PwC backs the focus on emerging markets
Thursday 27th January 2011, 2:30PM GMT.
In the latest in a series of ‘The World in 2050’ reports by Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, a key conclusion was that the global financial crisis had accelerated the shift in power to emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India and China – the Bric nations.
GuernseyFinance chief executive Peter Niven (pictured) said the report emphasised the shift in economic power away from developed countries and supported the recent work the promotional body had undertaken.
‘It reinforces the importance of GuernseyFinance not just maintaining the profile of the island in our traditional centres of business such as London, but also forging links and establishing the Guernsey name further afield in new markets including China, India and Russia.’
GuernseyFinance has had an office in China for the past three years, while last year saw the island’s first official delegation to India.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full, click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Regardless of the facts surrounding the financial environment China and India have created:
http://iff-update.gfip.org/
why should anyone trust one of the four main audit companies that failed to understand the positions of the companies they were auditing so allowing the massive financial collapse.
The collapse that we, our children and further generations will be paying for.
Report abuse
@ Arnald
PwC did not “allow” the credit crunch.
In addition PwC is not a company it is a partnership
Report abuse
Fair enough re partnership. But you cannot tell me there were properly audited accounts for the banks that were succumbing to liquidity problems. It is the accountancy industry that lobbies for the rules we have presently, being nearly in monopoly of the IASB. So it is partly the fault of the accountancy firms that allowed the opacity that hid the real value of the toxic assets.
The reach the big 4 have within the workings of the finance industry as a whole is shocking.
Report abuse
Arnald
Apparently the Big 4 accountancy firms all raised concerns with the US Treasury about the financial status of various major US financial institutions, with the accountancy firms saying that the audited accounts should be “qualified” due to their concerns about the ongoing viability of those institutions, based on a prudent valuation of their loan books.
It would seem that the US Treasury were so concerned about the implications of “qualifying the accounts”, i.e. a major run on the banks which would have brought down the entire gloabl financial system, that the accounting firms were ordered not to “qualify” the accounts.
If this is true, and no doubt in the course of time the facts will emerge, then the accountancy firms did do their jobs properly and were acting on the orders of the US Government (no doubt replicated in other countries by other governments) not to disclose what they were wanted to disclose.
Frightening stuff if its true, although one can see why such a stance would have been taken.
I’m keeping an open mind on whether the Big 4 are anywhere near as culpable as you claim.
Report abuse
True and fair, David. If there were doubts then accounts cannot be true and fair. The reality is they got major fees for allowing technicalities within the rules to pass audit.
Time and time again we hear of audit failure, accountancy tricks, and systemic lack of corporate duty due to the use of dirty tricks by the accountancy firms (and lawyers).
There isn’t a month that goes by without some story about allowed corruption, technical breaches, mis representation and the like.
How many times does an industry necessity need to fail?
Report abuse
Arnald
I’m not saying that the accounts were “true and fair”. I’m saying that the Big 4 were ordered “from up high” not to state that the accounts were not true and fair, with the US Government trying to avoid a global crisis which really would have been Armageddon. If that’s true then the accountants WERE doing their job properly, but were prevented from disclosing what they had found.
Report abuse
David
I’m saying that the ‘up high’ could only be advised by ‘respected professionals’ drawn from the monopoly.
Much the same as the ‘clean bill of health’ for the finance industry is always made by bodies that are essentially the finance industry.
What is being asked of the public is faith. We need to believe in the cartel.
Since that intertwined, exclusive rich boys club commands the policy making of democracies, the public are in their thrall.
Regulatory capture, yeah? Who’s to question what the ‘experts’ say?
That’s why the likes of Murphy and TJN are villified ad hominem.
A step away from Corporatism. Just listen to the Chief Minister. The relief when the IMF regards Guernsey’s OFC as “mainly largely compliant” doesn’t reflect the island at all. It’s like that’s all he cares about.
Report abuse
Arnald
I disagree. “Up high” was far higher than that.
Are you seriously saying that the IMF is “essentially the finance industry”? Sorry but that’s garbage.
The likes of Murphy and TJN are villied because they talk cr*p and because their motives are based on their hatred of the offshore finance industry, rather than on the reality of what the finance industry actually is. They pretend to know what really goes on. They very clearly don’t. How can their “intelligence” from the outside be anything like accurate? They operate entirely on a “prove me wrong” approach, knowing all too well that proving a negative isn’t possible. Their “evidence” just isn’t there to back up their claims.
As for your last paragraph, are you saying that a positive review by the IMF, being the ultimate regulator, isn’t worthy of credit? Oh of course not – you don’t trust the IMF report because yet again it demonstrates that the claims of Murphy are without foundation.
Report abuse
David.
On eonly has to look at the track record of the IMF to understand where its angle points.
These noises it makes is only due to increasing research.
And again you repeat this ‘hatred’ meme.
It’s nothing to do with ‘offshore’ or ‘low tax’ or personal privacy. It’s about ensuring a fair playing field, mitigating risk, and getting the best, and most transparent, vehicle for the free market to function.
It is you that has a bias politic towards a fundamentally inclusive ideal.
It’s as if you don’t wish that people got richer, just your mates and clients.
Don’t you see?
Report abuse
Arnald
Sorry – no, I don’t see your point at all.
The IMF is de facto the “lead” regulator. Obviously not good enough for you so there’s not much we can do about that, I’m afraid. Who do you suggest should be the “lead” regulator if not the IMF? Murphy & Co?
Report abuse
The IMF are as bad as those corrupt dictators and they lend money to, and plunge the poor into an even more deperate situation than they already in.
There is more money coming back from those poor countries in debt repayment than what the west gives in aid.
Governments,IMF,world bank and (many) bankers,multi nats, and then theres the finance industry.
What a load of theiving corrupt scumbags we got running this planet.
Rant over.
Report abuse
Sorry about the spellings, too many beers i think :)
Report abuse
I love these threads. The affluent squabbling about pedantic points to shore up their financial position. Talk about ‘fiddling’ while Rome’s burning.
Report abuse