IT MIGHT not have been the most eye-catching of headlines, but the single column in yesterday’s Financial Times certainly stood out for Guernsey’s financial services regulators.
‘IMF to erase “offshore” centre stigma’ meant a long, slow and deliberate campaign by the island to see the expression ‘offshore’ - so often used unfairly to convey criticism of the way Guernsey operates - dropped from the International Monetary Fund’s vocabulary had finally paid off.
In explaining its change of heart, the IMF said in a 35-page document that the distinction between onshore and offshore financial centres had been blurred by globalisation.
The reality, however, is that faced with complaints from about 40 small countries that they were being unfairly stigmatised by being regarded as offshore centres, the IMF could mount no case in its defence.
Firstly, it was unable to define what an OFC actually is - or is not - and some of those that a lay person might take to be one actually had better standards of regulation that some onshore jurisdictions.
Secondly, so many clearly onshore territories are now looking to develop their own sectors to help manage the wealth of non residents that the cross border flows of funds showed up the bureaucratic classification for the nonsense it was.
Nevertheless, the change of heart is welcome and is cause for celebration and the authorities here are to be congratulated for the part they played in helping to bring it about.
To some extent, however, it is a slightly bittersweet victory. The document setting out the change also highlights how political the whole matter of regulation has become. As the IMF itself notes, ‘At the same time, care would be needed to avoid the impression of a diminished focus by the fund on OFCs’ implementation of regulatory standards’.
In other words, it would not do for the highly taxed countries to think the IMF was slackening off and the Crown Dependencies are now to be priority jurisdictions for the fund’s rolling programme of five- to seven-year assessments.
And once the basic requirement of preventing money laundering and flows of terrorist funding is achieved, the real objective is to see low rates of taxation increase to the levels of France, Germany and the UK.
Welcome though the ‘offshore’ ruling is, it will not remove the underlying pressure facing Guernsey.
Real motive still remains
IT MIGHT not have been the most eye-catching of headlines, but the single column in yesterday’s Financial Times certainly stood out for Guernsey’s financial services regulators.
‘IMF to erase “offshore” centre stigma’ meant a long, slow and deliberate campaign by the island to see the expression ‘offshore’ - so often used unfairly to convey criticism of the way Guernsey operates - dropped from the International Monetary Fund’s vocabulary had finally paid off.
In explaining its change of heart, the IMF said in a 35-page document that the distinction between onshore and offshore financial centres had been blurred by globalisation.
The reality, however, is that faced with complaints from about 40 small countries that they were being unfairly stigmatised by being regarded as offshore centres, the IMF could mount no case in its defence.
Firstly, it was unable to define what an OFC actually is - or is not - and some of those that a lay person might take to be one actually had better standards of regulation that some onshore jurisdictions.
Secondly, so many clearly onshore territories are now looking to develop their own sectors to help manage the wealth of non residents that the cross border flows of funds showed up the bureaucratic classification for the nonsense it was.
Nevertheless, the change of heart is welcome and is cause for celebration and the authorities here are to be congratulated for the part they played in helping to bring it about.
To some extent, however, it is a slightly bittersweet victory. The document setting out the change also highlights how political the whole matter of regulation has become. As the IMF itself notes, ‘At the same time, care would be needed to avoid the impression of a diminished focus by the fund on OFCs’ implementation of regulatory standards’.
In other words, it would not do for the highly taxed countries to think the IMF was slackening off and the Crown Dependencies are now to be priority jurisdictions for the fund’s rolling programme of five- to seven-year assessments.
And once the basic requirement of preventing money laundering and flows of terrorist funding is achieved, the real objective is to see low rates of taxation increase to the levels of France, Germany and the UK.
Welcome though the ‘offshore’ ruling is, it will not remove the underlying pressure facing Guernsey.
Article posted on 16th July, 2008 - 2.30pm