[voodoosdv]

I know it is. However, it's interesting to read the thoughts of London's hoi polloi.

[bumxumer]

I've had that before.

Very tasty.

[zoolissentesy]

The UK's news is largely the BBC which is the British Government.... or Murdoch. What do you expect them to say?

A correction - the BBC is neither a state or privately owned or operated entity.


I think we're seeing the demise globally of the hedge fund industry. It has been portrayed far too often as a scape goat and annoyed others in the wider financial sector. If you asked people 2 years ago whether they would go into the sector, people would jump at the chance. Not now; to even be associated with a fund is akin to having leprosy. Nevermind the hurdle of enticing investors back

With that said, the % of hedge funds or some ranking by country isn't the biggest concern to New York. It's the over-reliance on the domestic market (which is shrinking in relation to the global economy) in contrast to London, the failure of it's biggest financial entities, and the world's largest investor fraud.

[lorryuncori]

The US is (and will remain) for a very long time the world's largest and most significant economy. China's GDP per capita is an utter fraction of that in the US.

Moreover, NY's leading position in the world is evidenced not only by the hedge fund figures (and anyone who suggests that hedge funds are irrelevant broadcasts his lack of knowledge regarding finance), but even by the little fact that Thompson Reuters de-listed from London and listed in NY, along with moving its global HQ from London to NY.

Lastly, the suspicion of the Anglo-American financial model will accelerate the growth of European financial centers like Paris and Frankfurt. Given, for example, German mistrust of the British model, a German company seeking to raise funds will be more inclined today do so in Frankfurt -- not London.

The following article from the FT addressed Continental displeasure with the UK model and Paris' desire to rival London as the European financial center.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b278edfe-7...nclick_check=1

The following article from the Economist also addressed Continental's mistrust with the British financial system.

http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=14082324

[sessoorale]

The US is (and will remain) for a very long time the world's largest and most significant economy. China's GDP per capita is an utter fraction of that in the US.

Moreover, NY's leading position in the world is evidenced not only by the hedge fund figures (and anyone who suggests that hedge funds are irrelevant broadcasts his lack of knowledge regarding finance), but even by the little fact that Thompson Reuters de-listed from London and listed in NY, along with moving its global HQ from London to NY.

Lastly, the suspicion of the Anglo-American financial model will accelerate the growth of European financial centers like Paris and Frankfurt. Given, for example, German mistrust of the British model, a German company seeking to raise funds will be more inclined today do so in Frankfurt -- not London.

The following article from the FT addressed Continental displeasure with the UK model and Paris' desire to rival London as the European financial center.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b278edfe-7...nclick_check=1

The following article from the Economist also addressed Continental's mistrust with the British financial system.

http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=14082324

I don't believe anyone was disputing the size of the US economy now or in the future. What is happening however is that its share of the global economy is shrinking as emerging markets develop, hence the rise of London is linked to the rise in emerging markets and not restricted to its domestic market. Insular or defensive thinking that ignores the opportunities of emerging markets is a core reason as to why New York has lagged behind London.

I also don't see anyone questioning hedge funds as being irrelevant, only that their outlook compared to other sectors is far less rosy and guaranteed.

Companies and sectors fluctuate. The remains of Lehman Brothers in London are now part of Nomura of Tokyo, but those in New York are part of Barclays. Examples of say Thomson Reuters 'going' to New York, or the husk of New York's Lehman Brothers being British, don't portray the greater picture that New York is failing to play at the global level.

A similar scenario was predicted when the € came about; that London would fall apart and Frankfurt would become Europe's leading financial centre. The reverse happened.

I'd expect a similar scenario to play out where domestic policy will be far more damaging to Paris and Frankfurt, and to barely register in London. In fact, London could actually consolidate its position even further. Now, I am uncertain of the exact figures, but I'd suspect that emerging market IPO's/fund raising expeditions have outstripped those from the continent which are more likely looking for 'insular' funds. Germany is an odd example, especially what with the mittelstand.

I'd also be more concerned with trust on the New York front, especially after Madoff and the decimation of the biggest financial entities in New York.

The even bigger picture is that New York is failing in quite a few areas. Be that in attracting cultural events such as the 2012 Olympics or managing transport developments. In the time it will take to open three stations on the Second Avenue Subway, the 40 station Crossrail line will be complete.

[Filling25]

New Yorkers did not even want the Olympics. When the majority of New Yorkers opposed it, the IOC certainly wasn't going to award it to NY. Moreover, anti-Americanism was prevalent when NY bid for it and that also played a role in NY's bid.

As to the infrastructure issues you cite, you're correct. The US government lacks the funds and the will to implement mass transit improvements.

That being said, that -- in no way -- impacts NY's role as the leading financial center. No one who works in financial services (other than low-level, administrative employees) uses mass transit. Car services provide transportation.

[XIMHOTEP-X]

New Yorkers did not even want the Olympics. When the majority of New Yorkers opposed it, the IOC certainly wasn't going to award it to NY. Moreover, anti-Americanism was prevalent when NY bid for it and that also played a role in NY's bid.

As to the infrastructure issues you cite, you're correct. The US government lacks the funds and the will to implement mass transit improvements.

That being said, that -- in no way -- impacts NY's role as the leading financial center. No one who works in financial services (other than low-level, administrative employees) uses mass transit. Car services provide transportation.

Indeed support from the general public for a bid is one reason as to who wins the rights to host the Olympics. Yet I should point out that according to the IOC Evaluation Report IOC poll, 68% showed support for the New York bid, compared to 67% for London.

Again, anti-Americanism is probably marginal, Britain went to Iraq and Afghanistan as well.


One small problem. If the low-level people can't get to work because the infrastructure fails or is unable to cope with future demand, those high-level people (presumably these are the Harvard MBA peeps that ditched common sense for random speculation) won't be able to get their work done.

Remember, an organisation is only as strong as those at the bottom, to ignore otherwise is reckless and a path to obsoleteness.

The failure of New York to modernise and expand its infrastructure is a reflection of its complacency in a consistently evolving and moving world.

[Navzrrqt]

Don't we all understand by now, from nick-taylor's London threads, that London is the best city in the universe? The transit system is forged from gold. They give out free cream puffs in the morning to every passenger and it now ranks higher than Christmas on the international popularity index.
New York is just a big suck fest... it's SO over... why doesn't it just get the hell out of London's way? I can't think of a single way that NY could possibly be better than glorious London and if you doubt it, I will dig up some kind of bar graph to prove it. London rules the world. No, the Solar System...no, wait...EVERYTHING!

[hLabXZlK]

...
Again, anti-Americanism is probably marginal, Britain went to Iraq and Afghanistan as well.


One small problem. If the low-level people can't get to work because the infrastructure fails or is unable to cope with future demand, those high-level people (presumably these are the Harvard MBA peeps that ditched common sense for random speculation) won't be able to get their work done.

Remember, an organisation is only as strong as those at the bottom, to ignore otherwise is reckless and a path to obsoleteness.

The failure of New York to modernise and expand its infrastructure is a reflection of its complacency in a consistently evolving and moving world.

Hardly, the Europeans always support the Brits because they want Britain to support the EU.

Your point about the hoi polloi is misplaced. Most people these days do their own typing and answer their own phones, etc.

[IssuessBratte]

London rules the world. No, the Solar System...no, wait...EVERYTHING!

Wiki doesn't agree. I'm sure there's a bar graph somewhere; just don't have the time to find it. Maybe a Red Sox fan can oblige.