Blog: ‘CVs at bottom of pile’: Britons in EU say Brexit is taking its toll – The Guardian

Past 40, and nearly five years after he arrived in Madrid, John Halliday is moving back to the UK and in with his parents. He had “nowhere else to go”, he says: Brexit had cost him his job and made other Spanish employers reluctant to hire Britons.

“Frankly, I don’t blame them,” says Halliday. “The Spanish government has moved to protect UK citizens’ rights. But businesses are way too busy to follow all this. They worry: will this person need a permit, how long will that take, what will it cost?”

The 137 companies in Madrid to which Halliday has applied since he was let go earlier this year “with real regret” by the global finance firm he was working for plainly decided “they’d rather not take the risk. And I understand them. I’d do the same.”

Across the EU, British citizens are starting to face similar difficulties. Not all: many have signed new contracts without a hitch. But others say that three years of confusion and doubt among EU employers about the rights of British workers after Brexit are taking their toll.

‘Nothing can fully replicate free movement’

“Brexit hasn’t happened yet and British citizens living and working in the EU are already suffering the consequences,” says Laura Shields, the spokeswoman for the British in Europe lobby group, for whom Halliday’s experience is “no surprise at all”.

For employers, “no candidate is so special that you look at a pile of CVs and say: ‘Hey, let’s take a big risk with that one,’” Shields says. “This is what ending free movement into Britain means: barriers going up for Britons wanting to work in that enormous great market on our doorsteps.”

The risk of no deal, which would leave 1.3 million British nationals in the EU – 80% of them of working age or younger – facing a postcode lottery of 27 unilateral solutions for residency rights, social security, healthcare and recognition of qualifications, has now receded until 31 January, although it will return.

Boris Johnson’s renegotiated withdrawal deal, if it is ratified, does secure basic residency and social security rights, guaranteeing the freedom to move and live within the EU during the transition period plus the right to stay when it ends, and to apply for permanent residence after five years.

But the freedom of British citizens living in one EU country to move at will within the bloc, as they can now, and the right of all those who leave the UK after Brexit to live and work in the EU at all, are subject to any future agreement – and will depend on the rules Britain applies to EU citizens coming to the UK.

“We have absolutely no idea what the regime will be like unless and until the future relationship is actually agreed,” says Shields. “Will there be visa-free working? No one knows. There’ll certainly have to be some kind of permit system. And nothing can fully replicate free movement.”

In the meantime, anecdotal evidence suggests that continuing uncertainty about the exact status of British nationals on the continent after Brexit is already prompting some European employers to steer clear. “People are being turned down because they may soon not be EU citizens,” Shields says.

‘If you have 10 CVs from around Europe, why look at a Brit?’

In Germany, Megan Thornton, who has held a succession of jobs in sales, customer service and travel consultancy since moving to Berlin in 2013, suddenly found her CV was being “completely ignored” when she started looking for a new post last year.

“Either they didn’t respond at all, or it was an instant no,” she says. “I’d never had trouble finding work in Berlin; quite the reverse. I had the right skills and experience. One company finally explained it couldn’t accept candidates who needed a work permit. I said I didn’t: I was still an EU citizen. I never heard back.”

Thornton has since applied for, and been granted, permanent residence in Germany. Straightaway, she secured a string of interviews and, last week, a new job.

A similar experience greeted a British IT expert who moved to Luxembourg in 2017 with his wife, after she was recruited to a new job there from the UK. The couple, who asked not to be named, had planned for him to spend a year at home with their young children before he started looking for work, he said.

“Quite soon after that, I was offered a great job with Euratom, the European atomic energy agency – we got to choosing the company car,” he says. “Then, overnight, they changed their mind. The recruiter told me afterwards they couldn’t get anyone to sign off on me because of the uncertainty over my future status.”

Since then, he says, things had got to the point where “we nearly gave up and went home. We’d budgeted for two salaries. I must have sent 100 CVs and got maybe five responses. I’ve now spoken to a lot of people, a lot of agencies, and the general perception is: if you have 10 CVs from around Europe, why look at a Brit?”

This simply reflects “a wish to avoid a hassle and a risk you don’t need”, he says. “Firms here are used to hiring Japanese employees. They know the rules. But Brits are now an unknown. If you’re an Italian hiring here, you read a headline, hear something on the radio … You don’t have the time or the inclination. You play safe.”

‘British contractors are at the bottom of the pile’

Daniel Hibbs-Woodings has encountered the same difficulty. A highly qualified and experienced social housing professional who had previously studied and lived in Germany, he followed his German partner to Cologne in February.

“Property management jobs are plentiful here,” Hibbs-Woodings says. “I sent off 50 applications and got no replies. One filed online was rejected within 29 minutes. I knew I was instantly employable for all these jobs. I was stumped.”

Then he asked a recruitment agency to put him forward. Stripped of personal details such as name and nationality, his anonymised candidacy attracted instant interest from a number of employers. Once they had seen his full CV, however, none subsequently followed through.

“The harsh reality is that if employers have a choice, most will not go for someone with an entirely uncertain visa status,” says Hibbs-Woodings, who finally found a job outside his field for which he is substantially overqualified. “It could be a problem for many – you can only apply for permanent residence in Germany after five years.”

The difficulties for contractors working across several European countries are even more complex. Chris Williams, a senior independent technical contractor based in Spain, is currently working for Airbus on a major international project to install new military communications equipment in Nato bases across Europe.

He accepted the work after being told flatly by Galileo, the European global satellite navigation system, that no UK contractors would be considered “until Brexit has been finalised and we know exactly what the new rules are. And that applies to some extent all over: British contractors are at the bottom of the pile.”

Williams has already had to complete different formalities in Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium to be granted a temporary right to continue functioning as a provider of cross-border services. Next year, when he will be working in many more counties, he has no idea what the situation will be.

“My contract is with Airbus France, and under French contract law it is my responsibility to be aware of and comply with all the rules and regulations for third-country nationals working in EU countries,” he says. “It’s very hard indeed to work out exactly what I’m going to have to do.”

‘No one knows whether Brexit will be a problem’

In France, Lily Hall, an office manager for a ski school, is increasingly concerned about work after Brexit. She moved to France with her parents in 1997, aged four, and for the past six years has been a seasonal employee with French companies contracted by British tour operators to look after their clients in Val d’Isère.

“French employers are now seriously asking about whether Brexit will be a problem, and asking for papers,” she says. “I tell them no, but the truth is no one knows. My application for citizenship has been turned down once already because as a seasonal worker, I don’t have a permanent address in Savoie, where I work.”

Back in Madrid, Halliday said he and five other British nationals working for the same multinational were let go “because it was a highly time-sensitive project, running to a very tight schedule, and we represented a potential issue they could not afford”.

Hoping some Brexit clarity would emerge, he and his Spanish partner paid three months’ rent upfront to extend the lease on their flat to mid-October. “Of course, it didn’t,” he says. “And paying the rent in advance pretty much cleared us out. We’re going back to our parents’ to sit out the next few months.”

Some names have been changed or abbreviated

Source: “brexit” – Google News

Blog: Election 2019: why is Hartlepool the Brexit party’s top target? – podcast – The Guardian

Hartlepool has been held by Labour for 55 years, including for more than a decade by the arch-Blairite Peter Mandelson. In 2016, 70% of voters in the north-east town chose to leave the EU and the council is dominated by the Brexit party. It tops the target list of Nigel Farage’s party, whose chair, Richard Tice, is standing as a candidate.

Anushka Asthana joined producer Joshua Kelly, who grew up in Hartlepool, to see how much of a threat the Brexit party is to Labour. They met candidates, voters and community organisers desperate to highlight the potential of the town and shake off its “left behind” stereotype.

Also today: Sonia Sodha reflects on a week of the campaign dominated by flooding in the north of England.

Support The Guardian

The Guardian is editorially independent. And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to all. But we increasingly need our readers to fund our work.

Support The Guardian

Source: “brexit” – Google News

Blog: BBC QT: Young Brexiteer shocks Remainers with impassioned democracy plea – ‘17.4m voted!’ – Express

The fiery speech came after Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, attempted to justify the electoral pacts made by Remain parties, known as the “Remain Alliance”. On hearing this, a young Brexiteer in the audience channelled his fury at what he called a disregard for the people’s will.

He said: “You’re talking about the job of politicians, let me tell you about what the job of a politician is to do.

“It is to represent their constituents, to vote with what they want.

“The 17.4million people who voted to leave the European Union.”

Groans could be heard throughout the audience on the young Brexiteer’s saying this.

BBC QT: Young Brexiteer shocks Remainers with impassioned democracy plea - '17.4m voted!'

BBC QT: Young Brexiteer shocks Remainers with impassioned democracy plea – ‘17.4m voted!’ (Image: BBC)

The young Brexiteer was angry with Remain MPs

The young Brexiteer was angry with Remain MPs (Image: BBC)

He continued: “There is only one party representing the will of the people, and that’s the one party that has promised to leave the European Union with a very good deal negotiated by our Prime Minister.

“That is the Conservative Party.”

Again, the crowd booed on hearing this.

Throughout the impassioned speech Alex Phillips, Brexit Party MEP, nodded in agreement – though soon stopped when the audience member mentioned the only party to deliver Brexit would be the Conservatives.

JUST INBoris to save high streets with rates cut after hearing Brexit voices

He said that a politicians job was to vote with their constituents

He said that a politicians job was to vote with their constituents (Image: BBC)

So too did James Cleverly, chairman of the Conservative Party, nod in approval.

The topic of electoral pacts has been high on the agenda of several political parties as of recent.

The “Remain Alliance” – between the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party – has left many people despondent, angry that they can no longer vote for the party they want to.

On the Leave side, it was initially thought that Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party would field up to 600 candidates in Tory seats – this causing the Conservatives to fear that they might lose their safe seats in Brexit areas.

DON’T MISS

Harwood savages Remain Alliance and mocks Jo Swinson in Brexit rant [UPDATE]
Unbelievable! Asda supermarket chiefs blast Brexit for sales slump [LATEST]
Momentum gives Labour activists SCRIPTS as voters unleash fury [VIDEO] 

Labour's Clive Lewis looked on despondently at the Brexiteers speech

Labour’s Clive Lewis looked on despondently at the Brexiteers speech (Image: BBC)

The speech was targeted at Plain Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts

The speech was targeted at Plain Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts (Image: BBC)

Should this happen, a Tory majority in Parliament might prove impossible, with a hung Parliament and what many feared a coalition or Jeremy Corbyn Labour led Government.

However, earlier this week, Mr Farage announced that he would no longer be fielding candidates in over 300 Conservative seats.

He said the decision was made after a perceived “shift of position” from Boris Johnson in his Brexit stance.

Mr Johnson reportedly refused the Brexit Party leaders offer of a “Leave Alliance”.

Boris Johnson has the most popular approach to Brexit among party supporters

Boris Johnson has the most popular approach to Brexit among party supporters (Image: Express Newspapers)

Writing in a column for The Daily Telegraph, Mr Farage explained the reasoning behind his sudden change of heart, announcing that he was about to field candidates in Labour marginal seats instead.

He wrote: “I believe The Brexit Party’s general election strategy of not contesting the 317 seats won by the Conservatives in 2017 will put Britain on the best possible course for future success.

“It should also kill off the idea of a second referendum.

“Unlike many of his cheerleaders, I read the details. Johnson’s ‘deal’ was simply a new EU Treaty with an attached political declaration.

Nigel Farage announced he would stand in Labour marginal seats

Nigel Farage announced he would stand in Labour marginal seats (Image: BBC)

“It was not Brexit.

“The separate status for Northern Ireland troubled me. So did the binding commitment to state aid rules, preventing the UK from making its own decisions about the future of an industry like steel: fishing rights were also ill-addressed.

“For these reasons, I had intended to stand 600 candidates next month.

He continued: “Our own private research also showed that if we did put up 600 candidates, from southwest London down to south Cornwall, the effect would be some Liberal Democrat gains.

Source: “brexit” – Google News

Blog: BBC Question Time LIVE: Brexit Party MEP destroys Tories sparking huge audience rows – Express

For the first show in weeks, the Brexit Party finally has a member on the panel – despite it being the biggest party in the European Parliament.

The MEP is Alex Phillips, who joins host Fiona Bruce, Tory James Cleverly and Labour’s Clive Lewis to discuss the important topics of the week.

The panel is completed by Plaid Cymru’s Liz Savile Robert and businessman and ex-Olympian Chris Boardman.

Topics likely to be discussed will be the controversial ‘Remain Alliance’, where candidates from rival parties will actually stand and new election pledges on the NHS.

Follow below for live updates. BBC Question Time begins at 10.45pm on BBC One.

Who is James Cleverly?

He is the Conservative Party Chairman.

He was a Brexit Minister under Theresa May.

He serves in the Territorial Army.

Who is Clive Lewis?

He is Labour’s Shadow Treasury Minister.

He was previously a journalist.

He did a tour of Afghanistan with the Territorial Army.

Who is Liz Saville Robert?

She is Plaid Cymru’s leader in Westminster.

She was previously worked in further education.

Her seat in Wales in part of the ‘Unite to Remain’ alliance.

Who is Alex Phillips?

She was elected as a Brexit Party MEP.

She represents the South East of England.

She has previously worked for Ukip and the Conservatives.

Who is Chris Boardman?

He is a former Olympic cyclist.

He is Manchester’s Commissioner for walking and cycling.

He is the co-founder of Boardman bikes.

Source: “brexit” – Google News

Blog: Political Economy, Blind Spots, and a Challenge to Academics – – ProMarket

Anat Admati calls on economists and academics to engage with governance and political economy issues, scrutinize models before applying them to the real world, and enhance the positive impact of their work. 

 

 

Image by PINGNews, via Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0]

 


Author’s note: This essay is based on a speech I gave at the Stigler Center 2019 Conference on Political Economy of Finance. Whereas the content refers to my experiences as an academic with expertise in finance and economics, the key ideas apply to other areas in business schools and beyond. I hope colleagues will reflect on the harm from silos and on our opportunities as academics to benefit society. 


 

There is absolutely no way to understand events before, during, and since the financial crisis of 2007-2009 while ignoring the powerful political forces that have shaped them. Yet, remarkably, much of the economics and finance literature about financial crises focuses on studying unspecified “shocks” to a system that it largely accepts as inevitable while ignoring critical governance frictions and failures. Removing blind spots would offer economists and other academics rich opportunities to leverage their expertise to benefit society.

 

Commenting after the American Economic Association’s annual meeting in January 2017, The Economist urged economists to engage in deeper self-reflection and stated that economists must take politics into account to be relevant and useful. At the end of his recent book Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World, which emphasizes the geopolitical context of events in recent decades, historian Adam Tooze laments the narrowness of economics. He quotes economist Abba Lerner, who famously said in 1972: “Economics has gained the title Queen of the Social Sciences by choosing solved political problems as its domain.”

 

The history of financial economics is revealing in this regard. By the second half of the 20th century, when modern finance emerged as part of economics, the holistic approach of early thinkers such as Adam Smith—which combined economics, moral philosophy, and politics—was long gone. Narrow social-science disciplines replaced the holistic approach by the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, economists sought to make economics formal, precise, and elegant, similar to Newton’s 17th-century physics.

 

The focus in much of economics, particularly in finance, is on markets. Even when economists postulate a “social planner” and discuss policy, they rarely consider how this social planner gets to know what is needed or the process by which policy decisions are made and implemented. Collective action and politics are messy. Neat and elegant models are more fun and easier to market to editors and colleagues. In my first 25 years as a finance and economics academic, I had virtually no engagement with political economy.

 

Everything changed for me, professionally, after the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The crisis led me to wonder how financial markets could cause such havoc and why they needed such extraordinary government interventions. Staying initially within the academic debate, my frequent co-author Paul Pfleiderer and I proposed a way to address claims in the literature about the potential usefulness of debt for corporate governance while making banks safer. The idea was clever and based on economic concepts and insights, but our paper had no fancy mathematics or data. (A modified version was later published in a law review.) In the economics and finance academia, we realized, one cannot get any engagement on important corporate governance and policy issues without appearing “scientific” through symbols, tables or graphs.

 

In the real world, it turned out, important economic outcomes are often the consequences of political forces. During 2010, people within regulatory bodies told me privately that false and misleading claims were affecting key policy decisions. They urged me to help clarify the issues and I felt compelled to become involved. Despite years of research and advocacy, however, flawed claims persist and still have an impact. (A recently updated document lists and debunks 34 such claims.)

Adam Smith

 

Many of my experiences in the last decade, which involved extensive interactions outside as well as within academia, were sobering. I saw confusion, willful blindness, political forces, various and sometimes subtle forms of corruption, and moral disengagement, first hand. The harm from economists ignoring political economy became increasingly evident. There was no way for me to return to ignoring the issues.

 

It was also impossible to explain my experiences using economics alone. In writing an essay in 2016 for a book on Finance in a Just Society edited by a philosopher, I went beyond economics and finance and drew from scholarship in political science, law, sociology, and social psychology. My essay was entitled “It Takes a Village to Maintain a Dangerous Financial System.

 

Sadly, among the enablers of our inefficient and distorted financial system are economists and academics. Perhaps most shocking, a fallacious claim about the impact and “cost” of more equity funding, which contradicts basic teachings in corporate finance, has been included in many versions and editions of banking textbooks authored by prominent academic and former Federal Reserve governor Frederic Mishkin. (See Section 3.3 here or Chapter 8 of The Bankers’ New Clothes.) A risk manager in one of the largest banks, whom I met in 2016 at a conference attended almost exclusively by practitioners and regulators, who had dropped out of a top doctoral program in finance, quipped in an email after quoting from an academic paper: “with such friends [as academics], who needs lobbyists?”

 

Lobbyists, who engage in “marketing” ideas to policymakers and to the public, are actually influential. They know how to work the system and can dismiss, take out of context, misquote, misuse, or promote research as needed. If policymakers or the public are unable or unwilling to evaluate the claims people make, lobbyists and others can create confusion and promote misleading narratives if it benefits them. In the real political economy, good ideas and worthy research can fail to gain traction while bad ideas and flawed research can succeed and have an impact.

 

Luigi Zingales highlighted political economy issues within our profession in a 2013 essay entitled “Preventing Economists’ Capture” and in his 2015 AFA presidential address entitled Does Finance Benefit Society? Zingales notes and laments a pro-business and pro-finance bias within economics and finance and the pervasive blindness to issues such as corporate fraud and political forces. “Awareness of the risk of [economists’] capture is the first line of defense,” he writes in his 2013 essay. I agree that the issues are real yet often denied or ignored, and that recognizing problems is essential for addressing them.

 

Governance and political economy challenges are pervasive beyond banking, where I encountered them so clearly. For example, corporate governance research, including my own coauthored papers (in 1994 and 2009) on shareholder activism, has focused almost exclusively on conflicts between shareholders and managers, effectively assuming that competitive markets, contracts, and laws protect everyone except for the narrowly-defined “shareholder”who is implicitly assumed to own only one corporation’s shares and to care only about the price of those shares.

 

“Sadly, among the enablers of our inefficient and distorted financial system are economists and academics.”

 

Having observed governance and policy failures in banking, I realized that the focus on shareholder-manager conflicts is far too narrow and often misses the most important problems. We must also worry about the governance of the institutions that create and enforce the rules for all. How power structures and information asymmetries play out within and between institutions in the private and public sectors is critical.

 

A 2017 Journal of Economic Perspectives Symposium on the modern corporation includes an essay I wrote on the distortions that arise as a result of the focus in corporate governance on financialized targets that purport to capture “shareholder value” when combined with political economy forces that can lead to governments failing to set and enforce proper rules. The symposium also includes an essay by Luigi Zingales on how political and market power feed off each other. We both noted that more public awareness and understanding of these problems is essential for addressing them.

 

Economists and academics have numerous opportunities to be helpful by looking more frequently out of their windows, expanding their domain beyond “solved political problems,” collaborating across disciplines, and bringing back a more holistic approach to their work. Small changes in this direction are starting to happen, as the Stigler Center’s conferences on the political economy of finance show, but we can and should do much more.

 

Numerous research topics are ripe for more study by theorists and empiricists. Within the following long list of topics (still a partial one) there are low-hanging fruits and more challenging problems that may require interdisciplinary reach and which tenured academics are in a particularly privileged position to take on: whistleblower policies, the impact of consumers, employees, and politicians on corporate actions, accounting rules for derivatives, the effectiveness of boards, audits and auditors regulation, the design of bankruptcy laws, money laundering, corporate fraud, the organization and pricing of deposit insurance, debt subsidies, the role of financial literacy and ideology in policy discussions, the structure and governance of regulatory agencies and central banks, lobbying of multinational corporations, the governance of international bodies such as Financial Stability Board, Basel Committee, and IMF, and the political economy of corporate enforcement. 

 

Anat Admati. Photo by Nancy Rothstein

 

Engaging with policy issues in our research and teaching, and even engaging in advocacy when appropriate and effectively lobbying on behalf of the public (for example by writing comment letters or opinion pieces) can be valuable and important. Policy involvement, however, requires not only disclosing potential conflicts of interest but, most importantly, scrutinizing research carefully to ensure it is adequate for guiding policy. A problem I have become acutely aware of is that economists and others can be cavalier in claiming that research is relevant for real-world application without such scrutiny.

 

As a theorist, I know models have unrealistic and sometimes stylized assumptions, yet models can bring important insights, and theoretical and empirical papers that capture key features of the real world can be useful for policy. It takes a big leap of faith, however, and can actually do more harm than good, to claim that models whose assumptions greatly distort the real world are adequate for real-world applications. Specific examples are discussed in the first paper I wrote with Peter DeMarzo, Martin Hellwig, and Paul Pfleiderer (Sections 5-7), the omitted chapter from the book I wrote with Martin Hellwig, Paul Pfleiderer’s paper on the misuse of models in finance and economics (which starts with the old joke about the economist assuming a can opener on a deserted island and, among other things, compares economics and physics) and a recent presentation by Paul Pfleiderer that discusses the role of assumptions in theoretical and empirical research and which includes great visuals.

 

The key takeaways if research is claimed to be relevant for the real world are: 

 

  1. Just because a model claims to “explain” something in the real world does not give it logical or actual validity. Even if we may never have the data to be able to reject a model, there are ways to apply casual empiricism (“if this model was true, we would observe x and we don’t”), and we must be especially careful if a model contradicts other plausible explanations for what we see. (Consider: “cigarette smoking improves people’s health” as an “explanation” of why people smoke.)
  2. Just because a model can be “calibrated” does not give it logical or actual validity

 

Applying inadequate economic models to policy in the real world is akin to building bridges using flawed engineering models. Serious harm may follow.

 

We can also enrich our teaching and connect more dots for our students by developing interdisciplinary courses and by bringing out the bigger picture, at least occasionally, in teaching standard courses. For example, basic corporate finance courses show how to calculate the debt tax shield, and we should point out that there is no good reason for the tax code to subsidize debt relative to equity and that this tax code can create distortions. We can also ask whether shareholders as individuals actually want a company in which they hold shares to pursue “positive Net Present Value” projects that involve pollution or deceptive marketing of harmful products.

 

Many students are anxious to have such discussions. There is a broad sense today that standard business practices and dysfunctional governments have exacerbated economic, social, and political problems. We must find ways to broaden the discussion beyond our narrow lanes. Academic silos are part of the problem, and we should break them to be part of the solution.

 

Finally, we can and should engage in trying to ensure that governments and other institutions serve society. If only conflicted experts engage in the process of creating rules, especially on important issues that appear technical and confusing such as accounting standards or financial regulation, we get what Karthik Ramanna calls “thin political markets” and our assumptions about markets are more likely to be false. Academics may be in the best position to inform policy, expose flawed or poorly enforced rules, and help hold power to account. We cannot assume others will be able or willing to do it without our help. 

 

Governance and politics are key to outcomes everywhere. Related issues about power and control and about the respective roles of governments and private sector institutions are playing out prominently today in the technology sector. A course I taught recently about the internet allowed me to compare and contrast the finance and internet sectors. The Stigler Center has laudably been informing policy related to digital platforms.

 

In a recent Harvard Business Review piece, I argue that business schools should practice and promote “civic-minded leadership” much more than they currently do. (The text is also available here.) I hope more academics and academic institutions recognize and embrace the great opportunities we have to try to make the world a better place. 

 

 

Anat R. Admati is the George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at Stanford University Graduate School of Business (GSB), a Director of the GSB Corporations and Society Initiative, and a senior fellow at Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. She is an economist with broad cross-disciplinary interests in the interactions between business, law and policy, and an advocate for better governance and accountability in the private sector and in government. She is also the author of The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong with Banking and What to Do About It (Princeton University Press, 2013).

 

The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket Blog Policy.

Source: “financial regulation” – Google News

Blog: Regulation Asia Announces Award Winners for 2019 – Business Insider

Among the firms credited in the 2019 awards programme were SGX, PwC, DTCC, ACAMS, Herbert Smith Freehills and Moody’s Analytics.

SINGAPORE/HONG KONG Media OutReach – 15 November 2019 – Regulation Asia held its second annual Awards ceremony on Wednesday (13 November) at Zafferano’s in Singapore to announce the winners of the ‘Regulation Asia Awards for Excellence 2019’.

The Awards programme aims to annually recognise technology companies, legal and consulting firms, and exchanges that have helped shape the regulatory landscape in Asia Pacific over the past year. Firms were asked for written submissions to showcase client wins, new technologies and specific projects and solutions designed to meet changing regulatory requirements.

Regulation Asia’s editorial team was charged with assessing the merit of over 100 submissions, while an external panel of 10 judges comprising subject-matter experts was tasked with deciding the winners in each category, based on the submissions, interview data and other supporting materials collected by the editorial team.

The winners in the Industry Awards categories were SGX (Singapore Exchange) for Exchange of the Year, PwC for Consulting Firm of the Year, Herbert Smith Freehills for Law Firm of the Year, Moody’s Analytics for Data Provider of the Year, DTCC (the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation) for Market Infrastructure of the Year, and ACAMS for Compliance Trainer of the Year.

In the Best Solutions categories, the winners included AxiomSL, IHS Markit, SmartStream Technologies, Fenergo, SWIFT, NICE Actimize, KPMG, Appway, Moody’s Analytics, NeoXam, Dow Jones Risk & Compliance, Refinitiv, ISDA (the International Swaps and Derivatives Association), and Starling Trust Sciences.

In the Regtech Awards categories, the companies that were recognised included AxiomSL, Finastra, Kaizen Reporting, NICE Actimize, and a collaboration between Gekko Lab and HKEX (Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited).

An Outstanding Project category also recognised implementations around specific regulations or regulatory requirements. Award winners included Acies, IHS Markit, BearingPoint, TriOptima, and ISDA.

Synpulse Management Consulting, Wolters Kluwer, Broadridge, Ascent Regtech, Encompass, SIX, Exiger, TriOptima, Tookitaki, and Audeamus Risk were also recognised for their work in keeping up with rapidly changing regulatory requirements.

Five early-stage firms were also recognised for pioneering innovative technologies in a category called ‘Ones to Watch’. These included LeapXpert, Emotics, Swartz, Binnersley & Associates, Wealth Dynamix and Fortia Financial Services.

“As the regulatory environment continues to mature, with a greater focus – beyond implementation – towards quality assurance and execution. it’s clear that Asia is starting to take a greater leadership role to define the regulatory agenda and how technology will play a part to help firms meet both new and existing regulations,” said Regulation Asia Co-founder & CEO Brad Maclean.

“These awards recognise the continuing excellence of institutions, market infrastructures, technology firms and service providers across the region in their work to comply with ever-changing and increasingly complex rules.”

More than 140 representatives from 60 firms attended the ceremony, including award winners, their clients, and relevant partners.

For the full list of winners, click here.

About the Regulation Asia Awards for Excellence 2019

Regulation Asia Awards for Excellence recognises technology companies, legal and consulting firms, and exchanges that have shaped the regulatory landscape in Asia Pacific, as well as outstanding technology projects both in mature and emerging markets by large tech firms and innovative startups that help meet the requirements of a specific regulatory change infrastructure.


For a full list of award winners, visit www.regulationasia.com/awards.


About Regulation Asia

Regulation Asia is the leading source for actionable regulatory intelligence for Asia Pacific markets. Since 2013, our audience and subscription base have grown to include regulatory bodies, exchanges, banks, asset managers and service providers, allowing us to play a key role in the regulatory agenda.

Visit www.regulationasia.com or connect via LinkedIn or Twitter.

Source: “financial regulation” – Google News