, you have a bone of contention not only with me, but with the Chairman of the British Bankers’ Association, Stephen Green, who has said exactly the same thing in very similar words, when he argued that ‘in recent years, banks have chased short-term profits by introducing complex products of no real use to humanity’, and when he recognised that ‘some parts of our industry have become overblown’.

Some commentators, responding to my interview and indeed to Stephen Green’s speech, have challenged whether we can ever make such judgements about the social usefulness of economic activity. After all, they say, in a rich society there are many products and services which people buy but do not need – what of the fashion industry? What of much of media and entertainment? What of the arts? But there is big difference. The products of the fashion industry are consumer products, consumed directly by individuals, and in a free and rich society, we should accept and indeed relish the fact that consumer choice is in part driven by fancy and caprice, by desire for luxury and style and indulgence, not by need. Products and services chosen directly by customers don’t need to prove that they are useful; the fact that consumers choose them is enough.

But nobody gets up on a Saturday morning and says ‘I know it’s indulgent, but I think I’ll go out and buy one of those lovely new CDO squareds’. And the fashion, media, or arts industries cannot create financial instability and cause economic recessions. Financial services are different from those industries, because they are intermediate services, they are the plumbing of the economy, but a very complex plumbing, and if we get it wrong, potentially explosive.

So we must ask searching questions about whether society is getting these crucial plumbing services as efficiently, at as low a cost, and with as little risk, as possible. Some comments on my Prospect magazine interview have suggested that any regulator ought to wish their industry to be as successful as possible and therefore as large as possible. That is frankly a bizarre idea: nobody suggests that it is the role of Ofgem to make the electricity industry as large as possible. Obviously if there are sustainable, valuable financial services which the world needs, we should be pleased that Britain is good at delivering them. But any idea that that means that size is an objective, even if the activities are likely to harm global and UK economic stability, is absurd.

Yes, financial services form a vital industry and source of high-skilled employment. Yes, the City will continue to play a key and vibrant role in the UK economy. But not everything that a financial system does is socially useful; and sometimes bits of it can get too big and it would be better for society if they got smaller. Anybody who thinks those statements are contradictory is refusing to face the complex reality of financial markets.

So the FSA, on behalf of society, must consider whether the financial services industry is delivering its vital services in an efficient and risk-controlled fashion. That does not mean we can define precisely how large the financial system should be. It doesn’t mean that we know how much trading and liquidity creation is optimal, nor that we can easily define some products as beneficial and others as harmful. But it does imply an important and profound shift in regulatory philosophy.

In the past, in the years running up to the crisis, it was the strong mindset of the FSA – shared with securities and prudential regulators and central banks across the world, it was almost part of our DNA – that we assumed that financial innovation was always beneficial, that more trading and more liquidity creation was always valuable, that ever more complex products were by definition beneficial because they completed more markets, allowing a more precise matching of instruments to investor demand for liquidity, risk and return combinations. And that mindset did affect our approach – and the approach of the whole world regulatory community – to the setting of capital requirements on trading activity; it affected our willingness to demand risk reduction in the CDS market; and it influenced the degree to which we could even consider short-selling bans in conditions of exceptional market volatility.

We have had to change that mindset and we have now done so. And that has profound implications for the regulation and supervisory approaches which will be imposed at UK and global level.
  • The world’s financial regulators, led by the new International Financial Stability Board, will require the global banking system to be more prudent, operating with larger shock-absorbing buffers of capital and liquidity, and if as a result bank equity becomes a more boring investment – lower average return but lower risk – we should not regret that. After the last year, there’s a lot to be said for being boring.
  • And we will impose much higher capital requirements against many riskier trading activities, where the past approach was woefully inadequate, while recognising that market making in many core markets – such as FX or government bonds or equities – is both relatively low risk and an essential lubricant of a complex market economy. We will have a bias to conservatism in our capital requirements for trading in complex and potentially risky products where the benefit to the economy is unclear. And if that means trading activity and liquidity in these specific markets shrinks, that too we should not regret.
  • And we are imposing at firm level a far more assertive style of supervision, no longer willing to assume that market discipline and incentives will always lead bank management to make optimal decisions; more willing to make judgements on whether business models and business strategies create undue risks for the whole financial system.
This reform programme amounts to a radical change in direction. But it poses for regulators the challenge of complexity, because it involves rejecting an intellectually elegant but also profoundly mistaken faith in ever perfect and self-equilibrating markets, ever rational human behaviours; but it leaves us with no equally simple alternative philosophy. It is much easier to proceed in life on the assumption that either all markets are axiomatically good, or all speculation evil. The reality is more complex and requires us to make trade-offs and judgements. But there is no alternative to that complexity.

But if regulators need to change and face complex challenges, so too do bankers. And one of their biggest challenges is to regain public trust, to rebuild public understanding that banks and financial markets perform not only socially useful but vital functions, linking savers to productive investments, allocating capital to efficient use, lubricating the flows of capital and trade in a global economy which, for all its faults, is a better system than any available alternative for delivering prosperity in a free society.

To regain trust, banks need to refocus their energies not on those over-complex products of no real use to humanity of which Stephen Green spoke, but on their core functions of providing savings and credit and payment products to customers, whether individuals, companies or institutions.

But focusing on the socially valuable is not straightforward. Because, as I said earlier, it is in the nature of markets that there are some things which are indirectly socially useful, but which in the short-term will look to the external world like pure speculation. Market making does have an important social function – but that benefit is achieved indirectly and market making requires some position taking. And a vibrant global economy probably does require an important role for securitised credit a recovery indeed of securitised credit markets, but securitised credit extension needs to be underpinned by at least some trading activity.

So rebuilding trust in the necessary and socially useful functions of banks cannot mean an end to all trading activities nor, much as some might like it, an end to well-remunerated traders.

But it does mean that the top management of banks, and in particular of any banks which are involved both in complex trading activities and in retail banking activities – need to operate within limits. They need to be willing, like the regulator, to recognise that there are some profitable activities so unlikely to have a social benefit, direct or indirect, that they should voluntarily walk away from them. They need to ask searching questions about whether the complex structured products they sold to corporate and institutional customers, truly did deliver real hedging value or simply encouraged those institutions into speculative and risky exposures which they did not understand: and, if the latter, they should not sell them even if they are profitable. They need to be willing to accept the capital and other requirements which will be imposed on activities of little value and considerable risk, rather than deploy lobbying power to argue against such constraints on the basis of a simplistic assertion that all innovation is always valuable.

The regulator can impose the rules which will guard against risk. But only the banks themselves can restore public trust in and appreciation of the vitally important functions which they perform.

And restoring that trust, in the immediate future in particular, carries implications for the vexed issue of bonuses. For regulators, the key long-term issue is not the level of pay but the structure of payments and the incentives they produce. And it is possible to overstate the importance of bonus structures in the origins of the crisis: they were, I believe, much less important than huge failures in capital adequacy and liquidity regulation. But it is still important to get these incentives right for the long term. The new FSA rules aim to ensure a tight link between the design of bonus structures and the management of risk – for the first time requiring that remuneration committees make the risk consequences of remuneration structures a key consideration. The FSA has led the world in introducing these rules, and the International Financial Stability Board is now finalising a global standard whose details are closely in line with the FSA approach.

These new rules will make a useful contribution to better risk control, but they will not – and are not designed to – influence the overall level of compensation.

But it is clear that popular concern is actually focused on the level, and in particular is now focused on talk of very large bonuses in major trading banks, only a year after a financial crisis, and after the public underwriting of large losses through guarantees, central bank liquidity support and capital injections. Two considerations make these very large profits a legitimate matter of social interest, rather than an entirely private matter.
  • First, these high profits are, to a significant extent, being earned because of a set of specific post-crash circumstances: increases in the market share of the survivors; government guarantees and central bank liquidity support; very low interest rates; volatility; and large government debt issues.
  • And second, that in order to prevent a repeat of the crisis, we need to ensure that our major banks build stronger capital buffers, meeting higher future minimum capital requirements, and putting away reserves in good years to ensure stability in downturns.
In these circumstances, the Financial Stability Board will this week state in its Report to the G20 leaders, that it is essential that the priority use of high profits should be to rebuild the capital needed to support lending, allow official measures to be removed, prepare institutions to meet higher capital requirements, and that bonus and dividend policies should be consistent with this priority. And over the long term there will be a legitimate interest of regulators in aggregate bonus payment rates if and when these payments have implications for capital conservation.

I hope the banking industry will embrace this globally agreed priority, and welcome a global agreement which will make it easier for individual firms, where appropriate, to moderate bonus payments in the knowledge that similar pressure is being placed on their major competitors.

And I hope that all in the banking industry will understand why society expects the industry to engage in serious debate about the vitally important economic functions which we need the industry, safely and profitably, to perform. I quoted earlier the upset City practitioner who was ‘appalled, disgusted and ashamed’ at my words. I wonder whether this thoughtful soul realises that those sentiments are precisely what some of the victims of this recession feel about the excesses of some specific parts of the financial system.

An industry that recognises the need to moderate excesses, rebuild trust and embrace reforms to prevent another crisis will prosper. The real enemies of the City’s success and of the market economy, with all its great potential to spread prosperity and opportunity, are not those who raise these issues, but those who want to ignore them, as if the near-death experience of our financial system only 12 months ago had simply never occurred.

I am sure that the City of London in its many facets will remain a vibrant and major force in the UK economy. From a personal point of view, as a British citizen and a Londoner, I hope it will. But it is not my job as Chairman of the financial regulator to be the industry’s cheerleader. Energetic and effective promotion of the City is, however, a very important and useful function, which others can and should perform. Indeed, Lord Mayor, that has been one of your traditional roles. It is one into which you have put great energy over the last year, and it is one which I am sure all here will agree, you carry out with great distinction.

And it is therefore with great pleasure that I would like to propose the toast to ‘The Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress’.