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.
He's right. The most liquid markets nowadays (foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives, among others) see considerably more intra-day trading volume in London than New York City.
He's right. The most liquid markets nowadays (foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives, among others) see considerably more intra-day trading volume in London than New York City.
We were discussing the volume of money that flows through each centre (contractual trading volume), not whether or not one or the other is ranked the leading centre according to a specific think tank.
Are you really resorting to stock exchanges? Really? Judging by your dismissal of other statistics I've posted, stocks are more important to you then, say, Gross Domestic Product? Things that merely indicate traffic in where people trade (not even to or from) is more important than both the average wealth per person, productivity, spending-power or total wealth of city?
BTW, quasi-impressive dodge from the fact that London isn't the financial capital of the world. I mean you had the mocking laugh and the smiling emoticon, coupled with the data that's merely a zoom in (and obvious distraction) on the overall picture of London's economic ability. The problem is the "hahaha" comments only work when you're correct.
BTWx2, the New York Stock Exchange has a market cap of $13.4 trillion, compared to London's $3.6 trillion in American dollars. That's less than Nasdaq, Tokyo Stock Exchange, and is pretty much in-line with most European exchanges. (Maybe it's by British Billions instead, ).
Are you really resorting to stock exchanges? Really? Judging by your dismissal of other statistics I've posted, stocks are more important to you then, say, Gross Domestic Product? Things that merely indicate traffic in where people trade (not even to or from) is more important than both the average wealth per person, productivity, spending-power or total wealth of city?
BTW, quasi-impressive dodge from the fact that London isn't the financial capital of the world. I mean you had the mocking laugh and the smiling emoticon, coupled with the data that's merely a zoom in (and obvious distraction) on the overall picture of London's economic ability. The problem is the "hahaha" comments only work when you're correct.
BTWx2, the New York Stock Exchange has a market cap of $13.4 trillion, compared to London's $3.6 trillion in American dollars. That's less than Nasdaq, Tokyo Stock Exchange, and is pretty much in-line with most European exchanges. (Maybe it's by British Billions instead, ).
But this is your game, not mine, I don't care much for stocks.
I think you need to first grasp some basic ideas:
1. Foreign exchange is not the "stock market".
2. Market cap is not the same as market liquidity.
3. Contractual trading volume is not the same as personal wealth or productivity.
4. Trading at equity exchanges no longer forms the bulk of transactions in the global financial system. The biggest exchange in the US today is not a stock exchange. It is a commodities exchange.
5. The amount of trading volume in the FX market dwarfs that of equity or commodities exchanges, and the amount of money changing hands through the trade of goods and services that contribute to GDP.
We are discussing one very specific metric. How much money flows through each financial centre during the average trading day.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 05-28-2014 at 06:01 PM..
We were discussing the volume of money that flows through each centre (contractual trading volume), not whether or not one or the other is ranked the leading centre according to a specific think tank.
Yes, and that think tank is the prime measure of global trading volumes, the Global Financial Centres Index, who is centered in England. Ranking by global indexes aren't some abstract thing, they're decided on by careful analysis, and the fact is that London has dropped (mainly from lack of economic rejuvenation, compared to the United States). It's not a bad thing, you're barely behind New York, but facts-are-facts.
Some highlights: "Worse, the UK’s second financial centre – Edinburgh – has seen an alarming drop in its ranking from No 15 in 2007, just behind Boston, to No 64 in 2014, just behind Mauritius."
When asking leading economists how they ranked this was the rankings:
On a 1,000 point scale, they anointed the following cities with the precious top 10 spots.
New York - 786
London - 784
Hong Kong - 761
Singapore - 751
Zurich - 730
Tokyo - 722
Seoul - 718
Boston - 715
Geneva - 713
San Francisco - 711
However in terms of data when measuring the flow of money through these metros, the only dramatic events were London's fall, New York's re-steadiness, and the dramatic rise of San Francisco's Technology and Industrial Hong Kong and Singapore rise.
In short, less money is flowing through London, primarily due to the UK's shortfall, and even more-so due to its heavy reliance on trade with the failing EU. So you could say it's primarily an exterior detractor, but a detractor nonetheless.
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.
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.
). 
