The rise of foreign owned City businesses in the UK

Five questions answered.

A new report has revealed that the UK has a large percentage of foreign owned City businesses, indicating that the UK is viewed as a viable investment by overseas firms. We answer five questions on foreign investment in the UK.

What is the current per cent of foreign-owned financial services businesses in the UK?

According to a new report published by MAS, an independent M&A adviser, which was produced in conjunction with UK Trade & Investment, the government’s export agency, 46 per cent of UK financial services companies worth more than £100m are overseas owned.

In 2011 and 2012 the most active acquirers of UK financial services firms were overseas-owned businesses. Eighty per cent of those already had existing UK operations at the time of investing, which suggests they are committed to investing in Britain for the long-term.

Which foreign country is the biggest investor?

America. Over 47 per cent of all foreign investments in the UK are from the US, companies from which see the UK as a spring board into the rest of Europe.

What do these figures say about how overseas businesses view the UK financial market place?

The report says that these figures suggest that the UK financial market is viewed as an attractive market for companies looking to expand their business operations. It is thought this is because the UK is well placed to take advantage of emerging markets such as Brazil, Russia, India and China, all of whom increased their investment in the UK by 29pc in the last year.

What do the experts says?

Olly Laughton-Scott, founding partner of IMAS, told The Telegraph: “The report reflects how extraordinarily open UK business is to overseas investment. America, with its huge financial services economy, is using the UK as its springboard into Europe. As America expands its interests, it will place more emphasis on the UK.”

He added: “As Asia becomes truly globalised, this will play to London’s strengths; they will come to Britain. China [investment] has grown the most rapidly over the last year and as financial services becomes increasingly globalised, we will see the largest proportion of that investment come to the UK.”

How is the financial services market doing in general?

According to the UK trade minister, Lord Green, who spoke to The Telegraph, the UK remains the number one destination for financial services investment in Europe.

The IMAS also offered a positive outlook by saying that retrenchment that has taken place since the credit crisis seems over and the sharp drop in the number of authorised financial services that occurred in 2008 is slowing considerably. However, some quality people are said to have left the industry due to a new rule change that requires independent advisers to register with the Financial Services Authority.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.