London vs New York City (price, appraise, finance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hang on a minute London is home to more American Bank HQ's than London, has a very strong and growing number of company HQ's including US Companies. Is very strong in terms of currency exchange where it dominates NYC and indeed a host of financial markets such as the Insurance Market.
So, a few questions and observations in regards to a NYC vs London discussion starting from the top left and going clockwise:
- The UK is the leading exporter of financial services--that sounds very reasonable. As we both said before, the US is by far the largest economy and with a lot of financial services operations that more or less operate domestically since the US economy itself underpins a rather large portion of the global economy.
- it says, the UK has the fourth largest banking center globally. What were numbers 1, 2, and 3 and what are their relative sizes to the UK's banking center (which I assume is London)? Could 1, 2, or 3 possibly be NYC and the US?
- Yes! The UK is huge with currency exchange. I think my question is how does the scale of that sector size up to stock exchanges? Like, I know that Chicago has a massive futures market, but that isn't nearly equivalent to what the NYC stock exchanges trade in. What's the relative size/scale of these things?
- It says the UK has the third largest insurance industry in the world? What are number one and two? I'll guess that the US is one of those. I heard that Hartford was supposed to be huge in terms of the insurance industry, but I believe that is just outside of the NYC metro (as in its metro is adjacent to the NYC one).
- Professional institutions stat is interesting. That's for the UK in general, probably too much work to dig into what qualifies as a professional institution member, how many are in London, and under those definitions, what's the equivalent in NYC
- It says London is the second largest global centre for legal services. What's the first? Where does NYC rank in there and what's the difference in scale among these?
- What are UK assets under management? As in public assets under management? What's number one?
- Makes sense that London would have more foreign companies listed. The number of domestic companies listed is going to have to be quite small since the UK is a pretty small country.
Oh? I didn't know that about American Bank HQs. Is there like a Fortune 500 list or something you can point to? Does London and its metro actually have more of these massive corporate HQs than NYC and its metro does?
I am not being disrespectful of NYC, it's just that NYC and London dominate different parts of the global financial sector and operate in slightly different time zones. NY and London are therefore far less direct competitors with each other and far more in terms of being essential to each other. London's real competitors are those who share a far more realistic time zone between North America and Asia, and NYC has very different competition. If anything NYC and London differing time zones are complimentary in terms of financial success.
I am not being disrespectful of NYC, it's just that NYC and London dominate different parts of the global financial sector and operate in slightly different time zones. NY and London are therefore far less direct competitors with each other and far more in terms of being essential to each other. London's real competitors are those who share a far more realistic time zone between North America and Asia, and NYC has very different competition. If anything NYC and London differing time zones are complimentary in terms of financial success.
Ah, it looks like the link's wording is "accommodates more American Banks" than New York which doesn't strike me as saying their HQs are there (which would be perplexing, because then how are they still American banks?). Is it more like regional headquarters? That would also be sort of perplexing because it doesn't seem like US banks (unless American means the continent of the Americas?) would be setting up regional HQs of any particular note in other cities of the US.
So, a few questions and observations in regards to a NYC vs London discussion starting from the top left and going clockwise:
- The UK is the leading exporter of financial services--that sounds very reasonable. As we both said before, the US is by far the largest economy and with a lot of financial services operations that more or less operate domestically since the US economy itself underpins a rather large portion of the global economy.
- it says, the UK has the fourth largest banking center globally. What were numbers 1, 2, and 3 and what are their relative sizes to the UK's banking center (which I assume is London)? Could 1, 2, or 3 possibly be NYC and the US?
- Yes! The UK is huge with currency exchange. I think my question is how does the scale of that sector size up to stock exchanges? Like, I know that Chicago has a massive futures market, but that isn't nearly equivalent to what the NYC stock exchanges trade in. What's the relative size/scale of these things?
- It says the UK has the third largest insurance industry in the world? What are number one and two? I'll guess that the US is one of those. I heard that Hartford was supposed to be huge in terms of the insurance industry, but I believe that is just outside of the NYC metro (as in its metro is adjacent to the NYC one).
- Professional institutions stat is interesting. That's for the UK in general, probably too much work to dig into what qualifies as a professional institution member, how many are in London, and under those definitions, what's the equivalent in NYC
- It says London is the second largest global centre for legal services. What's the first? Where does NYC rank in there and what's the difference in scale among these?
- What are UK assets under management? As in public assets under management? What's number one?
- Makes sense that London would have more foreign companies listed. The number of domestic companies listed is going to have to be quite small since the UK is a pretty small country.
This article explains rather well what London does - as sadly I have to get some sleep now.
Ah, it looks like the link's wording is "accommodates more American Banks" than New York which doesn't strike me as saying their HQs are there (which would be perplexing, because then how are they still American banks?). Is it more like regional headquarters? That would also be sort of perplexing because it doesn't seem like US banks (unless American means the continent of the Americas?) would be setting up regional HQs of any particular note in other cities of the US.
I meant their European HQ's, although in terms of HQ's London is the leading city in Europe and operates a number of International Global HQ's.
So I was looking into forex and stock exchange definitions and was hoping you can explain this to me better.
For foreign exchanges (currency exchanges), I see stats for average daily turnovers listed in billions USD. For stock exchanges, I see daily trade volumes listed for billions USD. I think for both stats, those are the average value of money that changes hands/are traded per day. Are these roughly equivalent to each other though one is in currency and the other one is in stocks, bonds, and other securities?
So I was looking into forex and stock exchange definitions and was hoping you can explain this to me better.
Ones based on foreign exchange currency the other on company stock, is the basic answer. London as a city has a massive amount of the global currency market, but also has a significant stock market and vice versa in terms of NYC. However they both operate in different time zones, and usually dominate different parts of the financial sector whilst trading with each other.
For foreign exchanges (currency exchanges), I see stats for average daily turnovers listed in billions USD. For stock exchanges, I see daily trade volumes listed for billions USD. I think for both stats, those are the average value of money that changes hands/are traded per day. Are these roughly equivalent to each other though one is in currency and the other one is in stocks, bonds, and other securities?
The markets are different to each other but have an effect on each others price as part of the larger global financial market. Therefore prices may be depend on the wider financial markets and the positions of currency or stocks within those markets. Being equivalent is not really an issue, as stock markets and and currency markets have different turnovers despite being interconnected within the wider financial sector.
The UK Forex Turnover was averaging $1,919bn per day in October 2012 which accounted for 37% of the global market, the London Stock Exchange having a very different and smaller daily turnover.
Ones based on foreign exchange currency the other on company stock, is the basic answer. London as a city has a massive amount of the global currency market, but also has a significant stock market and vice versa in terms of NYC. However they both operate in different time zones, and usually dominate different parts of the financial sector whilst trading with each other.
The markets are different to each other but have an effect on each others price as part of the larger global financial market. Therefore prices may be depend on the wider financial markets and the positions of currency or stocks within those markets. Being equivalent is not really an issue, as stock markets and and currency markets have different turnovers despite being interconnected within the wider financial sector.
The UK Forex Turnover was averaging $1,919bn per day in October 2012 which accounted for 37% of the global market, the London Stock Exchange having a very different and smaller daily turnover.
There is so much International Cricket whether it be a Full Test Series, One Day Internationals (ODI's) or Twenty20 Cricket that there is a constant international fan base for the sport.
The problem with temporary F1 city tracks is that huge temporary stands have to be erected. Those on the pavement do not have good view unless you are in the front. So the rack has to be directed into park to erect the stands. Or maybe run the track into an existing stadium as a part of the course and maybe the finish line. Then 60-80,000 can watch at that point.
I live opposite Lords Cricket ground and the local pub, Lords Tavern shows cricket from all over the world a lot of the time on its 5 screens.
The highest attended sports event in the world is the Oxford-Cambridge university boats race on the River Thames in London. It is estimated a million line both banks of the 4.2-mile (6.8 km) run and cheer the boats on. A loud cascading roar works its way up the river. The race has been staged at London since 1839.
How do you gauge the importance of the UK Forex as compared to say NYSE or NASDAQ?
Both are important in that they serve different purposes.
If you're talking about liquidity (daily trading volume - or in simple terms how much money gets exchanged trading either stocks or forex) forex is much more 'important' by orders of magnitude. London dominates in forex by far, as well as in insurance, interest rate derivatives and bonds, all of which are more liquid markets than stocks.
People often struggle to grasp how London became the leading global center in finance over New York, the leading financial city of the USA. In many cases that misunderstanding boils down to an outdated late 20th century mentality in which the New York stock exchange is king and the ultimate arbiter of all things financial. You'll see that claim repeated again and again by people who have little clue how the global financial system operates.
There are three important factors that explain London's re-emergence in this area:
(1) 'Light touch' regulation around the turn of the Millennium, when New York was reeling from the Enron scandal and the US was implementing heavy handed regulatory reforms. As the article linked by Bamford describes, international firms found London to be more favorable for business - it didn't suffer from bureacratic excess in terms of paperwork and reporting requirements, and it doesn't suffer from the delusional litigious culture that blights the USA.
(2) Timezone - with the rise of the BRICS nations and other emerging economies, global finance is no longer fixated transatlantically. This means that timezone has become much more important for a financial hub to be prominent. London's timezone interleaves with those of most other hubs across the world, whereas the same cannot be said of New York.
(3) Much of the cultural and administrative framework of expertise and specialized knowledge present when London was the center of empire is still present today. Because of its exceptional concentration of intellectual capital this centuries-old heritage hasn't been preserved and shelved as a museum display like in other cities but has adapted and made the transition smoothly to the present day.
Last edited by Hightower72; 12-24-2014 at 11:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.