Luxembourg is about to shed its reputation as one of the EU’s largest tax havens

Cracks to international pressure.

Luxembourg Finance Minister, Luc Frieden, announced today that Luxembourg was willing to share account information on global multi-national companies going forward. This extends current information sharing agreements which are limited to US and EU individual tax payers.

"Luxembourg is comfortable to share information about multinationals as well as individuals," Mr Friedan said. This will help shed Luxembourg’s reputation as one of the EU’s largest tax havens.

According to WealthInsight, Luxembourg is the 5th largest private banking centre in the world with assets under management (AuM) of US$350 billion at the end of 2012.

Luxembourg also had mutual fund assets of US$2 trn and additional bank assets of US$550 bn as of year-end of 2012. These figures together amount to US$2.8 trn, which equates to almost 50 times Luxembourg’s GDP of US$57 bn in 2012.

It also equates to over 30 times the total wealth held by locals in the country (US$91 bn). This is an extremely high ratio when considering that Luxembourg is one of wealthiest countries in the world (in per capita terms).

According to the Credit Suisse Wealth Report, Luxembourg has the 8th highest wealth per capita,in the world at US$178,000 per person. This is well above the worldwide (US$28,000) average. Notably, Switzerland is the highest ranked country based on this measure with wealth per capita of US$293,000, followed by Norway in 2nd place (US$243,000) and Australia in 3rd place (US$239,000). The United States had a wealth per capita of US$172,000.

Going forward, WealthInsight expects Luxembourg private banking AuM to stay remain relatively static at US$350 bn, while countries such as Singapore surge ahead.

Singapore is expected to have private banking AuM of over US$2 trillion by 2020, compared to US$550 bin in 2012 and US$50 bn in 2000.

Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Amoils is a writer for WealthInsight

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.