Home Tags Regulation
I am a board director of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (SMIT), a £6bn investment fund based in Edinburgh. You can receive material about the...
John was recently interviewed about a forthcoming FT Money article by Claer Barrett. Listen to the interview via the FT, via Soundcloud, or subscribe...
European regulations which came into force at the start of the year require many providers of Prips (packaged retail investment products) to produce a...
The asset management sector in the UK is very competitive, but not very price competitive. This apparent paradox runs through the FCA’s report on asset management, but is never adequately recognised or explained. But only by acknowledging it can regulators help to create an industry which works better for investors and for the economy as a whole.
The reality of Brexit and trade negotiations is a review of the rules governing myriads of individual products in mind-numbing detail. Those who thought Brexit meant less regulation, less bureaucracy, fewer civil servants, are in for a surprise.
When a corporation is unable to meet valid claims, control passes to the holders of these claims in a legally defined order of priority. But, as finance has grown more complex, these rules have come to look more shaky; they can falter dangerously in modern banking or in the case of a struggling retail business such as BHS.
Explaining your possibly complex financial affairs to unsympathetic journalists adds to the already too long list of reasons why able people might not want to go into politics. And such scrutiny draws attention away from genuinely serious and widespread tax evasion, corruption and money laundering, practices.
Recent stumbles by Bernie Sanders illustrate a misdirection in his attack on the banking establishment. The central problem is not so much “too big to fail” but “too complex to fail”.
Uber's superior service threatens London's black-cab drivers, just as (my namesake) John Kay's flying shuttle eventually led to rebellion by out-of-work Luddites in the 19th century. The losers from such innovations should in some circumstances be compensated. But restricting competition is against the public interest.