The first edition of the Smart Centres Index (SCI) was published on 14 July 2020. SCI 1 rates the innovation and technology offerings of leading commercial and financial centres across the world. The SCI focuses on centres in relation to their approach to and delivery of innovation and technology, including Science, Energy Systems, Machine Learning, Distributed Ledgers, and Fintech, along with other applications. We look at cities rather than countries in developing the index as we consider that it is in cities and other commercial clusters that the development of business is driven forward. The Smart Centres Index is based on evaluations of three dimensions: Innovation support - the approach taken to regulation and support for the innovation and technology industry provided by the commercial ecosystem. Creative Intensity - the extent to which technology and innovative industries are embedded in the economy of the centre. Delivery Capability - the quality of the work being undertaken in the field in the centre. future competitiveness and rankings for financial and commercial centres around the world. 128 commercial and financial centres were researched for SCI 1 of which 48 are included in the index. SCI 1 was compiled using 127 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, The Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD, and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire. SCI 1 uses 965 assessments from 92 respondents. Index Results - London takes first place in the index, with new York second, and Singapore in third place. Five of the top ten places in the ranking are taken by US centres. The leading centres are strong across all three of the SCI dimensions. Chinese centres do not feature as strongly as we might have expected, and score on average lower for Innovation Support than their overall rating. The great majority of centres featured in SCI 1 are located in North America, Asia/Pacific, and Western Europe. North America - Ten North American centres feature in the SCI, dominated by US centres, who hold five of the top ten places globally. Along with ranking second overall, New York also ranks second in each of the three dimensions which make up the SCI. Vancouver scores high in creative intensity, ranking 9th against its overall SCI ranking of 17th. Asia/Pacific - Three of the 13 Asia/Pacific centres in the index - Singapore, Hong Kong, and Tokyo - feature in the world top ten. The majority of Asia/Pacific centres scored lower for innovation support, including regulation, than their overall ranking in the SCI. Chinese centres such as Shenzhen, which have strong technology ecosystems, do not feature as highly in the index as we might have expected. This may be because those commenting on Chinese centres know more Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai better than other centres. Western Europe - Twenty centres in Western Europe feature in the index, with London and Zurich in the global top ten. The majority of Western European centres score higher for innovation support, including regulation, than their overall rank. This suggests that systems of public support for, and regulation of innovation and technology are a strength in the region. Stockholm scores significantly higher than its overall rating in creative intensity, while Oxford and Cambridge in the UK score significantly higher for delivery capability. Other Regions - Only five of the centres in SCI 1 are from other regions of the world - Middle East & Africa, Eastern Europe & Central Asia, and Latin America & The Caribbean. Of these centres, Dubai is rated highest, ranked at 34th in the world.

As the world continues to suffer the ravages of the Covid-19 pandemic, light is beginning to dawn with the advent of clinically proven vaccines, which will enable a return to ‘normailty’. However, around the globe, populations and politicians are questioning the type of ‘normality’ we should return to. Climate change, the destruction of nature, poverty, inequality, corruption and political instability were all rising up the agenda before the pandemic struck. The all-consuming nature of Covid-19 temporarily obscured these issues, but as the dark clouds lift, they are being thrown into sharp relief. As the world economy is rebuilt, the public and policy makers alike are demanding a course correction, and are looking to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals as a template for redevelopment. Resting at the heart of the SDGs, is the concept of ‘agency’, the ability of all citizens to act independently, contribute to society, and affect their destiny. However, without financial inclusion, there can be no agency. In this short paper, commissioned and co-written by Labuan IBFC, we explore the role that International Financial Centres (IFCs) can play in the delivery of the SDGs. In particular we focus on how they can facilitate they can act as a crucible for positive innovation and how they can foster debate with policy makers on sustainable and equitable development.

Public sector entities devote a tremendous amount of time to avoiding risk, especially political risk. It feels far safer to spend a large number of small sums of money on ten different studies, rather than solve one problem for the same cost. If a political problem arises, then the response “we had it under review” is of more political value than “we ignored nine similar problems because we hoped to eliminate one long-term problem once-and-for-all, but this one of the nine caught us out”. Infrastructure, however, needs to be reliable, not a subject of political whimsy or backside-covering. How can we go about setting public policy that sensibly balances risks, rewards and reliability of infrastructure? Risk/Reward management defines three types of activity that improve organizational performance - risk avoidance, reward enhancement and volatility reduction. Risk avoidance activities reduce large exposures, e.g. continuity planning, insurance or legal compliance. Reward enhancement activities are normal management projects to increase performance such as training, cost reduction or production improvement. Volatility reduction is more subtle, yet activities that reduce volatility or improve consistent delivery add measurable value.

The rise and scams of cryptocurrencies have attracted much public, academic, and economic attention. While most cryptocurrencies have already failed, less attention has been given to the long-term regulation of those that might be successful, all of which purport to be 'eternal' stores of value or mediums of exchange. Now is a good time to review this experience and draw lessons for regulators, investors, and promoters interested in better management of risk around alternative currencies, and cryptocurrencies in particular. This paper concludes that conventional risk control concerns are relevant even when a technology is novel. The typical choice of blockchain technology with proof-of-work all but guarantees that efficiency concerns are material, and that the purely digital nature of cryptocurrencies offers opportunities for regulators to insist on comparison of outcomes with simulation modeling as one basis for regulatory control.

The twenty-seventh edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 27) was published on 26 March 2020. GFCI 27 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 108 major financial centres around the world. The GFCI serves as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen Partners in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 120 financial centres were researched for GFCI 27 of which 108 are now in the main index. The GFCI is compiled using 138 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire. GFCI 27 uses 37,695 assessments from 5,064 respondents. The Results Of GFCI 27 Include: GFCI 27 showed a high level of volatility, with 26 centres rising ten or more places in the rankings and 23 falling ten or more places. This may reflect the uncertainty around international trade and the impact of geopolitical and local unrest with a flight to stability; and also reflects the importance of sustainable finance, with Western European centres benefitting, and centres with a legacy of brown finance losing ground. Nine of the top ten centres in the index had lower ratings (eight of these centres fell by 12 points or more). Of the next 40 centres, 24 improved their rating while 16 fell. Eastern Europe & Central Asia showed the strongest regional improvement with twelve centres increasing their rating, while only two centres received lower ratings. Leading Centres New York retains its first place in the index, further extending its lead over London from 17 to 27 points (although the ratings for both centres dropped by more than 20 points). Tokyo moved up three places to rank third in the index. Hong Kong fell from third place to sixth. Five Asian centres are now within ten points of London. Geneva, Los Angeles, and San Francisco entered the top 10, easing out Dubai, Shenzhen, and Sydney. Within the top 30 centres, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Geneva, Hamburg, and Stockholm all rose by more than ten places. Western Europe After a mixed performance in GFCI 26, this region had a strong performance in GFCI 27, with 23 centres rising in the rankings and five falling. Fourteen centres increased their ranking by ten places or more, including Geneva which is now in the top 10. Asia/Pacific Asia/Pacific Centres had a somewhat downbeat performance with fifteen centres falling in the rankings and ten rising. This appears to reflect levels of confidence in the stability of Asian centres and in their approach to sustainable finance, which appears to be growing in its effect on the overall rating of centres. Tokyo and Shanghai improved their ranking in the top 10, whilst Singapore and Hong Kong fell. North America North American centres showed little change from GFCI 26, with the exceptions of Calgary, which climbed 17 places, and Toronto which fell 12 places. Four out of the eleven North American centres are in the top 20. Eastern Europe & Central Asia All bar two centres in this region improved their rating (the exceptions being Nur-Sultan and Istanbul). Nur-Sultan may rise rapidly as people become more familiar with the new name and residence of the Astana International Financial Centre. Nine of the centres improved their ranking (moving mainly from the bottom of the index to its middle), with four falling and one (Moscow) remaining in the same position. Middle East & Africa Centres in the Middle East and Africa performed poorly with ten of the 13 centres falling in ranking. Only Nairobi and Riyadh improved their position. Tehran entered the index for the first time. Latin America & The Caribbean Centres in Latin America & The Caribbean also performed poorly, with only the British Virgin Islands increasing its ranking (by 15 places). Barbados is a new entry. Island Centres The British Crown Dependencies’ performances bounced back with the Isle of Man up 12 places in the rankings, Jersey up 10, and Guernsey rising 19 places. FinTech For the second time, we include within the GFCI a separate index ranking financial centres as competitive places for FinTech. New York leads the FinTech rankings, followed by Beijing, Shanghai, London, and Singapore. Seven of the top ten centres for FinTech are Chinese. Vilnius, on its first entry in the GFCI, ranks 13th in the FinTech ranking.

The fifth edition of the Global Green Finance Index (GGFI 5) was published on 24 March 2020. GGFI 5 provides evaluations of the depth and quality of the green finance offerings of 67 major financial centres around the world. The GGFI serves as a valuable reference into the development of green finance for policy and investment decision-makers. The GGFI has been developed jointly by Z/Yen, as part of its Long Finance Initiative. We are grateful to the MAVA Foundation for its sponsorship of this work. The GGFI is updated and published every March and September. 120 financial centres were researched for GGFI 5 of which 67 now feature in the index. The GGFI is compiled using 135 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GGFI online questionnaire. GGFI 5 uses 4,290 assessments from 717 respondents. The Results Of GGFI 5 Include: There is growing confidence in the development of green finance across all regions. Ratings of green finance rose in almost all centres for both depth and quality. All centres received a higher rating for depth than in GGFI 4; and all but five centres received a higher rating in quality. Western Europe continues to lead the world’s centres in green finance depth and quality, taking nine of the top ten places in depth and the top 12 places in quality. This reflects the continuing work being undertaken by European financial institutions, central banks, regulators, and the European Union to embed sustainability in their regulatory work. The Asia/Pacific region has again fallen back slightly in this edition. Amsterdam retained its leading position in the depth index, with Luxembourg still in second place. London retained its position as first in the quality index, albeit with a smaller margin than before, with Amsterdam only 6 rating points behind. The leading centres in Western Europe are catching up with London’s ratings for quality. Several centres moved more than five places in the indices. Vienna is up 16 places inthe depth index and nine in the quality index. Brussels, Malta, and Cayman Islands are also up more than five places for depth. Guangzhou, Guernsey, and Kuala Lumpur rose more than five places for quality. Leading Centres On depth, the leading nine centres all stayed in the top group, with some minor adjustments in placing. Vienna and Geneva moved into the top ten, on equal ratings. Vancouver dropped from 10th to 17th place. On quality, Vienna moved into the top ten and Geneva regained its lead over Brussels to take it into 9th place. Munich has fallen to 11th position. London’s lead in the quality index has reduced from 52 points in GGFI 1 to 6 in GGFI 5, with Amsterdam and Zurich both able to overtake its rating in the next six months. Narrow margins continue to separate centres at top of the tables. Among the top ten centres the spread of ratings is 44 out of 1,000 for depth (47 in GGFI 4) and also44 for quality (53 in GGFI 4). Western Europe Western Europe continues to improve its ratings across depth and quality, with all centres receiving improved ratings for both depth and quality. Vienna rose 16 places for depth and nine places for quality to enter the top ten on both measures. Hamburg fell back slightly on both measures, while Geneva gained ground. Hamburg, Munich, Edinburgh, and Lichtenstein fell in the rankings for both depth and quality. Oslo entered the index for the first time, ranking 12th for depth and 13th for quality. North America Montreal again took first place in the region for depth, retaining at ninth position overall, but fell six places to 19th in the quality measure. San Francisco was again the leading centre for quality in North America, although it dropped two places overall to 13th. It increased its ranking by one place to 16th in the depth index. Vancouver, Boston, and Calgary fell in the rankings for both depth and quality, while Los Angeles improved its position on both measures. Canadian centres continue to outperform the USA both in depth and quality. Asia/Pacific Asia/Pacific centres overall fell back in the rankings for both depth and quality, even though ratings improved overall, meaning that other centres improved their performance at a faster rate. Sydney has taken the lead in the region in both depth and quality, with Beijing second for depth and Singapore second for quality. Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Melbourne fell more than five ranking places since GGFI 4 for depth. For quality, Guangzhou improved its ranking place 13 places, and Kuala Lumpur was up six places, while Melbourne dropped 13 places. Middle East & Africa Casablanca maintained its position as the leading centre in the region, although its overall ranking dropped as Western European centres continued to move forwards. Tel Aviv is in second place in the region on both measures. Centres in the region generally lost ground in the quality index. Doha entered the GGFI for the first time. Latin America & The Caribbean Sao Paulo retained its leading position in the region, although its rank dropped slightly in both depth and quality as new centres entered the index. Cayman Islands took second place in the region for depth and quality Rio de Janeiro and Bermuda fell in the rankings for both depth and quality. Eastern Europe & Central Asia Prague continued to lead the region, and rose eight places to 32nd for depth, while falling ten places to 32nd for quality. Warsaw and Moscow fell in both the depth and quality rankings.

The twenty-eighth edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 28) was published on 25 September 2020. GFCI 28 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 111 major financial centres around the world. The GFCI serves as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen Partners in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 121 financial centres were researched for GFCI 28 of which 111 are now in the main index. The GFCI is compiled using 138 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire. GFCI 28 uses 54,509 assessments from 8,549 respondents. The Results Of GFCI 28 Include: GFCI 28 again shows a relatively high level of volatility, with 23 centres rising ten or more places in the rankings and 20 falling ten or more places. Overall, the average rating of centres in the index dropped over 41 points (6.25%) from GFCI 27, which may indicate a more general lack of confidence in finance during a time of continuing uncertainty around international trade, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on individual economies, and geopolitical and local unrest. All of the top ten centres in the index increased their ratings in GFCI 28, reversing recent trends. Of the next 40 centres, 12 improved their rating while 27 fell. This may indicate increased confidence in leading centres during the covid-19 pandemic. Leading Centres New York retains its first place in the index, although London in second place has made up ground in the ratings, now only four points behind the leader (27 points in GFCI 27). Shanghai moved up one place to third and Tokyo dropped one place to fourth, although only one point separates them in the ratings. Similarly, Hong Kong moved up a place to rank fifth and Singapore fell one place to sixth, again with only one point separating Hong Kong and Singapore in the ratings. Shenzhen and Zurich entered the top ten in this edition, replacing Los Angeles and Geneva. Within the top 30 centres, Luxembourg, Boston, Seoul, and Madrid rose by more than five places. Western Europe After its strong performance in GFCI 27, centres in Western Europe had mixed fortunes in GFCI 28, with 15 centres rising in the rankings and 12 falling. However, the average drop in ratings was only 21 points (3.17%) in this region. Asia/Pacific Asia/Pacific Centres had a mixed performance in GFCI 28, with ten centres falling in the rankings and 14 rising. This appears to reflect levels of confidence in the stability of Asian centres and in their approach to sustainable finance, which appears to be growing in its effect on the overall rating of centres. Taipei, Chengdu, and Qingdao all rose more than 30 places in the rankings. North America North American centres showed the least change in ratings across the regions, falling on average just 9 points (1.3%). Boston, Washington DC, and San Diego all improved five or more places in the rankings. Six out of the eleven North American centres are in the top 20, up from four in GFCI 27. Eastern Europe & Central Asia Following a good performance in ratings in GFCI 27, all centres in this region saw their ratings fall, and only three of the 16 centres in the region—Moscow, Istanbul, and Athens—improved their rank. Sofia, Baku, and Almaty fell over 30 ranking places from GFCI 27 to GFCI 28. Middle East & Africa All 13 Centres in the Middle East & Africa performed poorly once again, with all 13 centres falling in the ratings and with only Abu Dhabi, Mauritius and Cape Town improving in the rankings. Latin America & The Caribbean While all centres in this region fell in the ratings, with the average rating for the region falling 54 points (8.66%). FinTech New York leads the FinTech rankings, followed by Beijing, Shanghai, London, and Shenzhen. Five of the top ten centres for FinTech are Chinese. In our recently published Smart Centres Index, focusing more broadly on innovation and technology, Chinese centres did not feature as strongly as they have in the Fintech rankings. This suggests a particular focus on Fintech in these centres.

The sixth edition of the Global Green Finance Index (GGFI 6) was published on 27 October 2020. GGFI 6 provides evaluations of the depth and quality of the green finance offerings of 74 major financial centres around the world. The GGFI serves as a valuable reference into the development of green finance for policy and investment decision-makers. The GGFI is updated and published every March and September. 120 financial centres were researched for GGFI 6 of which 74 now feature in the index. The GGFI is compiled using 135 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GGFI online questionnaire. GGFI 6 uses 4,219 assessments from 617 respondents. The Results Of GGFI 6 include: Amsterdam retained its leading position in the depth index. Zurich has risen to second place. In the quality index, these positions are reversed, with Zurich leading and Amsterdam second. San Francisco was the leading centre outside Western Europe, ranking seventh for depth and equal 10th for quality. New entrant, Helsinki, ranked 19th equal for depth and 12th for quality. On depth, San Francisco and Oslo moved into the top 10, while Montreal and Hamburg fell back. On quality, Oslo rose nine places to fourth, Munich and San Francisco moved into the top 10, and Hamburg and Vienna fell back. Narrow margins separate centres at top of the tables. Among the top 10 centres the spread of ratings is 31 out of 1,000 for depth (44 in GGFI 5) and 43 for quality (44 in GGFI 5). Western Europe Western Europe continues to improve its ratings across depth and quality, with all centres receiving improved ratings for both depth and quality, although a number of centres fell in the rankings as other centres improved faster. Oslo moved into the top 10 for depth and quality. Stockholm, Vienna, Brussels, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Madrid, Rome, Milan, Jersey, Isle Of Man, and Malta fell in the rankings for both depth and quality. North America USA centres have gained ground on Canadian centres in GGFI 6. San Francisco replaced Montreal as the top ranking centre for depth and continued to lead the region for quality, now featuring in the top 10 globally in both rankings. Vancouver also moved up in both measures, and now takes second position in both measures in the region. Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary fell in the rankings for depth. Toronto also fell in the quality rankings

March 2019 sees publication of the twenty-fifth edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 25). GFCI 25 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 112 major financial centres around the world. The GFCI serves as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen Partners in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 112 financial centres were researched for GFCI 25 of which 102 are now in the main index. The GFCI is compiled using 133 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire. GFCI 25 uses 29,065 assessments from 2,373 respondents. The Headlines Of GFCI 25 Include: Leading Centres; New York remains in first place in the index, just seven points head of London. Hong Kong is only four points behind London in third and Singapore remains in fourth place; Shanghai remains ahead of Tokyo in fifth place in the index although Tokyo gained ten points in the ratings; Toronto rose 27 points and gained four places to seventh. Zurich, Beijing, and Frankfurt remained in the top ten. Western Europe; This region did well after a mixed performance in GFCI 24. Thirteen of the top 15 Western European centres rose in the ratings with particularly strong performances by Monaco, Madrid and Edinburgh. Only Luxembourg and Amsterdam saw modest declines; The centres that are most likely to benefit from Brexit did well, with Zurich, Frankfurt, Paris, and Dublin all gaining ground. Amsterdam was the only centre in Western Europe that dropped more than ten points in the ratings. Asia/Pacific; Most Asia/Pacific Centres performed well. Of the top twenty centres in the region, only Osaka saw a modest decline with the others rising or remaining as they were in GFCI 24; There has been a strong trend of Asia/Pacific centres improving over several years. The top eight centres in the region are now in the top fifteen centres in the whole index; Melbourne, Jakarta, and GIFT City (Gujarat) all showed strong increases in GFCI 25. North America; North American centres also did well in GFCI 25 with most centres rising in the ratings. Of particular note is the performance of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, the three leading Canadian centres. All three showed strong increases in the ratings. Toronto rose four places to seventh overall and Montreal is now in 18th place; Washington DC regained the ground that it lost in GFCI 24 with a rise of 34 points. This rise resulted in it climbing four places to 32nd overall. Eastern Europe & Central Asia; There were significant gains for Astana, Istanbul and Prague. Astana only officially launched its financial centre in 2018, and it is unusual for such a new centre to perform so strongly; Tallinn made a lot of ground in GFCI 24 but fell back this time despite a growing reputation as a strong FinTech centre. Middle East & Africa; Dubai, Casablanca, and Abu Dhabi continued to rise in the index. Doha lost some of the ground it made in GFCI 24; Kuwait City and Nairobi were new entrants to the index, with Kuwait ranking 57th in its first entry. Latin America & The Caribbean; There were mixed results in the region with five centres rising in the ranks and three declining. The Cayman Islands, Panama, and Bermuda performed strongly. Island Centres; The British Crown dependencies showed a mixed performance with Jersey making a small gain, the Isle of Man moving up but Guernsey dropping 15 places in the index to 75th place.

The twenty-sixth edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 26) was published on 19 September 2019. GFCI 26 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 104 major financial centres around the world. The GFCI serves as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen Partners in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 114 financial centres were researched for GFCI 26 of which 104 are now in the main index. The GFCI is compiled using 134 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire. GFCI 26 uses 32,227 assessments from 3,360 respondents. The Results Of GFCI 26 Include: New York extended its lead over London to 17 points. Strong performances from other centres, in particular Paris, put London’s second place in the index at risk next time. If London and Paris have similar falls and rises in the ratings for GFCI 27, London would be reduced to a two point lead over Paris and lie behind Shanghai. The new FinTech index, published for the first time alongside the GFCI, is dominated by Chinese centres taking five of the top seven places in the index, led by Beijing and Shanghai. New York, London, Singapore, San Francisco, and Chicago also feature in the top ten for FinTech. Trade wars, geopolitical unrest, and Brexit are introducing significant adjustments to medium-term perceptions. Other News Twelve centres rose 10 or more places in the rankings and ten fell 10 or more places. Performance across the index showed slightly reduced confidence, with the overall ratings falling around 2.5% from GFCI 25. Thirty-one of the 104 centres fell in the ratings, including all of the top five centres. Seven of the top ten places in the index are now taken by Asia/Pacific centres, continuing the region’s strong performance over recent years. Leading Centres New York retains its first place in the index, extending its lead over London from seven to 17 points. Hong Kong is now only two points behind London. Singapore and Shanghai remain in fourth and fifth position. All five top centres fell in the ratings in GFCI 26. Shenzhen, Dubai, and Sydney entered the top 10, easing out Toronto, Zurich, and Frankfurt. Within the top 30 centres, Paris has performed well, rising 10 places to 17th. Western Europe Following a good performance in GFCI 25, this region had a more mixed performance in GFCI 26, with 15 centres rising in the rankings and 13 falling. Asia/Pacific Asia/Pacific Centres performed well, with 20 of the 27 centres in the region either retaining or improving their position in the rankings. Nanjing entered the index for the first time. There were significant rises for Wellington, Mumbai, and Chengdu. North America North American centres had mixed fortunes in GFCI 26, with Canadian centres dropping back following their improved performance in GFCI 25, while US centres generally improved their rankings and ratings. Seven out of the ten North American centres in the index are in the top 20. Eastern Europe & Central Asia Nur-Sultan (formerly Astana) retained its top ranking in the Eastern Europe & Central Asia region, consolidating its position despite being a recently-formed financial centre. All but two of the 16 centres in the region improved their rating, with nine centres improving their overall ranking. Middle East & Africa Dubai, Casablanca, Tel Aviv, and Doha continued to rise in the index, with Dubai entering the top ten in the world. There were significant improvements for Mauritius, Bahrain, and Nairobi. Latin America & The Caribbean The Bahamas and Buenos Aries performed well in GFCI 26, rising 11 and ten places in the rankings respectively. Island Centres The British Crown Dependencies’ performance dipped, with the Isle of Man down five places in the rankings, Jersey falling 12, and Guernsey continuing its rapid decline in the index, dropping 17 places following its 15-place fall in GFCI 25.

A cryptocurrency needs a relatively stable value if it is to fulfill the traditional functions of money and be useful as a currency. To achieve this, controls are needed within the ecosystem of the cryptocurrency. Although a simulation cannot predict future currency rates or other variables exactly, it is argued that a model that simulates a range of challenging behavior can be a useful testbed for control schemes. To illustrate and explore this idea, an agent-based economic model was used to simulate the early period of a hypothetical cryptocurrency and test two control mechanisms. The results suggest that this approach may be fruitful and that it may be important to include more than just coin minting within the control scheme. An economic simulation model is likely to be a valuable tool in developing and regulating effective cryptocurrency systems.

Green Infrastructure (GI) offers significant advantages to urban areas in terms of liveability, sustainability, reducing the impacts of climate change, and encouraging economic regeneration, however, local authorities often find it hard to source the investment necessary to invest in GI. This report, commissioned by Southend Borough Council and Imperial College London as part of the Nature Smart Cities Interreg Across The 2 Seas Programme, explores the options for local authorities seeking private sector investment in GI, unpicks the opportunities and challenges, and examines some of the potential systemic barriers facing local authorities who may wish to look to the private sector to help to build and maintain green infrastructure.

Cryptocurrencies have the potential to become effective currencies that give a higher level of macroeconomic control, thanks to the information that is available about holdings and transactions, and the potential for automated control mechanisms. However, these cryptocurrencies need to be designed properly and tested before launch. This paper reports the early results of an economic model that simulates a variety of behaviors by economic agents and some simple control mechanisms. An economic simulation model is likely to be a valuable tool in developing effective cryptocurrency systems and interacting with regulators.

One of the strategies which the insurance industry has used to deal with the risk of natural catastrophes has been to transfer some catastrophe risk on to the financial markets. Omnipresent, networked computer systems change the landscape of cyber-catastrophe. Linking together machines around the world might have made the world a smaller place, but it has also made it more susceptible to the possible effects of a single disastrous event. For that reason, it is imperative that the insurance industry adapts the ways it manages cyber-catastrophe risk. This report describes how cyber risk can be transferred to the capital markets in ways similar to, say, hurricane risk. With the help of Smart Ledgers, insurers and reinsurers can be certain that their clients are covered for anything. The research was led by Sam Carter, Financial Sector Researcher, under the direction of Professor Michael Mainelli, Executive Chairman of Z/Yen Group, and explores the following: How did we get here? A history of insurance and catastrophe What are insurance-linked securities and how are they applied? Can we define cyber risk, and how well does the current insurance market cater for it? Cyber-catastrophe - a looming problem A suggested architecture: polling, bespoke indices, and Smart Ledgers Further applications: reporting, regulation, data anonymisation, indices, and alerts The core work isn’t the reports so much as the demonstration software we completed where we now provide the ‘triggers’ and indices needed for an ILS. The software is implemented on a smart ledger as well as a central database. http://cyber-cat-ils.longfinance.net/ shows you a live cyber index as well as a demonstration of how the polling 'triggers' a live ILS The smart ledger approach provides greater independence for the trigger, and a significant, additional, cyber defense. Armed with this research, Z/Yen, would be very interested in taking cyber catastrophe ILS development forward with any brokers, underwriters, investment banks, or rating agencies.

March 2018 saw publication of the twenty-third edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 23). GFCI 23 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 96 major financial centres around the world. GFCI serves as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen Partners in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 110 financial centres were researched for GFCI 23. The index is compiled using 103 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire (www.globalfinancialcentres.net). GFCI 23 uses 28,599 assessments from 2,340 respondents. The Headlines of GFCI 23 include: There is an overall increase in confidence for the leading centres. Signs of a bias towards stronger and more established centres are evident with the top 25 centres all rising in the ratings. Ratings fell for all of the lowest 50 centres. London and New York remain at the top of the rankings and the gap between them in ratings closed to one point on a scale of 1,000. Hong Kong retains third place. London’s rating rose less than the other four top centres. There is now less than 50 points between the top five centres. San Francisco and Shenzhen moved into the top ten, replacing Beijing and Zurich. Western European financial centres remain volatile. The top five centres rose in the ratings. Most of the lower placed centres lost ground. Hamburg, Munich, Monaco, and Madrid, rose strongly in the ranks, with other improvements for Paris, Jersey, Edinburgh and Lisbon. Hamburg in particular rose 38 places in the ranks. In the Asia/Pacific region, the leading centres improved their ratings and Shenzhen moved into the top ten centres. There were also significant rises in the ranks for Qingdao, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Busan. Tianjin and New Delhi are new entrants to the GFCI. North American centres generally achieved improved ratings and improved their ranks accordingly. This was a reversal from GFCI 22. The exception was Washington DC, which dropped 20 places in the rankings. Montreal also dropped by one place (although its rating was 22 higher than in GFCI 22). All centres in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia suffered a fall in their ratings. However, Cyprus, Istanbul and Moscow rose in the ranks. Tallinn and Riga both fell over 30 places in the ranks. Astana and Baku are new entrants to the GFCI. In the Middle East and Africa, only Dubai and Abu Dhabi increased their ratings. Mauritius, Riyadh, and Casablanca improved their ranking despite falls in their ratings. All centres in Latin America and the Caribbean fell in the GFCI ratings except for the Cayman Islands. Despite the fall in the ratings, six centres rose in the ranks with the Bahamas leading the way rising 22 places. The Cayman Islands are now the leading centre in the region. European ‘island’ centres fell back after rising in GFCI 22. The British Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man all fell in the ratings.

September 2018 sees publication of the twenty-fourth edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 24). GFCI 24 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for 100 major financial centres around the world. The GFCI serves as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen Partners in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 110 financial centres were researched for GFCI 24 of which 100 are now in the main index. The GFCI is compiled using 137 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire (www.globalfinancialcentres.net). GFCI 24 uses 31,326 assessments from 2,453 respondents. The Headlines Of GFCI 24 Include: Not for the first time, New York took first place in the index, just two points head of London, although both centres fell slightly in the ratings. Hong Kong is now only three points (on a scale of 1,000) behind London. Shanghai overtook Tokyo to move into fifth place, gaining 25 points in the ratings. Beijing, Zurich, and Frankfurt moved into the top ten centres, replacing Toronto, Boston, and San Francisco. In Western Europe, Zurich, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Vienna, and Milan moved up the rankings significantly. These centres may be the main beneficiaries of the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Surprisingly, despite some evident success in attracting new business, Dublin, Munich, Hamburg, Copenhagen, and Stockholm fell in the rankings, reflecting respondents’ views of their future prospects. In Asia/Pacific, the leading centres performed well, closing the gap on London and New York at the top of the rankings. There were steady increases for Shanghai, Sydney, Beijing, and Guangzhou and GIFT City (Gujarat) and Hangzhou entered the index for the first time. The leading North American centres fell back in the rankings and ratings overall, although Los Angeles and Washington DC gained places. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, there were significant gains for Astana, Budapest, St Petersburg, and Tallinn. Astana only officially launched their financial centre in July, and it is unusual for such a new centre to perform so strongly. In the Middle East and Africa, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha all rose significantly reversing the trend from GFCI 23. Cape Town is the highest new entrant to the index, ranking 38th in its first entry. In Latin America and the Caribbean there were mixed results. Bermuda, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, and Rio de Janeiro performed strongly, while other centres fell in the rankings. Island centres fell in the index, with the exception of Bermuda, which rose six places. The British Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man all fell significantly in the rankings, with the Isle of Man dropping 27 places.

This report was commissioned from Z/Yen by the Business and Sustainable Development Commission (BSDC) as part of a research programme designed to examine how the financial services sector could support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The paper argues that financial systems are tools that can aid achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, yet also need to exhibit sustainability of their own. Some specific innovations that might provide disproportionately large benefits for sustainability include: Financial Measurement and Products: Confidence Accounting: Representing financial information in its true form as ranges would help highlight the value of reducing uncertainty and the importance of SDGs over the long-term; Mutual Distributed Ledgers (AKA Blockchains): Provide a solid underpinning to the registries society uses in all areas and enable communities to work together without creating ‘natural monopolies’ over information; monetary systems: Digital Fiat Currencies: Governments using digital currencies may gain much greater control over their monetary systems, reduce corruption, and have more effective tax systems; Common Tenders: Community monies of many forms could be a major boost to specific community values and encourage credit creation among trust groups; financial technology: Identity: Systems in use for financial services could transform much wider areas of government, health, and qualifications for approximately 2.4 billion people, especially in providing access to other property rights; Peer-To-Peer Lending & Insurance: These tools are engaging communities and providing better assessments of risk and reward from people ‘on the ground’; Mobile Money: This innovation is bringing access to banking and finance services to millions of the world’s poorest people, who until recently did not have access to these services. Financial Structures and Systems: Policy Performance Bonds: These mechanisms have great potential in aligning financial incentives with wider SDGs; land value taxation – in combination with extensive tax reform, i.e. not just another tax, could simplify tax systems and encourage sustainable development. Disaster Reinsurance: A combination of reinsurance and catastrophe bonds could help to ensure longer-term investment and returns-on-investment in risky areas. While, perhaps with the exception of digital fiat currencies, these innovations are already here, they are often ignored or unevenly implemented. This paper concludes that, of all the innovations discussed, providing identity systems for the 2.4 billion people without legal identity is a single tool that could transform all areas of sustainable development.

One needs permission from somebody or someone to do pretty much anything these days. Whether it be parking your car, gaining a license, accessing a stock exchange or, more recently and topically, retaining personal data from a client business card, somebody somewhere insists you provide evidence that you have permission. This paper explores ‘permissions’, i.e. the actions one is allowed to perform with items, and more specifically, permissions surrounding digital items, which are becoming increasingly complex. In order to effectively manage such permissions in contemporary markets, we believe that a new framework for defining and managing distributed permissions is needed: what one might call a species of ‘information rules’. The goal of this report is to consider how Smart Ledgers could implement such a permissions framework. We intentionally explore new technical approaches, rather than recommending an evolution of current frameworks and technology. We believe that current technical ‘architectures’, largely based around a central third party and its information technology, are giving way to more distributed architectures. These distributed architectures are based on ‘Smart Ledgers’, multi-organisational databases with a super audit trail, typically containing some embedded computer code. The research was led by Maury Shenk, Managing Director, Lily Innovation and Professor Michael Mainelli, Executive Chairman, Z/Yen Group. The report concludes that the criteria for successful permissioning systems appear to be: Precision – ability to accurately convey permissions; Breadth – scope to convey any type of permission; Applicability – comprehensibility and practicality of application in real-world markets and related interactions.

Long Finance’s Distributed Futures research programme is pleased to announce the release of its first three approaches to ‘geo-stamping’, along with a short guide. Time-stamping is an important part of Smart Ledgers (aka block-chains with embedded code), an authoritative record of the time of a transaction. Geo-stamping is a mirror image, an authoritative record of the location of a transaction. Geo-stamping = time-stamping + geo-location information. Long Finance’s Distributed Futures research programme has an open source project, “GeoGnomo” to research and share methods for geo-stamping. Geo-stamping benefits from having memorable ways of recording areas that also aid efficient retrieval. GeoGnomo has built-to-share three approaches for recording areal information, a Quaternary Triangular System, a Quaternary Rectangular System, and a Variable Rectangular System for geo-stamping. Each can be used to record geographic areas into a block-chain. GeoGnomo provides source code and an online translation from latitude & longitude areas to geo-codes and back. Thus, block-chain applications have almost an instant ‘global post code’ or ‘global zip code’ system. By using consistent geo-coding data retrieval is easier. Users can share information easily – “tell the drone to come to F49PUR9B7-20”, a resolution of 7.6 metres. This report was commissioned by the Cardano Foundation in November 2017 and is one of the first outputs from a series of projects in the Distributed Futures research programme. Michael Parsons, CEO of the Cardano Foundation, comments “Geo-stamping and time-stamping are two of the most important functions of Smart Ledgers. Our sponsorship of Distributed Future’s GeoGnomo project is directed at sharing mechanisms for geo-stamping that are memorable, aggregable, proximable, and scalable.”

September 2017 saw publication of the 22nd edition of the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 22). GFCI 22 provides evaluations of future competitiveness and rankings for the major financial centres around the world. The GFCI continues to serve as a valuable reference for policy and investment decision-makers. China Development Institute (CDI) in Shenzhen and Z/Yen in London collaborate in producing the GFCI. The GFCI is updated quarterly and published every March and September, and receives considerable attention from the global financial community. 106 financial centres were researched for GFCI 22. The index is compiled using 102 instrumental factors. These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank, The Economist Intelligence Unit, the OECD and the United Nations. The instrumental factors are combined with financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GFCI online questionnaire (www.globalfinancialcentres.net). GFCI 22 uses 23,812 assessments from 3,159 respondents. The Headlines of GFCI 22 include: There is an overall drop in confidence amongst the leading centres. Of the top 25 centres, 23 fell in the ratings and only two rose. At the lower end of the table, 20 of the 25 lowest rated centres actually rose in the GFCI ratings. Little change in the top five positions. London and New York remain in first and second places. Interestingly, despite the ongoing Brexit negotiations, London only fell two points, the smallest decline in the top ten centres. Hong Kong has moved just ahead of Singapore into third – only two points ahead on a scale of 1,000. Tokyo remains in fifth. The gap between third place Hong Kong and second place New York is now only 12 points. This is the smallest gap between second and third places for over five years. New York fell by 24 points, the largest fall in the top 15 centres, presumably due to fears over US trade. Western European financial centres are still volatile. Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris and Amsterdam all rose, but Zurich, Geneva, and Luxembourg fell in the ratings. Overall assessments for the European centres continued to fluctuate as people speculate about which centres might benefit from London leaving the EU. However, the majority of centres in the region rose with Stockholm, Copenhagen, and Vienna all showing strong rises. The leading financial centres in the Asia/Pacific region fell in the ratings. All of the top ten centres in the region fell in the ratings with Singapore, Tokyo, and Osaka all showing marked declines. These are reverses of strong gains made in 2015-16. All centres in North America fell in the GFCI ratings. As mentioned above, New York fell. San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Washington also saw large falls. The decline of Canadian centres was less severe than the falls of the USA centres. All of the Eastern European centres rose in the ratings. Cyprus, Athens, St Petersburg, and Moscow reversed some of their recent declines. Financial centres in the Middle East and Africa showed mixed results in GFCI 22. Dubai and Casablanca fell slightly, but other centres in the region did well. Abu Dhabi, second in the region, reduced the gap to first place Dubai to just nine points. Elsewhere in the Middle East, there were good rises for Bahrain and Riyadh. Latin American and Caribbean centres did well. The Caribbean centres of the British Virgin Islands and the Bahamas saw strong rises. Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro also did well. Buenos Aires joined the main GFCI, but Santiago remains an associate centre having failed to accumulate a sufficient number of assessments to enter the main index. European ‘island’ centres did well. The British Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man all per-formed strongly and there were also strong rises for Malta, Reykjavik, and Gibraltar.